Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
23 January 2016 at 19:37 #50371
@OB-Wan–
So your argument goes ‘I’ve made up my mind it’s a DEM and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to talk me out of that prejudice’.
PotW does not end with a DEM for two fundamental reasons–
1. Bad Wolf as a concept is seeded through the entire series.
2. The heart of the TARDIS which creates BW does not come out anywhere either. It’s introduced via the Boom Town episode.
The ending of PotW conforms to pretty much to the accepted rules of drama. It’s not a ‘writing trick’ of any kind and it’s certainly not a DEM, unless your definition is (as it is for many fans, it seems) ‘a plot resolution that I personally don’t like’.
As to canon, what is it except the accretion of every plot to date? It’s not something to be restricted by and it’s not a case of rewriting something written in stone but continually adding to it. And SM’s most genius move was in The Name of the Doctor by calling into question the entire 50-year backstory, thus freeing up writers and showrunners for the future. Canon-schmanon I say…
23 January 2016 at 17:15 #50364@ob-wan — The Parting of the Ways conclusion is not a DEM. To reiterate @pedant‘s point, go and read Pip’s blog on the subject.
Not sure I’d agree about the ‘magic’ angle either. As essentially a fantasy show, Who is full of magic. It just dresses it up in the borrowed clothes of SF a lot of the time, that’s all….
23 January 2016 at 15:57 #50362@doctordani — Who is too much of a cash-cow for it to be killed altogether. It will endure in some form or another. Even if it ends up some kind of partnership with Amazon/Netflix kind of malarkey.
I’m sure they’ll try to stretch HDM as much as they can but there are limits. Amber Spyglass is a bloated mess as it is. Calling attention to that fact won’t help it in the long run. But yeah, theoretically each book could be divided into two series, making a six-year run.
23 January 2016 at 15:40 #50360@doctordani — I think we’re probably looking at a permanent shift to a non-winter slot, yes. Just to avoid it clashing with Strictly any longer. But His Dark Materials is just three series — four if they split up The Amber Spyglass — so I don’t think there’s any need to worry. And Who is too much of a cash cow for it to go altogether. Although it does depend, I suppose, on Chibnall’s performance. But, yeah, it could get downgraded. Shorter series, maybe even just the occasional special. Maybe even a movie. I bet they might be able to tempt SM with that.
23 January 2016 at 15:09 #50358@pedant–
Certainly controversial at the moment, given her recent spectacularly poorly judged comments. Which means I suspect she wouldn’t be allowed near a high-profile role like this, but taken all in all, she wouldn’t be a terrible choice for a Doctor….
23 January 2016 at 14:26 #50355@whisht —
well, that’ll be a Chibnall retrospective this year.
That’s probably a good idea. But in terms of Who that means
- 42
- The Hungry Earth
- Cold Blood
- Dinosaurs on a Spaceship
- The Power of Three
We could put a couple of Torchwoods in there too, I guess. And looking at that list, there’s nothing except the Silurian two-parter that I’d really rate particularly. And it certainly does nothing to lift my lack of enthusiasm to post-Moffatt Who. I’d really have preferred Peter Harness as a more off-beam choice (but I’m guessing off-beam is not what they wanted.) Even Toby Whithouse would have been preferable.
That’s a hell of a wait though and I’m less than happy about it, to say the least. I suppose the mechanics of getting another production office on the go and so on necessitate it. It would have been that, or a year of specials or a split series, all of which would have been unpopular choices too. I doubt that Capaldi will stay on either. I imagine it’ll be a similar clean break to RTD/Tennant. For some reason, I doubt we’ll see a female Doctor next time either. It doesn’t seem like Chibnall’s style and I’m guessing the consensus will be that enough risks will be being taken as it is.
But on the upside, Sherlock has been on top form and hopefully SM will be energised with the writing of that. Also hopefully we’ll be seeing something original from him — something that frees him from the constraints of the ‘waah. This isn’t the programme I’ve been imagining in my head in every precise detail’ crowd. I also demand that he gets busy on his version of The Writer’s Tale with all due haste.
22 January 2016 at 23:12 #50334Have to say that I think Chibnall is possibly the worst possible choice as showrunner. Broadchurch fell apart in his hands in s2 and his work on Torchwood was pretty ropey too….
17 January 2016 at 13:08 #50192@winston– Buffy’s is well worth checking out. You won’t regret it. No one ever does. It’s on Netflix in most territories. If not in yours, then Zenmate is your friend. At least for the time being.
9 January 2016 at 19:10 #50057Yes, indeed. A shout-out to @puroandson. Hope all is well with you. And also to @phaseshift who I hope is not submerged in floodwater somewhere…..
