[Nick @replies]

@rob

Unfortunately I saw very little of what Brown said on Sky News. I don’t disagree with you about politicians, but there is a difference between giving them a hard time in an interview (for which the journalist needs to be very well briefed on the topic to be able to bring out the facts or counter-arguments) and most interviews we see on TV news.

As @pedant implies, setting the news agenda is more important today than anything else, as the news itself is shaped and controlled by the agenda setter all too often. On Scottish Independence debate, the agenda was set by the pro-union side (I think 1 Scottish newspaper and no English news papers supported the idea of independence).

[Nick @replies]

@pedant

I’m not sure what the title Business Editor etc actually means other than as a way of showing seniority. I read Pestons blog relatively frequently (or did when he actually wrote one) and found it to be a mix of news (often based on rumour or unattributable briefings), analysis and opinion. His TV pieces often go the same way, some analysis of the situation followed by his opinion on the meaning.

You may think his opinion is authoritive, but from my own knowledge it isn’t and it generally isn’t the only point of view either, if you read multiple sources. He’s a good journalist imo. Analysis of news is needed, but opinion should always be stated as such. Unfortunately, too much UK news coverage is clouded by opinion and worse slanted by deliberate choice for political reasons. The BBC remains pretty free of this, more than most (as does Sky News) although there is always the problem of what gets covered and what doesn’t.

[Nick @replies]

e@pedant

Absolutely, but, imo, it too often goes too far. Its the job of the opposition politicians to point up the deficiencies of the governments policies (or vice versa). A journalist job should be to get them to explain it as clearly as possible. This may mean asking them to explain elements which don’t make sense (or runs counter to some particular facts), but it doesn’t mean a journalist should act like an opposition politician. If they want to give there take or personal analysis, it becomes a comment piece and not news.

Going back to the independence campaign, I cant say I saw one better together politician or news commentary piece (paper, broadsheet or internet) that set out the positive case for the Union (pls point me to one if you read it).

IMO, any clear rational analysis of the economic issues surrounding independence would have to conclude that there was actually too little information to know what the impact would have actually been (in the short or longer term) and that a lot of that uncertainty was wrapped up in the divorce negotiations between Scotland and the UK. Neither side really made that clear, which lead to both sides setting out their negotiating position instead. For example, it would have been perfectly possible for iScotland to be in a currency union with the UK, but it is also clear that the necessary terms of such a union might be too much for iScotland to accept. Such a Union might only have been needed for 2 or 3 years post independence to give iScotland enough breathing room to set up its own currency.

It is also my opinion that using fear based argument instead of the opposite approach is likely to be a mistake in the long run. Negative cases don’t address the underlying aspiration. Instead of closing down the independence debate for a generation, I think it is just going to have the opposite effect. The tone of Jim’s comments above if anything tells you something about that.

[Nick @replies]

@jimthefish

I’m sorry to say that. living in Dubai, whilst following the independence debate as close as I could, I missed the BBC lies thing. I’m not sure how serious it was , but I would say Broadcast TV political journalism has changed. Given that professional politicians of all parties are heavily media trained and rarely give straight forward, essentially truthful answer, journalist seem to have decided its their job to put politicians on the spot to try and force a straight answer. It rarely or never works, but that is todays tactic. Whether this was the case with the Salmond interview or not, I bet it played a part. No journalist can be neutral from their opinion either.

For the rest of the media, newspapers in particular, are political biased both by party and ownership. The BBC and Sky slaves after their agenda, to their detriment. My biggest concern is the debate around independence was the way that the open issues around the impact of independence were smoothed over by both sides. However, in my opinion, project fear had major elements of deliberabate propaganda to generate fear rather than a balanced discussion of the unknowable unknowns (to partially borrow a phrase) that independence would have arise (most notable on the negotiations that independence would have entailed). None of us know, what the vote might have been without project fear, but it seems a certainty that any independence majority would have been small. I think its fair to say Scotland is split on this issue today.

Personally, without a major change in the way the UK is run politically, Scottish independence is a certainty probably within 10 years, 15 at the outside. As I see it, your choice as an independence supporter is to continue to argue your case (which means a better thought through economic case I’m afraid) to win over the hearts and minds of the undecided or unconvinced. In the mean time, you can also add your voice to those parts of UK opinion, which would like to see and think we need, devolution in England to help create a fairer society for everyone and an end to Westminster politics in their current form (although that may be wishful thinking, the more plural the voices there the better we’ll be). I don’t think this means that you need give up on Independence in any way, but it would be nice to help your cousins down the road to try and walk a similar path.

Whatever your feelings are towards the BBC right now, I don’t think that means you need put aside all the good things that the institution does, let alone the things that it has spawned (like here). Please come back; I miss your opinion and voice already.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

Thanks for that brilliant fact – I had never come across the idea that some Victorian marriages were so class divided that they had to pretend they weren’t married. I wonder how common they were.

