[Nick @replies]

I have to say this was one of my least liked stories in Season 5 mostly because the overall episode didn’t completely jell for me. There were lots of interesting ideas, but they never quite managed to make it all work together in the 45 minutes. I was also disappointed by the star whale design, which was for too whale like to satisfy me.

Nobody has mentioned the link back to the Torchwood episode “Meat” (had to look up the name) where a similar Beast was euthanised by Captain Jack. In hindsight I wonder if SM is making some comparison between Doctor 11 and Captain Jack at one level with the Doctor being less concerned with the element of the population who have been fed to the Beast as <a href="mailto:a@miapatrick“>@miapatrick points out and the need for Amy to step in and make the right choice for the Doctor, something that Gwen wasn’t able to do.

With my tongue firmly in my cheek, could we not now say that this was a piece of GI interference with D11 and that (off screen) Clara had had a whisper in Amy’s ear to encourage her to realise the alternative the which hadn’t occurred to the Doctor ?

@phaseshift political satire rings true for me, but I’d argue it applies more widely than just to the UK so SM could have made it as much as a general zeitgeist point rather than something specific to the election.

I have been convinced that SM pretty much had the idea for the 50th anniversary show for a while and had been dropping hints into the show for quite a while (I think I read someone here say it had been two years in the planning). @craig quote about the name and @bluesqueakpip analysis of the Beast below concept now suggests that he had the beginnings of the idea from the outset. I don’t find that surprising at all.

Looking back, I rather think it would have been better for this to be a 2 parter rather than Hungry Earth/Cold Blood or if not to have another 10 minutes added to the show time (aka padding 🙂 @jimthefish). A two parter would have been an intolerable load for Steven Moffat to cope with – a co-writer might have help ? The alternative would have been to edit out some of the ideas and make it fit as a simpler story than we were given.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@MadScientist72

without a doubt fixed points exist in the Who universe and the Time Lords would certainly have collectively know which points were. I suppose you could argue that the Tardis would have a list of them embedded in her memory and of course it follows that the Doctor would know on landing.

However, you could only know the future of the universe if you had sat and taken your measurements just before the universe ended (ie measured the entire past). You have to have knowledge of the future in order to assert that changing a specific event at point X (the fixed point) would change the future of the universe surely ? Worse still as a time traveler, your choice to act or not to act at point X might be the very event which changes the future anyway. From the perspective of an observer at point X (who has no knowledge of the future) the future can’t be fixed it must still remain as a series of many different outcomes each with a different probability of occurring. However, at the same time the same observers view of the past is fixed.

For this reason, I find it hard to conceptualise how the Who universe’s description of the concept can work as described without allowing that the Time Travelers knowledge of the future or past is involved.

This hurts my head too much

Nick

 

[Nick @replies]

@MadScientist72 @arkleseizure

Thanks. How could I have forgotten the Deadly Assassin ? I recall Goth dies because his brain and body had been severely damaged in the Matrix struggle. I think we’ll have to ask Robert Holmes why he didn’t regenerate, but I suppose the Matrix involvement is enough reason ? On top of Runcible, there was also a camera technician who the Master killed using his Tissue Compression Eliminator (if that is the correct name). I guess you have to ask whether either of them were full Time Lords given there is some uncertainty regarding time lord society ? Being knifed ought to be survivable from a regeneration point of view.

On the BG Master, I’m not really sure whether he has a new set of regenerations after he seizes Tremas’ body in the Traken story. Personally I doubt it, although he certainly acquires extra biological ability as he survived being accidently shot by his tissue compression eliminator (Planet of Fire). I’m not sure we should therefore place too much reliance on the events in the TV movie as its not clear he has any regenerations left at all and he used the snake thing to steal another body to replace Tremas (I can’t remember whether we have a to believe it isn’t supposed to be Ainley’s Master). The Snake thing of course was somehow ‘immune” to the Dalek execution anyway.

I agree in Deadly Assassin it appears its much easier to kill Time Lord without regeneration. @htpbdet your suggestion while interesting – and fitting the facts I can recall – seems like special pleading to me. Actually isn’t it easier to argue that regenerations work differently on Gallifrey so that you can be murdered without regeneration there, but no where else ? (also special pleading).

When you follow the logic of regeneration (other than on Gallifrey itself), it seems like the Time Lords method of execution (we also saw it in the second Omega story) of being dispersed into constituent atoms is pretty much the only way to make sure a Time Lord doesn’t regenerate ? My conclusion, is that we can’t really say just what it takes to kill a Time Lord although there seems to be a big difference between what we see in Deadly Assassin and elsewhere.

With this point of view, it seems that the lack of a regeneration at Lake Silencio makes perfect sense (presumably the Doctor used a small part of his regeneration energy to fake the onset of regeneration) in that almost certainly there would be nobody alive in the Universe that would know enough about the regeneration process to know he faked his Death. Whether two shots would actually work @Madscientist72 therefore remains a mystery.

My opinion, for what its worth, is that you’d need to wait until the regeneration was completed before shooting again and even then it might not work. If you can regrow an arm sometime after the regeneration then why not a Brain ? Certainly you have to conclude that it must be especially likely during the regeneration itself ? On this basis, the Time Lord’s execution method make the most sense.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

Hmmm. I think we might be at cross purposes slightly. In my mind the Doctor can’t have known that he would actually die at the Lake, even if everyone he knew swore that they saw him die there. For all he knew it could have been a clone, an android replica, the version we saw (whatever the Robot Doctor actually was) or something even more outlandish. That gives him plenty of opportunity to avoid dying even if the shooting itself cant be avoid. The problem as you’ve demonstrated in your timey-wimey blog is that the writer decides what is fixed and what isn’t for dramatic purposes and not for any underlying rules of Who time-travel physics [more on that point below].

Back to the event itself. My distinct impression at the time was that he had co-opted the idea anyway (since he invited Amy/Rory/River to be present) to allow himself a way out which River spoiled by refusing to go along with the plan.  The event (the shooting) may be a fixed point for the Doctor in that it had to happen, but the Doctor found a devious way round what it meant. Since the Doctor wasn’t shot (the robot thing was), there was no reason for him to regenerate. In hind sight the lack of regeneration was the biggest clue that it actually want the real Doctor in the first place surely ?  [it possible in my mind that the original shooting we see isn’t the same as the one we see at the end of the story arc and the Doctor has indeed rewritten his own future/past, but I’m not sure if this was something we were meant to think might have happened or just something I thought was possible at the time]. In any case, I don’t think we can therefore actually conclude that a head shot will kill a Time Lord.

