Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
19 June 2017 at 17:24 #59303
None of my business (other than its an interesting debate, which I recall from earlier). When scientists (at least some depending on the discipline) talk about proof, they also take the precision of the result into account.The experiment has not only to be replicable, but the outcome also has to be measured accurately.
As an aside:
When the guys at CERN discovered the Hoggs-Bosun (or any other new particle) they required that the measurement of the average (mean) of particles energy (mass) is within 6 standard deviations. For any reading this, who haven’t come across probability based analysis, that means the range on either side of the average energy calculated from the millions of individual detections, is extremely narrow. The high precision of the measure was deem proof that the data was showing more than some fluke random distribution and that a particle existed at that energy/mass.
For the stuff I was doing, for example, using radioactive isotope ratios measured using a mass spectrometer, (determining the age of individual sample was one outcome) we were happy at 2 standard deviations (due to the ability to replicate the result and the intrinsic accuracy of the mass spectrometer and detector).
19 June 2017 at 14:34 #59296You both describe exactly what I think and feel. I’ve started and restarted trying to write something in response to both of you
Perhaps, because I’ve been out of the UK for four years – back for less than a year – I hadn’t appreciated just how much anger there is in the UK right now even as communities draw together. I think a lot is due to economics (the majority are poorer than they were in 2008. Post election this may change, but it was probably going to get worse; certainly worse if you relied on social welfare benefits).
Some is due to being scapegoated (the poor, Islam, more recently brexiteer = racist). A lot seems also due to a widespread feeling of disenfranchisement, that other things (Brexit, deepest austerity for the poorest, growing elitism, immigration in particular) have exacerbated.
I not really old enough to know how the 1970 to the mid 1980s felt to those living then. But the UK does seem to be following a similar trajectory right now.
In many ways I’m not surprised. Our political and economic elite have run an laissez-faire import economy for the last 30 years. We import money (government and especially private borrowing), goods (a £5 to 10 billion per month deficit in trade goods going back years), people (easier and cheaper to import skilled and non-skilled people than invest here, especially as jobs growth has focused on London and the SE and not where it was needed most).
I’m sorry to go back to politics and economics as it isn’t really appropriate, but it does feel to me that the one thing that is driving everything else.
19 June 2017 at 14:04 #59294@blinkinsopthebrave
“avoiding something else”
I can only think that this is his regeneration. It can’t have been Missy as he knew she was in the Tardis
19 June 2017 at 13:59 #59292I think there are a lot of quite confusing strands, which suggest the last three parts (including christmas) could go in a lot of different ways. It is certainly multi-master and may be multi-doctor. We may or may not get some cameos (Clara, River, Rose, Capt Jack even if that rumour is true) if Moff present his version of a Tom Baker style regeneration. What about the two regenerations (turning into one perhaps ?). What exactly is Moff’s intention for a “different” regeneration and what is going on with the Doctor’s unusual behaviour in series 10.
One thing I do feel strongly, is that Missy’s redemption will turn out to be real (although she will never become “Doctor Like”), she will help the Doctor somehow (save him ?) and the Master will reject her as not being one of him and Missy will pay the ultimate price.
I also feel that neither Bill or Missy will die in the next episode (Moff’s pre-announcement of a Death is likely fake news – thank you Donald – ). It also feels likely that Moff may explain the Doctor/Master relationship (and that it might have something to do with Susan). I would not be surprised if both Missy and Bill fall in the final episode and that this will be the starting point for the Christmas special.
I don’t think I can rationally support all or even much of this (and JanetteB and missrori your explanations and analysis both connect for me). I can’t wait to find out. Christmas is too far away.
19 June 2017 at 03:13 #59276To early to be sure yet, but it seems all too likely I’m afraid.
19 June 2017 at 03:10 #59275Another piece of terrorism, it seems, to night in London, with a van being driven into people outside Finsbury Park Mosque. I had hoped something like this wouldnt happen, although I can’t say I’m surprised.
