Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
4 June 2017 at 12:47 #58483
Also for your delectation: A revelation about the actress who plays Bill’s Ma: Where have we seen Bill’s mum before? (No spoilery comments @ the time of linking)
Well done. I also wonder whether that might end up being a spoiler of sorts. I had previously wondered whether there might be a deeper link between Bill and the Doctor along those lines (I can’t particular remember why I had that idea while watching one of the earlier episodes), but had rejected the idea as too implausible even for the Moff.
4 June 2017 at 12:42 #58482Did the Doctor really waste regeneration energy on what was essentially a practical joke by that point? Bill seemingly doesn’t know about TL regeneration, so wouldn’t know what that was about anyway. So really not for her, but instead a fake-out for fans. The Doctor was so far out of character though, that this was still pretty much expected.
Hi there. I’m by no means a Moff fan, but overall the three parts (I watched back to back for the first time) worked as one extended story. The whole outshone each individual episode and the overall conception was very good. However, there were lots of holes in the plot and inconsistencies between the episodes (especially in the treatment of the Monks). That suggests the overall story needed a longer gestation. These sort of things are problematic for me.
i picked out your regeneration point as I agree with you this did seem an over-reaction. The whole testing scheme (and the way Bill/Nardo’s suicide mission was set up previously) seemed over the top. Obviously it could have been written in a different way. Whilst it was a fake out (as you call it) I think the intention was something more than that. When the shots were fired, the Doctor’s immediate physical reaction (the facial impression, staggering backwards) suggests something more than blanks were fired. In context the beginning of the regeneration worked. Is it possible to speculate that live ammunition and not blanks were actually fired ? I also thought the immediate reaction afterwards (and Nardo’s seeming acceptance) was slightly strange as well. It didn’t seem right to me.
I expect to see something more made out of this scene in the future, perhaps by a direct reference, but perhaps also continued strange behaviour (not that the Doctor hasnt already acted in an expected way already in series 10). If not then your criticism will not only be validated but doubled in my opinion.
4 June 2017 at 12:21 #58480@Thane15
1 thing, did anyone think the Doctor’s “mwahhahah” laugh flying over London was a bit….off?
The super close-up of teeth? Almost valeyard-ish? But then not?
Just seemed ‘wrong’ somehow.
PC was riffing on the old fashioned pantomime super-villain (and what a good one he made). If you add the way he “tested” Bill earlier (the psuedo-regeneration) it seems to be a deliberate attempt to suggest some incipient pre-regeneration madness. I also highlight the Doctor’s monologue about the seconds ticking away to Death as support for the idea that PC’s Doctor is aware that his end is nearing and that it is having an effect on him.
Guarding the vault for 1000 years (and we don’t know for how long that’s been going on, but the inference is he’s quite away through it) and that the Missy’s “execution” happened just after River went to her “death” at the Library suggests to me that he has spent quire a while brooding on the past as well as being relatively inactive.
4 June 2017 at 01:38 #58457Whilst I can understand people calling for “action” from feelings of anger and rear, there is a lot of crap being written. Katie Hopkins in particular stands out again for the utter bollocks she writes.
3 June 2017 at 22:53 #58442I’ve just watched all three parts of this story back to back. Whilst I’m not sure that was a good thing to do, – I’m sure I misssed a few things – but I have to sat the Moff, Whitehouse and Harkness have between them managed to write one of the finer pieces of Who.
The only downer was watching the final episode and then putting on the news.
28 May 2017 at 18:17 #5816427 May 2017 at 18:07 #58084@bleknsopthebrave
I agree, it is capable of being understood in different ways and is troubling, but I read some hesitance and distaste as well. I would write more, but this isnt a place for politics.
27 May 2017 at 17:09 #58081I find that rather disappointing, even though I don’t really care what he thinks. I worry more about the editorial line from the Daily Mail and Express, supported by the Sun to be honest. That said, I would wonder whether that it was just JCC taking the piss, being controversial for the sake of it, but you never can tell. Looking back, I suspect he always played a character of himself (rather like John Lydon).
27 May 2017 at 12:58 #58071@Thane15
I’m afraid poetry mostly passed me by. John Cooper Clarke is the poet I heard most frequently when I was a young adult (he’s still going, but you don’t see him very much these days). Rap – I’m partial to the odd song.
26 May 2017 at 19:44 #58055@whisht @thane15 @craig @pedant
I preferred this sentiment personally. IMO the poem by Tony Walsh was the most moving part of the first vigil/memorial (watched it live) at (Prince) Albert Square, even I wasn\t convinced that it was entirely appropriate in that setting.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/may/25/tony-walsh-poem-vigil-manchester-bombing
Choose Love.
25 May 2017 at 15:07 #58023Yes its turning out to be pretty good, after a slightly uncertain start. Having read the book, it was easy to pick up, but I do wonder if the casual viewer will cope. I also like that they’re adding to the book, filling in things I had thought had happened. It is certainly quite non-linear. I was quite surprised by this weeks dive into Laura Moon’s (and Shadow’s) back story. IThey are only planning 8 episodes at the moment, so it seems the whole book is going to take quite a few series. I’m not sure if I like that or not.
