Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
8 June 2017 at 18:58 #58742
Agreed 100 % But are we in blinkers and ear muffs or not. I don’t read other who forum’s but I wouldn’t object to discussing ideas from other sites here and placing our own spin on them.
8 June 2017 at 18:54 #58741@blenkinsopthebrave @pedant @craig @thane15 @missrori @jimthefish
I have a lot of sympathy for your point of view. However, I think it depends on what your view of “bonkers theory & discussion” should be is.
I think there has to be a discussion between the strong argument for limiting discussion to that based only what you’ve seen on screen OR the equally strong point of view that we should be open to wider sources, whether Radio Times, Interviews, unauthorised surveillance of location shoots right down to spoilers which are claimed to be (but may well not be) leaks by insiders or semi-insiders (ie there mates who’ve talked about stuff off the record).
Even more, is it inappropriate to use that spoiler based information, which may well have helped you, by collating and interpretation using some of that information, which has allowed you to create a bonkers theory. What is the line between taking your unique interpretation and discussing the concepts in the episode threads where you see evidence to support your own theory BUT without cross referencing and explaining all of your rationalisation/support.
When I posed the Bill thing above, I tried to make it clear to anyone that they should think twice before reading. I dont know if that claim will turn out to be true, but it clicked as plausible to me, because I could see events that have happened on screen to date, tie into the idea and that the arc concept the guy revealed could be used to explain a lot of the irregularities and strange things on screen to date.
However, I could also see that it could also be too spoilerish to some people, because it could close off their thinking and analysis, which might limit their ability to bonkerise. Also how many of us want to know what the season may be about before it happens (not that we will ever have 100 % certainty). It does take some of the mystery away. In my view there are spoilers and spoilers. I might not want to know some spoilers. But that’s a risk we all take isnt it ? Unless you avoid the Who element of the internet for the duration. It is always possible to come across something that appears credible (especially the best part of a year after it was written) completely by accident.
Say we collectively (or the inner core @craig and the mods) decided to ban spoilers entirely. Would this solve the problem ? I doubt it. Some of us would still look at spoilers on other sites, even if we werent able to talk about them here. Further once you know something (fact or otherwise) it cant help inform your own theories and interpretation. No one can help themselves in bringing those ideas here, even if they completely avoid revealing any of the sources, which have informed their thought processes.
My own opinion is that this particular pandora’s box isnt closeable. There is no solution that will work. Even if your avoid the spoiler thread entirely, you may still come across something.
The thing that makes this site special, apart from the large number of passionate informed people who debate, is the politeness and the absolute minimum of ARSE tendencies. Most (all) of us are passionate about Who and we can’t help becoming passionate about some of the things we argue in favour of or not. Yet, the debate has largely remained polite and positive. We might not change each others opinions that often, but at least we listen and debate rather than shout people down. We are also pretty welcoming to lurkers. For example, we saw a new user make a valuable contribution on the Lie of the land thread only a couple of days ago.
8 June 2017 at 14:34 #58730@missrori @thane15
I’ve just replied to your thoughts here. However, the system appears to have disappeared it after I edited and added a couple of additional thoughts. I have contacted Craig, so it may reappear.
and now its reappeared.
8 June 2017 at 14:17 #58728@missrori @thane15
It certainly seems like the final 3 stories of D12 era is going to be something along the lines suggested, although exactly why/how is unclear.
However if the Doctor 12 is to fall and then find redemption that directly leads to regeneration. An unusual regeneration, a christmas regeneration, which suggest (to me) a voluntary regeneration to redeem himself. The sort where the Doctor concludes that his current persona is flawed (choose a better word) and needs to regeneration to find his better self.
I think the fall would need to be really significant. This sounds like he not only fails to live up to his principles, but possibly also fails to act like a Doctor in his attempt to be true to his oath (perhaps the specific one regarding Missy, but also the wider one he must have to himself in order to be the Doctor). As you suggest this would refer back to the theme of the current trilogy of stories.
I agree that does sound very It’s a Wonderful Life. It would also be a way of having scenes with Clara – and others ? [Capt Jack, Rose etc] – as well as Doctor One (that old rumour). Who better than having his original self to remind him of who he really is ? At its broadest, the character arc of D1 is to evolve into being the Doctor out of the curious time traveler we originally see, under the influence of Ian & Barbara (and Susan).
That also sets things up for Chibnall to do a hard reboot and take the Doctor onto whatever different path he has in mind. His stories may well end up being more predictable/traditional, but I don’t think that necessarily means he can’t have a high concept for his reboot. I’m pretty sure that he’d have needed to convince the Who production team as well as the BBC hierarchy that he had some big ideas (as well as being a safe pair of hands) in order to get the job.
As a total aside, Philip Sandifer in his blog review of the Pilot suggested that Moff was bringing back Susan (http://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/the-pilot-review/). Whilst he’s probably wrong on that, the analysis above seems to be consistent with the theme of the series IF we arent collectively deluding ourselves.