18 June 2017 at 22:48 #59270Maes Howe is a fantastic place to visit. What makes it even better, is the walk down the road past the Stones of Stennes, across the Ness of Brodgar to the Ring of Brodgar; the view across the lochs to the low hills that surround the site (there are various possible landscape alignments as well if (!) I remember correctly). Its then a short drive to Skara Brae, which is one of the oldest dwellings sites in Northern Europe at about 5,000 years old.
I’ve visited twice, but that before the recent excavations on the Ness itself. If current theories pan out at the completion of the excavation (several years in future unfortunately) then the Ness area may represent the cultural heart of Neolithic ‘religion’ in the British Isles.
18 June 2017 at 21:22 #59266I’ve always been bothered by the lack of resolution regarding that Ship and the pilot, although the original source of the liquid was only a small shuttle from the other evidence on the ground. Nano-liquid and Cyberman nanites ?
The shuttle landing near the vault ought to mean something ? Surely the Doctor would have investigated (off screen) ?
Missy in Control or the Cybermen ? What would have happened in the Gaiman cybermen story a few years back, if the Doctor had submitted to the cyber-nanites, but not been physically converted ? Equally, presumably the conversion nanites could be hacked by Missy ?
One other thought, the Mondas Cybermen are more primitive (the hospital ward scene suggests its a slow physical process). Does that change things ?
18 June 2017 at 20:33 #59259Well remembered. There’s several other faces we haven’t seen yet as well (Kate Stewart and Angels)
18 June 2017 at 20:26 #59257Thanks. Excellent. It appears to be a Mondas Cybermen origin story then. A couple of quick observations/questions:
- Bill appears to be partially cyber-converted in the Hospital bed scene
- Are the planet (Mondas ?) scenes a flash back to explain the origin of the cybermen on the ship or something else.
- A glimpse of Master and Missy together
18 June 2017 at 19:22 #59252Bonkers brilliant ! However, cant you take that idea one step further and speculate that Susan was the first generation of the Master ? Hatred building out of the Doctor’s failure to “come back one day”
18 June 2017 at 18:36 #59249Yes indeed. There’s more evidence for Roman military activity in Scotland than anywhere else (and there are lots of it !). However, there seems to be little evidence regarding how much of Scotland was occupied between the first invasion in 84AD and the building of Hadrian’s Wall in 122. The second invasion took place in 140AD ish. That didnt last long either.
Its not clear when the various eastern scottish tribes morphed into the Picts. I believe they left no written history and few historical descriptions have survived from Roman times, although there is no doubt they were related to the same Celtic tribes in England and wales, before the Roman invasion. It’s very fascinating period historically.
18 June 2017 at 18:25 #5924818 June 2017 at 16:41 #59242Great analysis of the known knowns and the known unknowns. I think Moff said that he lies didn’t he ? 🙂
Take a look at the video @wolfweed posted at 58657. If there is a link between the night time inserted video clip and what Michelle says in the interview around that clip, then whatever happens next week is not going to be straight forward. So far as I can tell, the video clip is from the last episode.
18 June 2017 at 16:10 #59240I’ve had an interesting morning trying to gain a superficial overview of the known history of Roman’s in Scotland and the Scottish tribes. A confusing picture it certainly is.
18 June 2017 at 14:17 #59234@wolfweed @thane15
It did cross my mind that the guy didnt realise the Master was a timelord. In which case 3TL is meant to be read 3 Doctors
18 June 2017 at 03:09 #5921718 June 2017 at 02:50 #59215Having reopen the link, I see it was written by a RT journalist. Is it just speculation on his part then ?
18 June 2017 at 02:46 #59214My recollection follows yours in that was that Jacobi/Simm Master was a second regeneration cycle as the Time Lords brought The Master back for the Time War. Missy would need to fit into either the first regeneration cycle or before Jacobi. However, the Master has form occupying other people’s bodies and assuming identities, so perhaps Jacobi wasnt actually his (her) real face ?