I caught Deadwood occasionally; Ian McShane’s performance was exception (and not a very pleasant character).
Cheers
Nick
25 May 2017 at 14:58 #58021you might try “Unforgotten” which also starred Nicola Walker in a police role. It was shown against the River on British TV. Unlike the River, it was also commissioned for a second series.
Depending on your taste in crime programmes, the first series was actually pretty good. I havent seen the second series.
24 May 2017 at 00:18 #579596 May 2017 at 16:44 #57163Fear. Thought proving idea. Following your train of thought, I suppose the vault would essentially contains the Doctor’s death. The oath could be to himself (or to River as @janetteb suggested) to keep it sealed, to protect himself from the inevitable.
I suppose it depends on how you interpret what’s going to happen in thew Christmas Special (or is it two specials ?) based on the big spoiler out there. The vault can contain the circumstances that cause the regeneration crisis or it can be just another red herring, which is resolved this series, before the regeneration.
PS I don’t think this goes beyond the spoiler boundary ! although this was something I often failed to get right in the past.
6 May 2017 at 15:45 #57161Re the punch. It does seem that PC is referencing Jon Pertwee. Could this be another tie back (JP’s venusian aikaido) albeit in a subtle way ?
I think you’re both spot on with respect to the punch. That scene (and perhaps the later one with the foreman who drowned) seems particularly out of character, not just because the child died, but because the Doctor did nothing to attempt to stop it from happening. Maybe it was too late, but some sort of crazy attempt was called for.
I actually felt the same about the women who was absorbed by the intelligent liquid in episode 1. Again, it might have been too late, but I half expected the Doctor to try something, or at least see whether the absorption process could be reversed in some way before writing her off
Handing over his Lordship’s wealth to the street urchins (little Oliver’s) is this guilt talking ?
6 May 2017 at 13:39 #57153@Bluespeakpip
🙂 yes that’s the perfect metaphor. I missed that analysis unfortunately. If its still around can you point me to it. I’d love to read it.
6 May 2017 at 13:32 #57152@Thane15 @pedant
Hi Thane and Puro
I don’t think I’m pithy much either. It’s not easy to be concise if you really want to explain your reasoning. Stating conclusions without explanation “opinionating” is a modern curse, which can only cause arguments along the lines of my opinion is better than yours. Explanations permit debate.
I’m glaf you thought the leaf metaphor was explained. It must have sailed past me (Rings of Akanatum was one of the poorest stories in AG Who, although it certainly had the potential to be something much much better than that).
I assume born under the clock tower is meant to be a clue that “Time” is especially important to her life. These sort of things are written by Moff to add depth and provide a narrative clue to what the arc’s meant to be about. Much of the time Moff doesn’t see the need to explain the actual meaning. Ihe meaning isn’t that important, its all one big metaphor.
A +B = C. You’re right. Moff probably had his concept quite well worked out, but He is more interested in the Outcome and the clues (red herrings as well) that he provides along the pathway from A to C and the details of how or even why. I remember back in series 5 or 6, reading @bluesqueakpip ‘s posts trying to tease out the clues and discover Moff meaning. Fantastic analysis. But also that how what had seemed like a really big issue was resolved by a line of throwaway speech from Matt delivered at 100 miles an hour. I did a Science degree and PhD and have work in Finance for 25 years. For me the “how”, the details, are crucial. They are just important, perhaps more important than the final outcome. I have to differ on whether the writer should explain the “B” or not with you. I think its very important to do so. I accept that from a creative stand point, the opposite is probably true. The idea, the underlying humanity, “love and loyalty” as you say can be more important.
However, not bothering to explain, is really quite widespread. Look at current British politics. The “hard” Brexit may or may not be a good idea for the UK in the long run (obviously there will be a painful cost in the short run), but May doesn’t want to articulate any of the details or consequences of getting there. Corbyn, likewise, has identified a vast number of things on the social welfare side of the country. These things really do need fixing (imo), but he can’t or won’t articulate that this means that UK tax levels have to increase from 39% or so of GDP (now) to something closer to 45% (the EU norm for Government spending is about 47 % I recall) and to do this all of us need to pay a significant cost (which is also quite impossible for the majority given the cost of property, the need to save for retirement, the cost of raising kids etc given the salary levels most people have).
We are a society that wants it cake and eat it. We want the C immediately, but aren’t interested in the B much at all and certainly dont care much about the cost of doing these things. As a result (?) we don’t analyse or debate each other to reach a consensus, we work on unproven ideology and shouting my idea is better than yours at each other.
Digression aside, I disagree with you to an extent.
“I don’t think that every single thing the Doctor did was now ‘turned around’ by Clara. As I saw it, it was the tiniest ‘intrusion’ or ‘assistance’ (hence the idea of an ‘assistant’ instead of ‘companion’) which ensured the Doctor was kept on track -here and there. The extent of which isn’t made clear because it’s not really meant to?”