8 June 2017 at 12:26 #58724You know, I have to confess — I’m not buying the “redemption” thing with Missy. I think she’ll go along with the Doctor’s hopes to convert her to a decent person up to a point, but her truly twisted nature (not twisted by her own doing, let’s remember — she is, in her own way, a tragic figure, which the Doctor himself well understands) will reassert itself with some firework-y act of treachery.
Isn’t this what all of us are thinking ? Its the predictable view. I think Moff would probably try to subvert this. Therefore redemption (for Missy) is quite likely, but her twisted nature reverts with the Simm Master. Undoubtedly Missy must regenerate during one of the two final episodes, even if Simm turns up before she does.
8 June 2017 at 12:21 #58722@thane15 @jimthefish
I managed to destroy a post, where I wrote something similar to Jim’s view. When the source is unattributed, you cant know how close to things there are and whether there is some jealousy in there. I could certainly envisage Pearl, in here first major gig – it is a very big part as well – , become over-serious with Peter, which could easily be interpreted her being a diva or rude. [just think of Olivier’s comment on Hoffman from the filming of Marathon Man].
In any case, so long as the “Talent” delivers, alot is forgiven. What isnt is putting on airs and graces, without the talent to deliver the goods.
8 June 2017 at 12:10 #58720TheMoff synopsis from the Radio Times syas this about World Enough and Time:
Friendship drives the Doctor into the rashest decision of his life. Trapped on a giant spaceship, caught in the event horizon of a black hole, he witnesses the death of someone he is pledged to protect. Is there any way he can redeem his mistake? Are events already out of control? For once, time is the Time Lord’s enemy…
Given where we are today, this would appear to be either Missy or Bill ? (pledged to protect suggests Missy). Since the setting is a black hole, then it is possible that the Doctor sees the death before it has actually happened and tries to prevent it happening ?
That might well lead into the last story. At the Hay Festival Moff is quoted to say (I posted the link to digital spy above)
“I kind of do the angst in the series finale,” Moffat explained. “You’ll see how this pans out when you see the show, but finales are better at ‘last falls’, and moments of reflection, and anguish, and bloodbaths – which it certainly bloody is!
and he quoted as saying this about the Christmas Special
Whereas, Christmas Day isn’t a great day to kill off a children’s favourite. It can be sad – and it is – but to actually kill off lovely old Doctor Who is not what you want to see on Christmas Day. So it will be a tale of redemption, and hope, and deciding to carry on, instead of being a tale of the Doctor falling.
And while a regeneration might mark the end of a Doctor, Moffat argued that it’s not the same thing as dying – in fact, he thinks it’s deciding not to die. So I’m doing that. It’s an alternative to dying. You know, the Doctor is still there. He’s still in the universe, and he’s still living his life. He just has to make a massive change.
[I removed the quotation marks in the above as it seemed to cause problems on posting]
One interpretation might be that the Doctor tries to save Missy or Bill in “Doctor Falls” [there is a scene @wolfweed found in a Michelle Gomez interview that suggests Bill and Missy work together probably from the Doctor Falls), but becomes un-Doctorish as well as failing in his aim. Having failed, that would tie into Moff’s quotes about how he’s written the Christmas Special. Since he’s said that he’s working with Chris Chibnall to do something different with the regeneration, the massive change (regeneration) could well be voluntary.
Sounds interesting anyway.
8 June 2017 at 11:09 #58714aren’t there rumours that Barrowman did indeed film something ? That might fit in with Chibnall taking over ?
8 June 2017 at 01:44 #58703That wouldn’t surprise me at all. If the radio times episode guide is to be believed, then a WW2 setting can only (?) be from the Doctor Falls ?
8 June 2017 at 01:35 #58702I guess thus sits alongside @wolfweed post earlier re hay festival.
8 June 2017 at 01:21 #58700@thane15
Puro
I suspect many on the set would consider talking back to PC regarding acting to be very rude given its her first TV role. Anyway aren’t all actors meant to be difficult and actresses diva’s ( 🙂 ). So that’s par for the course.
In any case, even allowing for the necessary actor ego factor, I suspect she’d be pretty scared about having such a significant first major role. Forgetting to say hello to the necessary people is probably easier to do than you might think.
I guess everyone signs pretty heavy non-disclosure/confidentiality agreements, so using phone cameras on set is probably a career limiting move.
8 June 2017 at 01:12 #58698I didn’t mean to suggest she lacked either (although it seems I did). Changing a previously male role of that sort would be a difficult task for many actors. Playing evil convincingly requires serious talent (which is why Hollywood casts UK actors so often). I think switching from Master to Doctor, while playing the part is probably too big of an ask. Not impossible. Suppose Missy made some incredible sacrifice for the Doctor (before reappearing as Simms Master) as her act of redemption. That might create a scenario where the Doctor would become “Missy” as a form of memorial tribute. I suggest Bill is easier to do and asks less of the audience.
