Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
28 October 2015 at 10:25 #45726
Old news. It’s even on IMDB.
28 October 2015 at 01:15 #45687My latest thought is that the Doctor made Ashildr immortal for the precise purpose of following (guarding?) Clara through the her life/lives, and…to be there at the end. In other words to oversee Clara’s end.
I rather like this, but I think the creation of Me was born a little too much out of passion to support the Doctor as creator-with-a-plan here. It seems to me that Ashildr has appointed herself guardian of the discarded and, once she has done that, could hardly fail to note a series of dead mid-20a girls with a striking resemblance to the one she remembers from way back when. The first one might be “Oh, that’s sad – I used to know her”, but the second and subsequent would be “Hang on a minute, test tube babies haven’t even been invented yet.”
27 October 2015 at 15:00 #45664@purofilion
Well, I’ll go back to Northern Exposure
I still have my “It’s not what you fling, it’s the flings itself” T-Shirt
27 October 2015 at 11:12 #45652Then again, human beings who live the normal three score-and-ten are said to use only 10 per cent of the brain’s capacity (possibly 20 per cent, can’t remember exactly)
This is complete nonsense. It is one of those myths that has zero basis in truth.
27 October 2015 at 00:18 #45627“offed” not “offered” … 🙂
Ellie’s death has never been explained, as far as I recall.
26 October 2015 at 17:22 #45601or she is making a point that she is in control of Clara’s mother.
Or simply filling in for Clara’s mother. Or offed her….
26 October 2015 at 17:21 #45600@pendant *cough* *cough* No first “n”!
, completely relies on blood, violence, horror and porn to keep the audience involved.
You say that like it’s a bad thing *smiley winky thing*
Her character goes WAY beyond bow and arrow, though.
Somewhere I hope there is an X-Rated Doctor Who outtake of her using the kind of language she gets to use on GoT.
26 October 2015 at 16:57 #45595POTD.
26 October 2015 at 16:52 #45594The thing with her Game of Thrones role, is that it is one of only two genuinely interesting character arcs (the other being Peter Dinklage’s Tyrion). There are other arcs held up by very good playing by experienced actors, but genuinely intriguing arcs are very few. (Part of Arya’s (her GoT character) story arc is that she is easily mistaken for a boy, so hopefully that will help you get a grasp of what they were riffing on in this episode).
My money is on Sam Swift being the Minister of War, rather than
AryaAshildr26 October 2015 at 12:38 #45560Don’t Monty Python have a song about span?
26 October 2015 at 12:27 #45555@jimthefish @purofilion @fatmaninabox @blenkinsopthebrave
Oh, now we have hayness with added racism!
(I must admit I thought hayness was just the feeling of having an allergic reaction to grass pollen, as in “Every spring I feel really hayness, and it last for weeks.”
26 October 2015 at 11:16 #45542It is half term over here.
It shows.
26 October 2015 at 11:00 #45539*circles bait*
*swims away*
26 October 2015 at 02:09 #45519Yeah – I’m a little sceptical. She’s 800 years old, has been around a bit and even been a queen. A meeting with Missy would be sufficient. Not convinced it is necessary.
The problem with Ellie is that her scrapbook of things to do started when she was 11-ish (as @pufferfish notes), so she would need to be an identity thief. Masie Williams is able to act younger than she is, but not that much – I assumed Ashildr was 14 or 15, but no younger.
But the real problem is having had a different (and apparently older) actor play her so recently. Not sure the “suspension of disbelief” would hold up.
26 October 2015 at 00:25 #45504Clearly it’s a possibility; but it didn’t occur to me as a stronger than any others. My first thought was that she could have met people, over the centuries, who had met the Doctor, and been rescued or helped by him, and then watched him leave
I’m inclined to agree. As Me said, the Doctor has had quite an impact. Indeed, his mysterious, Zelig-like, presence was one of the conceits used in Rose.
Edit: It occurs to me she could have met Jamie and known a lot more about him than he knew about himself.
