Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
28 May 2017 at 22:21 #58183
OK, I must admit that I share a lot of @blenkinshopthebrave’s reservations about this ep. I liked Extremis and the issues that it played with — and the ideas of political consent, the choosing of leaders wholly unsuited to our personal interests was great too. The Monks strategy was basically Project Fear, the political cosh of choice from indyref to Brexit to Trump. So that was interesting.
It’s possibly because I’ve come to expect a bit better from Peter Harness — I’m happy to go on record as really liking Kill The Moon as well as his excellent Zygon two-parter — but this didn’t really hit the mark for me. The science was bad and this gung-ho attack-dog Doctor seemed to me to be terribly out of character (more so than when intent on blowing up the colony in Smile). The overall impression I got was (rather like Death in Heaven) of a not wholly convincing pastiche of an RTD story.
The basic problem for is again The Monks. I said last week I found them a truly underwhelming villain. I don’t think the make-up is particularly good. They’re terribly static, even to the barely moving mouth, their motivations are very sketchily drawn. To me they’re Vervoids, they’re Sycorax, they’re Teriliptils. They’re strictly third-division monsters.
Another issue for me is that I just didn’t feel the peril and the threat represented by the Monks. The humans experiencing their own future via the sim-feed is a nice idea but it has the effect of keeping the viewer out of the loop and it makes the surrender feel a bit quick and easy to me. A few missiles and that’s it? Instant and unconditional surrender. It felt to me like a decidedly unearned moment, which I think reminded me of RTD and especially Torchwood.
Of course, the point of the episode is not really the world-in-peril stuff but the character beats between the Doctor and Bill. The Doctor’s lie, Bills sacrificing the entire world to save him. These are interesting and I’m hoping these will pay off in the finale of this trilogy. I’m guessing that, as mentioned above, Missy being in the vault is going to mean she’s unaffected by the Monks’ brainwashing and that she’s going to save the day — I wonder if this might constituted a permanent change in her character? Is she going to ‘turn guid’. Is this why we’re getting Sim’s Master back, to have an evil Master back in the mix with the current incumbent being a bit more ambivalent. The idea of Missy as an anti-Valeyard is an interesting one. It also looks like we’ll see the start of a ‘slow regeneration’ next week (unless the whole thing is going to be end being some kind of sim trickery). Perhaps that’s going to be the only way to shake the Doctor out of his brainwashing.
I think I’m mostly irritated by this episode because it feels like dealing with under-achieving students. You know they could be doing so much better than this. Given this subject matter, Harness could have given us a much more biting and acerbic political allegory. And Moffat could have made us feel the pain and the sacrifice involved in the drama here so much more.
I’m pinning my hopes on the third part pulling some serious rabbits out of hats. I’m hoping we’ll get some greater clues about the Monks — I truly do hope that they are something like proto-Cybermen, and I also like @wolfweed‘s idea of them being some kind of halfway house between Time Lords and Weeping Angels. But I suspect they’re just going to remain crap, back-of-the-fag-packet also-ran aliens. I’m also hopeful that the simulation concept developed last week is going to come into play in a greater way — maybe not next week but in the remaining episodes of the series.
23 May 2017 at 00:12 #57886@frobisher–
It would certainly be a bold final flourish from SM — and the sort of meta thing I’d imagine him doing, making some kind of commentary on the endless speculation over new Doctors.
And I’m increasingly inclined to think that the whole simulation thing was handled at great length in Extremis because it’s going to be significant to the arc later on, as @kharis (I think) mentioned earlier in a Tesselector kind of way.
22 May 2017 at 21:10 #57880@wolfweed — I like the idea but I wonder if a suicide-regeneration might be too dark even for Moffat.
@thane15 — yes, I think your idea that this story is going to be about fake news and the rise of the alt-right is spot on. Note how many times the word ‘real’ was used in Extremis and it’s no coincidence that the confrontation with the monks took place in the Oval Office. Plus the USP of Monks’ invasion seems to me to have the potential to be pointedly political.
And then, of course, there’s the fact that the next episode is written by Peter ‘controversial’ Harness…
22 May 2017 at 20:58 #57879@missrori and @blenkinsopthebrave — I wonder if the regeneration we’ve seen in the trailer is the regeneration of a shadow Doctor within the monks’ simulation. I suspect that this is a concept that’s going to be returned to. In fact, I wouldn’t be at all surprised is this is how the monks are finally defeated — they’re put in their own simulation and fooled into thinking that their invasion has been successful….
21 May 2017 at 20:49 #57796@kharis and @missrori–
Yes, I think there’s a bit of misdirection going on re. The Vault. I don’t think there’s any doubt that it was Missy that was put into the Vault but I’m not sure it’s Missy that’s going to come out. There always seems to have been this assumption the Doctor and Master’s confrontations happen in the linear order that we’ve seen them on screen but I think that’s going to be challenged now. (And this is the reason River’s diary has been so foregrounded in this story. It’s reminding us of the other big relationship in the Doctor’s life that happened out of synch.) Does that mean it’s going to be Simm who steps out of the Vault (although it should more properly be Jacobi, although I’m sure there would be plenty of ways around the complication). Maybe we’ll even see another Master by the end of the series and that we’re so focused on one regeneration, maybe we’re going to see two.
21 May 2017 at 20:40 #57795Another fine episode, although possibly my least favourite of the run so far — although that could well change after ‘parts 2 and 3’ of this three-parter. It’s basically The Android Invasion updated for the 21st century but the point of this episode is not so much about the getting there but the lovely little beats along the journey. As @craig said, it was just ever so slightly fillery but also setting up the beats for the second half of the series.