Not really meant to – yes I agree. Moff isn’t interested in the details of “how”.
The GI’s influence on the Doctor’s timeline is killing him, multiple times across his entire life (timeline). We see Matt writhing in agony, but not what the GI is doing to him. I can only think that the GI makes changes to the events (again in the knowledge of what actually happened originally) that every time the Doctor escaped death or injury by his actions, the help of his companions or the other characters helping him, he fails. The story changes, he doesn’t escape he dies etc. This cant be a tiny intrusion in effect, even if the actual change in events is quite small. Likewise Clara’s changes cant be either. In the examples we were shown, she was there in person, directing the Doctor to avoid the GI’s traps.
It has to be more than just changing things in the background, at least for a significant number of times. Why didn’t all the Doctor’s before Matt notice her ?
“Only in the 1800s did her death spark something in the Doctor’s memory. Because it was connected with the GI implicitly there. And of course her statement “remember me….” etc. I think if her ‘work’ was conducted anonymously then he wouldn’t need to remember her involvement. Simply because he’s so old, and is so involved everywhere I can think of plenty of reasons why she’d be invisible or hidden. She would need to be this way to ensure the GI doesn’t recognise her either? I think that last point is really important, imo.”
I can buy into this idea to a degree, but it’s a fig leaf explanation to explain away a problem surely. Wouldn’t the Clara-icles need more than a name change to hide. If we’d seen Clara being different people (male and female) with the same name and personality, it would have worked better in that regard surely ? (its also a bit clever cioncept as well).
“Again, how they both got out of the time-stream is easy to imagine. I think he’s done harder things than this. And it was HIS time-stream, after all and so he could manage it. We learned that Mat Smith was to carry her out but due to his sore leg he couldn’t and Moffat explained that.”
I have to differ. I can’t imagine how. How does Clara’s personality (I cant think of a better term) get reassembled after the GI dies. Why does Clara survive, something that River (?) said was impossible. And no I don’t think the great leap to the real world is at all satisfying as a concept or something shown on screen.
If you’ve got time, have a read at this article:
I believe this applies here (and in much of Moff Who). it’s true for RTD and BG as well of course. However, Moff’s story arc’s are more complex (on screen if not in the idea itself) and often weren’t explained that well, leaving a chunk of the audience with more questions than answer. I cant think of much more patronising than his “my 8 year old kids understand it”. Maybe being an 8 year old has changed since I was one, but I don’t recall sitting down an analysing the meaning of anything. I just accepted everything. It didnt matter of it made sense.
As for your final question. I’d have to rewatch series 5 to 7 )probably 8, which I haven’t seen all of) and jot down a list of things that aren’t well explained to my mind.
I have no doubt that Moff is an exceptionally gifted writer and I know that a lot of people here love the way he writes and watching and rewatching, analysing the clues, the hidden meaning. But, I understand where the “moffatmustgo” brigade come from. For me, too much of his style leaves me with questions and frustrations like the Impossible Girl arc has. Apart from being show runner, Moffat has written 47 out of what will be 110 stores, by the end of series 10. No single writer, script editor, producer has had more influence on what Doctor Who is than he has (except for verity Lambert et al who kicked of the concept in the first place). There’s a good chance no one else ever will. As it often said, he threw out much of the BG Who continuity stuff, which was (perhaps) narrowing his options, but has replaced it with his own.
Cheers
Nick
6 May 2017 at 02:37 #57136This is what I wrote, in the second post to @janetteb a couple of posts ago:
“The denouement of the Impossible Girl arc was one of the most frustrating things SM has done, so far as I’m concern. Nothing was that clear, but the inference (as I saw it) was that the Intelligence interfered across his time line – to kill him in the most painful way – but Clara acted to reverse this, by showing the Doctor a different path. The inference being No Clara no Doctor. In fact I felt entering the time line was more of a plot device to discover the War Doctor then anything else.”
Please tell me what I had misunderstood ? Far from flying over my head, I probably drew a different conclusion (based on interpretation) of this idea than you have.
The No Clara = No Doctor statement is a short hand explanation for my dislike of the whole think. A longer explanation is probably warranted though.
I may be wrong, but either
- the GI & Clara over wrote every (or whatever % you think is right) BG and AG story that’s been on screen to date (and given its the Doctor’s time line, every story in the future). By this I mean that every story we have watched to date, no longer happened in the way it was originally shown. To me that is a rather big deal. Why did I bother watching any of these stories over the years ? It would appear that Moff as a writer and show runner, doesn’t care at all.
