Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
24 July 2013 at 11:55 #14322
Hi, bit late to this (damn wiki assignment…)
This episode really made me fall in love with Doctor Who, set my mind to rest after concerns that the change in show runner would diminish my enjoyment of AG who (I didn’t at the time understand that Moffit had written Blink, TGITF, SITL etc) and completely sold me on Moffit and Eleven. And it told us, looking back, one part of Moffits plan for Who: it’s going to be beautiful to look at.
Although Rory wasn’t presented as a inevitable mainstay, he is, here, when you look at it, perfect companion material. He notices something odd with the coma patients. Amy is the reason the doctor is there- but Rory is the one who provides the clue that comes to save the day. And the reason for this boils down to much of the wonderfulness of Rory- he cares enough about people, even ‘vegetables’, to really look at them and see them. He noticed what looked like the coma patients walking around the village, because he didn’t just see them as bodies in need of care in the hospital, he really saw them.
The doctor uses his past and reputation to drive away the aliens again. Interesting that when ten did it in the library, he got a postponement, but when 11 did it, he got a full on retreat. I think this underlines the progression on ten near the end of his time, gradually turning into ‘River’s Doctor’ even before his regeneration. (Of course when at the end of the series River tell the Dalek to look HER up, we discover, perhaps, the one thing even more terrifying than the doctor: his wife.)
Inevitable cries of DEM, inevitably, I think, wrong. Rory with his camera phone is introduced right at the start, enables the Doctor to work out the puzzle, and is used at the end to help thwart prisoner zero.
14 July 2013 at 15:19 #13868Fascinating watching this after Eleven. I got a sense of River, in a timey-whimey way, influencing the development of the Doctor. After all her words about ‘her doctor’ we see Ten win more time from the Vashta by telling them to look him up. This is something Eleven does in his first episode- something River does in the last episode of his first season. I quite like this thought because it gives a sense of the influence between them going two ways.
Tate was brilliant in this episode. And Moffat tends to make me uncharacteristically romantic- I always wished she could have been given her silent, gorgeous, adoring husband back at the end. She wouldn’t have needed to know where he came from. It does feel like a tragedy disguised as a gag, that she looses him because of his stutter.
I’ve always wondered about the different responses. River: I hate you sometimes. Ten: I know. Eleven: You don’t.
And Rivers line about time being re-written: Not those times, not one line, don’t you dare. I think that was one thing that was oddly seductive about River to Eleven- knowing that you would inspire so much love in another person, that could be very attractive to a ‘lonely god’.
14 July 2013 at 12:51 #13832@craig– thank you! I did in fact like that. Not just me on Ten’s contrition then. I love the fact that with the internet, any passing thought one might have about something like this, someone’s made a compilation! (See also: ‘Imagine if Edward had fixated on Buffy)
It’s a testament to Tennant’s acting that even though, about a quarter of the way through ‘Sorry’ stopped sounding like a word and just became a weird noise, he managed to seem sincere pretty much all the way though.
9 July 2013 at 09:45 #13414Donna is one of my favourite companions- second only to Rory. (River I don’t count as a companion except in a timey-wifey kind of way). I liked ‘ten’ (in inverted commas till the anniversary episode I suppose) a lot more when Donna was with him, and I gained a lot more respect for Catherine Tate as an actress than I ever thought possible. (My heart sank when I heard she’s going to do a Brit re-make of ‘Everybody loves Raymond’. Unless they completely smash up the source material, it seems a terrible waste).
Interesting that it is ‘ten’ who says spoilers first- its a lovely lead in to their story. He’s in a library. The shelves are full of spoilers. But one book, with the biggest spoilers in the universe is on it’s way in Rivers pocket.
One thing I’ve noticed with ten, re watching more of his episodes, is this: If the Guardian asked ‘Eleven’ ‘what word or words do you overuse’ he’d probably have to say ‘basically: run’. If you asked ‘ten’, it would probably be ‘sorry’. ‘I’m sorry, I’m so sorry’ and ‘and, I’m very sorry’ crop up a lot. Mostly for accidentally or indirectly causing harm to someone. It makes me think of ‘Eleven’ in TGWW- eleven, though genuinely remorseful, never apologies as often or as easily as ten.