I don’t recall seeing a Time Lord actually dying in BG Who although the Master came close quite a few times (like a cat he has 9 lives for each regeneration) as did Doctor’s 3, 5 [and 10 (by the Dalek)]. Did the Master really die at the end of Last of the Time Lords ? I thought the whole point of the final scene (with the ring) was RTD’s showing us how the Master got round the problem and didn’t he refuse to regenerate before that ?

Given what we know about regeneration I can well believe the body can grow a new head or the head a new body and that’s before allowing for any involvement of the Tardis which (certainly in Doctor 4’s time) stored a copy of all the Doctors memories.

Just what is a fixed point ?

First off let me say that I agree with your comment on the Timey-wimey blog the Who universe rules set out (mostly by Steven Moffat I think) don’t necessarily follow any sense verses how others have suggested time travel ought to work. You state you cant change your own future without destroying the Universe. That may be correct, but can we be really 100 % sure that the Doctor didn’t change his future at Lake Silencio ? The “death” shown in the Impossible Astronaut has to be the same as the one shown in River Song’s wedding. There is insufficient evidence shown on screen to assert that this is 100 % certain I think. However, lets assume it is.

So when River refuses to shoot the Doctor and time breaks down, it is quite a reasonably question to ask why that event is fixed and the universe will be destroyed if it doesn’t happen. I don’t recall an explanation being given on screen, but its more than likely that I may have forgotten. I can fully understand that for the Doctor, who knows that it will/did happen and also knows he wont die (since he’s plotted a way round that problem) this a fixed event. For the Universes as a whole ? Why would it be ? It makes perfect sense to me that it something has to happen to the Doctor as a consequence of the event not happening, but I can’t see the same logic applying to the Universe as a whole.

If we look at this when a different perspective, for all we know from the Universe’s perspective there are many many fixed points out there. So when the Doctor turns up and saves the planet (eg Rings of Akhatan) he could well be changing a fixed point in Akhatan history – the consequences of this event (millions possibly billions of individuals are saved) are very significant. Contrast this with Pompeii, where its “fixed” and he can’t save tens of thousands of ancient Romans. Why is one a fixed event and the other isn’t ? Its impossible to say, although I would argue that the Doctor knows (and has maybe even seen) Vesuvius erupt so its a fixed event for him whereas Akhatan isn’t (he has no idea what happens at all). This is what I meant by arguing its a matter of the time travelers personal perspective to the event in question whether it is a fixed point or not.

I know we can equally argue that the Doctor has never come across a fixed point during his travels so the issue of him changing fixed points has never come up before. Its a reasonable argument, but sounds like a case of special pleading to me.

I would prefer to argue in the Who universe it is possible to generally change both the future and past without consequence unless your trying to change your own future or past or something major (ie affecting a large number of people directly or indirectly) that you are personally aware actually happened. I would argue that making the Doctor a special case (probably because he is the most time travelled individual in the universe who has literally had his fingers in far too many pies) makes more sense than creating a universal “physical law” around fixed points. If you think about it, Time travel would be extremely risky to contemplate at all if you were going to keep bumping into various cultures fixed points without any knowledge in advance of which points were fixed and which weren’t. Surely a Time Lord, Time Agent or Dalek time traveler would have accidently destroyed the universe by now ? If you don’t agree with me here, then you have to have a theory which explains why some events are fixed and others aren’t which makes sense other than for narrative purposes.

The major problem with this explanation is that it is River who attempts to change the Doctors future at Lake Silencio (although the Doctor may already have done this for himself) and it is River who almost destroys the Universe. This works with my “Doctor is a special case” explanation, but otherwise destroys the whole idea I’m setting out.

Therefore I believe that anniversary show is likely to change the Doctor’s personal future in that it is not 11 who is at Trenzalore and it either never happens that way or its a future Doctor from a new regeneration cycle and change his personal past in some way by changing the TimeWar in some unknown way. That’s a different discussion though.

Of course trying to rationalize physics in a fictional universe is a interesting challenge but ultimately futile. Who show runners are never going to satisfactorily explain how the Who universe works (its far too difficult and sets up the worst sort of cannon in that it really limits your narrative ability going forward) as if the story narrative suits them they’ll change it. I accept that it suits Steven Moffat’s narrative to have some points fixed and others variable based on the story he’s telling and to require the universe to be destroyed (sometimes) as a result. The fact that this is apparently different (more perhaps more complex concept) than that shown in the pre-Steven Moffat era and may be ignored or further changed by the next show runner is just one of those things that either annoy you (including me sometimes) or not.

Fascinating discussion anyway. I’m looking forward to you pointing out  where and why I got it wrong 🙂

Thanks

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@scaryb

Talking of Daleks, Spike Milligan wrote several sketches with them in his Q series. I found this on youtube, but I remember seeing older (and funnier) clips as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOqhRx_11Rg

Nick

 

[Nick @replies]

@scaryb

No its complete although I think they did a few things to reconstruct it completely from various sources they had. The Dalek Invasion of Earth is the only other pre-Pertwee Dalek story that is.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@scaryb @jimthefish

It might be rather amusing to watch the Daleks (if you can stand black & white) given than JimTheFish is busy reimagining it.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@phaseshift

Understand. As a general observation, being pretty new here I’ve come across a couple of essentially dormant blogs and threads quite by accident. I can’t help thinking that there should be a better way of organising the Home page to reveal this.

Cheers

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@htpbdet

I certainly don’t believe anything Mr Moffat says right now for sure. It wouldn’t surprise me if Chris doesn’t show up as well or instead. I also thought it a bit of a strange leak (or rather deliberate plant ?) as I can’t see what exactly they have to gain by doing this in what looks like a low key way.

On the Christmas episode shoot, I genuinely have no idea at all, except that I would have thought it would be cheaper to shoot as much as possible with the anniversary show, especially given there is only 1 month (roughly) between viewing dates and the long lead times for SF, Editing and music.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@craig and others (sorry its question)

Ami right in assuming that the principal photography on the Christmas special has already been completed ? If not do we have any idea when it is planned ?

After reading your post and the link, it struck me that if D 11 ( 12 🙂 ) regenerates at the end of the Christmas special then that might be the ideal place for SM to include some new back scenes of previous Doctors as part of the regeneration sequence (rather as was done for Doctor 4 and 5). It even struck me that you could explain why they have aged (the personality memories have continued to age in his mind). Just a thought.

I thinks its most likely to be Paul McGann too.