I wonder if we might expect a two part Christmas special ? Is this possible ? (I read/saw Moff saying something in an older interview that suggested it wasnt certain). Doing something extraordinary in the Christmas special with a Christmas setting for the kiddies is a difficult ask. Two parts avoids this. The alternative would be to make the Christmas Special D13’s first story ? This seems very unlikely.
7 June 2017 at 22:46 #58695🙂 you’re right of course. How about Simm though. I think that might have been interesting to see as well (too well known though). However, I think they are going to have to bite the bullet and pick someone other than another white guy. I rather think Moff would (should) have done it already, but casting Peter was too good to miss.
re Michelle. I cant see it happening. If you cast a women, she’ll need to be either an extremely good actor, but unknown (a lot of charisma as well) or a major star already. Mind you I am pretty confident that whoever it is, has been cast already.
7 June 2017 at 21:41 #58693Regardless of that particular piece of rumour, I think you need ask whether we think Chibbers is a risk taker or not. If you look at the general run of AG episodes, each new companion is given two or three episodes to get their feet under the table. Introducing a new Doctor is riskier still.
RTD had no choice, but would you as a new producer/show runner team (with the BBC hierarchy looking over your shoulder) take the risk to introduce both a new Doctor and new companion/assistant/whatever ? Even more so if you haven’t cast another young middlish aged white man (with all the uproar that could generate) ?
I could have seen Moff do it (but he didn’t), but Chibnall ? Also do we, the general audience, really want to go through a hard reset immediately after a soft one ? It has its appeal, but given the commercial pressures involved, everything suggests that Pearl is safe for at least half of S11.
I read (but typically cant find) that Moff said that he was he was looking forward (ie for the future of the show). Even if Moff wasnt involved in the panel decision for his replacement, its unbelievable he wouldnt have been asked his opinion. I also find it highly unlikely that Moff and Chibnall havent talked to make the transition as smooth as possible either. I’m sure Moff would have handed over any scripts/script ideas he’d collected but not used, even if Chibnall chooses not to use them.
7 June 2017 at 14:25 #58686Interesting. The original article on the web page the comment was attached to (and the comment itself) referred to some of these issues, although not as much detail.
Moff has said that Chibbers will be in charge of the immediate post regen scene at Christmas. That may imply a reveal at that point (and therefore an announcement this autumn ?). I would have thought CC’s involvement with Broadchurch would have run down late last year, before it was shown. He’s presumably had a fair amount of time to decide, even if S11 scripts aren’t finished yet.
I dont know If I beleive this, but it doesnt seem to be outright impossible. I would love to see Missy = Doctor too, but I think that is less likely than this idea. I suspect Missy will pitch in Bill to help the Doctor (somehow) and regenerate into Simm Master in time for the finale (s10 or Christmas ?). Given the christmas special will deliver the end of D12, I suspect the end of series 10 will be a cliff hanger with the Doctor in a serious predicament.
Thanks. I hadnt seen this before.
7 June 2017 at 13:43 #58683Guys. This may well be a real spoiler (it is inferred to be a leak by an semi-insider), with a significant impact (or more likely total bullshit) from last summer. However, it has the potential to significantly impact on how you may view the remainder of Season 10. You may therefore not want to read it.
@craig @jimthefish Is it possible to partially hide the text below. I really dont want to cause problems for anyone.
Whilst looking for a half remembered quote from Off on series 10 yesterday afternoon, I came across this website from August 2016, discussing rumours around the time of the filming for s10. One guy commented,which I have reproduced below:
driclives24 Aug 2016a2
I’ve not signed anything so I suppose I can say this: Mackie will stay on after Capaldi because Mackie IS his replacement, the Thirteenth Doctor. Dunno if the rumors about a conflict over scripts are correct, but you can see why there might be some conflict with having two Doctors on the show for a full series.
”Word is that eventually the Doctor will realise that “Bill” is the human manifestation of his good side; torn from him during his impending regeneration. She’ll be restored to full Time Lord by the end of the series. They’ve not even worked to hide it; her character is named after William Hartnell.”
If I had read that last year, then I would have been very doubtful about anyone claiming inside knowledge. It describes quite a far out scenario, which will cool, I would normally tend to discount as someone feeding people a line to create noise. However, I havent heard any mention of this theory (but I doubt I would given I dont search out spoilers).
However, in light of the strange things which have happened so far in S10 (the fake regeneration, the Doctor’s strange behaviour, the Doctor planning to educate Bill on “everything” etc), it looks much more likely to be a real leak as the scenario seems to tie into what we have witnessed on screen so far. It seems credible, especially given it was written last August.