River was amazing here. Not quite perfect, she wasn’t intended to be perfect, and her rather contemptuous dismissal of Miss E in contrast to Donna ‘the nice lady’ makes that clear (though Donna hadn’t just been stuck on a ship with her for what seems to have felt like a very long time.)
Young eyes- for, later, ‘Eleven’ and his old eyes. I do think it was set up that River knew different incarnations of the Doctor. And she’d have to be quite busy, but it’s still possible. But mostly I see this- and TGITF as indicating a kind of protest over the Doctor-Rose storyline. Moffat had no problem with the Doctor in Love- just not with his companion. Which is why I could never see his relationship with Clara turning completely romantic.
29 June 2013 at 20:51 #13008I will admit, watching these, I’m getting some idea why people get so irritated with Tennant/Smith. It even makes me want an older doctor even more (if we can’t keep Smith) because it does give a different dimension to the stories. Not better, but different. And if the doctor can’t run, the companions can. Smith is my Doctor, and this is probably why I think I’d like someone dryer, more deadpan, less active to replace him.
‘I do hope that girl Leela isn’t in danger’ (or something like that. I liked that. Again, not a companion in need of rescue, and I found the doctor refreshingly un-protective- if he is a little paternal towards him, its clearly hands-off parenting.
the rat! Ahh, I want one. My boyfriend used to have rats. (Not as pets. He had snakes…) but this rat looked quite cute gnawing at its food. A bit like a Yorkie, ironically.
‘The Palace Theatre Ghost’ is not such an iconic title as ‘The Phantom of the Opera’. But Erik didn’t have giant rats, so…
I like combination of an animate puppet, and humans turned into puppets. But, um, if he’s stealing their life essence, why do they have to be female? (As if I didn’t know. 😉 )
What is it with weapons made in Birmingham?
‘If I’m still here at high tide’ ‘yes?’ ‘don’t bother’
The dialogue between the Doctor and Lightfoot was great, the best part of it for me. I thought the part where Leela was escaping rather lacking in tension- it just seemed very choreographed. And when the rat caught up to her, I thought, wouldn’t she be rather good at fighting off huge animals? Not to mention the fact that Chang doesn’t even notice that the woman he takes out of the dressing room had different coloured hair than the woman he left in the dressing room- and there was even a blond wig in the background! And he had hold of each woman’s arm. But this was sort of dealt with when it was made clear he’s getting more and more desperate to fulfil his masters orders, taking more and more risks. And he was in a hurry, and maybe he didn’t want to look closely at the people he was taking to their death.
23 June 2013 at 23:23 #12860@wolfweed– re: phantom of the opera/opera ghost- there was a clear reference in the last episode, so the homage started there, though quite subtlety.
23 June 2013 at 22:58 #12856OK, feel confirmed on my ‘Phantom of the Opera’ reference from the last episode- not that this story is a ‘version’ of that just that at least one person behind this story knew Gaston Leroux’s writings. Echoes in this episode include the morally compromised owner of the theatre, someone (though very un-Erick-like) in a mask, connections of tunnels under the theatre, including a river, and the Doctors reference to a ‘reclusive phantom’. This episode has a very GL vibe aside from that one novel famously adapted by ALW.
Not much in special effects- I felt that although the flashing eyes were, to modern eyes, rather basic, the eyes of the theatre owner were fantastic, the ripples across his face so well done, the scene really worked,
I like the concept of the doctor here. ‘a man different from all of us’. ‘A dilettante’ (and Leela laughs). I like the way he bares his teeth. I like the angry way he explains the fireworks at someone’s death, building on the last episodes revelation that he knows several ‘Chinese’ languages, I’d say this is cleared from any suggestion of racism by this.
and I love Leela- meat! flesh!
some of what the Doctor says here, re: anachronisms, I think really drives home the perfectness of, many years later, the Doctor marrying/;marrying’ an archaeologist- archaeology is about things found out of place, and examining why. The Doctor is a huge, walking anachronism. How could either resist?