@pedant

Thanks for that as well. Gay relationships were much more common than we appreciate today in the past. It might have been common knowledge, but never talked about out loud.

@scaryb

re your Mme Vastra comment

🙂

On a slightly more serious note, I had got the impression (probably wrongly) that female Silurians were more numerous than the male of the species – hence the role reversal ?

[Nick @replies]

@janetteb @scaryb

I think there is unreal violence (see most westerns, most war movies from the 60’s/70’s, Leela’s Janis thorn, cartoons, silent era slap stick comedy etc), which doesn’t feel reel to adults or children and (I think mostly) doesn’t really affect them developmentally. Then there is the rest which seems realistic, which is frightening and damaging to young children.

Unlike Rose’s mum slapping Tennant, it didn’t seem to me that this slap naturally evolves out of the scene or the character (eg River). Nor did I find it plausible that the Doctor was frightened or lost what to do next or had given up, needing a jolt to get him moving.

Yes he was intellectually pleased that the Dalek had proved to be exactly what it seemed to be – implacable evil – (thus avoiding him needing to reevaluate his entire way of dealing with the Daleks, something which the existence of a good Dalek would have demanded), but I didn’t get that he was about to either surrender his own life or Clara’s, just to stand around feeling pleased with himself.

I have seen men and women slap or punch each other in real life, but never outside the context of an extremely hot argument (or excessive alcohol intake). Clara wasn’t in that place at the moment. Poking him in the ribs, shaking his arm, shouting at him would have been just as reasonable in the context IMO.

I don’t see the use of mild non-comic violence as being warranted in the way the scene as written and shot. For me, this was a poor judgment call by the production team. Not a sackable offence though.

I have to say that, none of the other previous times in AG Who, gave me any cause to actually think about the slap at all. It seems many of us feel the same this time round given the discussion.

[Nick @replies]

@miapatrick

anymore than I think the Vastra-Jenny marriage appears abusive

and yet as Jenny points out, its still depicted as quite an odd relationship. It seems more in keeping with that a Victorian gentleman might have had with his (much poorer) mistress than a modern day couple to me.

[Nick @replies]

@janetteb

No problem. If I hadn’t been pondering on whether I should comment on your slapgate comment then it would have been the other way round.

On slapgate, I agree with you that this

I think Clara is reacting, not just to the comment but to his attitude overall. It is a “wake up you are the Doctor” call, an expression of her frustration with the new regeneration. She is still not fully accepting him and certainly not ready to forgive him for not being “her doctor”, whom she knew to be “a good man”. I saw it as a wake up call, and delivered as an extreme reaction to an extreme situation because at that moment her life really depends upon the Doctor being “Her Doctor”.

may have been along the lines of what Ford/Moffat were thinking, but I never felt (from the scene context) that the Doctor was at all concerned about getting out of the Dalek (or killing it) so its hard for me to buy into the whole dramatic premise that there was any risk to Clara.

In the equivalent scene in Deep Breath, when he leaves her in real Danger, it would have worked well afterwards. I still don’t think any slap would be appropriate though in this sort of drama.

[Nick @replies]

@devilishrobby @janetteb

The Invisible Monster is the one you’re thinking of

[Nick @replies]

Bit late I know, but I was on holiday (for a change).

I really like Capaldi’s characterization of this immediate post-regeneration Doctor, who is, I think best characterized as relearning just who and what the Doctor is (as opposed to the TimeLord called the Doctor) @bluesqueakpip‘s character explanation feels right to me, so far. The character scenes around this have been really good and very well acted all round.

My only quibbles are that I don’t think the Matt scene was really needed at all and that mending the Doctor/Clara relationship post regeneration (which is ongoing at the moment) needed a bit than the 4 month gap (?) between the first and second stories to account for the change we see at the beginning of the story. This all still feels a bit scripted to me though, it lacks enough emotional bite to me so far.

On the “am I a good man” question, I thought it might have been a bit more cutting if Clara had answered that he used to be, but she wasn’t sure any more. If Clara lacks the deep trust in who the Doctor is (as Deep Breath showed us), then the “I don’t know” answer ought to be backed up by more distance between them in this story too. I felt the whole way the why can’t their be a “Good Dalek” point Clara delivered was a bit forced in the script at the end of the day.

Although I’ve really enjoyed watching both stories so far, I haven’t really felt that either has had that WOW factor that makes either story stand out as a potential future classic for me.

@phaseshift

re “slapgate”

Thanks for the reminder regarding previous slaps. I don’t particularly remember thinking or feeling anything was wrong with 3 of the previous examples at the time (I always thought that the whole Jenny kiss/slap thing was a small mistake), but like @thommck ‘s wife I did find this rather incongruous. On the whole, whether deserved or not in the context, I think it should have been done differently in this story.