Nick

 

[Nick @replies]

@phaseshift @craig @Shazzbot

As a general observation, wouldn’t it make more sense to split this into several sub-threads for each of the Doctors ? The way its currently structured there is no possibility for any future discussion about William Hartnell or any of the previous Doctors here

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@Jillybeans

re Ãkta Människore (Real Humans)?

My wife (who is French) watched it avidly on French TV (ARTE channel) where it was dubbed into French. She enjoyed it and given she is particularly choosy I think that is a recommendation. I saw a bit but not enough to comment. The concept revolves around the creation and integration of human appearing robots into society plus has some skullduggery around some of the Androids being self aware.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

All

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2013/jul/22/doctor-who-comic-con

 

 

I think this counts as a spoiler. Sorry one day I may work out how links work here 😉 (or rather I probably wont)

Nick

 

[Nick @replies]

@blenkinsopthebrave

Re Paul McGann. Let’s hope so. Its much easier for them to keep the secret when there is no outside studio shooting. They have been pretty good at keeping these secrets after all. They would have known that John Hurt was going to be seen on location in advance so it was an easy secret to give away. Whilst Steven Moffat has made it clear that we have no hope in seeing and pre-David Tennant Doctor we also no he’s been lying his teeth off for ages. Anything remains possible on that front if it remains improbable.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

The continuity changes are generally subtle (except for Skaro), but they’re consistently there throughout both Asylum and the second half of Series 7. And while most of them could be explained away individually, the cumulative effect is difficult to explain without saying ‘the Doctor’s continuity has changed’.

Yes, he could have visited Skaro at a point before he destroyed it. Yes, there might have been another battle of Exillon. Yes, the missing wonder of the universe could have been destroyed in an off-screen event. Yes, he could have forgotten how to pronounce ‘Metebelis’.

Hmmm. Let me tell you a story..

A writer and show runner called Steven had this idea relating to an new companion called Clara’s story arc. He dubbed it the “Impossible Girl” arc. His idea links nicely to his concept for the 50th anniversary show and allowed him to write a longer narrative story linking the anniversary show into the preceding season. He was rightly pleases as no previous anniversary had really managed to get this right. With this success, he reflected on how he might build this impossible girl concept into the prior history of the show, which was needed for the story arc to be convincing.

His first plan, was to show strange Doctor behavior in the preceding episodes which would be caused by the impossible girl idea and become obvious in the final episode of the season. To support this he wrote some lines for the Doctor to speak showing his confusion and dropping in hints that that the events in past stories had changed. As the coup de grace he inserted some edit scenes of former Doctors with the impossible girl’s Claraicles. All together they imply the Doctor’s past continuity may have changed in unknown ways.

Work’s right ?

At a superficial level, yes it does. Obviously he can’t show the Claraicles really acting to reverse the GI’s influence on the Doctor (impossible to do), but that doesn’t really matter. He thinks the rest of the scenes work to deliver enough to get the concept over to the Audience.

Whilst we await the revelation of exactly who John Hurt Doctor is, it seems most likely that he’s TimeWar related and as such might provide SM a way to reset the post Time War Doctor’s troubled personality which has been expressed by 9/10/11 in various different ways since AG Who reappeared.

Problems ?

Depends on your point of view. He can’t show a Claraicle having any impact on any prior Doctor story because he can’t remake an episode with a former Doctor. He can’t explain how any of the Claraicles exactly counteracts the GI’s influence (just how do the thousand’s of Claraicles actually do this ?), although he can show how Clara 1 helps the Doctor in series 7B and show Claraicles helping in series 7a stories (but note I don’t think we can see the GI’s negative influence in these stories apart from in the Christmas show where the GI is the protagonist).

The method chosen to set up the anniversary show (entering the timeline) has some interesting consequences for him. The Doctor should see his future as well as past selves. He doesn’t see any future ones (so far). This doesn’t make sense. He should at least see 13 who is or becomes the Valeyard self and reveals the John Hurt Doctor (who is either 12 or new 9 or just possibly some one else).

Past especially BG continuity is reset (it appears)

The inconsistencies and poor execution don’t worry Steven as these are only for the hard core fans to debate surely ?

Why do this at all ?

We can’t know yet as we need to see the Anniversary and possibly the Christmas specials and series 8. However, it seems to be related to three separate things:

1. Liberating future writers from the BG and early AG continuity (possibly)
2. Putting the TimeWar firmly behind us (probably)
3. Creating a way for the Doctor to start again from Zero (probably)

end of Story.

So yes Bluesqueakpip, I believe you are correctly describing the way the SM is trying to indicate that past Continuity has changed as a result of the Impossible Girl, although we can’t yet be sure just how significant a change it is.

I think for fans like myself and @htpbdet upsetting the BG continuity isn’t really necessary (I certainly don’t see AG Who has been limited by BG Who continuity and if anything the writers had self imposed what limits there are, rather than the continuity itself having such a baleful influence).

Moving past the TimeWar, assuming that happens, is likely to be most welcome though. The character of the Doctor needs to move on to a place where he is not driven by his TimeWar guilt.

We’ll have a clearer idea in November whether we really like what SM has attempted to do. 🙂

Nick

 

[Nick @replies]

@htpbdet @bluesqueakpip

But there is a whole SM season devoted to the Eleventh Doctor altering his own future to avoid a fixed point in time where he dies…

Was this ever a fixed point in time in the first place ? Surely all the Doctor actually knows is that something, which may involved his Death (ie no regeneration) might happen at that point in time and that place. He’s free to investigate it and take steps to avoid it happening. His future isn’t written so far as he is concerned so, so long as something that looks like his Death happens at the due date/point, he’s free maneuver around it. Surely the fact there wasn’t a regeneration was the clearest hint that it wasn’t his death ? Although we don’t exactly how a Timelord can die and not regenerate, the Doctor will have a pretty good idea.

I rather think both your points of view are essentially correct in this case. I don’t think they are certainly as mutually exclusive as you both appear to think.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@bluesqueakpip @htpbdet @MadScientist72 @scaryb @Shazzbot

It seems to me that trying to debate anything to do with the Daleks, Davros and the destruction of Skaro is problematic anyway as both the Doctor and the Daleks are time travelers and the Dalek/Human/Doctor timeline cant be easily populated with hard and fast dates. Even if there was a hard and fast time timeline, travel makes it possible for Davros to be reanimated in say AD 2,800 and travel forward to the far future anyway.