21 June 2013 at 16:44 #12697@stevethewhistle- you’re quite right. It was a typo, honest!
20 June 2013 at 00:31 #12651@htpbdet– re: 11th- his first episode was the eleventh hour, much later we had him say ‘how much trouble? on a scale of one to ten? eleven’ but I don’t think he ever said he was ‘eleven’. and that last comment in particular could refer to a predecessor…
the idea of the doctor suppressing his memories is heavily featured in NIS. But once the Doctor is dead? Who could do it then? The Tardis? in whom the track of tears are located, who is still alive enough to cause disorientation for Clara- and was that on purpose, to make sure she made the jump?
Clara’s ‘so that’s who’ when reading the book is interesting. Probably not the doctor- that was in a ‘tiny corner’. and not herself, because she still didn’t know between that and the time re-set. ‘So that’s who River Song is’? I TNOTD, she mentioned that she had heard of River Song, just hadn’t thought she was a woman. Maybe she found out the who here, but forgot? I
17 June 2013 at 14:29 #12413@bluesqueakpip– yes, should be doing creative writing next. (eek, need to sort out financial aid, thanks for the reminder!)
17 June 2013 at 14:25 #12412@scaryb– I’m 34! dropped out of university after one year, way back. But since I’ve spent the last few years not working because I’m a carer, and since the OU doesn’t involve living with a bunch of students (was never keen) decided to get a degree now. At some point I will be able to/have to work.
@bluesqueakpip– thank you. actually did an ok patch up job on that question, but lost marks on the other two because of time issues. I defiantly think not bad for my first exam for a decade and a half.
@htpbdet– thank you. And once again, nice to see you back. 🙂
17 June 2013 at 12:28 #12399@scaryb– thank you! I honestly think the hardest part of an exam is reading the questions properly. Once that’s done, the rest should fall into place.
I can imagine that with Spanish and Italian ;).
16 June 2013 at 23:36 #12392@jimthefish– thank you.
16 June 2013 at 23:34 #12391@Shazzbot– English does in fact have plural ‘yous’, in certain dialects. ‘Youse’ for example. I recently realised how married I was, despite not being officially married, when I referred to ‘oose’, for our, (I’m randomly making up spellings from how my boyfriend speaks) because I was bought up speaking RP. The point has been made that some dialects allow for more precision in speaking because they make the difference between singular and plural, formal and informal, more than RP does. Northern dialects in particular are closer to older English, formal and informal, thee and you, ow’t and now’t- in the 18th, even 19th century southerners, even ‘posh’ southerners said ‘ought’ and ‘nought’. What interests me about American dialects, is that in some places you/they also retain older usages, like plural yous, and also the way the English sometimes get snobbish about American compound words (make a new word by joining together lots of old ones) when a: we do that sometimes (antidisestablishmentarianism, anyone? (That was even in the spell checker!)) and b: in German that is done a lot.
16 June 2013 at 23:08 #12389Re: racism- as I was trying to say in my original post, I think the episode was more ‘agen’ than for it, I think I was handling my own reaction to the made up actor- it’s a little like my instinctive, almost unthinking reaction when I first saw a boarder Morris side with boot-polish on their faces. I knew, because my mother is into Morris (some of you might in fact have seen her Morris dance, in costume, in her living room for a BBC documentary, but in fact she is a member of a couple of sides) that the smearing of faces with black is supposed to be about disguising yourself, back when begging was illegal and people went out and danced for money- I also know some sides claim to be dancing ‘Moorish dances’, which complicates things a little, but this is usually a shorter tradition than the usual boarder Morris, but despite this, when I first saw it, I felt a moment of shock. but this feeling did not make what I was seeing necessarily racist. In the case of this episode, I do think there was enough reference to casual racism of the time- when it was pointed out that the corpse was Caucasian, for example- to get over it. And the Doctors command of different Chinese languages was a nice touch- made the point there is no such language as ‘Chinese’ exactly, which can be extended to racial stereotypes generally. Which rather brings me back to what I was thinking with the Doctors reaction to the suicide in the police station- I had the feeling of being left to draw my own conclusions and have my own reactions to what happened. Which I like as a general rule, and definitely here.