[Nick @replies]

Well past the sell by date I know.

I finally re-watched this after what must be a 40 year gap (first episode original and final 3 in special edition). I didn’t have any particularly fond memory of this story (even from the novelization), but (apart from the element of padding – eg trike chase) I actually found it much more enjoyable than I had expected.

The story and the acting is generally excellent. I would highlight that both the Controller and the Guerilla’s change position across the story, although its much more obvious with the Controller. I not e that Barry Letts in the special features (it was the 2011 dvd) comments rather poorly on the director (not an actor’s or action director) and the general acting as being too stagey (Audrey Woods gets a specific mention) – he probably wasn’t a fan of the finished product.

I enjoyed the special edition (thank-you @bluesqueakpip) more than I had expected to, although I do think the new special effects were a bit incongruous, they didn’t distract from the story at all. The invasion scene at the end was never really necessary to the story, but having extra Daleks/Ogrons didn’t really improve it that much. It was poorly staged, shot and edited in the first place back in 1971 (or 72?).

@jimthefish

Not sure I completely agree with you regarding Terry Nation with hindsight. He definitely had his finger on the pulse when it came to Sci-Fi both as a writer and a Producer although I agree he pretty derivative from an idea’s point of view. Mind you, I don’t think you can point to that many people who have worked in the film/TV end of the genre who haven’t plagiarised or based their conception on an original idea from an earlier short story or novel (or combination of several stories and genres these days). I don’t see that as a problem at all. Its what you do with the idea rather than the source of the idea that’s most important IMO.

[Nick @replies]

I actually rewatched this a couple of months ago as BBC World Entertainment (or whatever they call it) showed it a few months ago (for the first time locally in Dubai). Definitely a tale of two halves – first half is great. The second half is amongst the worst Who ever (I’m probably only slightly exaggerating my opinion). It was also the first time AG Who put off my Brother’s kids (who are both slap in the middle of the target age group). In many ways, this story combines both the best and worst of the RTD era for me.

The only thing the that slightly puts me off the first half is the lack of social realism. I am minded to think that we really ought to show the past warts and all, complete with smoking, alcoholism, racism, starvation, extreme poverty and disease rather than the Walt Disney version. Of course a U rated Christmas show might not be the best place to do this, but I think Victorian London could have been portrayed better than it was.

Janette

I have to agree with you here. The GSR, as you call it, stomping all over London type story – and AG Who has had several different versions (especially in RTD’s era) – are almost always my least favourite to watch. I am pre-disposed to view the spectacle of an open Alien Invasion as likely to have such a significant impact on global society, that it becomes impossible for me to suspend the critical part of my brain (what’s left of it anyway). Its best left to Independence Day type films. Generally Who stories have been at their best when suspense/horror are the more important story elements than pure spectacle.

I actually think that TV as a whole is too safe now, but that’s a different story.

[Nick @replies]

@jimthefish

Conceptually I rather like the idea that the Daleks couldn’t really be bothered to deal with their slave functionary (ies presumably) in “person”; it makes sense to me that they would have total disdain for their slaves, that they prefer to spent their time on their X-box equivalent playing Call of Duty (insert your favourite here) (or writing Dalek poetry perhaps).

For this reason it also makes sense to me (as an adult) that they’d have a very limited force on Earth post conquest (or why bother with Ogrons or Human slave functionaries ?). The aesthetic that comes with a limited budget can be made to work if you want it to (once you’re past 12 anyway).

Cheers

Nick

[Nick @replies]

One question though

Does anyone know whether Louis Marks chose near eastern names for the guerillas for a symbolic reason ? (Anat, Boaz, Shura, and Monia are all Hebrew or Arabic in origin)

[Nick @replies]

@jimthefish

starting with Remembrance of the Daleks or can you take UNIT back further than the 1950s ? (mind you that was a deliberate cheat).

[Nick @replies]

@phaseshift

Thanks.

I always thought that Mike Yates character suffered for two reasons:

a) It was just never quite that well written, probably because they wanted/needed someone who ranked between the Brig and the troops and they didn’t really know how to handle it given the budgetary constraints (A captain would most likely have several lieutenants and several platoons reporting to him for example – we never see that UNIT has that sort of strength although it is implied occasionally).

b) The way Richard Franklin played the part always felt quite strange. Yates never seemed to be quite real to me. I’m not sure why exactly because he got plenty of screen time and did quite sensible things as a character. I guess Franklin needed more character scripting, whereas John Levene seemed completely natural as Benton.

In modern TV, Yates would be one of those characters who would be recast or marginalised/written out from Series 2 to give more screen time to the rest of the support team.

@jimthefish

The problem I think is that UNIT in the first Pertwee season didn’t quite work (4 stories for over 600 minutes of screen time is just far to few) and by the time they got the team relationship right, Letts/Dicks has already decided to move away from the Earth/UNIT.