Two other things, which make it more believable to me.:
- It would be a very Moff thing to do and would certainly a huge sign-off for him
- We all know that the ARSE inclined on the web forums, are likely to go into hyperdrive over a female or coloured actor being cast to play the Doctor. By presenting us with Bill for a season, especially as Pearl has proven to be a very fine actor and capable of carrying the show, Moff would undercut so much of that hysteria.
I shared this with @wolfweed and @Thane15 yesterday as I wasnt sure that I should publish. However, having seen the most recent speculation along these lines (with Missy) above, I have concluded that even though I remain very doubtful, that it would be worth sharing.
7 June 2017 at 13:06 #58681How does that tie in with PC having said he’d recorded his regeneration scene ? I presume he’s doing it twice and was only referring to the first one ?
7 June 2017 at 12:14 #58678Isn’t it a design riff on 2001’s final scenes ?
http://www.collativelearning.com/2001%20chapter%205.html some pictures in here.
7 June 2017 at 01:13 #58667@thane15 – Puro – I’ve sent you a PM on this topic 🙂
7 June 2017 at 00:54 #58665@Thane15
I’m not sure I understand you. I agree I certainly wasnt that clear on my post. I was trying to do no more than draw your attention to the link @wolfweed posted and what bonkers implications you might draw from that information. I felt, along with wolfweed that the information didnt constitute a spoiler, although it has some potential to become one. In fact I am now aware of some additional information which suggests that it could well be spoilerish (I have asked wolfweed for his opinion given he follows the internet closer than I do).
I just wanted to warn you and any other reader that I considered that there was potential on the spoiler front, which some readers might like to avoid.
Sorry for any confusion arising from my post.
6 June 2017 at 22:11 #58650Without the video clip, I’d agree, but the clip looks like a spoiler to me (albeit a very ambiguous one)
6 June 2017 at 22:06 #58649I am always amazed how erudite show Who reviewers are (Philip Sandifer is another). Whether he’s right or not, it is a very interesting analysis, which would certainly change anyone’s view of this three story arc. He is right, the third part is the weakest. I think he’s a bit harsh on Toby. Moff certainly should have had the time to edit anything that was imperfect, although I understand that there may have been impossible due to family circumstances.
You’re also right that it isnt clear than the Monks caused Deaths, although it is a reasonable inference. I also agree that this story isnt the worst offender out there in the current or past Who story universe.
6 June 2017 at 12:54 #58635I think its impossible to say how old the Doctor is (eg http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Doctor%27s_age). If you use Matt Doctors age as stated there, then he can’t have been guarding Missy for very long at all. However, are we talking combined age or for each regeneration ? The stated combined ages for each regeneration don’t really tally in any sensible way imo. Worse there has always been unexplained gaps and big increases, as he has gradually aged over the last 50 years.
I would tend to say that Missy has been in the vault for quite a long time; that’s my impression from what we have seen. The suggestion is that it is at least 50 to 70 years at the university alone (that also means that D12 and D3 both spent several years living on Earth at the same time).
6 June 2017 at 11:31 #58629An interesting analysis and some valid points I feel. However, whilst this
He might boast about himself in the heat of the moment but whenever all seems lost, he sees himself as the expendable one, the nobody, the one who was lost long ago and can’t be saved. If there’s a chance a life can be saved, he will try to save it. In his eyes, everyone is more precious than he is, even a rotter like Missy.
might have been true, his behaviour in Thin Ice (failure to even attempt to save the very young child at the beginning of the story) and the willingness to rush to blow up the ship without even a cursory check in Smile suggests it isnt a certainty any more.
Your general analysis ties in with my own thinking behind what I called a pre-regeneration crisis (the counting down the time opening monologue appears to suggest he’s aware of the coming regeneration). However as @ichabod pointed out, given the journey in series 8/9, would Moff reuse the theme. Perhaps he would. Is the character picture Moff has decided to paint for Peter’s Doctor one on underlying instability ?
6 June 2017 at 10:23 #58621Perhaps he didn’t use his regenerative powers to cure his blindness, because he didn’t think it important enough to waste them?
But he did waste it on a silly test for Bill, who wasn’t even aware of regeneration (if she was, why would she have been concerned about the small explosion in Pyramid). This could just be Moff teasing rather pointlessly (he has form), but if its not, then something else happened.
6 June 2017 at 10:19 #58620@thane15
Puro
Did you read Wolfweed’s post 58481 (the link at the bottom of the comment) on page 1 of this thread ?
If you choose to make this as being something more than a coincidence, it puts the comment you quoted into a different light. Since this speculation is based on an external fact it is spoilerish, even though it is still speculation. The idea had flitted through my mind previously, but I thought it was just too unlikely. Little coincidences like this though maybe not ?
And the Doctor: “I like you Bill, you smile when you don’t understand something.”
Nardole: “what are you teaching her?”
Doctor: “everything”
Oh reaaaaally?? huh huhn. And why is that “doctor”?