15 June 2013 at 23:58 #12350Loved that. especially, I must admit, the Phantom of the Opera/Opera ghost (better translation) reference- the stage hand saying he saw a moving skull underneath. In the novel, it was the rat-catcher, I think. And then we end with rats…
So Leela is in many ways the Doctor’s body-guard, particularly handed with a bigger, older, slower Doctor. So where did the idea of the companion/assistant being a female constantly rescued by the Doctor come from? Was it ever consistently the case?
‘Show us a trick’ (man dies) ‘very good!’ (Doctor giggles.) what interested me here was that this was a very cold- alien- response to a mans death. The Doctor reacts this way, Leela, though clearly not pro-murder, comes from a different mindset- the audience is left to respond to this moment how they will, without a character to prod/project their emotional response.
The comment ‘we all look the same’ meant by the character that, to people like the Doctor, Chinese people all look the same. In fact, to the Doctor, who is conversant in different Chinese languages, do we all look the same?
I wasn’t keen on how the minor characters were Chinese or from proximate countries, but the main character was clearly made up to look ‘Chinese’. I don’t know how much this was down to wanting to use established actors, but it wouldn’t float nowadays. Of course, for all I know, the character is something else made up to look Chinese. I felt some potentially racist aspects here, along with fairly clear anti-racist aspects- the ‘we all look the same’, the policeman ‘he’s a Chinese, he’ll jaw jaw eventually’ not presented as good, the initial distaste towards the Doctor and Leela because they came across a little Gypsy-like, also not presented as good, the comment about the corpse being carried by the men as ‘a European body’, likewise.
I enjoyed the slower pace. It can go either way- some people have mentioned how BG Who often felt padded. Some people complain that AG Who is too rushed. I think that at it’s best, BG who was not terminally padded, and at it’s best AG Who is not fatally rushed. But it’s never going to please everyone all the time, I’m not sure it’s even supposed to.
14 June 2013 at 21:08 #12302@craig– fantastic- my weekends have meaning again! (rather wish I was exaggerating…)
14 June 2013 at 20:54 #12300oh re: BG doctor- I have recently felt a real hankering to watch some pre-reboot who, and would personally really welcome some guidance as to which are the best to watch, as well as discussions on it. I can’t believe the BBC aren’t saturating late night BBC 3/4 + iplayer with it, frankly, I would have done that since the reboot, personally, so I would also appreciate advice as to the (ahem) cheapest way of finding these episodes.
14 June 2013 at 20:47 #12299HTPBDET- so happy to see you back. Although your contributions while incapacitated put many if not all the capacitated members to shame, its genuinely good to see that (almost perfect ;)) sequence of letters back on the forum.
14 June 2013 at 20:39 #12298@snail42- it’s been set up a bit- The Doctor and the Cyber-Doctor playing chess. (Though while the Game Of Thrones, I imagine, is like 3D-chess+monopoly+risk, the Game of Doctors is, in my mind, more like Snakes and Ladders+Cludo).
14 June 2013 at 20:27 #12297Just got my A150 module result back today- 74% for the exam- context: when I took the exam, I made a major boo-boo on the first question, let’s just say I originally wrote an answer on a text taken from a 20th century poet’s reworking of an ancient Greek text as though it was in fact a translation of the (definitive written version of) the ancient Greek text and only realised my mistake a quarter of an hour before the end of the exam. Fortunately I was using a computer, and now I have the result, I’m glad I didn’t request extra time, because it was sloppy of me to make that mistake, and I think I can feel pleased with myself for the result, without feeling that I had too many allowances made.
(86% on assignments as well. So: happy.)
13 June 2013 at 08:40 #12192Yeah me to. Bit weird- ‘I like your profile’ my profiles completely blank! ’email me so you can see my pictures’ bah. I suppose this means this website has ‘arrived’- we even get spam! swings and roundabouts…
10 June 2013 at 13:38 #12117@jwalker– it’s an interesting argument- that it’s not that the Doctor is ‘fundamentally male’, but that he has qualities which are, just as erroneously I think, not associated with men, or not on screen.