18 June 2017 at 02:33 #59213When I read it it seemed like they were adding the two pictures together as the they wrote that the current one was a dark riff on the earlier war doctor picture:
- Is that a contrast between D10 and D11 working with the war Doctor to save Gallifrey (ie the two masters working together against the Doctor).
- But the text implied The three Doctors (Peter, Matt and David ?) verses the two Masters…
Presumably this stuff is written by the BBC and NOT a RT journalist ? What sort of hint are they expecting us to take from that piece ? Is the bluff that neither interpretation is true or are they double bluffing us by telling us not to expect a multi-Doctor/multi-Master series conclusion, when that’s what’s going to happen ?
A complete red herring is also possible as well ? That would be more Moff like I think ? But did he write it ? Is his synopsis that someone the Doctor vowed to protect dies in the next episode (Missy into Master ?) also a red herring ?
Kremlinology time !
18 June 2017 at 02:21 #59211The picture of the pictish monster carving reminds me of Viking ones. 🙂 Co-incidence or some cultural cross fertilization.
18 June 2017 at 00:31 #59205Are we supposed to take that final paragraph in the RT seriously ? ! Bluff or double bluff ?
I had thought that it Missy’s death we had to “look” forward to – the end of the today’s trailer suggested that too. I didnt think there was anything out there that suggested Missy was a later regeneration than the Simm Master, although I could very easily have missed that.
I can’t wait to find out !
17 June 2017 at 22:05 #59201Its a long time since I last saw Survival. I have a lingering impression the Black Cat was linked to the Master ? I recall Ace’s attraction to the Cheetah people quite clearly, although I cant remember to which one in particular (although I’m sure it was towards one person in particular). I thought it was also partly for the sense of longing to belong to the tribe as well.
Off to rewatch it (if I can).
17 June 2017 at 20:08 #59196I cant edit, but I didnt know that it was based on Beowulf in particular. I missed the ?
17 June 2017 at 19:58 #59195Oh yes. I was about to specify that I particularly meant the design of the monster as I could see someone pointing out the concept of the monster was quite different !
On Missy, he struggle between the Doctor’s hope and his experience/knowledge was poignant. I’m tending to believe Missy is for real right now :). I suppose I’m hoping for a proper reconciliation next week.
17 June 2017 at 19:35 #59192That was excellent and great fun to watch. The monster felt like a riff on the Moorwen from Outlander (2008 film) although it was none the worst for that. The Missy scenes are the end were excellent. I’ll avoid speculating on trailer for next week here as this is clearly spoilerish.
17 June 2017 at 14:12 #5918617 June 2017 at 14:09 #5918516 June 2017 at 23:39 #59158Either of them will keep me happy. So long as its not Kris Marshall (even then I’d wish him well)
16 June 2017 at 22:11 #5915316 June 2017 at 14:01 #59142If it was 7 pm, it might be believable. Midnight ? I’ll have to remember to check the web though !
15 June 2017 at 05:16 #59101I assume you’re talking about the lack of local government response ? If so, I found that very shocking when I read some of the news coverage. I like most people who work and are earning anything above minimum wage really don’t come into contact with any of the local authorities other than by the annual tax bill. I writing based on what I read rather than personal experience.
I’m not going to try and defend the local council, but I will try and explain my understanding of the environment they work in.
Each local council’s budget is different (some areas get a lot more than others in terms of central government money while other areas – Westminster where I live – are generally so wealthy that there are few social problems in the council area to deal with.
Since 2010, there have been very large cuts in local government spending. These are broadly in the range 30 to 40 % compared to 2009 levels. Worst still a lot of money which is notionally spent by local councils is actually central government money (on Education, Policing mostly) which hasn’t been cut as much. I believe the cuts in local services are bigger than the budget reductions suggest as a result. Demand for help is also increasing. Average wages today (inflation adjusted) are still lower than in 2008.