or
- You can prefer to conclude that every story remains the same as before. However, surely there has to be an off screen bit, where the GI interferes to defeat Doctor’s original solution until over turned by Clara. I guess this is what Moff probably intended. However, I suggest that it makes the Doctor particularly stupid, in that he can live over 1000 year, with multiple regenerations without noticing dear Clara until just before the end. Am I allowed to suggest that without Clara dipping in on his side, that the Doctor might never achieved any of successes ? Maybe the Doctor wouldn’t even have become the Doctor we know with out Clara. Given Clara enters his time line, I expect the multi-Clara-icles spread throughout time and space must “know” all of the original outcomes from each story and the changes that the GI’s interference causes, in order to fix the problem. I think this is a catch 22 situation, while also being a time paradox. It comes down to opinion, but “Impossible” isn’t the right description for Clara im
or
- as per above, but the Doctor has long recognised Clara and sat on the whole thing waiting until something eventually happens to him which explains who/what Clara is
All this took up, about 10 minutes screen time and the payoff was the appearance of the War Doctor out of forgotten memories followed by (off screen) one leap to freedom for D11 and reassembled Clara (and dead GI).
I don’t think Moffat is stupid, so I’d have to conclude that he thought through what this could mean above and beyond the superficial Clara saves the Doctor, when thinking through the beginning of the Clara arc, which continues into the next two seasons. We know he thinks the basic idea through from the outset, when he invests the arc story, even if he edits and modifies as he goes.
I don’t know what inference or deeper meaning, or not, anybody else here drew from this occurrence.
Yes I can be accused of over thinking this stuff (but as Bluesqueakpip showed with her blog post on how the War Doctor special might work in terms of time lines) quite simple ideas can turn out to be very complex if you try to explain why and how.
If you or any one else can explain to me why I’m out of my tree, over analysing this, missed the key point etc, I would be very grateful to hear it.
Cheers
Nick
5 May 2017 at 13:14 #57125@thane15 Puro
🙂 life would be so boring if we agreed on everything. I always (well mostly) find reading other people’s reasons for liking something I hated illuminating.
Since I can’t resist right now (too much free time at the moment) – do we actually know very much about timelord society to assign a class to the Doctor ? The Deadly Assassin is probably the best source, but then Moff’s version seems really quite different to Robert Holmes conception. Holmes version was certainly not a democracy.
5 May 2017 at 02:24 #57107@thane15
Hi Puro. we all agree to differ in our opinions (politely for the most part here fortunately). I would tend to say the Doctor has always been rescued or helped by his team. Whilst they are there to be danger monkies and for plot exposition and a lot of trust me I know best etc (or do as I say not as I do).
The relationship is more equal now, but that reflects the change in our society. Yes there was a lot of screaming (but lets be honest about it, the first thing I’d probably do if confronted by a Drashig is scream and run away, just like Jo).
I would describe Pertwee Doctor as being rather Paternal and quite Arrogant rather than Patrician. He knew best (but then what Doctor doesn’t), but he was never on the side of the “Authorities” nor did he set himself up as the ruling authority. Being Patrician rather requires something along those lines ?
The denouement of the Impossible Girl arc was one of the most frustrating things SM has done, so far as I’m concern. Nothing was that clear, but the inference (as I saw it) was that the Intelligence interfered across his time line – to kill him in the most painful way – but Clara acted to reverse this, by showing the Doctor a different path. The inference being No Clara no Doctor. In fact I felt entering the time line was more of a plot device to discover the War Doctor then anything else.
Re R&J
I found this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/484GwDBByzcGTGCy5bvmhLF/romeo-and-juliet
which wasn’t what I was thinking of, but is quite recent.
and this radio version (which has quite a list of well known actors in it). I guess it must be possible to get a proper version rather than this knock off in multiple parts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kt8EzPxNeA)
5 May 2017 at 01:39 #57106@thane15
You know the answer to that question better than me. However, if you are paying your nurse, you employ them, they have to always go where you want, then I’d suggest nurse more than companion (you could choose paid companion).
Obviously Companion isn’t a familial relationship, but can be some form of paid or paid in kind relationship (the sort of thing that turns up in Poirot, rich lady with less wealthy cousin or friend in tow, who are friends, but there is an element of master/servant to the relationship). I would also suggest the word is more often used to denote a female companion. I think it would be rare to find the term used between two males, even for a similar situation as two women. Rarer still for a female with a male companion.
I’m thinking more about general usage rather than the absolute meaning of the word.
5 May 2017 at 01:27 #57105It’s hard to be precise about the impact of the Great War on UK population, although it is certainly detectable. Total population in 1911 census was around 38 million or say around 19 million men. Average life expectancy was 51 for a male, 55 for a female. Total UK war deaths were about 725,000 over 4 years. That’s about 3.5 % of the male population. Perhaps 6 % of the 20 to 40 age group. The 1918 flu epidemic apparently caused about 150,000 excess deaths in 1918/19. Annual deaths were c600,000 per year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom)
Broadly this suggests there would be 6 or 7 unmarried/widowed women per 100 at the peak in the 1930s. How many of these would alone and how many with family would be interesting to know. The other intersting parameter, is what % of the population never married at all.
Re Companion
If you mean sex when you say innuendo, I’d tend to agree. However, I’d suggest the word usage more often than not implies some form of inequality in the relationship. I might even go as far as suggesting that would have been implied when used in BG Who times. It seems certainly to be implicit in the troll criticism.