@scaryb re: role models, one thing that interests me is how feminism actually grew in this country at the time when the dissolution of the monasteries, and then the rise of parliamentary ‘democracy’ had removed women from traditional positions of power in the country. (No Abbesses etc, no Queen Consorts, a Queen regnant without much if any political power, the power of the aristocracy increasingly tied in with parliament). So women couldn’t aspire to, even daydream about being a powerful women, they could only look at men. (Of course women did run businesses, usually as widows, but they had no direct ‘legitimate’ political influence). At the same time, again due to the rise of parliamentary ‘democracy’, men increasingly could find role models, from all classes.
I think the thing with DW, is that it started from scratch once. It might have seemed unlikely at one point that any children could ‘relate’ to and find a role model in an older man. And when they put someone younger in, maybe to help younger audiences to relate, they used a female character. So I don’t think it’s the big jump that some people think it is. But I do get the argument that we already have quite a few badass, serious fighting-skills heroines, but not many heroes that are anything but. I don’t know, though, if we should stop assuming that children take things quite as literally as we tend to think they do. There is no brain better designed for learning than a child’s brain.
9 June 2013 at 22:54 #12103@juniperfish– I think the many many possibilities of a Clara-Dalek companion is probably one of Moffit’s gifts to the internet. It’s right out there now- not quite, but a whisper away from cannon. Almost as though he had the idea, decided it wouldn’t quite float for the official program, but really liked it.
I personally think the doctor would avoid ordering eggs around Clalek, (as I have randomly decided to call her,) because ‘that’s the sort of thing that sets her off’. And any time he declares ‘nobody dies’, its not a mission statement, or a fate tempting expression of hope, but more an instruction to Clalek. ‘Nobody dies’ (cross glare) this time.’
8 June 2013 at 20:41 #12069and then I log into facebook at find this, which along with @bluesqueakpip‘s comments, makes me feel vindicated!
8 June 2013 at 16:20 #12065@hallucigeniclipstick– welcome! and yes. Bill Hicks and Dr Who are two of my favourite things.
8 June 2013 at 16:18 #12064@bluesqueakpip– they were even saying, along with calling us weirdos, ‘why don’t you call the RSCPA then?’ I wasn’t sure of their logic. We said we weren’t calling the RSCPA because it wasn’t a cruelty case. Last time we did contact the RSPCA two people ended up going to jail for two months. (That was terrible case.)
(What I should have said, looking right at the people, was that we weren’t calling the RSPCA because there are some dumb animals the RSPCA just won’t deal with and I’m looking at a group of them. 😉
8 June 2013 at 14:46 #12059@bluesqueakpip– Wonderful suggestion, if only… ‘Mind your own business’ indeed. Horrible people. We had to drive off in the end because they were getting out of the car and my boyfriend was getting ready to hit them with his crutches…
8 June 2013 at 13:00 #12054Well I know its early but need a quick drink. Just got into a row in Morrison’s carpark when I went to pick up my paper. There was a car with two dogs in. The owner had left the windows partly open, and left water, but the water was gone and the dogs were getting very hot. So I found a Morrison’s employee to ask them to put an announcement over the tannoy to let the owners know, because when he was able to work, my boyfriend worked in a pet crematorium, and he had lot of dogs in summer who died in the car, even with the windows partly open and water left for them. A family sitting in the car next to us started shouting at us to ‘get a life’ and ‘mind our own business’. We weren’t attacking the owners of the dogs, just wanted to let them know.
Mmmm, pint. That’s better.
8 June 2013 at 00:13 #12032re: troll, I’m tempted to assume this is an attempt at humour, given the Rock Hudson/Captain Jack comments. The problem is, this ‘humour’ has rather homophobic aspects, i.e. the ‘joke’ that the next doctor should be a ‘real man’ from a persona that apparently has no idea of the men in question’s sexual orientation, hinges on an irony that someone would consider those actors to be ‘real men’. Being gay doesn’t make anyone less of a man or a woman. So, in my opinion, the joke fails, and makes the earlier Flynn comment also distasteful, given the statutory rape allegations, allegations of Nazi sympathies, the fact he was probably referring to his suggested bisexuality only makes it worse.
I think his alleged children, as well as his ‘also female’ wife should be worried. But again, I think this is a persona, and a joke. One in very poor taste. Considering the role the feeling of discomfort plays in humour, it’s all the more significant that the joke is also unfunny.