8 January 2016 at 14:19 #50047@pedant–
I love me an an eloquent opacity me…..
7 January 2016 at 01:24 #50022OK, wrote a blog post on the episode. It’s kinda long so won’t be offended if it’s considered in the tl;dr category…
The scheduling of Sherlock, largely because of the now high profile of its two stars, as well as constraints on the time of its creator, is often something of a sporadic affair. Thus, this feature-length one-off special is all we can expect of the series until 2017.
It didn’t disappoint. It had many genuinely funny moments but took the show in a different direction. It would have been easy to let the Victorian setting be a quirky and unconnected sidestep from the narrative that had come before but rather it was cleverly knitted into the arc established in the previous series. It was a step up from a third season that I thought flagged slightly.
And yet it didn’t seem to please everybody. A quick scan BTL on many of the online reviews complain that the story was too complicated. They complain of its metatextuality and they call for a return to the mystery-solving of the first two series.
This is a criticism that I saw levelled at the show last year and it was just as wrong-headed then. Sherlock has never been about the mysteries. It’s not strictly speaking an adaptation. Rather it is, as I read it anyway, more a playful examination on the one hand of the relationships between the two main characters and on the other of the interplay between the original stories and all their subsequent adaptations and reinterpretations (and by extension with their audiences).
The early episodes A Study In Pink and The Blind Banker do perhaps foreground the mystery element more but that is largely because the character work that is at the heart of the series is still being built upon. We’re still getting to know these characters and the Moriarty arc is still only being hinted at.
So that’s only two episodes out of a run (so far) of ten. By the time we get to The Great Game, the focus is squarely on the character interplay and metatextual conceit. (The source material, The Bruce-Partington Plans and The Final Problem is only really dealt with in the most cursory way.) And this is the model that’s more or less been followed since.
While it is not necessary to have seen every version of Holmes to appreciate Sherlock, it is clear that they are written and produced with them in mind. Thus we see distinct allusions to the Basil Rathbone films of the 30s and 40s in Series Two and we see clear references to the Jeremy Brett TV series (and perhaps even the Michael Caine parody Without a Clue) in this year’s The Abominable Bride.
It’s certainly true that by the third series the show had accrued an added layer of meaning. While it is partially because of the happy accident of its success (the BBC did not initially have high hopes for it) and the stratospheric status of its two stars, it does not really constitute any kind of dramatic change in direction from the two series that preceded it.
Those first two series did use a number of the original Conan Doyle stories as their starting points but I’d argue this was never the point of the show. Those mysteries were there primarily as hooks to be riffed upon, with the character relationships, and the relationship between the various Holmes mythologies being the true heart of the programme.
If this all sound too postmodern, then so be it. This kind of intertextuality drives some folks nuts and that’s fair enough. But you can’t tune into a show and then berate it for not following some set of conventions or expectations that have never really existed and it never had any intention of following. It’s a bit like tuning into EastEnders and then moaning about all the Londoners on it.
Thus the mystery of the abominable bride was never the point of this adventure. It was using as its starting point a cited but never seen Holmes adventure and was possibly also meant to be a barb at those traditionalists howling at the addition of Watson’s wife to the mix. But the real thrust of the mystery was exploring the cliffhanger of the previous story – can Moriarty really be still alive?
However, perhaps there is a caveat worth putting in here. I don’t buy the accusations of egomania from the either the producers/writers and/or the stars. Or at least not yet. I do, however, fear that it could become an issue if care is not taken.
The second issue that is raised against The Abominable Bride is the “mansplaining feminism to a coven of murderous females” scene. Superficially this would seem to be a harder criticism to defend. The representation of Suffragettes as a KKK-style bunch of vigilantes is at first glance a rather bold and inflammatory step.
However, the scene really has to be viewed through the prism of over-arching structure of the episode – that the Victorian sequences take place within Sherlock’s “mind palace” (no, I don’t like the phrase either). The “battle that [Sherlock] must lose”, according to Victorian Mycroft is not so much Male Victorian Society vs The Suffragists but Sherlock’s struggle (and presumably subsequent re-evaluation) of his relationships with women. Steven Moffatt himself is clearly wary of this misinterpretation and takes significant care to avoid it – Moriarty shows up at the end of the scene specifically to labour the point for the hard of thinking – the scenario is “melodramatic”, “Gothic”, “silly” and in case you were still not getting it “not real” and “all in Sherlock’s head”. The faux-outrage makes in sense unless you’re terminally dense or pretending to be in order to make a point.