Not sure I’m crazy about the monks. A bit static and ponderous for my liking and they felt a little like a Moffat villain greatest hits package — a bit of the Headless Monks, a bit of The Silence. And I’m sure their similarity interregnum Deadly Assassin/Traken Master is surely not coincidence. Maybe it’s just the Android Invasion similarity playing on mind but they do remind me of Kraals somewhat, another monster I’ve always found rather underwhelming over the years.
But that’s all by the by because the really cool stuff in this episode are the big ideas that SM always brings to the table. Wrapped up in a teatime, Da Vinci Code-esque tale of lost texts, scary monsters and VR was an examination of death, suicide and despair. It’s not something that’s ever likely to happen but what with regeneration ever present in our minds this series what would it be like if the Doctor’s regeneration was actually triggered by something other than self-sacrifice this time (say, suicide)?
But all in all, another strong episode in a remarkable run. If this continues straight through to the end then SM will be leaving Chris Chibnall with some rather big shoes to fill. And Capaldi, Mackie and Lucas were all excellent again in this. Especially Capaldi. After an unsettled start, he’s proving to be a first-class Doctor and I’m very much going to miss him. I really do wish he was staying for at least another year.
Final thought: Having the dead president not look like Trump seems to be a missed trick but I guess it was felt that it would be unnecessarily provocative.
15 May 2017 at 22:19 #57539@wolfweed– and the scary thing is that Alpha Centauri is still a gazillion times more appealing and, well, more human, than May could ever manage to be…
15 May 2017 at 20:44 #57528@pedant– I agree that there’s unlikely to be any big secret behind Nardole. But at the same time, over-reading is kind of what we’re here for….
15 May 2017 at 20:34 #57526@wolfweed — that’s some first-class bonkerising there and I’m with @pedant in that the vault should contain one of the ARSE-laden. Maybe there’s a sheep of the truculent kind in there. Good work with the linkage too. Some interesting stuff there.
On the politics, I’m utterly bemused when you see on FB, Twitter and the The Graun bitching about the politics, how it has no place in Who, how it spoiled the episode yadda yadda. It was the same with the Zygon two-parter last year too. Has there ever been a time when Who has not had a political edge? I mean, The Daleks is a pretty unambiguous Cold War parable when you get down to it.
It also struck me recently that the Doctor’s probably overdue a return visit to Peladon, what with Brexit and everything.
@kharis — I wouldn’t be too anxious about not liking the episode. Not everything is going to work for everybody. You’ll remember @bluesqueakpip‘s ambivalence about Face the Raven last year. And I’m personally slightly taken aback at all the love for Tennant’s final run that I’ve been seeing online over the past couple of weeks because I’ve frankly always felt it was a bit ‘meh’. But the joy of Who is that it’s such a pliable format. It’s always changing and evolving and there’s always a surprise along in a minute.
Oh, and thanks for the spotify link @pedant. I can see that’s going to end up being a massive timesink.
14 May 2017 at 22:00 #57480@wolfweed–
Why does a humanoid head on an android body need oxygen? (We already went through Toiletgate…) And he also revealed he changed his face to go on the run…!?!
I did see someone speculate on DoG that Nardole could in fact be this fellow
I can’t begin to express how pleased that would make me.
@blenknisopthebrave
Could there be something similar at play here? Could Moffat somehow tie the centrality of Earth to the show, the references to the half-human lineage of the 8th Doctor, hell, maybe even the Cushing Doctor(!) into the resolution of what’s in the vault, the Capaldi Doctor’s regeneration, and Moffat’s farewell to the show?
That would also be excellent. Especially the idea of tying in the Cushing Doctor. It’s the sort of loose end that I’d imagine would nag at SM and I wouldn’t put it past him to try and tie it up before he moves on.
Further thoughts.
Like the other episodes of this series, this has done a great job of fusing BG and AG Who — another example of how I think SM does actually listen to his critics and tries to accommodate them. It had the definite feel of a BG gap episode — The Ark in Space and The Invisible Enemy springing to mind.
As I said above, this series is very much reminding me of the Hinchcliffe/Holmes years and seems to have taken the approach of taking cinematic horror tropes and running them through a Who filter but whereas H&H were taking their cues (largely) from Hammer, SM and co have been plundering more modern horror sources — Knock Knock very much played on ‘cabin in the woods’ horror (right down to the person-eating tree), The Pilot riffed on Ringu and this week had a definite vibe of Alien and Gravity but also games like Dead Space and Mass Effect.
Design-wise it knocked it out of the park too. The station CGI was first class and the general look of the interiors, while clearly modelled on Alien, also had a BG vibe to them too — the suits were great and I especially loved the helmets, which had a nice retro feel to them. I could easily imagine seeing Tom Baker or even Pertwee in one of those suits.
And yet for all the retro styling, it didn’t feel too BG-shonky. This is the first example, I think, where I was totally sold on the characters actually being in space and on a space station. BG examples were obviously working within budget constrictions but AG examples like 42 and Sleep No More didn’t quite convince either. Or at least not in the way that this set design did.
As for the blindness — it’s a very interesting turn of events. I think I agree with whoever said above that what we’re going to see is a ‘long regeneration’, perhaps with a Doctor who is going to take an increased physical beating over a number of stories.