7 June 2013 at 19:38 #12002@juniperfish, the interesting thing about relating to female characters, is that it doesn’t seem to have been the case that only women read, for example, gothic novels, which frequently involved female characters in dangerous situations, reacting with courage and curiosity, and frequently saving young men from peril. At a time when there were greater social (and legal) differences between the lives of men and women, courage and curiosity seemed to relate to both sexes.
Which also makes it curious about the lack of female writers in Who, and generally in sci-fi and horror. Back in the day women more or less owned the gothic genre. Male critics from the 18th century onwards have tended to place writers like Radcliff above Walpole and Lewis in terms of quality of writing. (Personally I find ‘the monk’ fun if you regard it as game of ‘gothic horror bingo’: the devil, witchcraft, cross dressing, accidental incest, catacombs, dead baby, nuns, accidentally ending up at a murder b&b for the night.) The female writers of the time tended to focus more on the horror that is contained within human nature. At some point people began to get the idea that these genres were not, as a rule, the kind of things women write. I just can’t see why, for anyone with access to bookshops or a library.
6 June 2013 at 23:56 #11959@juniperfish– I do think this debate is raising some interesting issues.
A: is it that the overall characterisation of the doctor (sorry, brief pause for a cheer that I correctly spelt ‘characterisation’ despite losing confidence half way through) is in any way incompatible/inconsistent with a female doctor, or that people (of both sexes and varying viewpoints) would respond so differently to the same qualities in a female doctor than they do in a male that it might place too greater burden on the writers/actor?
B: Is the fact that girls/women are, arguably, better at relating to male protagonists than boys/men are at relating to female protagonists a reason why there is no need for a female doctor, or a reason why, perhaps, a female doctor might be a good idea?
( If boys/men from ‘humble’ beginnings had never related to the achievements of men born of a higher class, they would never have demanded the franchise, if Doctor Who had existed in Victorian Times, there would have been many articulate arguments against the Doctor ever being ‘working class’. a good argument for him being working class, of course, would have been Faraday.)
C: how important is the fancyability of the doctor, and would more women and men be put off by the change, than would be put ‘on’ by it? and should this be a factor?
D: is probably one of the oldest and most beloved franchises of all time I) not the place to address these issues? or b) exactly the place to address these issues?
I don’t have an answer for any of these questions. Most of me agrees with @jimthefish: stop pretending it hasn’t been cast (reminds me of the whole thing when a band pretends to leave at the end of a concert, but if you clap and shout loud enough, they’ll come back and do their hit single. They already rehearsed it and set up the lighting. Just do the show…
6 June 2013 at 15:32 #11936@phaseshift– I think I like your comments on @danmartinuk‘s more than I did his actual comment: ‘his strengths and his weaknesses are, to me, fundamentally male. He is impatient and petulant and always think he’s right – massive generalisations, yes, but qualities that have been hardwired into the character for 50 years.’
I can accept the argument that, as a whole, many people, both male and female will tend to regard these qualities with less hostility from a man, that anti-feminists (of both sexes) will use such characterisation as an illustration for why ‘feminism goes to far nowadays’, and that many feminists would even use this characterisation as evidence of sexism, which is depressing but quite probably true.
But while I found the patriarchy upholding comment in the other article factious, I do think the point is that these qualities are more accepted in men, not that they are male qualities. One thing I loved about Rory’s character was that Moffit managed to create a male character who was in (what is, in a massive generalisation) ‘feminine’ kind of profession, and not remotely interested in asserting dominance in his relationship, but clearly (though alas not to everyone) a strong and admirable and impressive character.
Having said that, I can only imagine the scorn that would have been poured down on a female writer, had he been created by a woman, an I cannot forget the scorn the character did receive for being ‘wet’ and ‘whipped’ just because he was kind and loving and (for the most part) easy going. So I can see the difficulties in a female Doctor.