One problem that english does have is the paucity of words that don’t imply a role or profession is essentially a male (or female) occupation. Trying to be gender neutral can get to be a real chore.
4 May 2017 at 22:30 #57098I had thought both of those were possible, but I think a word that describes a close, friendly relationship is needed. Neither of these imply that. A better description than Companion, which is more meaning neutral, might not exist.
4 May 2017 at 19:46 #57094Understood and agreed. Back then, even mid-30s would have been considered Old to be an unmarried women.
4 May 2017 at 19:42 #57093I’d say that I’m his carer = keeper, is a recent invention courtesy of the Moff, not one that has very much history. I’d also say that “we can be back before the kettle boils” is also relatively new (mostly came in with Amy/Rory I think) as a convenient way of having the companion have a non-Doctor back story/life. In season 2, Rose had been away for about a year if I recall correctly. This was certainly consistent with BG Who.
I’m not suggesting Companion isnt a good word to use, but I am asking if there’s another possibility, that has more neutral connotations, which might be more useful today. Do people even have companions today ? I can’t recall it being used in real life speech.
4 May 2017 at 19:21 #57091I assume you mean as a “cover story” for a gay relationship ? I’m not going to assume that all co-habitating older ladies (or men) (spinster another terms that I’m happy to say is past its sell by date) were in a a gay relationship, but many must have been.
4 May 2017 at 14:27 #57087I do spend time there, but to be honest there is so much absolute rubbish written that you could spend days is pointless argument. I skip most of it and try to limit myself to more factual points or to point out that the actual world is capable of supporting more than one point of view on a topic and both sides have positive and negative aspects (Brexit and Scot Independence being the hottest topics right now). Its a waste of time, but don’t think an echo chamber comprising mono-idea groups is at all good for society in the long run.
4 May 2017 at 14:20 #57086I agree with you why is just or more important than who is in their. I assume that the ship and the bio-liquid that was ‘released” from it is ep 1 will also have a part in the answer.
I really like the idea that the promise (I would take an oath to be something more formal and beyond a promise) was made to River to be a really nice idea.
Thanks
4 May 2017 at 14:03 #57085But “Companion” can imply a sexual relationship ( a mistress who travels with her – usually richer – male lover) and can imply a difference in the status in the relationship (the obvious is a sort of nurse who travels with her wealthy patient or a usually poorer women who travels with her wealthy patron).
Whilst we might not recognise it today, Conan Doyle built in a social difference into the Holmes/Watson dynamic. His Victorian readers would certainly have understood that. Holmes is descend from a country squire. That could easily be minor aristocracy. Certainly he would have been a Gentleman in the Victorian sense. Watson on the other hand is clearly Middle Class; he would have been viewed as Holmes’ social inferior.
It is also quite an old fashioned concept these days. I think it does tend to imply a social status difference difference between the two companions in the way it was (is) more commonly used. I certainly don’t think you can complain if people use the word to mean or imply a superior/inferior dynamic in the relationship.
4 May 2017 at 13:14 #57082@Thane 15
Hi Thane.
Personally I try not to get upset with the creative choices that the production team make. I always like Jenna and the way she played Clara. In series 7, Im sure it was different, because she was playing a different part in every story, which must be hard to act as a single character and the Impossible Girl concept made her character subordinate to the Doctor in each story. (as an aside, I find the use of Girl a bit annoying as she stopped being a girl in her teens. Impossible Women would be better). In my opinion, she didn’t really become a proper character until series 8, when Jenna got to play a single version of Clara.
It’s an old subject and I’m not much of a Moffat fan in practice. The Impossible Girl concept was a fantastic idea and the way Moff wrote in the mystery of her character, the leaf, her parents etc was well executed (apart from Rings of Akhaten which was a particular under-executed story). However, the denouement was pretty annoying. Jumping into the Doctor’s time line and having her personality smeared through time and space would have been fine, but having her interfere to save the Doctor throughout his lives imo devalued the Doctor as a character – he’s no longer the Doctor we know – arguable IG Clara is still there today saving his neck off screen – able to get into and out of difficult circumstances on his own behalf.
I think the next part of the idea, how does she get out of his timeline (I mean the original Clara who jumped in to save him) and continue to have an independent existence was also very poorly written. It basically didn’t happen on screen (I understand that the idea was that Matt and Jenna would literally jump free and reappear in the real world. Matt’s twisted ankle killed off showing this). Whilst this explained the fundamental mystery of Clara, many of the individual elements that composed and built up the mystery were really explained in any detail (parents, the importance of the leaf etc) and have never reappeared on screen since.
The way Moff comes up with these ideas and the style of his execution and resolution of his arcs in series 5 to 7 are a major reason why I really didn’t enjoy the entirety of these series and why I wont look back on Moff era with any of the affection I have previously. At the time, it often felt to me that unpicking the clues and red herrings that comprised the Arc story was more important to some watchers than the individual stories themselves. I may be wrong, but I think it should be the other way round (and Bad Wolf concept remains the best executed example).