Indeed, for someone like Moffatt who has faced criticism for his portrayal of female characters before, I think he’s to be commended for not shying away from a scene like this and instead tackling it head on. (It’s perhaps also worth pointing out that no real ‘mansplaining’ takes place. Rather the opposite in fact, with the power relationships in this scene weighted, I’d argue, towards the female characters.)
Again, this is a through-line of the entire series and touches upon Sherlock’s relationship with Molly Hooper, Mrs Hudson, Irene Adler, his abortive engagement and so on. This is made explicit at several points in the script. Indeed, the “coven” scene is melodramatic and even arch because it is meant to be. It is highlighting the absurdity of Sherlock’s view of women. And emphasising his growing awareness of that absurdity.
And once again this feeds back into the show’s core “mission statement” – to look at the tropes of Holmesiana through a 21st century lens. And there is no greater aspect of Sherlock that has to be re-examined than his attitude to women.
It seems to me that many of the criticisms of this year’s Sherlock are not dissimilar to the ones that greet his Doctor Who stories. There are many who want Who to remain fixed in amber and adhering to the template that covered six or seven years of the show’s 50-year history. Similarly, the partially Victorian setting seemed to lull many into assuming that they were going to get some linear mystery Jeremy Brett pastiche. But a single look at any previous episode should have made clear that this was never really going to be on the cards.
The critics of both shows are very similar in this regard. First of all, they seem to argue for approaches that seem dated and, well, boring. It’s probably possible to do a straight Victorian Holmes adaptation but haven’t we seen it all before? (Similarly, returning Who to its rubber-suited megalomaniac chase-a-thons isn’t going to work either.) Both Moffatt and Guy Ritchie were smart enough that you have to tinker under the hood a little for Holmes to work in the modern age.
And what’s more, it’s nonsensical and even a little churlish to dismiss the programme for not adhering to frames of reference that it has never been that bothered with in the past. It’s a bit like castigating a gritty social drama for not having enough space battles. At their heart, the criticisms boil down to ‘I didn’t like it because it’s not the show I envisaged in my head and which I personally would have made’. But this isn’t valid criticism. As with all TV shows, whether you like or dislike it, Sherlock at least has the right to be engaged with on its own terms, not those dreamt up in fanboys’ bedrooms.
6 January 2016 at 12:27 #50015@blenkinsopthebrave — the directors thing is a fine idea. Many were just jobbing directors who just did Who as a gig and probably didn’t contribute anything that distinctive to it, but many did leave their mark. The obvious starting point is Graham Harper who straddles both the old and the new series. Also Morris Barry is probably worth a look from the old series. And some of the AG directors are definitely worth looking at too — especially Douglas MacKinnon, Euros Lynn and Rachel Talalay.
4 January 2016 at 21:57 #49998@craig — good to hear you got things sorted. And to reiterate, if you ever need contributions for the site you really only have to ask…
4 January 2016 at 21:54 #49997I wasn’t aware that the original Mycroft was overweight. But I thought I saw a wedding wing on Mycroft’s finger and wondered if this meant that 19th century Mycroft was even more unhappy Than 21st century Mycroft who is lonely, but at least not required to marry in order to seem respectable.
Mycroft is generally portrayed as corpulent but I can’t remember offhand if this is referenced in the stories. There’s definitely a line something like ‘he runs on fixed lines between Whitehall, his lodgings and the Diogenes Club’. So it’s not that he’s lonely as such but that he just has no interest in social interaction of any kind. I suspect the intention was to soften Holmes’s character a bit — a kind of ‘if you think Holmes is bad, check out this dude’ approach.
4 January 2016 at 12:37 #49986@bluesqueakpip–
Abominable Bride was very firm on the subtext of the Holmes stories, by having Watson the Victorian author point out that he has created the character of ‘Sherlock Holmes’, which isn’t the same thing as the man Sherlock Holmes. Equally, the man Watson makes the character Watson look an idiot to make Holmes shine, and the real Mrs Hudson does more than just serve the breakfasts and show clients upstairs.
Yes, I think it was particularly clear in this story that one of the key points of the entire series is examining this Sherlock’s (and by extension, our) relationship with not just the original stories but just about every adaptation and interpretation of them that came after. Thus in s2 we got riffs on the Rathbones. This time there were clear parallels to the Bretts. And maybe the levels of difference between Watson/Creator and Watson/Character are pointing to things like the underrated Without a Clue parody.