So many local services (street cleaning, refuse collection, parking tickets, road maintenance) are all outsourced. It wouldnt surprise me that the actual number of council employees available to go and help in person is quite small. Crisis planning would have been one of the first things to go.
I cant comment on whether local services are delivered in a corporate faceless style. It wouldnt surprise me if that was the case. There are a lot of people that need help and not many people to deliver it. It’s a stressful and unpleasant environment to work.
The real culprit here, the aluminium cladding, is a long known issue. Solutions are available which are a lot safer. Planning requirements are old and dont require anything other than external fireproofing. Proper solutions are more expensive. Councils and developers want the cheapest solution. The government isnt willing to increase costs for developers, especially when fire deaths in the UK are falling and the construction sector has seen little economic growth since 2009. UK Politicians doesn’t understand RISK and probabilities (probably). Rare events that kill a lot of people aren’t really factored into their economic analysis.
14 June 2017 at 13:01 #59081I’ve been a regular attendee at Imperial College NHS trust (and its predecessors) since 1998 (due to past and current life sins I’m sure 🙂 ). My observation is that things havent got as bad as they were in 1998/99/00 (yet) and that the major investment (under Blair/Brown) is still there keeping the system safe. Since 2010, things have gone down hill significantly and the fabric is stretching thin.
14 June 2017 at 12:51 #59080@thane15
Thane – I’m wishing him well and hoping for the best.
14 June 2017 at 12:49 #59079@thane15
he would be able to link directly into the ‘hall of records’ and access the full horror of what he went through.
As i explained on the other thread I was referring to Chibnall (and Broadchucsh is the foundation of his reputation)
14 June 2017 at 10:47 #59073@thane15
Puro
A couple of things. I dont think I’ve written that Moff has made terrible decisions. I cant think of one off the top of my head. Some things work better for me than others, but thats probably true of all of us. In discussing controversial aspects like this one, we are investigating, trying to understand Moff’s creative decisions (the whys).
I’m not trying to convince you or anyone that I’m right. This isnt science or maths where the evidence is capable of showing the one true solution. I am trying to explain, often poorly, my point of view to myself and to you. I hope to read your explanation why you think what you do. It might help change my mind or not. What it will surely do, is to get me to think about what the writer was trying to achieve and ultimately to gain a better appreciation. The other, as important is that I get to learn something new. I hope you/others do too.
🙂
Nick
14 June 2017 at 10:31 #59072Yes its interesting. I dont think saving Clara was wrong, or even the wrong thing to do (although saving someone who is physically dead – no heart beat – and remains so is surely problematic). I think, to repeat my comment which started this particular discussion running, its undoctorish.
Broadly speaking, after trying everything and anything to save a companion/friend/innocent/anybody else who deserves it – right up to self sacrifice, he accepts that he failed, grieves and goes on. Clara is the only time he does something different. In my opinion, ultimately, he doesn’t managed to save Clara here, as she remains dead. She is immortal (maybe), but in a different way than either Captain Jack or Me, who remain biologically alive. To a greater or lessor extent dont both Jack and Me find immortality to be a curse quite soon after it happening as well ?
14 June 2017 at 10:15 #59071@thane15
Thane
Jim and I were discussing Chibnall in general. Whilst I welcome the idea of one long story conceptually, we both agreed that it is very hard to do (even if CC wrote all the episodes) and CC’s efforts to date (Torchwood and Broadchurch) don’t bode well. As Jim put it “his attention to detail and reliance on the viewer to accept cavalier leaps in plotting would become even more pronounced if he was writing 13 episodes.”