I know what you mean though, UNIT doesn’t quite fit into Terror of the Zygons (another one I watched this year); it would have worked just as well as a Sarah/Harry only story. In that respect, for me, the inclusion of UNIT feels much more like an anniversary special (5 Doctors style).

By the way, (off the point) do any of you think modern UNIT works well ?

Cheers

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@phaseshift

Thanks for the thought. I’m at work currently although I’ll be back in London in early June when (hopefully) the medical profession will commence replumbing the piping in my brain. So far I’ve had 4 years worth of x-ray dosage in 2 months (with more to come) so I’m probably starting to glow a bit.

I remember taking quite a dislike to this story when I say it as a kid and haven’t seen it since. Strangely, I remember knowing all about the Daleks (although this would be the first time I saw them) so perhaps it was as much to do with the lack of Daleks.

My DVD is in London (and I will get a copy of the special edition), so hopefully I’ll catch up in time before you finish part 4.

Cheers

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

Thanks you, I won’t bore you with the details, except to say I don’t recommend it as a way to take 3 weeks off work !

Cheers

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@janetteb @bluesqueakpip

Ah, that sounds much more minor than I thought from your description. I have the DVD for Earthshock where the default version plays with new weapons effects instead of the original (better looking but still pretty poor as there’s a limit to how much tinkering they could do to the original). Tinkering around the edges that doesn’t really change the look and feel of the story is as much as I think you should go in the default version, although having a fuller version is definitely has curiosity value (and I suppose more than that if it helps some of the younger viewers appreciate the older stories better).

I had a mini-Pertwee season while on R&R as I watched Ambassadors of Death, The Three Doctors, both Peladon Stories, Mind of Evil, Colony is Space, The Time Monster and Daemons across about 10 days. Apart from being Pertwee’d out by the end (I was going to watch Green Death and Terror of the Autons as well)  – I also did Web Of Fear and The Web Planet plus all the special features – I was pleasantly surprised by pretty much all of the stories. They’re all imperfect but I actually enjoyed watching them, warts and all, more than I expected too.

It also reminded me that I’m far more tough on AG Who than  I ought to be, but I think that’s in part because:

• I’m not a youngster anymore and I see the things which irate me in the way the stories are told (which I don’t do as much for BG Who it seems) and
• with the larger budget I seem to have a higher expectation of the finished article than perhaps I should.

Cheers

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@janetteb

That’s an interesting question to raise. On the whole, If I was voting I’d vote for the original almost always. Whilst some of the special effect shots are pretty cringe worthy these days, I think you’d often need to redo significant amounts of other screen time (all the blue screen stuff for example) if you’re going to address the visual short comings as well as changing the effects shots proper in my opinion.

I haven’t seen the special version of Day of the Daleks you refer to, but reading your description makes me ask just how many Daleks did they CGI in and in what scenes ? It seems to me that f you have lots of Daleks around, then why do they need to build Slave Factory Camps and import lots of Ogrons to guard the camps, which undermines that element of the story to a degree (IMO anyway). The only scene in the story I can think of which might demand a show of Dalek force, would be the very end one, when they try to destroy the Conference. What do you think ?

I watched both of the Peladon stories a couple of weeks ago (my first watch since the 1970s) and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised :).

Thanks

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@janetteb

Thanks. It could have been a lot more serious that it was (fortunately).

I bought the DVD which I watched while on R&R and I thought in many ways it was superior to the film (apart from special effects), which has always been one of my favourites. Actually I am rather fonder of the film of Quatermass 2 although I haven’t watched the TV original as yet. I bought both script books back when I was a young teenager, which re both an excellent if a bit short read.

Cheers

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@craig @jimthefish @bluesqueakpip

Apologies all for not replying a month or so ago – I’ve had a sojourn in hospital (very boring) followed by some R&R with a op to look forward to in the next few weeks.

Hopefully I’ll get around to catching up over the next few weeks.

Thanks

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@jimthefish

Sorry if I wasn’t clear, I meant that I didn’t think the UNIT example was necessarily that valid to illustrate your point in the 1970’s. I would imagine that military planning meetings are a relatively open exchange of ideas regardless of rank present, but when the decision has been made delivery is rather hierarchical, which is what makes it more effective (at getting things done) than a civilian organization (Of course this is also a weakness which is why civilian organisations don’t adopt military style discipline).

I think social mobility and social class structures are becoming somewhat ossified at the moment, as money/privilege has become more effective in maintaining economic privilege than it was when I went to school/university in the 1970s/1980s. Going back to the thrust of your comments on part 4 and before (and @bluesqueakpip‘s observations) post war, I think (I’m making a sweeping generalization here) in the 1950s to 1970s it was much more prevalent to see senior authority figure roles being presented as ex-Grammar school or ex senior military from WW2 (ability not birth being the route to advancement). These days there seems to be more of a public school/Oxbridge background portrayed for today’s authority figures.