As I said on the t’other place, the complaints about ‘it was too complicated, why can’t we go back to mysteries of s1 & 2’ (apart from being the usual ‘things were so much better last week’ brigade), is because they’ve fundamentally misinterpreted the show from its outset. It was never about the mysteries. They were just the hook to hang the series on, which is much more concerned with the relationship between Holmes and Watson, their correlation to just about every representation of them, and their relationship with the audience.
2 January 2016 at 17:02 #49954@pedant — there’s certainly a play The Secret of Sherlock Holmes, which toured with Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke, that explored this theory. Moriarty as a creation of Holmes’s imagination.
2 January 2016 at 15:44 #49952@bluesqueakpip — thanks for that. Thought it was spot on and eloquently put.
@juniperfish — that’s also interesting, although I’d argue that the placing of the matrix in the notebook (much like the similar flourishes in modern Who) are just designed to mess with us rather than having a full-blown intention behind them. I’d say they stick them in just to see how far folks on the interwebs will run with them….
2 January 2016 at 02:04 #49934@blenkinsopthebrave — the list (I thought) was of Sherlock’s latest pharmaceuticals of choice. And that the deal they had was that Sherlock would always furnish such a list in order to look out for his brother. I liked this as it added yet another layer of complexity to their relationship.
@bluesqueakpip — I liked your explanation of the ‘Sherlock addresses the feminists’ speech and think it would be well worth repeating here at some point.
2 January 2016 at 02:01 #49933@bluesqueakpip — that Sherlock thread is particularly depressing. But really it’s just the usual suspects using it to give SM a kicking … just because.
I say it every year but I’m really going to try to give up the Graun in 2016. It just depletes my faith in human nature too much.
2 January 2016 at 01:06 #49927Thought that was first class. What with s9, Husbands of River Song and this, SM has had a really great year and has hit a real creative peak. It looked beautiful, was very funny and managed to drive the main narrative forward rather than just being a cute little detour. Great to see Andrew Scott back as Moriarty and Mark Gatiss continues to make Mycroft an engaging and complex foil to Cabbagepatch….
30 December 2015 at 11:05 #49863@juniperfish, @pedant and @puroandson–
I’m kind of swithering between the two camps on this one — and this too will be my last utterance on the matter (I think Puro is right that this is a deeply complex subject for the forum. Perhaps a blog at some time in the future…).
I think @juniperfish is right that there is a tendency to conflate all of ‘po-mo’ into one all-encompassing entity. (Though not necessarily that anyone here has done that. The arguments on both sides are quite nuanced, which might be part of the issue.) And it’s not just it’s opponents who do this. I’ve seen Cultural Studies departments who seemed to want to sweep their English counterparts away and dismiss all that came before. That should be utterly be resisted. I tend to think of all the various — and distinct — theories as tools in a toolbox. Sometimes they’re useful for a certain job (text), sometimes they’re not. Gubar’s readings of Jane Eyre, to give a dated example, were highly useful and relevant and revitalised Bronte studies.
I also think @juniperfish is dead right that works are constantly being reinterpreted and re-evaluated. It’s not possible to read Hamlet — or even The Time Monster — the way historical audiences did. We’re recreating it when we watch it now. And adding nuance and subtle reinterpretation with every rewatch. (These forums are all the proof of that you need.) The reason Shakespeare has been so enduring is that he has been constantly been reinterpreted and made relevant for generations of audiences. That the source material is so strong is of course part of the reason but it’s not the whole story. Some of the reinterpretations are bad (Bowdler), some great. But each generation is essentially taking what is useful and (re) making it their own.
The problem is when people assume this to mean a disregard of the original text. But it obviously doesn’t but that doesn’t mean the core text should always be in some kind of untouchable privileged position. Yes, core authorial intent is important and it should be the ultimate arbiter of whether an interpretation stands or not. You have to be able to point to the script and say ‘this is why my interpretation holds water’. But it’s also more slippery than that when you’re talking about film/TV etc because an actor’s interpretation of a line (or a director’s or even a set dresser’s or anyone involved in the production) can subtly alter or create new and valid interpretations. It’s not enough to say ‘SM didn’t write it so it’s not valid’. Authorial intent therefore has significant weight but I’m not sure it should ultimately ‘trump’ any other interpretation, as long as it can be argued convincingly enough. Besides which I tend to feel that privileging authorial intention too much leads us down the murky road of biographical fallacy and all that bollocks.