6 June 2017 at 03:30 #58604I agree it does seem to be a bit strange to do this after the prolonged uncertainty in series 8, but I think there’s little doubt somethings gone wrong. Whether its extreme grief, Missy, a hidden regeneration or something else, I think there’s too much accumulated evidence of strange, non-Doctorish behaviour to ignore.
I agree not evil. Crazy. I think that’s possible, but I hope that the actual cause will turn out to be something unexpected.
5 June 2017 at 20:29 #585955 June 2017 at 19:17 #58590It was explained that he had just come straight from Dellora (last year’s special) and (probably just after) the end of the 24 year long goodbye with River, before she goes to the Library (I’m not sure Death is quite the right word). That must have been a low point emotionally. An extended period of mourning can be inferred, giving rise to his appearance. Taking on the 1,000 year attempt to redeem Missy at that point, can’t have helped at all.
5 June 2017 at 18:29 #58586That is an appealing theory. Certainly something is going on in his head, which is outside “normal” for him. One potential argument against this theory is that the incipient strangeness in his bevaviour has been there from at least Thin Ice (and is increasing).
5 June 2017 at 18:27 #58585The same idea, about Missy rubbing off on the Doctor has crossed my mind as well.
5 June 2017 at 15:06 #58571On that point I can’t, although I do think the Doctor is slightly deranged (and getting more so) as we progress through series 10. A post River, pre-regeneration angst ridden 1,000 years spent in an attempt to redeem Missy.
5 June 2017 at 12:24 #58566He has shown he can summon regeneration energy to heal another in the past. This seemed to go further than that, though probably shy of actual regeneration. Conceivably it was just faked in some way anyway- he was planning for this after all. I didn’t think there was a suggestion he was actually injured – the soldiers were all smiles immediately after the reveal. In checking it’s not a test, there’s not really any point in carrying on after the trigger is pulled, so the Doctor’s acting and fake regeneration are part of a practical joke then.
The whole scene feels wrong for that reason as several commentators has been said.Given this was supposed to be a test on Bill to determine that she wasnt infected by Monk mind control, firing the blanks should have been more than sufficient. Then the physical reaction and the intro to regeneration would be needed. Practical joke ? The Doctor made it into one, but I’m not convinced that was what actually happened.
I’d forgotten about the hand (or I didnt see that story). That makes the blindness even stranger then (I thought it was anyway, as I don’t think it would be that technologically difficult to add a video feed to the sun glasses as well as the outline 3D model he could image). The implication might be that the Doctor kept himself blind for a reason ? (an additional hurdle he has to over come perhaps).
It seems to me that these are two further instances, which suggests an inner instability (strange behaviour, craziness) in the Doctor, which is running through series 10. All aspects of (future) regeneration – a pre-regeneration psychological crisis ?
5 June 2017 at 11:55 #58565I may have misheard it, but I thought Missy said that the Monk’s werent aware that the link passed along to descendents, but thought that there control was maintained through more normal methods after the death of the original link.
5 June 2017 at 04:48 #58548@thane15
You are absolutely right than many stories (though not especially in this particular one) have shown that the events have had individual impacts. I am nit picking. I agree. But to continually inflict mass death every year (almost) without any significant change in the fabric of society is really lazy, bad writing and poor conception. So why do it most seasons ? Why write stories with mass deaths and then hit the reset button, have memory loss or just ignore it ? Ratings ? I dont see that as a good excuse really.
Yes its convenient for the show runner and writers to use the reset button. I am not suggesting that it would be appropriate in anyway for Who to present the sort of post armageddon world that you might expect to see. Nor do I want it to. I am not arguing that global death should be in the basic fabric of each story or even that the individual stories were bad (although some were imo). I am high lighting one tiny little bit, which for me, isnt treated appropriately.
It’s exciting to write and end of the world story for all the obvious reasons. I understand this creative choice and I might do it myself. What I wouldn’t chose to do is ignore the consequences or chose a lazy solution like the reset button. If you’re going to write story where the world ends then at least acknowledge that something extraordinary has happened on a global scale. A world in morning on RTD’s 24 hour news channel perhaps. Nothing heavy.
Remember nobody forced RTD or Moff to write an end of the world story set in the present day, let alone do it multiple times. It’s a sci-fi show. There are plenty of ways to do that very subject without setting it in the present day (The 50th special for example). Alternatively, you can make a smaller scale story, with a more confined stage, where the end of the world is a possible outcome, but the actions plays out on a small local stage.
Finally, if the story you’re actually writing is about something inter-personal (in this case between Bill and the Doctor) then do you really need the canvas to be the end of the world at all ?
Suppose, Bill really existed and sacrificed the world to save the Doctor from that explosion (the world was already safe after all). Later, after the Earth is saved properly, Bill learns that 100,000 people have died. How guilty would the real Bill feel ? How much is that to cope with ? What effect would it have on her ? I have not made up this scenario. It’s an almost certain end product of the story that was told. It’s not anything we’ll see on screen (how could we given the nature of the show,). Nor should we imo. But is it appropriate to write that story without that follow up ? I think this is a very valid criticism of this particular story concept. That I’m critical hasnt stopped me enjoying watching it. Overall I thought the three parts to be one of the better stories Who has produced. Plot holes and inconsistencies not withstanding.