‘impatient, petulant, and thinks their always right’ however, seems quite gender neutral to me. (Might just be the people I associate with…)
3 June 2013 at 00:01 #11717I thank that since not only Smith, but Eccles and Tennant had solid theatrical experience behind them, we should be looking at stage actors. It makes sense, the role is high pressure and requires a great deal of charisma and devotion of time. Supposing the next doctor is going to be older (by which I mean at least late 30’s to early 40’s, which I don’t consider old-old, I’m nearly there myself, but I think it was a substantial achievement to pull off two very young looking Doctors who came across so differently, three might be harder to do, and before Smith bagged the role they were looking for older.) it’s also a good way to get someone with proper experience, but not a household name. But probably not someone with only theatre experience, because it is a very different medium in which to work.
(Nowadays that is. See @phaseshift ‘s wonderful blog on Sapphire and Steel for an example of earlier almost theatre/TV crossovers. ‘ITV’s answer to Doctor Who’- it made an interesting conversation.)
2 June 2013 at 10:29 #11612Also heartbroken. And I agree the next doctor should be older. Smith and Tennant played very different doctors, but I think there is a limit to how many different ways a young looking, very energetic doctor can be played, especially if he remains male. (I’d love to see a female doctor, and yes, I do think it’s possible.)
But if male, how about Richard Coyle? (Going Postal, the Libertine, Strange, Topsy-Turvy, Coupling)
1 June 2013 at 23:37 #11545Bluesqueakpip- yes. Matt Smith was an almost unexpected piece of genius, I do have confidence in Moffit’s casting.
I rather do hope this time it is someone in their 40’s. It shows Moffs skill, following a young Doctor with another young Doctor without replication, but it would make more sense now to get someone older.
1 June 2013 at 23:26 #11543@craig– makes sense.
That’s why I was so surprised to hear it.
They seemed to pull off a nice surprise with JLC. I do think, though, maybe it was possible to place the leak in the realm of gossip/misdirection. I mean, some people ‘say’ they got an email they shouldn’t have. How do they prove it? ah well. Like I said before, doesn’t necessarily mean no more Matt Smith. (I’m clutching at straws…)
1 June 2013 at 23:15 #11540me too.
Matt Smith was ‘my’ Doctor. I quite liked the re-boot, liked Eccles, liked Tennant, love Smith. Of course, some of that might mean: liked RTD, love Moffit. So braveheart! lets try to trust in Moffits casting…
1 June 2013 at 23:07 #11537Urgh, my boyfriend was just flicking through the channels and we happened to hear about it.
Seems wrong to let it out before the 50th university special.
I don’t really remember how it happened with ‘nine’ and ‘ten’ (assuming they are…) but I do think in this case it lets a lot out of the bag. He’ll survive the 50th, for example, at least long enough to lead into Christmas.
Two points though- given that Christmas editions are usually relatively poorly received/seen as a bit novelty/the episodes ‘non-fans’ are most likely to watch, it’s a bit audacious. And I think people have said that Matt Smith said he has signed on for longer- does regeneration necessarily mean no more ‘Eleven’ (assuming he is…). Dark Doctor, Cyber Doctor, Dalek Doctor, Ganger Doctor, Echo Doctor? (Doctor What?)
1 June 2013 at 22:55 #11532@Shazzbot– unfortunately to us dog lovers, dogs are basically furry toddlers spliced with wild wolf.
Admittedly we rescue dogs with health/emotional problems, so probably see the worst of this, behaviour wise. But I will say this about our Norfolk Terrier (like a black and tan Yorkshire terrier, only with a womble like face), she genuinely seems to want to play with the ducks she runs towards, but show her a Rottweiler, Mastiff etc, she’s up on her tippie-claws biting their noses. (In her defence, while he was still able to work, my boyfriend used her at the dogs home to see if big dogs were dog aggressive, so she was kind of trained to do that in controlled conditions.)
31 May 2013 at 21:55 #11469@Shazzbot– that is a brilliant response to a horrible thing (the original page).
you Yorkshiremen (that’s men in the unisex sense) have a great sense of humour. And ferrets! I love ferrets, me. I was at a country show the other year and there was ferret racing. You got to place bets and everything…
28 May 2013 at 00:12 #11159@scaryb– this is around the time I tend to start drinking shots of tabasco for a bet! (frankly, more pleasant than tequila. Margarita’s excepted. Mmmm, Margarita!)