14 May 2017 at 00:31 #57420Well, that was another cracker. Is it just me or is this the best unbroken run of Who since the Hinchcliffe/Holmes days (which this series is reminding me of a lot).
And, yes, @pedant, interesting to see the right-wing hissy-fits over on The Graun. Interesting that whenever there’s a bit of drama that’s not safely heritage TV and actually might want to make a political point or two, they get very jittery indeed. I do suspect that it was the fact that there were a lot of socially aware writers (and commissioners) back in the 80s that saved us from an even worse iteration of Thatcher than the one we lived through. And there are elements, I think, who are scared stiff of a strongly articulated voice of protest re-emerging now.
Off to watch that all over again before further commentage though. But just great. It strikes me that Jamie Mathieson is fulfilling the same role in Moffat’s era that Moffat himself fulfilled in RTD’s day.
9 May 2017 at 22:57 #57327The trailer looks promising and (to echo the above) Arrival was excellent. I do worry that it might fall into the current trend of movies brilliantly recreating the style and look of the originals but failing to to pay due attention to the substance. The Force Awakens was guilty of this (and by the looks of it Alien Covenant is too).
I agree with @blenkinsopthebrave (I too prefer the original cut btw) that if it can add the Blade Runner world without tampering with the ambiguity of the original then it could be great. Treading a more Rogue One than Force Awakens line, if you like. (Or indeed AG Who.)
8 May 2017 at 22:32 #57286@blenkinsopthebrave– hopefully it’s not a spoiler to reveal (in DWM I think) that SM has said that we’ll see inside the vault in ep6. I think you’re right that regeneration is going to be the key and also caught in Knock Knock that significant beat about regeneration at the start of the episode. My personal theory is that the Doctor’s regeneration has already started or will start about halfway through the series.
And while the cat is halfway out of the bag, I suspect that what SM is trying to distract us from is indeed something of a Susan-ey (and related character) nature…
8 May 2017 at 21:07 #57283Another great episode. This series is continuing to knock it right out of the park. (Even in the mighty s5 we’d have had to sit through Vampires in Venice by now). The ‘misunderstood monster’ trope seems to be continuing which still makes me think that we’ll be seeing some ultimate rehabilitation of the Master/Missy at some point (which interests me because if so where does that leave the character for when Chibnall takes over?)
Fine work on the developing relationship between the Doctor and Bill — and I still see Bill as a much more Rose-like character than I do a Donna-like one. (And have to say @bluesqueakpip, who do you think Bill’s mum reminds you of?)
On the vault, some great ideas above. Of the suggestions offered, I’m loving Alan Moore, Chris Chibnall but especially Dodo. That would be a curveball and a half.
But to be honest, I think this whole vault thing is going to be like the ‘hybrid’ of last season. It’s not in the end going to really matter that much. I suspect @pedant is right and that there’s a lot of Moffat-ey ‘look over there’ going on and that the vault’s contents will be revealed with barely a whisper. The fact that we’re going to learn what’s inside by episode 6 suggests it’s not going to be a massive deal in terms of the entire arc I suspect.
8 May 2017 at 20:07 #57278@thane15–
If you have the chance to watch s2 of Line of Duty, you should definitely avail yourself of the opportunity. It is, for my money, the strongest series of the show and shows up any series of Broadchurch to be the half-arsed also-ran that it is. And I defy you not to be open-mouthed at the ending of the first episode. Plus Keeley Hawes gives a definite career-best performance throughout*.
(*Though it has to be said, Adrian Dunbar, not so much.)
3 May 2017 at 14:59 #57059@mersey–
And it’s really unfair to mark those who doesn’t like Clara as sexists.
Eh? Don’t think anyone has ever done that. (Personally I think Clara did stay slightly too long and was hobbled initially by having a rather McGuffin backstory. And I generally preferred Amy as a character.) And that’s just different strokes for different folks — but Jenna was never any less than excellent. At no point did I say it was ‘sexist’ to have a character preference or to offer any kind of criticism.
However, @pedant is correct that some of the criticism of her especially on but not restricted to The Graun was very much couched in sexist terms and from individuals who I strongly suspect hate any deviation from patrician, superior Doc and a breathless, deferential companion. (In other words they prefer ‘assistants’ to ‘companions’.) During Clara’s run these oafs became more and more vocal (witness all the ‘it’s more like The Clara Show now’ drivelish). And that frankly was the lighter end of what was being said and I’m afraid I’ll make no apology for ever calling anyone out on that kind of nonsense.
2 May 2017 at 10:21 #57030On the simplicity of these more-or-less standalone, less arc-heavy stories — apart from the focus clearly being on establishing the relationship between the Doctor and Bill (which to me is far closer to 9 and Rose’s than 10 and Donna), I get the feeling that this series is SM ‘putting his toys away’. He’s had his fun, done what he wanted to do, created the couple of long, intricate arcs that he wanted to (and which I never thought particularly overly complex) and he’s leaving the toy room pretty much as he found it for Chibnall coming in. In fact, I’d say he’s leaving it even tidier than he found it, having cleared away a lot of the canonical clutter of the show’s first 50 years. He’s leaving his successor with a lean, streamlined Who (possibly with a view to being able to say that it wasn’t his fault if Chibbers bodges it up).
Having said that, I know it’s only three episodes in but I’m starting to feel just a little hungry for some arc. Next week looks like another interesting ep (I’m getting vibes of Hide meets Fang Rock with a bit of Cabin in the Woods thrown in) but I think I’ll definitely be ready for something a bit arc-ey by the end of it.