And works of art never exist in a vacuum. It’s almost never a case of ‘unassailable genius’ to be meekly mopped up by a passive audience. To take a contemporary example, look at Star Wars. The original film was not such a hit because of the innate genius of George Lucas (subsequent films have revealed that ‘genius’ to be basically not there). It was as much to do with Vietnam, Watergate, a jaded film culture that had all but forced out family movies and left kids hungry for a film that wasn’t under-resourced, cynically patronising bollocks. Another example might be Spooks Code Nine which crashed and burned spectacularly. Now, in terms of quality it wasn’t the worst thing out there. It pressed all the right buttons but in an utterly mechanical way. It was competent, if uninspiring. But its cynicism turned people off. The point being is that the ‘art’ is created by the audiences as much as the ‘creators’. It’s not ‘if you build it, they will come’, it’s more ‘if you build it and it resonates they will come’.
26 December 2015 at 19:47 #49699Just popping in to say that was absolutely fab. Probably counts as the best Christmas episode I reckon and a fitting in to what has been a terrific year of Who. SM has really knocked this one out of the park.
Capaldi and Kingston were as great as I expected them to be and it is, I think, the perfect pairing for 12’s Doc. I still wouldn’t be at all surprised if she became the permanent companion next year — it struck me that such a thing was heavily hinted at. I wonder now that Gallifrey has been found whether next year’s arc will be the saving of River. (Although part of me wonders whether it would take away from that splendid farewell and that SM would be a wary of opening himself to yet more accusations be being incapable of killing anyone.)
Oh, and welcome back, @scaryb!! Where the hell you been??
21 December 2015 at 22:53 #49568Off to download that now. Good call from @pedant too….
21 December 2015 at 22:48 #49567Well, it’s taken a while to wade through all these posts. But critical theory — we’re going there again? Really? I shan’t wade into this again because I think I did so during the Buffy threads earlier in the year but thought I’d just say that @juniperfish‘s posts on the subject have been some of the most measured, thoughtful and just plain right that I’ve seen.
The way I see it, as with many other things, the utility of these ideas is away from the extremes. But these ideas still have currency and they do have use. The raving second-rate academics who hide behind theory and cloak what are often prosaically commonplace ideas in layers of jargon actually do more harm than good. And at the other end of the spectrum (for example, take a look at the posts of asgill on the Graun rather than anyone on this site who are, let’s face it, a smart bunch) who rail against post modernity while betraying that they don’t really know what on earth they’re on about. They largely use ‘post modern’ to just mean ‘modern’ which in turn means ‘anything relatively recent that I don’t like and/or understand). Leavisites in geek’s clothing, if you will.
But I think the idea of interpretative, ‘multi-authored’ texts are still valid and are quite useful when looking at Who. Although you’re always going to be on a hiding to nothing when you try and pin down an ‘auteur’ in Who. Even in these show-runnery days. (Speaking of which have been reading The Writer’s Tale: The Final Chapter, which I cant recommend highly enough. Really interesting for those interested in Who, in the TV writing process, or both. I sincerely hope that SM will do us the honour of an equivalent volume at some point. That I’d like to read.)
6 December 2015 at 19:11 #48854@xemoboix — he’s just done more than that. He’s pretty much created a female Doctor because that’s what Clara is in all but name now. The Governess maybe? As for the next bona fide regeneration of the Doctor being female. Bring it on, I say.
6 December 2015 at 00:01 #48751Well, that was all kinds of excellent. A brilliant rejoinder to Donna’s fate in Journey’s End. Not crazy about the return of the Time Lords though — hopefully they won’t be making their presence felt that much. But in general as nice a bit of mythology resetting as in The Name of the Doctor.
More thoughts later. But opening with Skaro and ending with Gallifrey and with more than a few serious Who highpoints in between, that was, in my view, one of the most accomplished series of Who, either BG or AG.
5 December 2015 at 17:10 #48704@craig–
He was the creative writing fellow at Aberdeen uni when I was there and I was lucky to share a few pints with him. He was a first-class guy — insightful, funny and always incredibly generous.
And, yes, one of those very few blokes who can totally get away with unabashed, old-school moustache action….
5 December 2015 at 16:57 #48702This possibly won’t mean that much to anyone not of the Scottish persuasion but William McIlvanney has just died. He was a towering figure in Scottish literature, virtually invented Tartan Noir all on his ownsome and was a formidable but deeply compassionate intellect. His is a deep loss not just for Scotland but for literature in general.
5 December 2015 at 15:51 #48693@phaseshift (and everybody else) — I’m still slightly clinging to my Clara as agent of Missy theory too. Certainly think that we’ll see Missy tonight.
My main concern is that an enormous can of worms has been opened by the return of Gallifrey — possibly more than can be resolved in one episode — the last time we really saw them RTD rather quickly had to pop the cork back in the bottle. I still maintain that a Whoniverse with the Time Lords back in it less than delights me and a big part of me wants them to stay gone by the end of tonight’s episode.