26 October 2015 at 00:17 #45503But having just lost a cat that lived with our family for nineteen years (longer than our son!), I agree with you that their absence leaves a giant whole.
Oh gosh, know all about that, Utterly desolate when I lost mine (of fifteen years) before I had a chance to show her the new garden.
26 October 2015 at 00:09 #4550125 October 2015 at 21:46 #45487Just one question. If the astute observation by @kharis pays off, then are there enough brownie points in the pot?
(although, caution – we have seen Clara Mère played by someone else.. beware the chain-yank)
25 October 2015 at 20:24 #45468We could have been reading a really interesting post full of insight and critique of the episode we have just watched, but instead we are reading the same old fanboy wailing about how much better things were ‘when I were a kid’.
We could have considering the use of symbolism and metaphor (richer and more effective now that at any time in the show’s run), but instead we get whinges about long words.
We could have been considering the acting of a disconcertingly assured 18 year-old… ah fuck it, I can’t be bothered – you are just too boring and long-winded, thinking it clever to recycle the same old whines, utterly devoid of wit or humour and a complete alien to charm.
So now that you’ve stopped watching the show, feel free to fuck right off.
25 October 2015 at 11:52 #45442“Any living things…could turn into a Zygon and kill me”
No resonance with current paranoias there. Nope. None at all.
25 October 2015 at 11:37 #45441@winston @countscarlioni
Learn to C&P guys 😉
I’m not sure what it means, but it intrigues me. Couldn’t help thinking of Sarah Jane.
@plainolddave
Yes, the Doctor definitely works better when he is a sociopath incapable of empathy and caring.
Oh, wait… no he doesn’t.
24 October 2015 at 21:10 #45387Hmmm.
A guardian for the discarded.
22 October 2015 at 20:27 #45309As an aside, this article about the the other guy in the Tommie Smith/John Carlos picture is fascinating and more than a little heartbreaking (of particular interest to the Aussie contingent).
22 October 2015 at 17:25 #45305The photo captures the bare reality. The art captures the feeling it evokes.
Hmmmm, or indeed hmmmm, and for that matter hmmmm and hmmm.
The search for emotional truth does not absolve the writer (or the photographer) of the requirement to avoid outright absurdity (unless absurdity is the point) or falsehood, for down that road lies Plot Mandated Stupidity (I’m looking at you Broadchurch 2) or Arbitrary Character Remodelling (ILAY the aforementioned BSG).
22 October 2015 at 00:54 #45273Sometimes in Doctor Who we accept beauty and poetry and philosophy over science
This is the Moffat(1) (and the oft-cited Joss Whedon and Rob “Veronica Mars” Thomas) way – in a conflict between emotional truth and pedantic rectitude, emotional truth wins. It helps, of course, having a cast that can deliver to good – being it Sarah Michelle Gellar, Kristen Bell or Peter Capaldi. But emotional truth always wins.
Every time. No exceptions.
(I suppose the cautionary counter-example is Battlestar Galactica: the quest emotional truth does not give liberty to arbitrarily change a characters just to make whatever polemical point you are getting at, and even a good cast can’t dig you out of that hole)
(1) And for that matter, RTD
21 October 2015 at 17:38 #45265Calm down. Being told your theory is bonkers is high praise indeed around here!
(although Susan was his granddaughter)
21 October 2015 at 01:27 #45230Hmm. Then they could have had time for a scene where Ashildr wakes up alive and gives some sign in her speech or behavior that the Doctor recognizes as ominous for her future (and far future) behavior, so that his concern that he’s made a bad mistake is kicked off by something real about *her*, not in the abstract.
We had that scene, but the Doctor remembered in the wrong way round.
19 October 2015 at 22:56 #45162And also….
If there is a humungous loop of causal causality, is Ashildr where 11 learn that “we are all story in the end”?
Don’t just look at the story, look at the writer.