For example, when Doctor 7 used the Hand of Omega to destroy Skaro, the only thing you can state with certainty was that there was two Dalek factions – Imperial (led by Davros) and the Other(s). As we saw in Journey’s End, Davros appeared to be something of a prisoner of the Daleks (certainly wasn’t in charge). Assuming you postulate he escapes (he always does after all) then there is nothing in the existing continuity (yet) that he doesn’t go one to found the Imperial Daleks subsequently. I don’t think there is a date in Revelation of the Daleks showing when Davros created his Imperial Daleks. Likewise you can fit the destruction of the Daleks in the Evil of the Daleks story into sometime after 100,000 AD (when Bad Wolf is set) without having to change continuity just as easily.

In any case, with the Time War, its quite possible to speculate that the Dalek timeline has changed several times due to various TimeWar related events. What is in the Time War perhaps also needs to reflect the perspective of the writer. For example, the remaining post time war Daleks may view both Doctor 2 and Doctor 7’s actions discussed above being events in the TimeWar even if they aren’t from our perspective. In any case, it is reasonable that we speculate that the TimeWar Doctor or the TimeLords themselves may have unconsciously influenced Doctor’s 2 and 7 which resulted in both Doctor’s being in the right place at the right time to deliver major blows against the Daleks which formed individual actions in the longer TimeWar narrative. Its a TimeWar after all and shouldn’t be thought about in a linear way with just Doctor’s 8/Hurt Doctor (!?)/9 being personally involved.

I don’t think we need to postulate any post Clara continuity changes having occurred re the Daleks. It doesn’t mean they haven’t, just that there is enough leeway anyway to fit in most things you want to (even before any Time War related effects) as it is. The reference itself to the “Battle of Exillon” can be taken to be quite vague. I would not characterize anything seen in Death to the Daleks as a battle (Skirmish perhaps).

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@Madscientist72

One last thing before I go home for the weekend. I thinks its probably best to leave out real life physics 🙂 Apart from the fact that I doubt we have anything like the full understanding yet, there is one particular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (around the quantum superposition (but I may be remembering wrongly here)) where every single event creates an alternative possibility and you end up with the universe being an infinite multiverse (ie there are infinite numbers of you and me and everyone making infinitely different choices at each decision point. A concept so alien to perception that we really cant understand it outside the maths). The  father of Mark Everett (singer/songwriter in the Eels) came up with the idea originally. There’s a fascinating documentary out there covering – in part the father/son relationship.

🙂

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

Thanks. I must pay much much more attention lol. I can see that it appears SM has been pretty clever again (something I never doubted), although I’m not sure whether you list supports your idea in the earlier post I was replying to.

Could all these little Clara points be read as side effects of the impossible girl multiple personality on the original ? The Doctor ones fit more into the concept though. In the Rings of Akhatan, when you mention the that the Doctor’s memories weren’t enough, but Clara’s are. But aren’t Clara’s memories really her impact on his life whereas his are his life. Aren’t these much the same, unless we’re now to consider all of the Doctor’s previous memories have essentially been wiped. Your analysis sort of suggests this.

I know we don’t quite see eye to eye on the paradox bit, but since the GI and Clara (and 11 himself) are now simultaneously present throughout the Doctor’s life to that point everything we’ve seen to date is as it should have been so we end up postulating that GI/Clara only has a noticeable effect on a handful of 7b stories. I think we can both agree this isn’t correct (?). I feel I still get back to me underlying doubt whether SM has really thought the consequences through before embarking on this story line. I guess we probably disagree there 🙂 .

The other question I come back to if GI, Clara and Doctor 11 enter his time stream (which by definition runs from birth to death) the Doctor 11 and Clara must become aware of all 13 Doctors and his entire future history. Nothing less than that makes sense to me. So even if the Hurt Doctor isn’t the Doctor by choice of name (choice of action/personal responsibility of course) he is biologically, so his memories must be in the timeline. In fact all 13 Doctor’s memories must be present so Clara MUST have seen all 13 (unless he dies before the biological end). Surely the GI will not have started his attach from just 11 downwards only.

Of course SM can still fix this problem in the anniversary story and may have a clever explanation. Short of that though this are the sort of things which cause SM problems for me.

Cheers

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@curvedspace

yes I can believe that. Fall of 11 doesn’t actually mean anything in particular, but we do know his “grave” is there, but not when he dies (or if its an immutable point than can never change). I read here that there is a view that Trenzalore might really be Gallifrey. That also has a certain logic that I can buy into conceptually.

Do you have any views on the Amy/Rory and Tardis discussion we have been having ?

Thanks

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

Interesting. Can someone who knows the details please take the time to list them for my benefit (totally selfish I know). I’d be interested in hearing how views on how this change frees future producers at all though.

If you ignore costume continuity (which BG who certainly did) then for example, you can fit any Dalek story into their time line anytime before they were completely wiped out in the Evil of the Daleks (if they were  – after all that was just Skaro not the entire Dalek empire) and before the Doctor destroyed Skaro in Remembrance of the Daleks – just when was that ?). Of course you can then argue the TimeWar changed everything anyway. I have to say, I think past BG and AG continuity is only what you chose to make it when you rite the stories. The Doctor occupies a non-linear universe afterall.

To me the relaunch needed is to get the Doctor out from under the TimeWar guilt and enable his personality to “mend” to open up a future where the Doctor operates without his guilt and to have any personality type instead of one suffering from the effects of his decisions. Doing this convincingly is, I think, the challenge SM has opted to take.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@scaryb

@Madscientist72 and I share that credit I think. I don’t necessary disagree with your analysis of the Tardis and Clara at all. I’m not sure that you are in anyway wrong. I need to rewatch all of series 5, 6 and 7 to be sure, but I think SM introduced (deliberately) this is the Doctor’s Wife and has followed it up thereafter culminating in the Impossible Girl idea (so far I rather like Clara as companion even).

Narratively SM wanted to show that the Tardis and Doctor were emotionally linked in a way that hadn’t been expressed or really suggested before then. My impression was before the Doctor’s wife, it was clear there was a special relationship (it is his home, refuge and much more after all) and the Tardis was part organic and certainly alive (sentient) in some way. SM took this theme and went further is quite a reasonable and logical way (at least it seemed like that to me at the time). However, from the debates here and the way the series has continued under his watch, I have begun to realise it has implications for the underlying narrative that I find I really dislike.

RTD went for his emotional pay-offs in a very different way (Earth Invasions, Rose & family, Rose’s ending) than SM. I felt uncomfortable with this at the time (my BG who wasn’t like that and I didn’t think it was necessary – see series 1 verses 2, 3 and 4 in terms of how the emotional pay-offs are handled). I understood RTD was trying to find a way the BG who fitted into the modern world to relaunch the show (and was right – the audience proves this). I came to accept this and actually saw the less hysterically dramatic stories lines and better thought through early SM era being distinctly better (I admit preferring something more intellectual than emotional).