27 May 2013 at 23:49 #11157@scaryb– I’m not sure. There are some other pictures where she’s kneeling to pop the question. Personally I think it was pre-arranged to save money on an announcement 🙂 (they’ve already done a Civil partnership and a hand-fastening, so I can’t blame them for saving a bit of money!)
It’s fun, as well, after all the complaints about how young Doctor who actors have been since the re-boot, (unfair I think, Eccles isn’t that young, and didn’t Smith get it despite his age?) to get, I think, the oldest actor for the role. (Not that I think Hurt will be Smiths replacement.) Fantastic casting and a brilliant challenge for Matt Smith. (One I expect he’ll relish).
27 May 2013 at 19:56 #11149@Shazzbot– the blond one. (Elizabeth) 🙂
27 May 2013 at 19:19 #11147I’d stick with The Rose & Crown, but remembering the hysterical knee-jerking over certain characters and plots one encounters from time to time on the internet (Not so much on the Guardian thread, thankfully) how about ‘The Gay Agenda’? (c) my sister in the RTD years.
(Just for context, my sister pictured here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/05/gay-marriage-vote-cameron-adrift
27 May 2013 at 18:16 #11141@Shazzbot– oh I have. (To prove it I’ll tell you a surprisingly clean story on the subject:
(I just meant, if you were holding back because this is a ‘family’ site, well, we have a pub now!)
when I was working in a pub, a male customer came in, walking rather… carefully, looking very shaken. He ordered a pint, drank half of it then told us he had just had a ‘Prince Albert’, and now he had to go to the gents for the first time since- he’d been putting it off. Away he shuffled, looking very apprehensive.
The lights for the toilets was located behind the bar. 😉
Poor bloke, when he finally came out told us that he’d thought he was actually passing out when the lights started flickering….
27 May 2013 at 17:11 #11136@Shazzbot– re: ‘Albert’ joke- maybe take it to the pub? That’s the ‘adult’ space. Though I suppose it depends how blue (hehe) the joke would be…
27 May 2013 at 17:08 #11135@fishcombobulated– that’s an interesting thought, though personally I think the ‘dark times’ were after his final time with River. Vastra and Jenny clearly knew what had happened ‘he still hasn’t contacted you?’ and I also got the impression he wasn’t very keen on ten’s idea to ‘make a back up’ of her. (Possibly because he loved River and ten didn’t).
I do think they’ll be back, though. The exchange with the GI, protesting that the Doctors hands were ‘never’ stained with blood might lead to an interesting point when they see the Doctor in bloodier action- in AGMGTW, he thought, when he thought he was victorious, that he had managed it with no blood spilled. As the GI pointed out, Solomon, Daleks etc, but I don’t know if they have really seen him take a life.
(Not that it’s something he does lightly. But nor does the Hurt Doctor seem to have done what he did lightly…)
27 May 2013 at 12:06 #11123re: Soufflé girl- she does say at the start of the episode: I shall be soufflé girl. She’s referencing that. ‘I’m soufflé girl after all’.
In AotD, he starts off calling Oswin ‘Carmen’ because of the music she is playing. He switches to ‘Soufflé girl’ I think because although a ship crash landed and trapped, in which the inhabitant plays music is feasible, the same person cooking a recipe that depends on fresh, perishable ingredients isn’t. But she’s not referring to that. Its just that she went in with soufflés on her mind, and it came out in her echoes.
(although it’s quite possible that AotD’s ‘soufflé girl came first, and Moffit decided to pick up the reference again.
25 May 2013 at 19:31 #10944@satsumajoe– psychology degree sounds a lot more useful than the ‘humanities specialising in creative writing’ that I’m doing.
Yes, I’m looking forward to it. Saw some negative feedback on the OU website (credit to the OU for including it- or evil mechanisms of the OU consciousness?) saying there was a lack of support compared to other creative writing courses, but I just thought, well, it’ a level two course, some people might find the transition from level one hard, and besides, it’s the kind of course a lot of people take who aren’t studying for a degree, so maybe they didn’t realise what they were signing up for. (after all, if it’s too easy, it isn’t much of an achievement.)
-
AuthorPosts