19 October 2015 at 22:51 #45161Consequently, I take back what I said in my previous post about the trousers. (I should have known–how can one disagree with the Radio Times…)
And also clearly a Buffy allusion. Who can forget the Red Leather Pants of Moral Ambiguity?
19 October 2015 at 16:07 #45130@plainolddave
like the inexplicable tendency to refer to corporations in the plural.
Almost every UK new or magazine style book in the UK states that corporations (companies, in UK parlance) are singular, (example) the sole exception being sports teams because sports hacks can’t cope with complexity.
The thing with English as it is spoken in the UK (there is no such thing as UK, British or English English, despite Microsoft’s best efforts to make it so – the clue is in the name), is that we borrow rapaciously, voraciously and liberally from anywhere we find interesting, be it The Raj or Alicia Silverstone.
The consequence of this is that, contrary to the impression given by debate in broadsheet newspapers, we are – on the whole – far more concerned about style than pedantry, and to the mind’s eye a room full of people is a group rather than a single board of directors to a single company. So in vernacular, “they” it is.
(Irrelevant aside: I have yet to meet an American who can say the simple exclamation “bloody ‘ell” properly)
19 October 2015 at 02:21 #4508318 October 2015 at 12:30 #4501717 October 2015 at 22:19 #44955Thoroughly enjoyed that – too much to absorb, so I’ll just say that the inversion and subversion of Matt Smith’s “I speak baby” schtick was simply delicious.
And shame about the Viking’s horns…
17 October 2015 at 11:22 #44920@purofilion
‘thing’ inside a thing”??
Tesseract, not teselector! (A a cube in 4D – see Interstallar for a fund realisation of one)
17 October 2015 at 11:17 #44919@purofilion
Yep – bunce = money (doesn’t need to be illegal or hard cash). Mainly a London term, afaik.
17 October 2015 at 02:29 #44895I am reminded of a comment by Spock towards the end of the Wrath of Kahn (not verbatim, but close enough): “Khan is very intelligent. But inexperienced: his tactics indicate two dimensional thinking.” Just about the only time Trek explicitly acknowledged that space is a very different battlefield to a …well, field.
You do not need a closed loop to consider that there is no meaningful separation between Clara and the Claras (not claricles). She could be a single entity living in four dimensional space, but human reasoning skills are not really designed to see the universe that way. If she was there in Victoria England AND in 21st century England, there must be two of her.
Not necessarily. She doesn’t travel through time – she is temporal (back to the tesseract idea)
It has been suggested many times, however, that this is exactly how TLs see the universe
16 October 2015 at 18:33 #44877@arbutus @purofilion
A pet peeve of mine is otherwise knowledgeable English football fans buying into the “Soccer is American for football” meme. You can tell their age from it.
And also, Jane Austen mentions baseball on the first page of Northanger Abbey…
16 October 2015 at 11:37 #44868@purofilion
“it’s called football not soccer” is simply snooty nonsense!
Yup.
16 October 2015 at 11:01 #44866@purofilion
Apparently, football is soccer but I get yellow carded if I say “soccer”: “It’s simply football, Mum.”
The boy need not fret. Soccer is a perfectly acceptable term in wide use – in my decidedly English childhood it was commonplace (it was, according to legend, coined when some public school nobend said “I’ve played some rugger [Rugby Football] and not I’m going to play some soccer [Association Football].
It only became associated with being a “foreign” term with the founding of the North American Soccer League in the 70s and I can see no more wrong with the US (or Oz) using diminutives to distinguish one form from another than us doing so. After all, we started it.
16 October 2015 at 10:52 #44865Um, that’s odd – sorry ’bout that. Usually check for typos in the edit window, but that rather odd transposition was missed. (I have that “never taught to type properly” problem which results in many transpositions when typing in a rsuh).
14 October 2015 at 10:05 #44762Yeah, but I could have scored in those matches!
And you know Levy will sell him the first time anyone offers some decent bunce.