I now see that SM’s different style of emotional element has negative consequences for me. Showing the Doctor/Tardis relationship in the way he did was fine. But what he has done (I assume deliberately although I’m not always sure whether he has really thought his ideas through that well) has changed the dynamic of the show. The Tardis choses where to take him (how, why for hat reason we don’t know I think). In effect, she choses his companions (my inference, but a reasonable one I think), could possibly even by manipulating how the thinks and what he remembers (via the telepathic circuits) and (as Madscientist72 said) puts him in the wrong place at the wrong time. Does he really have any free will left ?

You and @bluesqueakpip have quite reasonable either put forward explanations for why this is the way it is (or extrapolated from what SM has written) but for me, the underlying dynamic of the show has changed from the Doctor’s travels in time and space with the Tardis and his companions to the Tardis’s travels with her companion the Doctor and his helpers/family. It may be a small change for you, but I feel like its a big change and one I don’t like. By the way, you only have to change the Tardis to become one of Lawrence Miles type 101’s (the living walking version that is first shown in his book Alien Bodies) and you can eliminate the need for a Companion entirely from the show.

This is a completely personal opinion, in fact more of a gut feeling then anything else, and the for the me the epiphany has only happened in the last week or so (although I had misgivings watching the Clara story unfold). I may yet come around and recognize how clever SM has been or not.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

Do we know this, as opposed to believe this explanation. I’m asking because (not unusually in AG who) I missed it if it was explained. As an explanation it is completely valid I think. However, we are watching the Tardis show with her puppet Doctor (I appreciate this is somewhat extreme version, but in  my view it is the end conclusion if you follow that particular explanation). Whether this was what exactly SM intended I’m less sure.

@scaryb

Of course if we now want to use the Clara excuse to fix any continuity problem (or invoke the GI’s presence to explain it in the first place) then we can of course. I choose not to, but that’s my choice. The impossible girl arc is one of those things I just intend to blank out of “my” Who – as opposed to SM’s version – because I believe the entire SM conceit to be absolute nonsense (unless we get some additional element in the two remaining parts of the Doctor 11 story). I think I can have a go at explaining why this is nonsense for me in reasonably coherent way if you want, but I won’t do it in any expectation or even intention to change your or anyone else’s mind in any way. I accept this is my choice and will go with it even if it means that a big part of the anniversary plot doesn’t work for me.

@bluesqueakpip

I think we may actually be talking about much the same thing (possibly). I agree in a linear sense of the Doctor’s life it was one pattern, then the GI changed it causing pain, suffering and possibly even death, the Clara change it again. The three versions are probably different (although post Clara intervention it might be back to the original pre GI version). What I mean is, the version we have seen over the years is has to be the final version post Clara intervention as this is was the version his personal time line was written to. For us then, nothing changed.

I can accept an argument that everything changed and none of the historic Who stories we’ve seen happened in the way we saw as well (see Trial of a TimeLord for a sort of precedent here). That’s fine too , but then I’n not sure I really like it.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@scaryb

The Doctor’s personal history has already been changed with first the GI, then Clara (and the Dr himself)  jumping into his own timestream. We don’t know the full implications of that yet, but it could be used to retcon absolutely any inconsistencies in the show’s backstory.

The problem with timetravel and paradoxes is that once this happened, it became there from the start. Therefore I think you can equally say that his personal timeline hasn’t changed at all. The GI, Clara and himself were always their in his timeline. I don’t think any writer in the history of the show has quite got to the narrative problems this sort of thing can create quite right.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

I agree there are lots of little things like this in Who over the years, which don’t seem to really work when you take a long term view. However, I’ve always told myself that we only get to see the adventures (good TV) and all those visits to other places where there nothing remarkable happens just aren’t televised. Of course the Doctor can’t go from being 400 something (Doctor 2) to being over 1,000 (Doctor 11) based on what we see on the show. Who knows what happens in the many Gaps.

In the long term, the idea that the TARDIS has her own agenda – to take the Doctor to places where his interfering will bring about a better outcome – is more sustainable for the show

The problem with this idea, nice as it is, is that it just raises another raft of questions. Why did this Tardis, rather than any of the other Tardises, get to have an agenda at all ? What is her (it?) agenda and how did the Tardis decide that was the right agenda to have. From their you get into questions like Does the Doctor know ? Does he care that he’s being manipulated that way ?

@scaryb

I love all these timey-wimey explanations. The problem I think is if the Tardis knows/senses everywhere the Doctor has and will be, surely she (it) [somebody needs to invent a personal pronoun with gender neutrality really] would decide to avoid the location where the Doctor eventually dies (let alone the ones where he regenerates). Of course you may say it was difficult to get to Trenzalore, but then I think we’re about to find out that the Doctor doesn’t die there after all because his personal future is (somehow) about to be changed to kick off a new regeneration cycle. There’s a Catch 22 situation in there somewhere.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@Shazzbot

Can I edit that sentence please ? Objectives and lose the last might be of interest.

(walks away in shame…)

[Nick @replies]

@Madscientist72

Its not something that bothers me especially, but I fully understand why some people want to have as much of a surprise as possible when they watch.

I have yet to read a spoiler that is completely spot on to eliminate any surprise at all. Mind you, I read about series 7b here or on the Guardian before I watched any of it without spoiling the pleasure (actually enhanced the experience is some ways as I looked out for the bits that people talked about that had some significance).

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@Madscientist72

I followed a couple (including we cant do 11 doctors’ in the anniversary show, but I didn’t think there was anything new there). I didn’t see the two you highlighted though. The first one is for the spoiler thread I think ?

Thanks

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

I don’t think I was ever a fan (just watched the show, bought the books and a few DVD’s of the ones I missed). Everything you write is true or can be construed as being true of course. The Tardis became alive (sometime in Tom Baker’s run or was it before then ?) so the concept is an old one. SM has taken it to a next level (I refuse to say the as its I don’t think it was the only way to go probably).

Strangely, while I much prefer SM’s era than RTDs from a story perspective (his story/character arcs are much better conceived for example) I’m beginning to realize I really don’t like some of the things he’s dropped in to get where he wants to go. Fortunately, (for me anyway) the next show runner may well drop a lot of it for their own conception.