@wolfweed posited that forgetting, putting it behind you is a realistic coping method for trauma. Of course it is, but to pretend that it leaves you unchanged or you forget it is unreasonable. Accordingly, I find that conception to be an unreasonable basis for the end of this particular story as set out in that particular scene between Bill, the Doctor and the passing Student.
Most of us cope, in our own way and like yourself the results of coping can be fantastic achievements. I don’t think that any of the three of us disagree in the slightest. I’m talking about the story context though. The idea that putting it behind you, forgetting is a sufficient justification for writing that scene between Bill, Doctor and the Student. I’m not convinced on that as yet. The rest was overkill on my part, which was certainly a mistake of mine. I didn’t need to use real world examples of small traumas to make that point. For that I’m sorry and would edit that out if I was able.
5 June 2017 at 03:11 #585435 June 2017 at 03:10 #58542Individually some, most of us even, put trauma behind us. For a significant number it destroys them. Most live with the consequences for all of their life or do something even worse. Does any one forget though ?
I was in Nice last year, my wife and I planned to go to the firework display on 14 July, but when it was time to leave we couldn’t be bothered, because parking is difficult, she was tired. All the normal non-reasons not to do something you had planned on. We watched and listen to the local fireworks in the town where we were, just along the coast. People were dying less than 2 miles away, right as we listened to the end of the local display. I could talk about 7/7 (tube nervousness for a while afterwards) or being a car passenger after I was in a crash (who knew just how close the curb is to that front wheel). How about the Brain hemorrhage I had in 2013. That really hurt. I wasn’t especially impressed when the Doctor (in Dubai) told my wife I could die any minute (while sweetening the picture for me). Yes we put trauma behind us. Life goes on. It changes most of us though surely ? I don’t think you forget too much either.
So do you think it’s ok to write a story where thousands or millions die off screen, but its all forgotten at the end, because acknowledging the effect of that would be inconvenient for future stories set in essentially the same location ?. After all it’s ok really, as the real story was about something else entirely, something much more important, than that mere detail ?
To a degree I am exaggerating. Its fiction after all and I’m salami slicing the end of several stories, picking on a minor detail and blowing it out of all proportion. It’s a creative choice. Just not one I’d choose to make.
5 June 2017 at 00:59 #58539@Thane15
Puro I respectfully disagree with you on that. For example, The Daleks were on the earth exterminating thousands (millions perhaps) of people in the Stolen Earth. There wasnt a reset in the story that undid any of those Deaths that I recall [I haven’t seen it since and memory may well be flawed on that]. Are you suggesting that on present day Who Earth, only 9 years later, that its not had any effect on Humanity ?
The Leftover’s TV show is based on the premise of what 2% of the population disappeared overnight has on US society]
5 June 2017 at 00:47 #58538The problem with the ignore the evidence because its easier argument, is that it is just not what we do as a species. The opposite in fact.
However, I ultimately agree with you. After writing a present day global disaster, there has to be a reset and a mass forgetting. Its a narrative requirement in this fictional universe for the reasons you suggest (and others as well). If you didn’t do that you’d have to start to move your fictional earth away from the present day reality. Whilst it may well be interesting to create an alternative future present day earth, I would agree that Who probably isnt the place to do it.
But then, why write a global disaster story on Earth today if you know before hand that you’re going to have to hit the reset button ? You could set it in the future (Dalek Invasion of the Earth), on another planet, in an alternative universe (Rise of the Cybermen, Inferno). Are ratings the only reason ?
5 June 2017 at 00:31 #58536The people of this fictional earth will forget anything and everything the writer or show runner wants. That’s hardly a valid point.
I think you’d also have to distinguish between something quite isolated and local (or in the depths of History) which might well pass into folk law or government cover up and hence into the hands of the Conspiracy Theory guys on the internet (I refer you to Clive in Rose as an example) and a global disaster. Tell me why would we forget a global disaster ?
@pedant Your argument, at least as it seems to me, is that so long as the story tells its fundamental point (the 1 in 7 million as you described this story a few posts ago) it doesn’t matter or at least it shouldn’t be a point of criticism, if its non-sensical, full of plot holes, inconsistency or just plain stupid.
As you put it to me elsewhere on this forum, the “why” is the only thing that’s important, not the “how” or macguffin needed to fix the story. I respect your point of view, but that doesn’t make you right, nor does it address the concerns of those like myself, who fundamentally disagree with you on that.