Whilst I’ve really enjoyed watching the first 3 parts of this season, I think the underlying stories have been quite weak, which is why I called them quite lame when we discussed this before.
Romeo & <span class=”_Tgc”>Giulietta</span>
I can understand why your teacher might have chosen Baz Lurman’s version as its quite a “youth” friendly way into the story. I imagine the original in Iambic pentameter and older form of english may well be quite off putting. In many ways, it might be more interesting to watch scenes being acted in a play form. I recall the BBC had run a number of documentaries showing the development of some of the play with discussion between the Director and actors. I think (and am probably wrong) there was one made for David Tennant’s Hamlet (as well as a TV version of the entire play). I’ve actually visited the actual Elsinore (Kronborg) in Denmark.
Cheers
Nick
4 May 2017 at 03:38 #57070I knew I had something wrong. It was Joseph Lister. More famous at the time, I’m sure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Lister
4 May 2017 at 01:01 #57065re assistants and companions
I wouldn’t like to analyse very much of what some people post on the basis that there may not be any thought given except to wind (some supposedly PC) people up.
That said, can we not try to find a new descriptive term as I don’t feel either should be used any more. How about “Friend” ?
Jo Grant was employed by Unit as the Doctor’s assistant and the rest have been traveling companions, which can have a bit of an old fashioned connotation, which can suggest a slightly formal arrangement you’d come across in some 1930’s set Poirot drama.
4 May 2017 at 00:49 #57064Clara only became a character (as opposed to a cut-out of one) from series 8 onwards in my opinion. A lot of people on line seems to post with little thought and a lot of anger and have lost any ability to see there is more than one answer/opinion to most questions. South Park’s Troll story line sums it up for me.
4 May 2017 at 00:45 #57063<span class=”useratname”>@countscarlioni</span>
I think the reference to Studying Medicine under Bell goes back to Pat Troughton. I’m probably wrong, but I think it was the “Moonbase” story.
30 April 2017 at 22:22 #56953Oh I’d agree 100%. I also agree that AG Who seems to work best with 75 minute episodes. It’s a shame they aren’t making many of those. I guess its a scheduling issue more than episode cost.
Did you ever watch Nathan Barley (written by Charlie Booker and Chris Morris) ? Truly loathsome character. Nicholas Burns is a way underused actor imo.
My earliest memories are age 5 (the 1971 Master arc), but I know I was watching before then. I probably watched Pat Troughton in 1969. I used to have a recurring nightmare with Ice Warriors in it – I think. This would probably be based on Seeds of Death, but I’ll never know for sure. Having watched it, no memories were tweaked.
I would suggest pretty much any recent story, but we’re a lot more protective of Children these days. My parents grew up as pre-teens through second world war (my paternal Grandad was in North Africa and Italy for most of the war) so perhaps they were more relaxed. I certainly hid behind the sofa. I’m pretty sure it didn’t do me any harm.
30 April 2017 at 20:55 #56948I agree of course. My point was that addressing this sort of issue, really takes time and effort. The counter argument is that raising them superficially is better than not mentioning them at all.
But then what age group is this series of Who aimed at ? I would suspect not the 5 to 10 year old group (when I started watching Who back in the 70s). The stories don’t strike me as being exciting enough. Presumably not the late teen/young adult group that Class was aimed at (wasn’t that really one long story split into several episodes).
So I guess that means Adults plus younger teenagers (“Family”), which younger kids watch. I would suggest you could get away with a longer story over several parts so long as you wrote it that way. This demographic watches Coronation Street and Eastenders, which have dealt with quite adult topics over the years.
30 April 2017 at 15:10 #56928@mudlark @thane15
Having grown up in industrial Cheshire (Macclesfield) “et” for ate was common speech at the time. Dropping the “H” was also pretty normal (eg ow’s that).
Proper rural Cheshire accents were pretty rare when I grew up. I cant remember the guy’s name, but BBC North West often interviewed a local farmer who had the real thing. I cant remember his name. His accent was a sort of diluted Lancashire, probably a mixture between Lancs, Staffordshire and Shropshire. I understand why you say Norfolk, as that might not sound that different (although the dialect words probably would be).
30 April 2017 at 14:55 #56927I sort of agree with you as well. If you were to rewrite The 10th Planet today, you might not change the story (which is very simple invasion concentrating the action at a base under siege) that much, but you would add an episodes worth of character discussion into the pro’s/cons of Cybernisation as an acceptable method for global humanity survival. You could also make the Cybermen more acceptable, before concluding that its a solution that you’d rather avoid.
But could you tell that story in a single 50/55 minute episode of AG Who and do full service to the idea ? I think you’d end up throwing the concepts out as an idea, but without really having time to investigate the issue. After all that’s what Thin Ice did yesterday. It picks up on the street urchin dregs of society (think Dickens), throws in an element of racism and as @blenkinsopthebrave highlights slavery and ownership of wealth without really dealing or investigating anything. You could quite easily make a 6 part sunday evening BBC historical story out of this episode if you wanted to. Isn’t this a problem with the one story per episode format of Who ?