I was suggesting that if CC pulled away from writing stories and focused on being the show runner that he might be able to keep his reputation intact. He took a fair pasting over Broadchurch, but Who is the major league 🙂
13 June 2017 at 22:39 #59057Hmm. After Broadchurch (all three) I can’t say that I’m that hopeful anyway. Good in parts, but flawed overall. Still he deserves a chance. I always thought Moff wrote too many episodes (but then the arcs were his idea so he didn’t have much choice). If he steps back and uses a strong writing team, he might survive with his reputation intact.
If bold and risky is only Black/female Doctor and nothing much else, then I suspect he’s going to have a hard time on the internet. We have been very lucky to have RTD and Moff.
13 June 2017 at 21:08 #59054@jimthefish @missrori @blenkinsopthebrave
I want impressed by James Strong’s opinion, especially if it reflects Chibnall’s. I like the sound of bold and risky, but it come across as a bit more RTD than Moff in tone. In any case, it certainly should be different. A happy mix between the two might work better for the larger audience.
Missrori I’m broadly in favour of trying a series long story (but definitely not in Chibber’s first season), but unless Chibnall is going to write all 13 episodes himself I share Jim’s reservations. Jim is right, the final part of the recent trilogy, especially, needed closer oversight by Moff than it appears it got. Its a lot of work for the story editor and show runner to draw together episodes written by different people into a whole that works. Ultimately it would depend on what Chibnall chose to do, if he did it.
13 June 2017 at 16:47 #59047@thane15
Goodnight Puro.
Don’t tempt me into a debate on Moff’s fixed point. I prefer the BG proposition any day 🙂
13 June 2017 at 16:26 #59045@thane15
Puro
I absolutely agree the time wipe, as it was shown, was very well delivered as well as perhaps the only way out of that position once Moff took the decision to not return Clara to the dead. The question is whether that choice of Moff’s was the right one for the Doctor or not ? That’s one reason why I’d be interested to know something of Moff’s thinking.
The doctors basic moral code seems clear enough to me. I contrast how BG who put this question:
and Moffat’s answer in the Magicians Apprentice two parter – is consistent with D4’s analysis. The Doctor saves Davros in the full knowledge of what that means for both himself and the universe.
13 June 2017 at 16:17 #59044@thane15
Puro
I used the definition, as it was quicker and simpler than writing my own. I was trying to explain why I chose to use Cowardice rather than just selfish. I may have mis-written but I didn’t intend to suggest that the Doctor, at that moment, is anything but acting out moral cowardice. The moral thing to do, was to return Clara to the dead, where she belongs. Do you disagree here ? Because if it is moral to resurrect Clara, surely it is just as moral for the Doctor to do the same for River.
I was pondering on the fundamental nature which defines who and what the Doctor is in both BG and AG Who. Its certainly harder in AG Who, as the morality questions are more complicated and less black and white. Put simply, isn’t it his moral code and his courage of acting within that code no mater what the personal cost is ? The examples are numerous where he has put someone else above his own well being. That he fails this test and “saves” Clara isnt to his discredit in the circumstances, but it is why I called it unDoctorish.
So far as I recall heaven sent. The reanimated Clara has no heart beat. I think that is a clear description of being “living dead”. I shouldn’t have used zombie; I was being flippant 🙁 .
13 June 2017 at 15:09 #59040@missrori and others
Yes Hell Bound and Heaven Sent were powerful TV. What each of us find to be the most satisfying narrative is always our own preference. None of us are right or wrong in our views on this. Exploring the difference is what is interesting and educational. 🙂
13 June 2017 at 14:59 #59039@thane15 @missrori (Puro)
Contrast Moral courage (wiki definition) :
Moral courage
is the courage to take action for moral reasons despite the risk of adverse consequences. Courage is required to take action when one has doubts or fears about the consequences. Moral courage therefore involves deliberation or careful thought. Reflex action or dogmatic fanaticism do not involve moral courage because such impulsive actions are not based upon moral reasoning. Moral courage may also require physical courage when the consequences are punishment or other bodily peril.