As I stated above, I’m much more interested in hearing your (or anyone else’s) take on why Toby Whitehouse ended the story the way he (or Moff) chose to in the Bill/Doctor scene and how that casts a light on the preceding 45 (or even 140 minutes) than criticising me for a narrow minded view of what science fiction/fantasy should be, because I thought that that very ending was a cop out by the writer.
I apologise to you for being a little pissed of with you right now and labouring this point as a result.
4 June 2017 at 20:11 #58526Yes he said they had erased themselves from everyone’s memory (although since the original implantation wasn’t 100 % – nence the need for memory police – its reasonable to assume that the opposite wouldn’t be 100 % either). In many ways, that might be worse. For 7 billion people to wake up and find the remains of tens of thousands of tatues across the globe, hundreds of thousands of people in concentration camps, an unknown number of dead and no memories of the last 6 months… How would you feel if this happened ?
As I previously commented, I thought the entire three parts were some of the finest Who we’ve seen overall (that doesn’t mean flawless of course). It’s certainly true that its really three different connected stories. I don’t see that as a major problem. Its not that unusual in thematic novels, although less common on TV. In some ways, the biggest inconsistency was the change in the presentation of the Monks between episode 2 and 3. That was explained away (there’s so few of them that they cant be everywhere at once). The other larger issue was the absence of motive in the first place. I would argue this is quite a reasonable thing to do (look at Childhood’s End where the motive only becomes clear at the very end), especially if there’s going to be a pay-off later in the series as has been speculated.
4 June 2017 at 19:56 #58525@nerys the final scene between bill and the doctor. You’re correct the very last scene was with Missy. No transcript available yet (so far as I can see yet). The Doctor asked a passing student what the (remains) of the statue were., whilst the two of them were musing on recent events.
4 June 2017 at 19:29 #58522We are debating the last minute, the final scene of the episode. Nothing more or less. In the final scene the conversation with the passing student sets a scene where as soon as the mind link was gone, everyone forgot what had happened for the last 6 months, the physical evidence (which was not insubstantial) ignored and explained away as a filming a movie (or something similar as appropriate to each location and person affected.
What was the essential point being made here about the nature of history and memory ? Was this point of sufficient dramatic purpose, to write the ending of that style. Alternative endings could have been written. This is a creative choice. Its not one that I would have chose.
Instead of exclaiming I’m narrow minded in my opinion, I’d prefer to hear how the final scene capped the episode and 3 story arc as a whole and was more appropriate than one I’d prefer (which I think I have explained well enough already).
@Thane15 originally listed a quite extensive list of items where Puro thought the episode could (would be) be critiqued (some tongue in cheek). I could have responded to several of them, but I chose this one. It’s a common one, which could equally apply to several previous AG and BG Who stories. I am not a creative, but I ask myself why write such dramatic story lines in the first place, if you arent willing to deal with the most likely outcome and need a reset button of some sort to make the consequences disappear ?
Surely one point of Turn Left was to show what would have happened if the Doctor wasn’t there to fix things (dealing with the consequences Sontaran Stratagem and Voyage of the Damned on the UK in particular). However, the question of what happened after the Stolen Earth, Christmas Invasion amongst others is ignored and forgotten. Why ? It’s certainly not convenient that something that should have happened in the very recent past of this story might have made things different from today’s world it’s filmed in.
4 June 2017 at 18:28 #58513I’m not going to get into any argument with either of you about the nature of science fiction verses science fantasy verses speculative fiction here, nor am i going to argue about my version of science fictions better than yours, or your version of science fiction is the best or whether I have a hideously narrow straight jacketed conception of what science fiction is or isnt (@pedant being an ARSE really doesn’t do you any favours in credibility stakes).
My whole point regarding this ending and others similar we’ve seen in the past is similar the setting is a creative choice made by the show runner, idea originator and writers. They are absolutely free to chosse the setting. In the last part, they chose an end of the world as we now it setting, for their own creative reasons. Why depict thought police, interment or labour concentration camps if there isnt a dramatic reason for doing so. Why have massive statues every few hundred metres across every where in the world, have a pyramid squash a large chunk of central London and then write the line from the student at the end.
Of course as writer you can do that. It’s purely your creative choice. I stated my opinion that it is a creative cop-out to decide that a nothing happened, pass along nothing to see here ending is appropriate. From a creative point of view, this sort of ending is up there with Pam Ewing’s Bobby’s dead dream season of Dallas.
And no @pedant, I didnt in any way suggest that the story was about the logistics of post-War reconstruction. Sarcasm. Very intelligent of you.
@nerys I fully understand the story wasnt about the details I’m seeking. I don’t know what you thought I expected to see I didn’t. I am merely suggesting that if you chose to have a global invasion and litter the world with physical evidence of that invasion (with the camps and possible deaths) have the creative bravery to live with the consequences rather than pretend it didnt happen.
4 June 2017 at 17:01 #58507Missy claims that the door to the vault couldn’t stop her leaving (but the Doctor could ?). Is this true or just hubris ? Only the Doctor and Missy know or suspect.