I’m not sure I’m the right person to start it, but a thread on the different styles and showrunner objectives for AG Who might be interesting to tease out the subtle differences.

Cheers

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@MadScientist72

I wasn’t taking myself that seriously, but the point I wanted to make was that (for me) the small change Steven Moffat made in the Doctor’s Wife [you highlighted originally] seems to actually create quite a fundamental change in the basis of the series. I’m sure (pretty sure) that it wasn’t intended to do that and I don’t suppose it will last in the long term.

It appears I seem to have a bigger problem with SM’s interpretation when you get to the nitty-gritty (details – I think you’re from the US ? I shouldn’t assume and use English slang really) even though I have enjoyed SM’s run (so far) more than RTD’s.

@Shazzbot

What is the Tardis if not his longest and most faithful companion :). Sorry I just had to write that  after “A teensy bit off-topic from the thread’s focus on companions” even though I know you’re spot on.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@Madscientist72 @Shazzbot

Slightly different take on Shazzbot’s point:

Does the Tardis telepathic circuits still exist in AG Who. If so, the Tardis could rewrite his memory and alter his perception to create the sort of Doctor she wanted. We all can see Doctor 1 (or is it zero these days) wasn’t the finished article back in the Unearthly Child/Cave of Skulls.

[Nick @replies]

@Shazzbot

Sorry it seems I rather like to diverge off topic 🙂

[Nick @replies]

@scaryb

If its less than 100 minutes I’ll be disappointed 🙂

[Nick @replies]

@wolfweed

Hi there. I was surprised you didn’t mention the two other Who links on the page (Steven Moffat referring to the anniversary episode as “movie” length and Murray Gold referring to a possible controversial plot twist). I hadn’t seen either mentioned before (although I’m generally the last person to see this sort of stuff – apologies if its already been posted here).

Thanks

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@Madscientist72

I don’t disagree with the thrust of your comments of course, but I do with the specifics.

1. Any TV show needs to keep a base of recurring  watchers who we might call “fans” of the show. However, even if we say 60 % of the audience is a recurring watcher (some 4.2 million people a week) I’d say if 1 % were fans in the sense we use here (42,000 people in the UK alone) then this and other sites would be packed to the gills, merchandise (books, games, DVD etc) would all be well up on the best seller lists etc. My point is I don’t think there are actually that many fans really. The point I’m making is that I’m one of those 42,000 and If the depth of Moffat’s design for Amy/Rory relationship arc wasn’t obvious to me until the discussion above, then what hope do many of the 4.2 million have ?

2. Of course I agree he ought to be better in generation 11 than in 1 in his ability to operate the Tardis (he’s had at least 900 years to read the user guide after all). But if he can steer it (because he’s fixed whatever major  technical problem that this obsolete Tardis had when he borrowed it), you have to ask how does he keep being in the right place at the right time ?

Your answer, part taken from the show is what I would call a Moffatism. By which I mean a fairly throw away line/explanation in a story to explain why something the result of which appears to radically change the nature of the show itself by giving rise to more problems than it solves in my opinion.

Via the Time Vortex, the Tardis can see all of time and space, so the Doctor showing up “at the right place at the right time” is hardly surprising.

my inference: The Time Lords have built an unknown number (probably hundreds) of Tardis capable of this feat. Wow. With this power they can really rule the universe without breaking a sweat. Just think of the Galiffreyan equivalent of the NSA using essentially unlimited storage and processing power combined with search algorithms which they have honed over 10,000+ years. Eventually they will have mapped the history from beginning to end of every single species in the universe (a relatively small finite number after all).  Using time/space travel, you just need a small interference here and there to change the development of a species (delaying the invention of a key technology, eliminating a key individual before they were born etc). Nothing major and noticeable. The possibilities are almost limit less. You  have an unseen empire of puppet masters who have created the universe to their design.

Perhaps TimeLord society you didn’t like that, so they implemented a non-intervention policy. Even so, lets assume you leave things be or perhaps take the view that the positive outcomes of having Daleks, Cybermen around outweigh the negatives, so you decide to allow their existence to continue, surely having the ultimate knowledge of their time, you would know that the Daleks would eventually invent time travel and come after you. Since you have this power first, you would eliminate the possibility that the other power would create the technology before they even created it. A time war of sorts I suppose. In fact with that sort of technology the only convincing timewar possible is a Time Lord civil war, using the other races as pawns in their game (hello Lawrence Miles). By the way, the Genesis of the Daleks concept rather negates this possibility as it implies the Time Lords don’t have this sort of technology, but that’s a small problem easily overcome if you want to.

Maybe that’s too far a stretch for you. A simpler idea would be better. Ok, let’s say the Doctor’s Tardis is unique and special (Moffat has used Clara to imply that). Ignoring all the how/why questions that little idea raises, just what does that imply really ? The Tardis “searches” all of the universe’s hot spots where the presence and actions of the Doctor might be of benefit and then drops him off randomly to make a difference. I say random because  there doesn’t seem to be a order from the most important to the least. Perhaps the Tardis is training him getting him skills and experience base ready for the tougher challenges. Since the Tardis is choosing his challenges for him so perhaps she also determined that he would work best with a companion or two to help. Its not much of an inference to suggest its the Tardis who is actually selecting the Companions based on each regenerations personality requirement and the challenges they face by bring them together. Just how much free will does the Doctor have ?

In conclusion, surely we are actually watching the adventures of Tardis in time and space using her willing pawn the Doctor to improve the universe. Tardis as God.

MadScientist72, please call me old fashioned but it sometimes can appear that Moffat Who really isn’t the same show as RTD and BG production team made anymore. RTD has 9 and 10 highlight their lack of Tardis control on more than one occasion and it was pretty much the normal operating condition in BG Who (not entirely of course, when needed the Doctor could always fly the Tardis pretty well).

I apologise to you as well, as I’m not trying to get at you in any way here. Your statement is Moffat’s and his alone. My point is that you can create some pretty wild ideas by making relatively simple and plausible inferences from these few lines without making any real effort. Its where you can get to, I don’t really like. I know we’re not really supposed to care or think about these sort of explanations that are there to make the story work on a particular emotional/narrative level really. There have always been (and will always be) plot holes and inconsistencies in Who, that don’t make sense really, but I think its best for everyone if you avoid them getting too close to the heart of the show.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@MadScientist72

I wish I had half of your imagination

Cheers

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@bluesqueakpip @scaryb

Apologies. I mis-read the original comment to be friends getting older quicker rather than the other way round. I absolutely agree with your comment ScaryB although I still don’t see anything that necessarily demands really extended periods travelling (months/years) to add up to the “10 years” though. As I pointed out before, if SM really wanted to show something like that, then they really needed to add some aging into the make-up mix.