The Doctor fails this test, the moment that he decides not to act to correct his previous action, when he resurrected Clara. Is this not an example or moral cowardice ? Its selfish as well.
13 June 2017 at 14:51 #59037@Thane15
So far as I recall heaven sent, the Doctor tried to get as far away from the Time Lords as possible, as he expected Clara to come back to life. She didn’t. She’s still dead, but is animated in that momentary instant between the point of death (the shade reaching her) and her death itself.
In horror we have zombies, living dead, vampires. They are all dead, but are animate and can think and plan (well not zombies) just like the living.
13 June 2017 at 14:41 #59036@thane15
I dunno, I saw it as something real and genuine.
Thane
It’s a matter of emphasis, rather than what was on the screen, if that makes sense. I’m not trying lump companions into boxes. But neither am i trying to make Clara exceptional, that stands out from the rest.
From my perspective, The Doctor grieves each Companion, when they move on. His wife dies, before he even knew her, and yet knowing this he continued. D8 sacrificed himself to save Rose. D9 mourned Rose when she was lost to him. Theses are very important relationships to him. But in none of these instances, all of which are as important to him (or more so with River surely) does he go insane (as @missrori put in) and try to attempt to undo what happened to them or even to reverse there death. I accept hell bent can provide an excuse (but only if you accept that each of the billions of Doctors that were created by the transmat can each remember what they saw). My point is that Clara is the exception. I dont see anything on screen that warrants that.
River was equally an enigma and remained so whilst they met subsequently until the mystery was revealed and explained. Moff chose to make River and the Doctor a married couple. Surely that relationship was closer and more meaningful than with Clara ? If any death was to push the Doctor over the edge it would be that one surely ?
I think the mind wipe was pat compared to the build up. The death and the Doctor’s subsequent actions were built up over 2.5 episodes. The memory wife covers a fraction of that time. In any case, the memory wife doesn’t resolve the situation at all (in the way that the Doctor letting Clara go after their good bye would have).
Zombie Clara goes on. The Doctor forgets. He doesn’t get to accept that “in rage and grief I did this bad thing, which I have found the strength not to do before – let alone immediately afterwards on Della with River – , but I corrected my mistake. I have learned something about myself. I have grieved for Clara. I will honour and never forget her memory etc etc.
Ultimately, its a discussion about the narrative choice Moff made at this point. Letting zombie Clara live is the easy option. Killing her finally is harder. Using a memory wipe is the easy option. Dealing with grief is harder. It’s a Mcguffin ending.
You can say that, its a Children’s show, so we cant do that sort of ending. Perhaps. But then why choose to write that sort of story, if you’re going to pass the buck when you reach the most important part of dealing with grief ?
13 June 2017 at 13:22 #59027Thanks for your thoughts as ever. I think this raises four questions for me.
1. Has Moff actually said anything about what he intended the Clara story lines mean ? If so I’d be interested in reading his thoughts, even oblique ones.
2. Are we meant to believe that because Clara was the Impossible Girl, her relationship with the Doctor was deeper and more significant than with any other Companion and his second wife River (I assume there’s another relationship of similar importance if Susan is indeed his grand daughter).
If so, I didnt see it on the screen. That may be because I have such a negative view of the Impossible Girl element of series 7.
3. This explanation has some sense to it:
Basically, the Doctor was never going to be able to move on from Clara and just take her back himself. He was too broken to choose the best answer; it was no longer an option for him. And he can’t fail a test if he’s not equipped to take it anymore.
This makes sense. Back in “The Girl Who Died”, he’d said that when she was gone he would run and run but never be able to forget her. And that was before she not only died unjustly, but he was imprisoned, isolated, and tortured and unable to have any hope of processing his grief in a healthy manner. He was driven insane — and no one in the universe could hope to mend his mind, certainly no one on Gallifrey. And even if he’d had the strength to just take her back, and assuming he didn’t just start thinking of other ways to bring her around that didn’t risk the universe…he’d be traveling around the universe a sick, unstable man forevermore.