14 October 2015 at 02:30 #44745I’m just enjoying Harry Kane’s regression to the mean.
14 October 2015 at 02:13 #4474213 October 2015 at 18:44 #44705@mudlark @purofilion
*cough* May I politely draw your attention to post #44497?
Hmmph. You may.
*mumble**mumble*meddling kids*mumble*
I postulate that a global warming induced mini-ice age tilted the landscape, diverting flow in much the way that the last one diverted the flow of the Thames from the Vale of St Albans to its present course. Antecedent drainage, innit?
OR
There used to be two lakes, Lower Loch and Upper Loch, and Lower Loch was drained to make room for a fake Soviet town (because there is obviously no cheaper way to do it when the military is involved) and the breaking of the dam merely restored the status quo ante (which explains the musical outbursts).
13 October 2015 at 16:03 #44693So anyway:
The thing with sunken villages is they get sunken after the dam is built downstream from them. Water builds up behind the dam.
Blowing up the dam would very likely sweep the village away, but it would not leave it under water for 150 years. There would be some rubble and a river, and no need for an underwater mining facility.
Just thought I’d put that out there.
13 October 2015 at 10:59 #44683@jimmythetupid
where has that been all this time, anyway?
It could be anywhere. It’s chameleon circuit still works.
13 October 2015 at 10:57 #44682Random (well, not so random) thought: The Doctor throws the term “soul” about in a fairly casual way.
So what is the soul in the Whoniverse?
12 October 2015 at 11:38 #44592Even further than that. Everyone should buy this BBC DVD of a 1980 Play For Today – and DON’T google the title. Spoilers would ruin them. Thinking about it, I’m fairly sure Moffat did!
12 October 2015 at 01:49 #44542On exposition.
One of the side-effects of me being transient for the fat end of half a year (and so not in a position to do anything especially productive) was using my cousins’ Netflix account to binge watch a few American series that I might not have bothered with otherwise.
One of the things that is really noticeable about network shows (rather than cable) is the constant insertion of expository dialogue just to remind viewers what happened the previous week. I mean sentence of a sort that no human would ever utter for fear of sounding like Cletus The Slack Jawed Yokel stupider cousin, but which are fine coming from the lips of a fictional lawyer/ cop/ teacher/ high school senior(1).
While I sort of understand why cautious networks do this, it really is writing for the slowest kid in the classroom. I’m more a Maggie Walsh “Talk fast, set a lot of work and expect you to keep up” kind a chap.
And it is not as if breaking the fourth wall is a new device. In the mid-1980s Moonlighting blew our socks off (and made a star of Bruce Willis) the moment he winked at the camera and spoke to the viewer (singular – that’s the key). From House of Cards, through Hustle to House of Lies, we really should barely even notice it these days. And, of course, William Hartnell famously did it on Who. It’s canon, and that is all the wriggle room anyone needs.
And it is so much better than having a character say words to the effect of: “Isn’t that the guy we saw when we went to the art show on B’s birthday a few weeks ago when that big storm hit and knocked the sheriffs car off the road, just before the power lines came down and we got lost in the zoo?”
Of course, as a device it has a history as long as storytelling. That’s why it is called storytelling and not storyshowing.
(1) Notwithstanding this, Pretty Little Liars is a surprisingly good study in how to spin out a shaggy dog story beyond the high concept, relying only occasionally on Plot Demanded Stupidity, or the Sod It Let’s Make X Stupid Rather Than Smart But A Bit Gauche, We Can Reset Later ploy (or the At Some Point Every Character in Battlestar Galactica ploy, to give the SF variant). What I like about Moffat – and, of course, Whedon – is that his characters generally change for a reason, not because the plot demands it).
12 October 2015 at 01:09 #44536Because people mostly didn’t get the fez, and they really struggled with the causal loop in The Big Bang
I’m not sure about “most” but “many” I’d certainly concur with (although let’s not also forget that the Doctor came into existence because Amy wished very very hard. I don’t think Moffat is in any way pursuing a fatalistic vision).
-
AuthorPosts