The ability to drop a Companion back into their life is, I think, perhaps the biggest conceptual difference between AG and BG. In BG, the Doctor’s control of the Tardis was almost non-existent which is why the AG narrative of dropping Companions back into their lives periodically didn’t occur back then.

By the way, I think BG concept worked better the Doctor randomly dropped into a situation where there was an issue to solve (and of course the off-screen adventure in between were holidays if you like). In the AG narrative you almost have to ask just why the Doctor arrives at the right place at the right time given he can pilot the Tardis pretty much wherever he likes. That is another discussion though :).

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@scaryb @jimthefish

your Casual viewers and balance right comments

Without a poll of some audience appreciation analysis, we’ll never know which side of the hypothetical line the “truth” lies. You may well be right that it doesn’t matter to the show as a whole, but I think that if the more casual part of the audience, whether its someone who is a fan like me or not, doesn’t pick up on the basics of what you are trying to do with the characters you have to consider that you have failed to get your concept across as a writer surely ? 

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@scaryb

Thanks. I hadn’t seen that (of course) but it does tie in with what I considered to be true anyway in that both RTD and SM had roughed out at least three of four years of the show from the outset. I firmly believe that SM has been moving towards the anniversary/christmas climax for Doctor 11 for 2 or 3 years already.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

Thanks. I’m beginning to appreciate the one line part (as I said I guessed there were things I’d completely missed). However, the

“Amy mentions that they’re growing older faster than their friends (because of time spent travelling with the Doctor) and hazards a guess that it’s been ‘ten years’ for them”

is counter-intuitive for me. Growing slower than their friends makes sense, not older. To me it implies they spend 10 years personal time in the Tardis and reenter their Earth time line after only two years (say) has passed by. Apart from the where the hell have you been for two years type questions from their friends, just when do they spend that much time travelling.

In the first series (or was it the second ?), Rose returns home after one year real time has elapsed after her disappearance, but after only a short time travelling for her. This is surely more realistic ?

Thanks

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@Shazzbot

I let my distaste of Amy’s treatment of Rory – the constant put-downs, the condescending attitude, the witheringly dismissive tone of voice – overshadow my ability to objectively analyse the relationship in total

I’m not sure why it should have this effect. If you cant believe in the relationship at the outset then how can you objectively consider the entirety to work as fiction for you ?. If you reject it as being something that just wouldn’t last in your point of view, then how can the entirety can have meaning. I like Amy/Rory/Doctor it doesn’t mean I like Amy or Rory individually in terms of how they’re written as characters. A bit counter-intuitive I know for me to argue the sum of the parts worked better than the individual elements.

You’re right – their arc embodied so many ‘firsts’ that for long-term watchers of the programme, it all was quite thrilling.  A newbie like me didn’t appreciate all of that.

I have to ask why you think that as a newbie it should be different for you. I’d guess 70 to 80 % of the audience is as much as a newbie as you are. I certainly don’t think your perspective is any better than mine as an oldie.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@jimthefish

I’m the first to accept that if you are taking in the whole multi-media watching several times etc perspective as you suggest its absolutely right that you should (and do I hope) get much more out of it than I do as a single time viewer. One of my pleasures is learning about the things I missed on places like here and evaluating others ideas and perceptions against my own. What I’m really complaining about here, is that it seems so much was left unseen and unsaid that it makes me wonder if I have watched the same show.

My unwritten question here, is just what did the general audience think was happening ? (you know, the ones who don’t watch every episode shown and don’t consider themselves to be “fans” in the sense they drop into sites like this). This goes back to the point we have tangentially discussed elsewhere. The easiest way to ensure Who is put into back hiatus is to create something that you need to be a fan to get.

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@phaseshift

In part answer to my question it would take more than this to stop me watching lol.

I like your comment “The broad sweep of Series 7 has been the Doctors disengagement from his friends and seeing his new companion as a puzzle in the wrong way” and wonder whether this (and the series 5/6 story arc as well) will get some bigger linked explanation in the anniversary and Christmas specials. I rather hope so.

To answer your specific question (and I’m sure others will have a different point of view) in the case of Amy/Rory, then it appears to me that you do need to have the level of analysis presented on sites like this to understand how it was meant to pull together. Left to my own devices (and I’m sure I haven’t noticed or paid enough attention to some lines of the script and haven’t seen the little extras on the web site) I saw nothing that said to me that the Amy/Rory stories played out over as much as 5 years of their lives (sorry they just don’t age from 20 some things to 50 some things suggesting ‘decades’ of their lives together having passed by over the stories we see).

I may or may not come back to explaining just why this didn’t work for me on the level it did for you and debate particular points you raise above as I’d rather hope others will express their points of view first.

Thanks

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@Shazzbot

 I started watching the show in 2005 so my expectation levels were set from the get-go on seeing the Doctor through the companion

I started in 1970/71 ish, so whilst I have different expectations in some or even many respects, this is isn’t one of them.

I’m quite capable of believing that Mr Moffat’s conception of the Amy/Rory story is more complicated that it appears and that it should pay back a more detailed examination than it would on first sight, with hidden levels of subtly, but this much ?

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@htpbdet @jimthefish @phaseshift @janetteb @MadScientist72 @Shazzbot @bluesqueakpip @scaryb

Fascinating discussion on the Amy/Rory relationship arc. It makes me sorry that I missed most of the subtly and nuances you describe, especially since the relationship arc left me with a bit of a sour taste at the end of the day.

As a viewer who has seen each episode once (so far) and doesn’t go digging into the BBC website for the extras (let alone spending time on sites like these in any consistent way), should I conclude I’m watching the wrong show ? As HTBPDET commented elsewhere, I don’t expect the show to be made for me and take the bits I like with the bits I don’t (I’m not a F-ARSE after all ), but I’m not entirely convinced its a good idea to leave as this much apparently unsaid on screen.

(Sorry, I cant find quite the right words to express myself properly here)

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@htpbdet

Ben/Polly. Absolutely agree, there was no love relationship on screen. I don’t think any modern writer would keep that as is though, which is why [like Barbara and Ian] the relationship would be more in your face today. It would be shown to develop during their time travelling with the Doctor. It might not have lasted post departure that long, but that’s another story.  (see the Who Alt 1 blog post for a different take on the Ian/Barbara relationship)

Jamie/Victoria made more sense as a Victorian lady wouldn’t would she ?