But I dont know if I can really buy into it. If I do, then I tend to and up in a position where I can only fundamentally question Moff’s ability and judgment as a writer and show runner. The proposition that you take your lead character, add a companion who seems little different from any previous one, in terms of depth of relationship, and then arrange a situation where you destroy your lead character so completely is a bold step for anyone.
However, for me, something so drastic demands something equally dramatic in terms of resolution. Clara’s wiping the Doctor’s memory of her (I agree its not entirely clear what that means in practice) is such a pat solution. I expect better than that from Moff.
However, I do think that it needs to be Clara’s choice to wipe the Doctor’s memory of her rather than the other way round or an accident. She is trying to save him from himself. This is the only way that I can see that resolution working narratively.
Back in “The Girl Who Died”, he’d said that when she was gone he would run and run but never be able to forget her. And that was before she not only died unjustly
What made Clara’s death unjust for you ?
I thought it noble and within the bounds of her character. Her selflessness. Even if she made her decision based on a flawed understanding of the circumstances, I don’t think that changes the nature of her choice. Just as Bill made the wrong choice in the pyramid, it was still her choice to make. Of course, the Doctor being imprisoned, unable to save her (even by self-sacrifice) or even say goodbye was cruel and no doubt added significantly to his grief and rage.
4. Is Moff playing a long game ?
I’m sure Moff had a clear idea of when he wanted to leave Who. I had thought that the casting of Peter Capaldi changed his mind and extended his stay. Moff is talking to Chibnall about how he can ease the transition into the next Doctor and Chibnall’s hard reset (which I think is at the heart of season 10, even if some ideas preceded it).
It is probable that the two of them discussed and outlined D12’s characterisation and the overall narrative that they wanted to play out over his regeneration. As Series 10 progresses, surely we are seeing their ideas come to their final dramatic conclusion. If this is right, then Heaven Sent is a (major) stepping stone in this direction.
Whilst it wasn’t inevitable that both would choose to leave together, but having agreed to a concept, there is a logic that having told the story they both wanted to, that they should end together.
13 June 2017 at 11:42 #59023Or is it something else about Hell Bent that could be considered cowardly, that I’m missing?
It’s his ultimate refusal to face the fact that he can not save Clara from Death that is cowardly and selfish (although other descriptions apply equally well). He had the chance to say a final goodbye and find the beginnings of an emotional closure (an overused word) to companion Clara. But he fails that test and runs from the best answer, which would be to stop and return Clara to her grave.
Contrast with River. He goes to Della for the final dinner, knowing that it is the last time they’ll meet in life (although that is a choice of Moffs) and that she will soon die. Afterwards (as we saw at Missy’s execution) he is grief stricken, in despair, depressed. But they have said their final goodbyes (River knows that she is going to face her death). He can recover, eventually.
13 June 2017 at 11:28 #59022@thane15
Thane
For what it’s worth discussing things like cowardice and depression stems from such excellent episodes, meaty episodes, where Moffat like Whedon face an issue head on with less trite ideas, less cliché and action right on the screen mixed with little dialogue so every single word counts.
All very correct. I find discussing some of Moff’s ideas here, especially long after the event when your personal impression (whether good or bad) of the episode has faded somewhat, to be very enlightening. I didnt particularly like the end of Heaven Sent, at the time. I understood the rage and grief that drove the Doctor to act the way he did, but that it might be deeper than that hadn’t struck me. I had always thought Moff to be a good or great writer who made some wrong choices (imo). I still think that, but illuminating why he made some of those choices only adds to my appreciation of his ability.
I suspect that we will need, in a couple of years, to rewatch the whole of Capaldi’s run, using hindsight to fully appreciate what both Moff and Capaldi actually achieved.
-
AuthorPosts