Still, looking forward to it greatly. It’s promising much and it would have to seriously go wrong for this not to be one of (if not the) finest series since the reboot.
3 December 2015 at 10:34 #48567He’s definitely in burgundy when picking up the dial from the sand, so it’s either just the lighting or a continuity error in that one shot that they hoped no-one would notice.
I’d have to watch again to be sure but that’s a pretty massive continuity error so unlikely they’d let it slide. And let’s remember how significant an assumed continuity error with jackets turned out to be in s5
1 December 2015 at 11:47 #48417I however was rather disturbed by the blurb for part two which includes those dire words, “his plans to leave Doctor Who.” I hope those are long term plans.
Well, he’s there for s10 at the very least. After that, I wouldn’t be surprised if was thinking about moving on. (I wouldn’t be massively surprised if the show took a break after that, if I’m honest.) I do struggle to think who could possibly fill Moffat’s shoes though so I’m less than thrilled at the idea he might be moving on too. But he’ll have done it for five years by that time, while also fitting in four series of Sherlock too. The man surely deserves some R&R.
1 December 2015 at 11:42 #48416@mersey — saw that. And sad to say my first reaction was ‘oooh, new sonic’….
30 November 2015 at 20:49 #48335@bluesqueakpip — well, certainly no one can say you didn’t give Capaldi a fair go. I guess there are always just some Doctors we don’t warm to. I do kind of know what you mean though. I think regardless of how well it was done the ‘regeneration crisis’ plot line of last year might have fatally ‘holed’ Capaldi’s Doctor in some way for some, in the same way that Colin Baker could never, ever recover from throttling Peri in The Twin Dilemma. It was an act that just defined his whole era. Just watched The Eleventh Hour last night and Matt just sweeps us along in his enthusiasm and likeability from the moment he appears. And he keeps us swept up throughout his entire tenure, even when his stories started to take a dip. It’s possible that Peter suffered a little because his opening story didn’t allow him to ‘imprint’ himself on fans strongly enough.
It only struck me relatively recently that part of the reason I like Capaldi’s Doc so much is that he really does remind of an old university professor I had who turned out to be a big influence on me. Made me work bloody hard but I also ended up taking as many of his classes as I could. And Capaldi’s Doc not only looks like him a bit but rather acts like him too.
These have been a tricky couple of years, which I’ve really enjoyed, but I think the tone of them has perhaps been dictated by Clara as much as the Doctor. While Jenna and Peter have clearly had chemistry, I think 12 should perhaps have had a new companion from the outset, rather than having to accommodate one quite as tricky as The Impossible Girl. I actually think now might be the time for River to come aboard as a full-time companion, perhaps with a third in tow. What wouldn’t have worked with Smith might now definitely work with Capaldi.
So understand the relief you might feel at taking a step back but I would definitely recommend you take a look at Heaven Sent when you feel able. It’s a startlingly good, probably ground-breaking piece of Who.
30 November 2015 at 15:22 #48314Much trailed but really rather splendid interview with Steven Moffat in the RT….
Well, worth a look.
28 November 2015 at 23:20 #48098@miapatrick — personally, I think of his mainstream books, he never really again hit the heights of Complicity or The Crow Road but I didn’t really get into his SF books until pretty recently. And I’m really enjoying them at the moment….
@pedant — the campaign for Nifti starts here….
28 November 2015 at 23:00 #48092On the confirmation that @juniperfish‘s red/blue theory was ultimately borne out, is it possible that the ‘arse’ in this episode was a nod to that celebrated acronym of @scaryb‘s?
28 November 2015 at 22:52 #48089Well, that trailer looks all kinds of awesome. And kudos to @juniperfish for the Tarot theory. It really did stand up.
I have to say I’ve found this series gob-smackingly good. Barely a foot wrong. Maybe not as much of a carefree romp as s5 (my other favourite) but a really substantial, clever and ambitious set of episodes. It truly baffles me to see the negativity over on the likes of the The Graun. It’s like ‘just what does it take to please some people?’
Think Me/Ashildr being the Hybrid is spot on. But also think that the Hybrid is going to turn out to be not a bad thing… (bit like The Moment actually)….
28 November 2015 at 22:40 #48086Great episode. Agree with @django that there’s a definite Prisoner riff here, most notably the Once Upon A Time episode.