Thoroughly tongue in cheek

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@htpbdet

The surprise in most cases, was that the departure came out of the blue, as they didn’t bother to sign post the Companion character development which “caused” their departure to happen. If they had done that, would we really be making this to be such a big difference BG/AG as we do?

I don’t understand? Rose was wrenched into another dimension; Martha had been alone, away from the Doctor for a year, and had moved on and was in a relationship; Donna’s memory was wiped and staying with the Doctor could kill her; Amy and Rory were thrown back in time to a point inaccessible by the Doctor.

In each case, the companion’s finale was the story. In BG, that was not ever the case, except, arguably at least, perhaps for Adric. Every other companion left because of an opportunity or decision that was unplanned or opportunistic.

Sorry I’m not sure I was clear enough. I agree in BG the writers didn’t bother to write in the departure, which is why it is opportunistic on screen. However, its not to say that with quite small edits it needn’t have been. For example (and this is mostly based on what I recall from seeing the story first run and reading the target books (usually several times) as a teenager

• Nyssa had a biosciences background. She leaves to help perfect the cure for the disease shown in Terminus and help the suffers. The exit is consistent with her character and background (and she’s not human and no longer has a family to speak of).
• Turlough finds his Brother/family and leaves
• Teagan has seen enough of death and destruction at the hands of the Daleks, Cybermen etc and leaves for perfectly good emotional reasons
• Ian/Barbara wanted to get home, they reluctantly leave as soon as the opportunity arises
• Romana leaves to help the Tharils. Having matured with the Doctor’s help, she leaves home if you like
• Victoria you explained yourself

The failing in BG Who was that they didn’t show that any of the Companions had grown/changed as individuals and to sign post that their departure day was arriving. If they had added this relatively small change then the Companion leaving would no longer be quite the shock it was. BG was stupid and thoughtless in the how, but the why’s were more often than not quite reasonable in hindsight.

On Donna

I didn’t mean suffered quite like that. She was changed by Runaway bride for the better, but RTD made the character suffer right at the end. Even then Donna, wouldn’t really have been aware of her fate. We and Wilf suffer for her.

On Sarah-Jane

I can see what you mean, but to end up alone, seemingly without a family and only a career until the Doctor showed up again is what I was thinking of.

Cheers

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@HTBPDET

Being a fan of the programme does not mean it is necessary to like or approve of everything that happens in it

Not that its needed but this is just about the best definition of a fan you can give. If only the F-ARSEs out there could understand.

@phaseshift, @jimthefish @arkleseizure

Apart from Survival I haven’t watched any of the Anthony Ainley Master stories since they were first shown. I have fond memories of Traken, Logopolis and Castrovalva for sure. I recall he was good in some of the other stories (Planet of Fire, Kings Demon spring to mind) as well. In fact I enjoyed most of the stories he was in at the time (it was always good to have the Master back) although some were disaster concepts from the outset (what were they smoking when they came up with The Rani thing they were all in ?).

Not generally keeping up with the Media, I hadn’t seen the John Simm article before. I found that very reassuring as I hated RTD’s Master concept almost from the moment John Simm appeared. I know he’s one of our best current actors (and would make an excellent Doctor), but I thought the AG Master story arc to be a wasted opportunity. Simm showed great flashes of his talent, but overall I found the portrayal to be far far far OTT to really grab me. I’d love to see John Simm back to play the Master from a dark dark place.

I may be in a  minority of 1 here, but it seems RTD got this one wrong. (shucks he’s allowed). Actually, I have always wondered how the Show Runner can write quite as many episodes as they do. You can never be quite as good editing your own work and I think a series like Who needs quite close attention if you’re going to make the best of the rather limited opportunity. There’s already a lot to fit in a small number of stories as it is.

Nick

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@bluesqueakpip @htpbdet @Shazzbot @phaseshift @jimthefish

My only surprise here is that you’re all surprised. Bluesqueakpip describes the BBC’s attitude to the show spot on in my opinion (Children’s TV, Science Fiction ? ugh).

The lack of any decent celebration ties in with just how the BBC has handled the show recently. Whatever the good reasons they have given publically, you don’t replace two 13 part series with one 13 part series shown over two years and have a break until August 2014 if you really believe this is one of your flagship programmes ? (while blowing 100 million on crap implementation of an IT project and paying 2 million to get rid of some troublesome senior employees).

There are advantages and disadvantages of Who being made by the BBC afterall

Nick

[Nick @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

Thank you for this insight. I have to say its not a thought that had crossed my mind at all (no surprise their though) and I’m not entirely sure I like what you think Mr Moffat has done dramatically. If true then (for me at least) it needs more signposting. I would have never appreciated that there was such a long time interval shown in the Rory/Amy relationship on screen. I would have guessed 2 to 3 years at most.

Whilst I like your “seeing the Companions from the Doctor’s viewpoint” idea, I don’t necessarily think that the Doctor’s view is patchy. Given his age/aging (even without the Tardis), its quite possible for him to see watch their entire lives unfolding from the sidelines (much more likely for him to do for an intrigue like Clara). Isn’t this what we are supposed to believe the monk Doctor is avoiding doing in the Bells of St John ?

One other thought I had when reading your post is that we may also be seeing the effect of changes in their personal timeline has on their relationship. On screen we see them together (Hungry Earth) in the near future, when they have come back to see their earlier selves with the Doctor. During the story, the crack thing, kills Rory (which is why we see Amy alone later), which then results in the rest of that Story Arc playing out. Whilst Rory/Amy end up going back home together, its not clear that their future still follows the timeline shown at the beginning of Hungry Earth (together on the hill side) still happens. Of course the course of their future, changes dramatically in later stories, multiplying the timey wimey effect on their lives (ending with them in past Manhatten). I think its reasonable to suggest that there would have been simultaneous changes in the nature of their relationship as well.

On a more general point, we accept that travelling with the Doctor changes Companions out look on life and the way that they approach it.. Whilst the effect can be detrimental (eg Sarah Jane’s unresolved departure from the Doctor and Rose too actually), but it can also be beneficial. I’d say the Donna we see at the start of the Adipose story has changed dramatically from the Donna in the runaway bride [of course RTD just has to show us the price she pays for this].

Actually, playing devils advocate here, in AG Who I’d say that RTD/SM have consistently shown us that the Companions pay a high personal price for the gains they make from travelling with the Doctor. Has any  of them actually left unharmed from the experience ? Whilst this may be, narratively satisfying for the story, is it actually good for the series in the long run ?

Nick

 

 

 

[Author]

Posts