30 April 2017 at 22:35 #56955@mersey–
Funny thing that when the boy died under the ice Bill was devastated but when Doctor practically killed the guy with tattoo (made him died under the water) it was all fine. I can see the difference, but it was still human life. And Doctor was merciless.
Yes, he was rather. Although you could argue that he was in fact trying to save him by getting him to throw the sonic back to him. (And can I just say that I’m not really loving this design of the sonic? Eleven’s was a much more iconic and classic design.) But it does rather take the shine off the Doctor’s rather splendid speech to Sutcliffe that he let the thug die so easily.
But it’s easy to forget that the Doctor is merciless. There’s countless examples throughout all the regenerations of him being quite hard-hearted. And this was essentially the lesson that Bill was learning in this episode, that he’s not always cute and cuddly and avuncular.
30 April 2017 at 21:52 #56951So far this season lacks characters, interesting and memorable people whom Doctor meet, who help him or quite the opposite, who oppose him. It’s two or three characters show right now
Well, there’s a clear and deliberate decision to keep the focus on the Doctor and Bill for these early episodes, presumably to strengthen and firmly establish their relationship. I think that’s something that’s clearly going to pay off in later episodes.
On the other hand, I thought Kitty and co were pretty memorable and Sutcliffe, while perhaps not a nuanced character, was pretty memorable too in a loathsome Bullingdon-ey kind of way.
@nick–
I’d argue that Who has always worked on multiple levels in terms of age groups. When I started watching, I no doubt did so for the monsters and as I got older I gradually began to ‘get’ more of what the show was about.
30 April 2017 at 19:05 #56943@countscarlioni–
That I take as a reference to the Fourth Doctor story The Invasion of Time, which is the only other occasion I can remember the Doctor taking an oath, when he becomes President of the Time Lords and takes the oath to recover the Great Key of Rassilon
Much as I hate to torpedo a fine bit of bonkerising, I think the reference is to the Pertwee story The Time Warrior. As to other oaths, I’m not sure. Depending on what kind of Doctor he actually is, he might have taken the Hippocratic one?
But could you tell that story in a single 50/55 minute episode of AG Who and do full service to the idea ?
Probably not, I agree, which kinds of feeds into the conversation (of last week?) where we briefly talked about the ‘sweet spot’ in length of a modern Who episode. My personal feeling is 75 minutes is the ideal length.
30 April 2017 at 09:50 #56913@nick–
As adventure stories, they could be dealt with in 20 minutes. What’s made them enjoyable has been all of the character development and the production values
I kind of get what you mean and agree that the stories are not what you’d call complex but I think the above has actually been the show’s mission statement pretty much from Rose onwards. Even the BG show was, with the occasional notable exception, pretty standard invasion/oppression narratives. For me at least, the moments of Who that have endured are the character-led ones. It’s Clara in the Dalek, it’s Madame de Pompadour, it’s Amy’s pregnancy, it’s Rose being trapped in an alternate universe. And, as @blenkinsopthebrave points out, this run of story, as well as being very strong as character studies, they’re also underpinned by some pretty weighty political themes.
My reading of it was that it was one of the most political episodes of Who–about property, theft and slavery.
Totally agree and I think was intended to a resonate with an audience that’s going through Brexit, austerity and risible chat about ‘Empire 2.0’. And I think that’s one that can be extended back to Smile too, and possibly even The Pilot. Was the intelligent oil also a sentient life that was also bound by others (first the show to which it belonged and then by its promise to Bill)? And then there’s the Doctor’s oath that limits his own freedom. Is the over-arching theme of series going to be ‘our responsibility to the rights and freedoms of others’.
When the Doctor tells Bill to be passive in the meeting with Sutcliffe, he’s reduced her agency and then he promptly takes a swing at Sutcliffe, putting their lives in danger.
Again, I see what you mean but I’d argue against it purely by mentioning his reasoning for doing so and the fact that Bill considers his reasons before agreeing. In other words, she makes a choice to let the Doctor take the lead. This is a considerable step up from say the Pertwee days when the Doctor would just arrogantly assume the lead and Jo/Sarah would be expected to go along with it. It’s possibly even a commentary on such tropes. That the Doctor makes such an arse of it is the icing on the cake.
And I think the four knocks thing is going to prove to be such a massive piece of misdirection. We’ve already been primed for the Master’s return, I think he’ll come at us in an unexpected way rather than being foreshadowed like that. There could even be some mask action, which would be awesome.
@wolfweed– That. Is. Excellent. It’s too bad you can’t embed images in the Graun’s threads because that really needs to be there….
30 April 2017 at 01:31 #56888@pedant–
Yes, depressing to see that The Graun is beset by the racist brigade BTL. God only knows what the Daily Heil is like.
30 April 2017 at 01:25 #56886Well, that was another nice solid episode. (Sorry, @nick, can’t agree with the ‘lame’ description.) I’m thinking this series is shaping up to be the strongest since s5. But I’d agree that SM has called it right in taking the time to develop Bill, and her relationship with the Doctor, with such care and grace. If the finale rumours are true, this is going to be quite an emotional ride. But I’ve got a funny feeling that Pearl Mackie will be being asked to sign on the proverbial dotted for another year.
Once again, the episode looked great, the dialogue just sparkled. And nice to see the shades of darkness in Capaldi’s Doctor again and I think handled with subtlety. Interesting too that, as others have noted, we got an echo of Clara’s choice from Kill The Moon, which, to my mind, helps consolidate an intergral part of this Doctor’s outlook rather than treat KTM as some kind of aberrant episode.