I agree with you that automatic deference to authority has gone and doesn’t look like coming back anytime soon, but we do seem to be moving (back) to a more Victorian like have/have not’s society with the many of the social/economic gains made in the 20th century being eroded at the moment.

Cheers

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@jimthefish

Hi there. Great analysis. One thing which struck me reading this though was this comment:

And we can see just how it changes things slightly by watching UNIT Who….We can also see this in the Web of Fear too. Look at the outright bolshiness of Evans or how the power in the Bunker seems to reside much more with Sgt Arnold.

My limited recollection of 1950’s TV/Film repeats from the 1970s was that the idea that the Army in the Field was actually run by the SM/RSM was quite prevalent in the 1950s already ? From what I recall, Carry of Sergeant (1958) has a comedy SM/RSM (played by William Hartnell) in much the same vein. I recall (but I doubt its based on an actually watching the show) that William played much the same role in The Army Game (1957 to 1961) and I guess is has much earlier roots still. I rather expect this idea actually goes back into WW2 and the immediate post war and is based on actual experience. They’re not called non-commissioned officers for nothing !

I’m not sure that something like this “commanding officers (i.e. The Brig) is constantly undermined and defied, often to his face” would ever have tolerated at any time in the Military, although I think some individuals can get away with behavior which wouldn’t be tolerated for the majority. Your underlying point about the break down of social/class barriers and the end of automatic deference from the 1930’s to 1970’s is spot on though (IMO although I also think there is reversal currently happening).

Cheers

Nick

 

[Nick @replies]

@fatmaninabox

Justin Bieber eh ? That will be a welcome change….

Cheers

Nick

Nothing like starting a rumour to perk things up eh ?

[Nick @replies]

@wolfweed

Thanks as ever you always sniff out the good stuff !

Cheers

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@wolfweed @blenkinsopthebrave @fatmaninabox @craig

Hi there. The ring is fascinating especially as it doesn’t seem to be in any of the on set pictures before he gets into costume. Rather then wedding ring (wouldn’t that be plain ?) couldn’t it be a reference back to Hartnell who also had a ring as part of his uniform – I (poorly) recall that was dark blue stone though.

Cheers

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@demafromua

I guess  most of series 8 is written or close to being finished anyway, so its series 9, which will be written in 2014. How difficult that is I guess depends on whether Moffat has chosen to leave at the end of series 8 or not (They haven’t announced anything so far as I’m aware, but I guess the decision has been or will be taken soon if it hasn’t already).

I’m not sure who would replace Moffat (Mark Gatiss is certainly one choice), but Who survived in the past reasonably well when the Produce/Script Editor team who ran the show weren’t the same obvious fans as RTD and Moffat (and Gatiss) are. However, we’re learning that more and more serious actors were fans during their childhood, so I think its a fair bet there are some professional behind the scenes guys with the right sort of TV experience who could take over even if we’re not aware of them today publically.

The real point about Who is that it has had a series of Era’s which have been stylistically different and mostly worked well. This plus semi-regular changes in the Doctor and companion roles, really do act to keep things interesting for the audience I think. Its a family show, so even if you think the core target is 6 to 15 year olds (and their parents), there’s a natural turnover in that audience as a result, which really means you are allowed to revisit story ideas every 5 or so years, so long as it looks and feels fresh to the viewer (in the DVD age). I think Who can continue on this basis for another 50 years so long as the underlying premise remains enjoyable.

TV being TV (and its a medium in flux to a degree), probably means that the next hiatus will come quite abruptly in practice. Even so, I think the concept is flexible enough that it would never be killed off in a way that say Breaking Bad, Buffy etc have been. Even Buffy could come back I suppose :). On this basis, I don’t ever see there being a final journey in the way you suggest.

Cheers

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@debs

Hi there. In “theory” there’s another at least another 40 years to go – (13 doctors at 3 years apiece) with the new regeneration cycle.

The real answer is unknown as it depends on the audience size and appreciation being good enough to satisfy BBC management and convince them to fund the budget. Since both remain strong right now and the global audience ( = non-licence fee BBC revenue) is growing nicely I don’t think there’s going to be a problem for the foreseeable future (fingers crossed).

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

absolutely 🙂

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@barnable

Hi there. I think I see the difference between our point of views now:

 Both of these time lines existed at the same time, until we get to TotD.  I believe that the time line we all watched happen (the “BRB” was pressed time line) came to an end in tTotD episode.  That time line merged into a single time line after TotD episode where the “BRB” was never pressed, and that is the only time line from that point on.