30 April 2017 at 14:26 #56926@thane15
Yes, BG Who often had more than 4 episodes. In the 1970’s this was driven by budgetary reasons (it’s much cheaper to use the sets for 6 parts than 4) in a 24 episode series. Given the 5.25 pm (or was it 5.15) time slot after Grandstand (an all Saturday afternoon multi-sports programme) the stories and format didn’t allow for much character development elements to fill the time. That’s what there were lots of chases (down corridors) and locking up and escapes etc.
It was slightly different in the 1960s as the show was originally conceived as an episodic serial, akin to Flash Gordan, so the number of episodes per story was more flexible and perhaps based on what could be done with the story concept. Series 1 ran for 42 weeks for example. Of course no one ever watched them more than once.
30 April 2017 at 14:09 #56925@Morpho
The frenetic pacing of some stories has always been something I disliked. I think, at least sometimes, this was caused by having to fit an awful lot of things into episodes in an attempt to close off plot items. It also seemed to suit Matt’s character style (and doesn’t Capaldi’s).
The other thing is that quick cuts and pacing was fairly standard TV. I think things have changed following the Killing (series 1), which took 20 parts (hours) to investigate a murder. Slower TV seems to be quite normal now (Line of Duty, Broadchurch) as does more investigation into characters.
on a slightly different point, this article makes some interesting points as well:
30 April 2017 at 04:17 #56898@thane15 @jimthefish @pedant
Hi there
Just the clarify, I said the stories were lame, not the episodes. If you take out the introducing Bill and Bill/Doctor relationship building parts of episodes 1 and 3 (especially), you’re left with poor largely unmemorable stories. As adventure stories, they could be dealt with in 20 minutes. What’s made them enjoyable has been all of the character development and the production values.
The acid test for a good story is always, what will we remember in two or three years time. IMO it won’t be the adventure element of any of these stories. Will anyone actually remember the giant fish thing in the Thames next week.
@thane15
I haven’t watched much Buffy or Angel and what I have watched has largely been out of sequence. I agree what makes them great programmes is the interaction of the characters. What helps them achieve this is the fixed location. You can see the same thing at work in Star Trek (the episodes which revolve around the Enterprise or issues facing particular characters). The fixed location gives the writer a lot of air time within the story to deal with the personal drama as well as resolving the issue of the week.
The problem Doctor Who has is a small main cast and the need to introduce the the location and the new characters who drive the story in the location of the week. This takes a lot of time to do, especially with an off world location. In a 4 part classic story, that would take up the first episode (about 22 mins), leaving 66 mins for the story and resolution. In a one part current series story of c50 minutes duration, the writers generally have to use a higher proportion of screen time setting the scene. I’d argue that the optimum duration for a single part who story is about 75 mins.
If you analyse this story, there are three elements:
- Setting/scene
- Doctor/Bill relationship
- The adventure
How much time is given over to the story of the week ?
In order, its the under water lights, the kid gets eaten, the dive, discovery of the bad guy and his rationale, a bit of explosive jeopardy, another dive, explosion, a few drownings and the fish think swims away. What that, about 15 minutes screen time ? The writer has no choice to have anything but a simple story.
30 April 2017 at 00:24 #56883Hi there.
I don’t think I’d disagree with you that much. If you watched the first three episodes back to back (and for all I know the next and remaining episodes of this series) I think you can argue that we have watched the definitive introduction of a new Companion running through all of the intellectual and emotional questions that something like time travel and aliens ought to give rise to. As an introduction, I prefer it to Rose (which is the next nearest) perhaps because I soon came to dislike her characterisation. In fact, I hope we do and I also hope that this all leads through to the regeneration as part of one extended story arc of discovery and resolution. That would be quite an achievement for Moffat to end on. Of course, there will be layers on top, resolving the vault and the other elements introduced in episode 1 (and 3 as @craig mentioned).
I agree with you that the three stories so far, although quite lame, have provided a sufficient platform to achieve this. The only thing I would have changed is for the first episode to done nothing else that introduce Bill and not left the university at all (in fact no resolution to the intelligent super liquid, which I would have left to episode 2 or later – right now I expect some further resolution to the nature and source of this material.
Being <span data-dobid=”hdw”>curmudgeon</span>ly, when it comes to Moffat (and his story arcs), I do wonder where this will leave Chibnall, when he starts the next series with a new Doctor and a blank piece of paper (in theory). At least he will have a while to think it over.
29 April 2017 at 20:39 #56872Continuing the run of what have been, overall, a series of good stories. Peter and Pearl continue to be excellent with some very nice speeches from both of them. I’m not so sure about the quality of the story, even though the story telling itself has been good.