Looks also like @craig‘s thoughts on monsters not really being the monsters is continuing to be borne out. And wasn’t Lord B’Stard so very Cameron-like. Moving on from the political/economic discussion of last week’s episode, are we to take some kind of political theme(s) from this series? Or are we just noticing them more because of the times we’ve suddenly found ourselves living in?
28 April 2017 at 20:59 #56841@bluesqueakpip — I agree. I’ve loved the guitar/fading rock star aspect of Capaldi’s Doc…
28 April 2017 at 16:05 #56834@missy– SM talks about it in the After Show interview for this episode, which I think @craig has posted on this thread. You should be able to find it if you scroll back a couple of pages…
thanks to @wolfweed for posting. Hopefully this scene will make it onto the DVD release… in fact, what with that and the ‘missing’ Dalek scene, is there an argument for an Extended Cut of this episode, I wonder….
28 April 2017 at 01:06 #56814@tardigrade–
I wouldn’t overstate the strong position of the Beeb. It’s been on the ropes politically for a decade now and if the next general election goes the way it’s looking it’s going to get worse. But Who is one of its strongest properties, that’s for sure. I think it will definitely become a streaming property at some point — it’s probably one of the few properties that people would pay a subscription solely for — maybe that’s it will go in the future — some kind of crowdfunding/Netflix hybrid. It’s also worth pointing out that as of this year, Who is being made by BBC Studios rather than the BBC proper — a solely commercial enterprise. What the implications of that are I don’t quite know.
@brewski–
great to see you back and I’m loving that theory. Not sure if that’s how it will pan out but I’m loving it nonetheless. I wouldn’t be surprised if River did play some part in the wrapping up of Moffat’s tenure. She’s one of his biggest creations and she’s run through his entire run. It would be nice if there was some kind of overarching theme too.
I think @ichabod‘s analogy of Easter Eggs is a good one. Much of the clues are of the kind that it doesn’t matter if you get them or not but which add another level for those interested in such things — quite important given the grief SM got for earlier series. But I think as a writer he enjoys these puzzles (his love of ACD and Sherlock Holmes would seem to bear this out) and I think he likes to give fans (like us) who also enjoy them something to play with too. It could well be that we are reading stuff into episodes that aren’t there but I don’t think we are. And would it matter if we are. Isn’t it up to us how we ‘read’ the episodes? But as I say I don’t think we are — and the arguments that have been made even for the Tarot symbolism etc were pretty strong. But SM has to walk a fine line — I get the impression he genuinely wants to please as many of the various Who communities as he can but he still has to be careful not to alienate the casual viewer.
With regards to the soldier, I don’t think that’s one of @ichabod‘s Easter Eggs but has a clear function as an integral piece of narrative symbolism throughout s8.
It’s horses for courses, of course, but personally I prefer SM’s approach. RTD’s stuff was fun and exciting but lacks the depth, nuance and richness of the SM era.
@craig–
Welcome back from your travels. Hope you’re not too jet-lagged.
All the observations are great. One thing that stuck out to me that I don’t think anyone has mentioned yet is that, for two weeks in a row, the point has been made quite strongly that the “monster of the week” is not evil, it just has a different perspective.
Yeah, I think you’re onto something there. Bearing in mind that we’ve got two Masters this series, I wonder if that might be the ultimate expression of that. Are we going to see the Master’s rehabilitation? Or is s/he the exception that proves the rule? Also Ice Warriors, another race who have been both foes and allies in the past.
But it also feeds into the general Hartnell vibe that I’m getting from this series. It was, after all, a common trope of the Hartnell era — Rills/Drahvins, Elders/The Savages, even the early episodes of the Daleks/Thals.
So far, we’ve had a clear riff on An Unearthly Child which segued into The Daleks, we’ve also had an exploring of a space city run by robots (also echoes of The Daleks and The Masters of Luxor) and we have a historical next, albeit a monstery one. Not to mention the old 60s trick of ending one story with the start of another.
28 April 2017 at 00:14 #56813@devilishrobby — Yeah, it sounds a bit like that, doesn’t it, but I don’t think it will be. For one thing, I don’t think there will be a farewell tour a la Tennant, mostly because Capaldi’s Doc has been quite the aloof one and hasn’t made that many significant connections. Only Clara really and he can’t remember her (although I wouldn’t be surprised if she made a brief reappearance in much the same way that Amy did when 11 regenerated.)
But we’ve been told this one is going to be different to anything we’ve seen before. My theory is that it’s one that’s going to take several episodes to unfold. That it will start mid-series and be held in check until Christmas (for some reason or other). I’m increasingly convinced that it is a/the next Doctor within the vault.
27 April 2017 at 00:26 #56775Quite fun and worth it for Michelle Gomez’s interpretation of the 12th Doc alone…
26 April 2017 at 12:09 #56752@tardigrade–
Yes, I was wondering where your post went to.
Honestly, I can’t see them having any concept of rent as we’d understand it
Well, we see the ‘tablet’ with the human history showing on it beside the dead shepherd. Surely the Vardies had seen that, or more likely had access to databanks of human culture and history. I think it’s safe to assume that the Vardies knew everything that the humans did, and probably more.
On reflection, I think the ££-joke is probably meant to signify a sense of humour (and is perhaps the Vardy equivalent of someone saying ‘keer-chiiing’) and a sense of humour signifies autonomous intelligence as well as an affable outlook. Dramatically, it’s the Vardies way of expressing an olive branch in the absence of conventional dialogue.