My point of view is that only  one time line exists and that the first one (your BRB one) ceased to exist at the end of DotD and was replaced entirely by a new one (which is mostly unseen as you say). The new one ought to be quite similar to the old one, but it shouldn’t be the same. We’re 99 % of the same opinion otherwise.

As for your explanation regarding the role of the Crack – thanks for this as it (I think) is very interesting. I’ll ponder further.

Cheers

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@purofilion

“remember what is at the entrance to this hallowed forum:  Be bonkers. Works for me. I may at times avoid common sense, but that’s OK mate: as we say down under….”

I have tremendous respect for everyone here who post their ideas let alone bonkers theories (sorry if that’s not so obvious). But as we say in the UK, the proof of the pudding in in the eating, which suggests to me that we collectively need to test each theory (to destruction) via debate. Hopefully, we (collectively) won’t argue to much !

Cheers

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@barnable

🙂 I think we agree on that, but probably not on how you interpret what happened as a result.

Cheers

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@barnable

Both myself and @bluesqueakpip have written blog posts explaining how we think DotD changed the Doctor’s timeline. Bluesqueakpip’s opinion (which is generally accepted on here I think) is that is definitely a change from “Gallifrey destroyed” to “Gallifrey disappears”, which occurs during and as a result of DofD. My own view differs in that I think the “Gallifrey disappears” version can be accommodated without any change (although that creates problems). In either case, we don’t think there are two time lines, but one (Gallifrey disappears) which completely replaces what happened previously.

If you accept that the time line changes (and you seem to do so), then I think its fair to draw an inference that everything that happened to the Doctor/Universe between the end of the time war and the DotD, which we saw happen in AG Who series 1 to 7, may well have changed or have been different from what we saw, from the point at which the Doctor rewrites history in DotD.

The changed version of AG Who, may well be similar to  what happened before (but we don’t know for sure as we haven’t seen that time line so far as I can see), but we don’t know. On top of this, I think you can argue that the combination of the GI and Clara in the Doctor’s timeline is likely to have created reasonably sizeable changes from the version of Who we have seen from an Unearthly Child onwards as well.

I’m the first to admit, this is what I understood happened in DotD and Series 7 (and we saw quite large changes for example to the Dalek/Doctor history in Asylum of the Daleks for example). Please feel free to tell me that I misunderstood ! Personally I didn’t really like this much at all (and didn’t think it was necessary either), but I haven’t read anyone who explains things differently.

So, in my opinion, we can’t be sure that Bad Wolf even happened anymore and if it did, it probably wasn’t what we saw on screen back in series 1. That said, I’m not convinced that the Moment’s O/S is Bad Wolf anyway. The Moment’s sentient AI operating system chose to appear as Rose to facilitate communication (paraphrasing what it said in DotD). I don’t see anything there that suggests that it’s “Bad Wolf Rose” that appears )or even to stop it from choosing Martha, Donna, Amy or Rory appearance instead surely ?). I agree with you that its possible to postulate that “Bad Wolf” continues to exist through out time,

I agree with you and others in this discussion, that the Moment is a very unusual and powerful entity able to manipulate time and that allows us to propose ideas which explain the unexplained elements of the Doctor’s history and Clara, like Bluesqueakpip’s suggestion that the Moment “created” Clara (and its a really nice idea I admit), but I don’t see the need to go back to the Bad Wolf concept to explain any of this this. Am I missing something here ?

Thanks

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@purofilion @barnable

One question/observation for you both. First a proviso – since I haven’t read any fan discussion around what “Bad Wolf” has been interpreted to be, I may be about to shoot myself in the foot with this !

I may be mis-interpreting what you’ve written (it wouldn’t be my first time) but I it looks to me that you’re arguing that Bad Wolf is a separate entity in its own right with its own existence and role ?

This is a great idea, but I had thought that Rose became Bad Wolf for a couple of minutes when she was exposed to the heart of the Tardis. In these minutes, she did various things (saving the Doctor, Jack, Earth, destroying that lot of Daleks, sending clues into the universe to help Rose become the Bad Wolf at the right time etc).

Whilst we can infer that she might have done various other things as well, I don’t think there was an intention on RTD’s point that we should draw this sort of inference. If, for example, Rose/Bad Wolf had surveyed the Doctor’s future time line, her own or even Jack’s I’m sure she would have fixed the end of series 2 so that Rose and D11 (as he now is) stayed together and not made Jack immortal.

Thanks

Nick

 

[Nick @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

I probably didn’t notice the sign on the door ( 🙂 ), but I guess I have a preference for “keeping it simple (ish)” so its a matter of degree more than anything. I guess the Moment idea falls into the “more insane than what’s actually happening” end of the spectrum for me. It is an interesting concept for sure. You’re selling it well !