9 June 2015 at 07:42 #40577one last observation. The Keeper of Traken also reworks the central premise of this story, with the Master (the Snake/Satan) corrupting a different paradise by introducing (or reinforcing rather) using pride and avarice to corrupt certain leading members of society (one unable to cope with it) at a critical junction for his own ends.
8 June 2015 at 14:36 #40561I too will look forward to your blog.
I watch this fairly recently too (first time for a very long time). I certainly thought it was one of the best ever as a 12 year old first time around, and whilst I think that the story could be improved on today with a remake, I don’t think there is that much you would actually want to change in the basic idea. At the root of the story is a take on the Snake in Eden premise, with added elements of a classic political thriller, constructed in a young adult friendly version.
The matrix scenes is a duel to the death between Goth and the Doctor, where Goth takes sadistic pleasure from drawing out the process on what he deems to be home turf. Isn’t is the main point in Episode 3 ? It isn’t filler, but it certainly doesn’t move the story forwards. But it is art of the duel between the Master and Doctor, that underlies the narrative of the entire story.
I think I could argue that the episode 3 isn’t actually required by the underlying story at all. I would also argue that whilst the episode delivers some exciting visual ideas for 12 year boys (and let’s face it, the whole concept of the matrix as virtual reality with the telepresence inside seems like years in advance of its time now) it also does something more than that if you want to see it.
Of course, you could choose to replace and improve on the individual elements (biplane strafing, train, poisoned water, jungle sniper, manhunt) with something else or even make it shorter and punchier, but would this actually improve on what Holmes actually wrote and the production team delivered ? An alien jungle (planet of evil style). A colonial viper instead of a biplane. A laser gun rather than a bolt action rifle. I don’t actually think any change would have improved the concept any. The scale advantage (acres of landscape, actual aircraft etc) actually outweigh the lack of non-Human setting in giving realism to what is meant to be virtual reality, making the duel to the death stakes more believable.
I certainly think this story is one of the more effective uses of the Master as foe. Yes, the Master isn’t Delgado or any evolution of Delgado’s personality, but I don’t think this matters. The Master is moments from Death with a burning drive to live at any cost. It follows that the Master’s personality should be much simplified in these terms. The Master isn’t mad, but he is deranged. RTD’s version played by John Simm lacked this subtle difference.
@All
You could also view the story as a whole in a similar light. Do we have a Gallifrey run by morally bankrupt people (another version of absolute power corrupting absolutely) or do we have the Master corrupting a noble Goth, bring out his base sadism and lust for personal power.
Could you not argue that the pressure of the assassination crisis and the need for quick resolution corrupts the chancellery guard officer into using torture and worse, enjoying it (shock horror a normal person, put into a terrible situation, racting the wrong way only to discover themselves representing the benign face of the torturer al la Abu Grabe. The banality of evil personified) or is he another [closet] sadist in the wrong job for the wrong reasons.
Did Holmes wrote both takes deliberately. I expect so. Even though absolute power does seem to corrupt when it is given to the powerful without a term limit, it also requires a minority to actively participate and the majority to shrug their shoulders and get on with life.
Two other quick observations. The Master here is the Doctor as Valeyard of course. Terrance Dicks rewrote the idea in the Five Doctors. That’s also a story that uses Gallifrey well (or at least better than most) and could actually have ended up as a classic for much the same reasons, although he anniversary elements stopped that.
There is a blog post or thread in the Gallifrey question as well. I think this is probably the best take on the place in many ways, although it is still flawed. For Gallifrey to be successfully used in AG Who, I think you really need to do some world building and come up with a premise for what a society with multiple regenerations, very long life, super advanced technology might look like (Hulke/Dicks original conception from the War Games ?). Holmes chose to write a degenerated 1950s (?) UK House of Lords/civil service inspired version of such a society in decay. Lawrence Miles wrote a different one for his Time War Great Houses.
I’m not sure that any one else in either BG or AG Who spent enough time
8 June 2015 at 11:31 #40560would Kidulthood come close to an answer to your question ? (not exactly gang related, but fringe of ?).
This list also has some different choices:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls057689552/
Attack the block is one of the few I have actually seen.
7 June 2015 at 13:25 #40550re Fantasy – the best I can do is to quote a master:
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”
[or paraphrased any person from a sufficiently advanced society is indistinguishable from a magician]
I would argue the best single “label” might be Science Fantasy in any case.
7 June 2015 at 09:43 #4054823 September 2014 at 12:05 #32424@purofilion
There’s another film too : We steal secrets : story of wikileaks, which is more of a documentary style with archive film cut in. I’ve watched chunks of that on TV as well (but wasn’t moved to watch it from the start either).
23 September 2014 at 10:12 #32416@purofilion
? The Assange film (Fifth Estate) has been out for a while on DVD (at least in the UK). Assange himself panned it as did most reviewers. I have seen extended parts myself (channel surfing) but it didn’t inspire me to watch the entire film.
Breaker Morant is a great film, although I haven’t seen it for quite a few years. I’m not sure how historically accurate the film is, but it definitely makes a very powerful point.
-
AuthorPosts