On a side note, it didn’t strike me until rewatch just how good a design the Vardies are. No doubt the merchandising wings of the Who machine will be pleased. But I think they’re a good and memorable second-tier alien race.
The future of commercial-supported free-to-air television is bleak, if it’s not already in its death spiral
Well, it’s not quite the end of days yet but I think you’re right. The future is definitely online and streaming and I’m guessing eventually Who will find a home on a BBC equivalent of Netflix. It’s also why when you see people — and journalists, who should know better — wittering on about falling ratings that you know they’re either making a disingenuous argument, or are hopelessly out of touch with the modern world.
26 April 2017 at 11:37 #56749@missy–
It must be some other show you’re thinking of — perhaps one specific to your region? The ‘official’ after show is definitely Christel. Here’s this week’s btw, with a cracking interview with Peter Capaldi, replete with some interesting tidbits on his take on the Doctor’s character, the discovery of alien life and the usual gubbins about the hair.
Plus lava lamp…
I initially thought that people didn’t have a whole lot to say about Smile so it’s cool to see that it’s raised all kinds of interesting discussion. On the back of it, I think I’d actually like to see a return to this world just to see how things turned out. Maybe seeing how the Vardies and the humans cooperate to see off a third threat. I’d say that even if the episode falls short in some areas, it’s world-building has been top-notch.
It’s also got me thinking that perhaps a blog on the show’s relationship to politics, in the widest sense of the word, might be worth pursuing….
26 April 2017 at 01:39 #56734@bluesqueakpip — yes, I think the Doctor did perform what he considered to be a piece of ad hoc ‘justice’. (so much for him not being ‘the police’). It’s also his Time Lord showing, let’s face it.
@tardigrade — it wouldn’t be the first time that the Doctor has left a planet with a precarious ad hoc ‘peace’ and just hopes that it’ll all turn out OK. I think he has a policy of trusting that the best of people will come out. Or perhaps he is of the belief that after he dematerialises it ceases to be his problem.
I’m not crazy about the Doctor essentially jumping straight to creating a free market economy — and for a race that don’t essentially have any needs but who I think are clearly benevolent, so I don’t think there’s an undue cause for concern. But it is a ‘fake’ economic system (kind of like our current system when you get down to it). Unless the Vardies do have needs, or develop them. Do they need repair? Do they need raw materials? Presumably they need fuel of some kind. Laws of physics and all that. Or maybe they’ll develop needs. A need for love, for companionship, perhaps. Is it possible that the need to make people happy was not just programming, but a nascent need of their own?
Leaving aside the ££ joke, which I think was just a bit of levity, I’m not sure the humans will be literally expected to pay anything, except perhaps to respect the Vardies’ right to autonomy. I’d also suspect that the Doctor would give the Vardies some kind of defence (better firewalls maybe) against just being returned to slavehood. If there is indeed going to be a capitalist system, you’d hope at least that the Doc put some kind of bond boards in place.
It’s actually quite an annoying thing to inject into Doctor Who, especially since it was pretty unnecessary to the resolution of the story. I suspect it was just considered a visual gag, the implications of which weren’t thought through. I think it was put in there to emphasise in a slightly clumsy way that the Doctor was leaving the Vardies and humans as equals and that it was no longer desirable for the humans to have an automatic assumption of privilege or superiority.
Although maybe you’re right and there is no solution, that each side will continually be trying to de facto enslave the other and that is the natural state of sentience. Depressing, if so. It really is a massive can of worms just to lob in there in the last five minutes of an episode.
But to be honest, if it comes to some kind of war, I’m on the side of the Vardies (despite their inadvertent homicidal tendencies) because from what little we saw of the colonists they were without exception rather smug and annoying. 😉
25 April 2017 at 23:19 #56726@mudlark and @pufferfish–
I think there’s a definite Puritan edge to all the names of the colonists and I think this is possibly what made me think of Faber’s Book of Strange New Things. Is it possible that this colony ship is reserved for a religious faction/cult of some kind (after all, the Scots got a ship to themselves). Although it is an odd kind of religious group that carries the kind of firepower they seemed to have (although maybe it isn’t).
@tardigrade and @phaseshift–
I’ve just rewatched myself and I have to admit that the resolution does make me more uncomfortable now. Even if the Vardy retain their sentience and their ability to grow as an emergent species is unimpaired, the concept of the mindwipe is uncomfortable coming so soon as it was made so clear it was unacceptable to do it to Bill (one rule for wet brains/one rule for dry brains?).
(To be honest, I’m hating the whole concept of mind wipes in general. RetConning was a crap concept that tied Torchwood up in knots. I was just about willing to let them get away with it with Donna (although it does feel like a cop out), I was less happy with it with Clara (although it did feel like natural justice for the Doctor having done it to Donna) but it really is a concept that needs to go away I think.)
I quite like @phaseshift‘s idea of the Vardy coming to an understanding through grief, and feeling loss of their own. I must admit I felt quite fond of the Vardy and felt that the tumbling of the one into the core was a bit unnecessary and mean. Definitely felt a slight pang for the little fella. No, I like that idea a lot.
Do know what you mean about the Doctor’s first idea to blow the place up. At first glance it does seem quite un-Doctorish. But then, which Doctor? Certainly, say 2-5 would have an issue with it and would probably try to find an alternative. 6-7, I’m not so sure. And the War Doctor would probably be all for it. But the phrase ‘I suddenly have an overwhelming urge to blow it up’ doesn’t quite sit right, does it?