@delta — I think @pedant and others are correct in that we’re not talking about a Doctor ‘clone’ just because he’s teleported. How many times has the Doctor used a teleporter throughout the 50 years of the series? If your assertion were the case we haven’t been watching ‘the Doctor’ for some decades now. You’d also have to qualify just what do you mean by ‘the Doctor’? I mean, how does regeneration fit into this equation. That’s complete cellular renewal. Did the Doctor cease to the the Doctor when he became Troughton?
And the whole thing was very Ian Banks. I’d say Ian M Banks, but actually the two I first read and favourite of his science fiction are ‘The Bridge’ and ‘Walking on glass’. I don’t know if my mother and boyfriend enjoyed it much, and I’m sorry and concerned about that. But I loved it.
Slightly nit-picky thing but not sure The Bridge or Walking on Glass really count as Banks’ true SF work. But I’d definitely agree the influence is there (been re-reading a lot of Banks of late and did wonder if I was reading too much into it so am very glad you cited this too). It did make me think of Feersum Endjinn too though, which is bona fide Iain M Banks SF fare.
25 November 2015 at 11:29 #47819@puroandson — I’m so pleased you’ve decided to come back. And welcome to ‘son’. Even in these few short days, you’ve been missed. Welcome.
23 November 2015 at 17:45 #47637While I think I’ve taken to Capaldi’s Doctor more than @bluesqueakpip has (and I think @blenkinsopthebrave is right in his description of his character arc), I think Pip does have something of a point about how Clara’s demise has been written. Whether deliberately or not, I think it does send out a message that’s dubious at best, although I do also like that it’s a companion death that’s not necessarily a glorious, noble sacrifice but the result of hubris and self-delusion on some level.
Clara is difficult to write and end to, in that she’s already sacrificed herself several times over, has saved all the original incarnations of the Doctor and so on. Just where to you go from there. I still quite like the idea that Clara has been dead for some time and what we’re seeing is the Doctor processing that death, gradually coming to terms with it. That appeals greatly. That we’re seeing inside the Doctor’s head, his actual psychology for the first time. I also think both characters will get a final coda, to offer them both (and us) some kind of closure.
22 November 2015 at 14:49 #47511Just to emphasise, Puro has not been banned but has left of her own accord. This is a clearly very tough time for her so I’m sure we’ll understand that if she wants to take a step back from the site, while emphasising that we all value her amazing contributions to our little community. I hope you do decide to stay, Puro but everyone’s thoughts are with you regardless.
22 November 2015 at 01:28 #47469@purofilion– yeah, a wee bitty on the harsh side there. I think @geronimo is getting at the same thing that @bluesqueakpip and others pointed to above. That Clara’s death was a wee bit too ‘easy’ to be her final bowing out — especially as this is the Impossible Girl we’re talking about here. It’s just not sufficiently satisfying for her to go this way. There has to be a bit more to it.
And, yes, she’s essentially dying of hubris here, of being a bloody idiot, which I’m not sure is a good way to go out. (Although I’m reminded of the death of Derek Reese in the Sarah Connor Chronicles and that counts as one of the most shocking demises of a character in a TV show to me). I think we’ll almost certainly have some kind of a coda to Clara’s death in this episode.
I’m mightily persuaded by the idea from @pedant and Pip that Clara could have been dead for some time and what we’ve been seeing is the Doctor’s grieving process, telling himself a series of stories in which Clara still lives. But reality is breaking through now. The Doctor moving from denial to acceptance. As has been pointed out, there’s been lots of instances of stories being told this season — the Morpheus video, Ashildr’s diaries, even the discussion of legends between Davros and the Doctor. (We’re all just stories in the end.)
And I am now officially laying to rest my ‘Clara is actually an unwitting sleeper agent of the bad guys’ theory. Sniff.
21 November 2015 at 21:18 #47441That was bloody excellent. More Gaiman than Gaiman rather oddly. But excellent.
14 November 2015 at 00:47 #46892@blenkinsopthebrave — don’t know if that has been mooted before but I like it. Like it a lot.
However, I suspect all this diner business is another massive misdirect like the ‘Is Maisie Williams Susan?’ and the shots of Rory with the Cybermen prior to A Good Man Goes To War. Creates lots of buzz but end up having not a lot to do with the episode in the end.
Having said that, I do get the feeling that this year’s finale could be something special….
10 November 2015 at 23:24 #46745@pedant — sorry for the delay in replying. That pesky RL work thing getting in the way again. Could well be B-unit stuff or pick-ups for the Xmas special. I’d be surprised if it was for the actual series. I actually think it could well be CiN — when is it this year anyway?
Not sure how I’d feel about seeing a certain Captain back in the series anyway. I felt he’d outlived his usefulness as a character for some time before his last appearance. But if it pans out, it’s definitely interesting news.