I take your point on River/child, but would it be enough of a surprise if that was Clara’s denouement next Christmas ? I guess you also have to think about how Clara gets written out of the Doctor’s story – a daughter (or grand daughter) almost demands multiple returns at future points, which is something I think you’d probably prefer not to leave as a present for your future successors. I’m not sure you could get away with the Susan option in the modern environment for such a special companion.

Cheers

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

Absolutely agree with you here:

So its motivation is pretty simple: it’s a weapon of mass destruction that doesn’t want to be used. It’s quite willing to manipulate time in order to not kill 2.74 billion children.

but I see postulating from this

that weapon somehow created Clara (who seems to be a fully human individual) or causing Clara to self create herself (your stable time-loop concept) just so Clara would appear in the right place at the right time to end up in the Doctor’s TimeLine with the GI where she saved the Doctor, just so that She and the Doctor can be in the right place, at right time, in the right frame of mind to meet the Hurt Doctor and Tennant Doctor, so that he can collectively work together to spark the idea which allowed the Doctor  to avoid genocide by using the Moment

is a super complicated idea. It’s not impossible of course, especially as you’ve explained it, but to me, the revelation of this during series 8 would seem like a quite uninspiring choice to have made as a Production team. I can sort of hear my self saying “Oh really. That’s interesting” …and finding the Clara narrative in series 8 rather underwhelming as a result.

I have to think that there’s a another solution out there, with a bigger emotional pay-off that ties into what we’ve seen in series 5 to 7 so far, even if we don’t quite realise what it is:

• Clara as a descendent of Doctor/River might be it, but that seems too obvious for Moffat to use (after all the Doctor really ought to know if they have offspring and I find it hard to believe he wouldn’t have kept an eye on his off spring’s children);
• A descendent of Susan might work better, but would be quite left field play ?

Even so, I am expecting something even more of the wall if only on the basis that Moffat likes to drop red herrings on us and both the Susan and River origins have been sign posted before the 50th special judging by the amount of discussion here about it.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

Very interesting idea in there I think.

Incidentally, I think the ‘new regeneration cycle at the 50th Anniversary Year’ was planned from when Moffat took over as producer. Steven Moffat’s referenced the additional faces in Brain of Morbius a few times; it’s clearly something he argued about as a young fan.

Could you not use the Brain of Morbius “faces” to argue that this is the Doctor’s second set of regeneration cycles and that he’s on his third life ? (my tongue is thoroughly in my cheek here as this is an outrageous idea 🙂 ).

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@purofilion @barnable @bluesqueakpip @blenkinsopthebrave @arbutus

Hi there. This makes interesting reading, but I’m not sure quite how you could make it work in practice. From what I saw in DotD, the Moment was a small box whose sentient AI system appeared to the potential user [Hurt Doctor] alone. I’m not quite how the best describe the how (but telepathically, figment inserted into his imagination etc sounds about right). This is quite a long way from somehow having or creating a Human physical form with an individual personality, we call Clara.

This doesn’t mean the Moment couldn’t step in an help Clara re time travel and creating time-loops etc, but it suggests to me that the theory have to be quite a lot more complex. Since the Moment is a weapon of mass destruction, just why would it choose to act to facilitate Clara or the Doctor ? What’s its motive ?

Nick

 

 

[Nick @replies]

@fatmaninabox

I wasn’t paying any attention when that episode was discussed and dissected, but I guess you have to think the Doctor was also counting on River to have some kind of change of heart or something else to come along (given he could probably remember meeting her at the Library where it was clear they would had some sort of relationship in the future).

I do rather think TotD rather messed up the whole regeneration limit thing to avoid Capaldi being 13, but I can’t remember anything which needs more than a simple explanation to fix off the top of my head [whether you find the explanations particularly plausible is a purely personal choice :)].

Cheers

Nick

[Nick @replies]

You’ve probably seen the news, but it was announced that Roger Lloyd Pack died today from Pancreatic cancer.

[Nick @replies]

@haggis

I think he probably just lost count. You know how it is when you get to 1,000+, you’re hair starts to go grey and fall out, memory loss …. 😉

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@thegirlinthewind

12 regenerations (13 lives) is the “standard rule” I think that’s unambiguous going back many references over many years. On the River point you make, surely it depends on whether River is a Time Lord or not (I think technically she’s not). If she isn’t then how can we know how many regenerations she actually had to spare ?

Either way to fit in with TofD, I think you have to assume that it took all of her remaining regenerations to “undo” the damage the poison did to the Doctor, unless there are some really clever alternative theories out there.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@arbutus

LOL – we’re on the same page then. The difference I was trying to express, is what was on the other side back when they were created isn’t the same as it is now, whereas what I was picking up from the discussion was that the cracks are essentially the same thing as before. My impression is that they’re being reused in a different way than before (rather like the Silence were). [you can see is as either lazy or clever depending on your point of view]. We have to wait and see whether this is just superficial referencing or has a deeper meaning which will be revealed in series 8.