25 April 2017 at 16:25 #56709My personal take is that Broadchurch has always been a flawed creation and that the first series benefited from being broadcast during a period of relative drought of quality drama. The second series was pants and Chibnall did himself no favours by lashing out at his critics instead of just putting his hand up to its failings and just carrying on. (It’ll be interesting to see if he can restrain himself when he takes on the Who job, otherwise the internet could become a very, very interesting place.)
The third series was a lot better and I did return to it late but I was impressed by the serious (more or less) way it handled the procedure of a rape investigation. It did valuable work, for example, in highlighting that the majority of rapists are known to their victims. But it threw all that away by reverting back to the tired old ‘it was a scary-assed psycho leaping out from the bushes’ scenario by the end.
Part of the problem with BC 2 & 3 is they’re operating against a broadcast climate in which Line of Duty was also operating. BC2 just looks risible compared to LoD2 and BC3, while an improvement, still looks ridiculously amateur compared to LoD3 (although that series has also had its wobbles this year)…
But that’s just my personal take on it….
25 April 2017 at 11:19 #56699@missy–
Last week I thought the presenter was rather silly and not a true DW fan. He was just doing a job. That was my impression anyway
Think that’s a bit unfair. Christel Dee is a long-term YouTuber with serious Who tendencies and was doing really rather good fan vlogs for quite some time now. That the BBC has taken on her show as the ‘official’ after show gig is pretty cool I think and yet another sign of one of SM’s real strengths as a showrunner — that he has paid attention to the fan community, taken on board feedback and also utilised fan creativity. But I appreciate the show itself might not be to everyone’s taste.
@mersey–
That’s my main charge against Steven Moffat. He leaves too many meaningless clues
I don’t really look on them as meaningless, merely an extra level of detail — one that that those who enjoy this kind of thing can indulge in but which won’t alienate the casual viewer (or Graun types who bemoan ‘it’s too complicated. Won’t someone think of the childreeen’). And again, I feel it’s a sign that he engages with the communities around the show. While not suggesting that the ‘puzzles’ are strictly for ‘our’ benefit, I think they are there as an acknowledgement or tribute of fans like us who like to delve (possibly too) deeply. I’m sure, for example, that SM had more than one little chuckle to the colour symbolism in bow-ties theories of a few years back.
But personally I rather like it and think it gives the show texture that it didn’t have even in the RTD days. With a couple of honourable exceptions, it seems to me that the RTD era doesn’t have that much in the way of rewatch value. It’s like a sugar-hit of excitement on first watch but there’s a low of diminishing returns to rewatches. I’m not sure, for example, that this site would have existed in the RTD era. There just wouldn’t have been that much to dissect in each episode. I think SM is making Who for the box-set streaming generation — TV that rewards the viewer who returns to it, who invests in it.
I treat that paintings thing as a funny game althoug as a painter I find it arrogant to change such masterpiece as Rembrandt’s self-portrait only for meaningless play
Well, if the Beeb had bought the original painting and stuck some circles on it I might have agreed but I think it’s perfectly legitimate playing with an image otherwise. And I don’t think it’s meaningless — rather it’s a layer of meaning that is overlaid over the core plot and which informs it but is not integral to it.
@geoffers and @tardigrade–
I think some of @tardigrade‘s reservations about the ‘reboot’ resolution have a lot of merit but think I agree with @geoffers that it was the best solution given the drama of the situation and the time constraints of the episode. There’s a trade-off here, I think and in order to get the lovely leisurely opening to the episode I think we have to accept a bit of breathlessness and corner-cutting at the end.
This is a perennial problem with Who, particularly in its new format. Single episodes to feel rushed but I’ve almost always found the two-partners a bit bloated and dull. Of course, the same was true of the old four parters of the BG series, which would always have at least one episode of filler. The sweet spot seems to be around the 60-75min mark and that’s a length that’s never going to be commercially viable — or at least not until Who moves into a streaming-only format, which I suspect it ultimately might.
25 April 2017 at 00:32 #56673@pedant–
Re the bird, it did occur to me that it might be a Dodo (think about it)
Ooo, that’s a really cool idea. I’m really enjoying all the Hartnell love this series. It’s often felt to me that his era tends to get forgotten about as somehow being too ‘old fashioned’ or ‘too long ago’ or something…
Though I suppose it’s probably too much to expect some Chumblies showing up.
24 April 2017 at 23:43 #56669We all know that Peter Capaldi is quite the talented artist but it turns out that Heather is no slouch herself. Really liked this.
24 April 2017 at 23:27 #56668The paintings are an interesting spot and definitely seem to be a ‘thing’. Although I must admit I was convinced by the Tarot talk last year and that didn’t seem to have any lasting significance. I do wonder if SM and the production team do like to throw something in for the likes of our little gang to chew over but which is essentially tangential to the core series arc.
RE. the promise. I’m moving towards the theory that the Doctor’s oath is to himself (whether that be his past, present or future self remains to be seen) rather than the Time Lords.
23 April 2017 at 19:47 #56614@blenkinsopthebrave — also think you’re take on the episode being at least partially about language is spot on. Though I don’t seem to mind emoji as much you or @ pedant 😉
@mudlark and @wolfweed — the Van Gogh painting is striking, but I think the chances are it’s a striking similarity. I suspect the cornfields were chosen because its a dramatically useful human shorthand for fecundity, harvest, home, safety, all that stuff….