She begged the Doctor for life and he made that possible. His oath (to himself essentially) was 1,000 years confinement and it appears he is determined to help Missy achieve the redemption she offered in exchange for her life. Is Missy capable of this ? Perhaps. Will she ? Probably not. Or perhaps she does attain redemption, but only for the remainder of this reincarnation.
4 June 2017 at 16:49 #58506Whatever the deeper, metaphorical, allegorical meaning your story is really meant to be about, as the writer/producer/show runner you are actively making a choice to write within a genre (even if you’re subverting it in some way) and you have deliberately chosen to make it an end of the world setting.
Having made that creative choice, and having made whatever other point you want to, you have to live with the consequences of the setting you’ve chosen and the disaster elements you’ve shown on the screen or inferred. Avoiding the consequences of that choice, by hitting a reset button, is a failure of imagination or a lack of ability. Why use that setting if you don’t want to follow through on it. Surely it would have been equally possible to make the actual point you want to, but without an end of the world setting. Alternatively, set it somewhere else (this is sci-fi or speculative fiction after all) and leave the inhabitants to rebuild their society without further comment.
4 June 2017 at 14:30 #58498@thane15 (Puro)
I guess it depends (IMO) on whether you are into Sci-fi in a major way or not. The closest AG Who has been to sci-fi (as opposed to sci-fantasy) was Turn Left. That story showed the large scale consequences of the various RTD era end of the world scale stories had on the UK in particular. The economic and social damage was very considerable. RTD indicated that internment and death camps were in existence in an authoritarian run society. A bleak dark place. The Dalek Invasion of Earth was another notable example (the 1970’s series Survivor is another good example).
As a writer/production team if you aren’t willing to show the way the earth and human society is altered by a multiple large scale alien invasion (over 10 year period in the case of AG Who), with many deaths and damage to infrastructure then why bother writing that story line ?
If you’re going to use that sort of idea. without the natural consequences, then as a writer you are forced to use some sort of idea where whilst the Doctor is saving the day, somehow a reset button is hit or we otherwise forget all about what happened. This is unbelievable in my opinion. You can use it once, but surely not on multiple occasions. You loose credibility within the overall fictional universe your series occupies. I think that is a cop out by the writer and production team. For me, AG Who lost this vein of sci-fi credibility years ago. Therefore I ignore the ludicrous endings and concentrate on the good things.
4 June 2017 at 13:42 #58492@thane15
As to why come? They wanted somewhere in the galaxy to live? Missy had defeated them once. They needed a HQ?
Unless this gets explained in a future episode, I’d suggest an alternative reason. We saw in Pyramid part, that the Monks requires true/pure consent to take charge. As such it isnt an invasion, even if they act like they have while consolidating power. I would suggest making them a sort of parasite living off the energy generated by the collective mind link via the multiple statue base stations a more plausible explanation of their motive.
4 June 2017 at 13:33 #58491For that matter, they sure aren’t concerned about all the people imprisoned and executed during the six months of Monks! Keep in mind, tons of families will be wondering where loved ones are…with no memories of what happened. That’s horrifying to contemplate, and I’m surprised Moffat and co. didn’t catch that. (“In the Forest of the Night” had similar issues with how much damage the temporary forested world would have really wreaked on humanity.) Why not use a “year that never was” solution instead?
This is the main reason why I have always thought this sort of large scale end of the world story shouldn’t be done on Earth. Ultimately there is always some sort of narrative cop-out by the writer, because to accommodate the real political effect of something like this actually happening would result in too great a change going forward imo. I don’t think everybody forgetting missing people and the events is any better a solution than the magic reset button.
4 June 2017 at 13:11 #58489All of ISIS/Al Qaeda (and before them PLO and there more extreme brothers) attacks are political in intent (as well as being at best indirectly related to their view of Islam). The observation (at least 10 years ago) that each cycle of violence gets more extreme in nature remains true. The fact that many (too many ?) politicians focus on Islam or their lack of Islam, misses the point. Yes ISIS wants to create a (global) Caliphate based on a particular fundamentalist (I’m not sure that’s really the right word) version of Islam, but there narrative towards the west is one of a victimised Islam, defenceless, preyed on by western imperialism, crusaderism.
With each attack in the west, their aim is to provoke a reaction (an over-reaction) which supports and builds on their narrative, Their barbarity is meant to provoke that over-reaction. Cloaking their political aim in Islamism is a cover. They would love a religious war as it would demonstrate the truth of their opinion, even if all of the current members died in the process.
The worst thing in my opinion, is that while our governmental institutions are fully aware, too many of our politicians are using them to further their own agenda. Whatever any politician says, it is impossible to deter or stop an individual getting into a car with knife and killing people. Likewise it is impossible to stop one individual radicalising themselves to act or talk to other like minded individuals (although that can be made much more difficult if very significant sums of money were spent).
-
AuthorPosts