Just my opinion, but either theTtimelords are through on the other side already or will be as soon as there’s a decent story to use them in. They were needed to provide the new regeneration cycle, but I’m not sure how easy its going to be to use them again without some new idea now.

After Day of the Doctor, the show has added some nuance to the TimeLords as a narrative concept. There’s a new internal tension between the General (the War Leader), the “innocent” citizens and the President/High Council (back from End of Time) whereas AG Who had previously given us a more mono-themed Gallifrey fighting the TimeWar., which the Doctor had needed to eliminate by Genocide to save the wider universe. They’ve wisely given themselves more scope to do something interesting with in my opinion.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

The Great Intelligence, it was explained at 90mph, would be scattered along the time stream and would die

Thanks as ever. I really should have expected something like that by now.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@blenkinsopthebrave

I’d actually like to see John Simm play the character in the way it seems to have wanted to. He’s on the record as saying his vision and RTD’s weren’t exactly on the same page.

I think any really good actor (or actress) who plays the role straight could be convincing if the script is written well and in that style, although playing being evil and insane without showing the insanity must be a tall ask for most actors. One who springs to my mind immediately is Ralph Fiennes (thinking Schlinder’s List not Voldemort). I think Rafe Spall might just have the intensity in him to make it work as well. For a left field choice how about Christopher Eccleston ?

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@arbutus

One thing I think it might be worth bearing in mind, the cracks seen in TofD and previously don’t necessarily have the same properties. Those in TofD are weak points in the fabric of the universe used by the TimeLords, whereas previously the cracks were faults creating by the Tardis exploding propagating through the universe.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

That one’s easy – it turns out there was a production problem. Matt Smith injured his knee and it was all he could do to pick Jenna Coleman up. He certainly couldn’t manage the ‘turn and leap for freedom’ that they’d planned to show the exit from the timeline.

Sometimes the best-laid scripting plans come up against real life…

 

Thanks for this – I hadn’t heard this before. Even so, the end of series 7 called for some sort of solution where the Doctor/Clara removed or absorbed the Great Intelligence from the Doctor’s time line doesn’t it before they can “leap free”. As I said on your blog post about Deus Ex Machine I’m guessing the series 7/series 8 cross-over has been affected by the need to regenerate plus Moffat wanted to avoid writing the Capaldi era themed around the Doctor’s struggle to avoid becoming the Valeyard…meaning he’s left an unresolved gap in the narrative.

Thanks

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@purofilion @barnable @blenkinsopthebrave @bluesqueakpip @arbutus

I’m with Blenkinsopthebrave on the cracks. I think the Doctor said (paraphrasing) that the cracks remained as points of weaknesses which in the rebooted universe after he restored it and that the Timelords (being outside the universe) were using these weakness to get back inside the universes. From TotD, I think it follows they can use any crack to survey the universe (I don’t know what was said earlier, but i assume the cracks are spread throughout the universe from big bang to nothingness at the end).

The question is can they come though the cracks unaided or not. TotD implies (but doesn’t state) they can’t, but…

I will offer any idea though. If I was a sneaky TimeLord I’d use the signal to draw the Doctor and all the  “big bads” to Trenzalore while sneaking back in somewhere else.

I think it’s always going to be in the TimeLords interest to have a “Doctor” out there in the universe as a direct or indirect agent (occasionally) and long standing foe of the Daleks (especially) so they shouldn’t need much motivation to issue a new regeneration cycle to him.

Nick

 

[Nick @replies]

@arbutus

Regarding the question I posed – its one of opinion and preference.

The fair answer, I think is, time will tell. Will we be looking back in 5 or 10 years time (or more even) and saying that was a really great story that tied up large elements of the Moffat era story arc in a really satisfying way with a superb  regeneration scene at the end or great regeneration – its a shame about the rest of the story.

Right now, I think the latter is closer to how I feel about this episode and that the resolution concept was a poor one, well executed in a story with some great scenes, but overall the total was less than the sum of the parts. That’s my opinion today and I know it won’t be the universal one. Since series 8 filming has started, its clear now that Moffat has been busy writing and editing the next series, along with Sherlock and probably some other things we don’t know about yet, but it seems to me that the “Brains’ Trust” in the production team has the skill experience and talent to have come up with something better than this even allowing for all of these commitments.

The story itself

We may still get some pay-off in season 8 and beyond, which may deliver missing back story (Tasha Lem) or explain the TimeLords perspective of all this, in fact Moffat is clever (I think) at introducing these ideas and leaving them open for later reinterpretation and explanation. That strength is also his great weakness as well in my opinion.

I for one would really like to know how we got from the Doctor being stuck on Trenzalore with Clara in his own timeline at the end of series 7 to the two “specials”.

Cheers

Nick

[Author]

Posts