23 April 2017 at 19:43 #56613@janetteb — Planet of the Daleks is cheesily terrible — Terry Nation really phoning it in. But as it’s my first encounter with Who in any form I have a significant soft spot for it…
22 April 2017 at 20:35 #56565Not quite as glorious as last week but a pretty solid episode nonetheless. I like how the first 20 or so minutes had a real old-school feeling to them — the equivalent off what would have been the first episode of a BG story, with lots of questions, a mystery, a new world to explore, and Capaldi is definitely reminding me of mid-period Tom Baker these days. The chemistry between his Doc and Bill continues to be excellent too.
It looked great too. I totally believed in this as an alien city. The emoji-bots were nicely realised too — although not as original as has been lauded, I think. There is a debt to Zero from Borderlands to be paid, I think.
And I like that it didn’t descend into a human vs monsters binary opp by the end and it found the time to inject some weightier issues of power, free will and colonialism into the mix. There’s an episode of TNG that it reminded me of but I’m struggling to pluck from my ageing memory. Maybe there’s a Trekker out there who can enlighten me. But other influences that sprang to mind while watching it are, of course, The Happiness Patrol (tho, of course a gazillion times better), The Ark in Space, Serenity and possibly even Faber’s The Book of Strange New Things.
21 April 2017 at 13:54 #56522@missy — fair enough. The After Show is very good and it’s been posted up-thread a bit. It’s well worth checking out for the interview with SM and Pearl Mackie. But basically the Dalek scene was cut because it affected the pace of the episode.
20 April 2017 at 09:43 #56498@missy–
Didn’t really mind about the missing Dalek scene. And SM’s reasoning for omitting it (in the After Show video) is pretty sound I think…
18 April 2017 at 23:52 #56465@wolfweed–
That’s a wicked and interesting spot. It’s good to have you back.
@whisht–
not sure if anyone else has mentioned, but Bill is very much a Companion for this forum.
Her theories as to what is happening are indeed more insane than what is actually happeningThat’s also a very cool idea.
18 April 2017 at 18:26 #56450@craig et al–
Yep, this is what I’ve been hearing around too. I initially thought it sounded a bit fanboy but starting to think it might be awesome.
Interesting that it contradicts the early regeneration chat.
18 April 2017 at 11:23 #56432Must admit I’m not too troubled about the nature and detail of the intelligent oil. Both Prisoner Zero in The Eleventh Hour and the ship in The Lodger were similarly loosely sketched and are really only there to hang all the lovely character stuff on. Same goes for Rose actually. If we hadn’t actually seen Autons before and therefore had all the details of their modus operandi already filled in for us, we would really be none the wiser about them.
RE. The vault. I do like the idea that it’s the next Doctor being contained in there and that perhaps Capaldi’s doc is already regenerating. The Master being in there makes sense too but I feel that would be just a little bit underwhelming. There being a person in there at all actually feels a bit Pandorica-esque to me. Maybe it’s something else entirely. A portal maybe. Or maybe it’s Gallifrey.
And having watched it again, can I just reiterate how much I love this episode.
Oh, and I’m also loving the lava lamp in the Aftershow. Want.
17 April 2017 at 23:58 #56395@redlemons and @bluesqueakpip — Yes, I noticed the cut to the picture of Susan as well. My theories on that are a) as Pip says both Bill and Susan fitted a particular criteria for companionhood (a theory that I quite like) or b) that a hint was being dropped that Susan is going to be of significance this year. Certainly the riffing on the Hartnell era this year is already quite pronounced and seems to lend credence to some of the theories about the finale which I had hitherto relegated to the realms of deluded fanwankery.
Oh, and the TARDIS translation theory is a great one. Yeah, that could well be it.
17 April 2017 at 23:52 #56391Certainly s3 of Broadchurch is a vast step away from the idiocy of s2 and back in the direction of relative quality but I still felt there were points where dramatic logic was replaced with the dramatic equivalent of loud and self-conscious whistling. Julie Hesmondaigh was consistently amazing though. Haven’t watched the finale yet, so I’m willing to revise my opinion but I’ve not lost the feeling that Chibnall is far too happy to leap across narrative canyons to get to ‘the next cool bit’.
I think Chibnall will have the greatest say in who and what the new Doctor would be but I think it unlikely that there won’t be other voices in the mix. Certainly I think there’s been plenty of hints from SM over the years that he’s had to accommodate the diktats of higher-ups, marketing bods and the like (iDaleks anyone?) and that there will be strong but insistent voices ‘guiding’ him in certain directions. (Once again, I’m very much hoping that SM is planning a Writer’s Tale type book. I feel certain there would be very many interesting stories to hear from his tenure in the big seat.)
17 April 2017 at 20:50 #56378@bluesqueakpip — interesting ideas re. TARDIS naming and none of which I particularly have a problem with. Except, it doesn’t account for the Monk/Master/Rani also use this name for their craft as far as I can remember. Not sure why they would agree to use what’s essentially a pet name invented by Susan.
17 April 2017 at 20:38 #56377what @bluesqueakpip said. Though seeing the really rather negative reaction on social media to the rumours yesterday I’d say Kris Marshall’s name has quite possibly been scratched off the shortlist…
16 April 2017 at 17:58 #56275@phaseshift, @kharis, @juniperfish et al — and of course Bill and Heather is a nice little tribute to (the) Hartnell(s)
-
AuthorPosts