10 November 2015 at 16:38 #46722@pedant — I’d expect the whole thing to be shot by now. Probably deep in post at this stage I would have thought. As I said on the other place, I suspect the reason they’re keeping very quiet about it is that its actual premise contains spoilers for the end of the current series
7 November 2015 at 23:55 #46555Still formulating and wanting a rewatch or two but can I just say that Peter Harness totally failed to drop the ball there. And Capaldi has definitely had his defining Doctor moment now. And it was a cracker.
That’s three for three cracking pieces from Harness now.
4 November 2015 at 13:18 #46336@mersey —
You absolutely shouldn’t feel ashamed. Your misgivings are absolutely valid. That some don’t share them, or at least not to same level, is neither here nor there really….
The important thing is that we all feel able to talk about them.
4 November 2015 at 02:01 #46297@bluesqueakpip–
Alternatively, Inverness villages and the Fox Inn are packed with Zygon milkmaids
There’s an image I’m never getting out of my head.
I’m inclined to think @jphamlore is right that this particular story has something of a responsibility to ‘get it right’ in the second part. There was definitely a case to be made with Kill The Moon last year that it raised issues and then lacked the courage of its convictions to follow them through. Not sure it can afford to do that with this story. And I also agree that the absence of true leaders, of politicians and the like in this story is a dangerous oversight. I’ll be very interested just to see what they do on Saturday.
On the Doctor As Zygon theory. I’m not sold on it myself and think it’s probably not going to come to pass. Was just throwing it out there really. Besides which, my theories are never right.
On the whole ‘kill the traitors’ issue. I think it’s just as simple as the Zygon insurgents considering anyone that’s not them as a traitor, be they human or Zygon. In much the same way that Daesh consider law-abiding British Muslims etc to be as much traitors/infidels in their eyes as Westerners.
2 November 2015 at 00:30 #46119@mersey —
I’d imagine that most people on this site are familiar with the MH17 incident and this weekend’s events in Egypt. However, I personally don’t see it as particularly offensive or in poor taste. This episode was in the can months ago and Steven Moffatt can’t be expected to predict what world events are going to be at the time of broadcast. Especially since the subject matter of the episode is so exceptionally tied into current events. Basically, the chances are there’s going to be some kind of atrocity going on at the time the episode is going out.
Moreover, if we allowed the episode to be bowdlerised, or even cancelled, because of it then to use that hoary old phrase ‘the terrorists have already won’. Similarly if we continue to insist that we treat their actions in hushed tones and not to be addressed anywhere outside of a news bulletin then once again we’re affording idiots like Daesh more respect than they deserve.
Who is a perfectly acceptable medium to discuss these sorts of issues because it allows it to involve everyone — not just a bunch of politicians and journalists. It should provoke thought around the water coolers and in the classrooms. And as @blenkinsopthebrave says above, this is not a new thing for the show. There are stories like the two Peladon stories, which were clearly politically charged. The Sunmakers, more light-hearted but still with a political message. And it’s also easy to forget these days that the first Dalek serial, centring around nuclear holocaust would have had a much more contemporary resonance for a country that had come extremely close to that fate itself less than a year previously.
As to the more general charge of ‘it was too heavy-handed’. It strikes me that the ones saying that on the ‘other place’ are basically saying ‘it was too heavy handed because it’s a political argument I personally don’t like’. If the Doctor was walking around saying ‘send em all back where they came from’ I’d imagine they’d all be calling it ‘timely and subtle’.
Besides which, I don’t think it was heavy handed and rather was timed just right. As @bluesqueakpip said here and on the other other place, the message has to be delivered in such a way that it could be recognised by viewers of a relatively young age and not too subtly as it gets lost in the mix. But it also couldn’t interfere with the narrative. Which I don’t think it did. In the end, I don’t think it was any more heavy-handed than the political sub-texts of the Peladon stories or the Daleks.
On a lighter note of just general episode chat, does anyone think that we’re being double-bluffed here and that the Doctor is also a Zygon — a decoy provided by the human-friendly faction — to lure out Bonnie Zygon. It just strikes me that he was rather passive in the whole missile sequence and the ‘try not to kill too many’ was a rather sign-postedly un-Doctor-ish line.
Only duff note to the episode I think was Rebecca Front who was rather misused and miscast. She’d have been far more interesting as an old-school Pertwee-era blimpish Government minister. Although maybe it would have been a bit weird having her in that persona facing down Capaldi as the Doc. Or on the other hand it could have been all quite meta.
-
AuthorPosts
