Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
15 January 2020 at 09:41 #69106
Just to say (if you don’t know) an Orphan planet is a real term for a planet that doesn’t orbit a star and usually adopts an eccentric orbit around galactic central point. They are thought to begin life around stars until something catestrophic occurs (supernova, encounter with a neutron star / black hole, etc). They are thought to be quite common.
Don’t know why they adopted the term for a planet its inhabitants have defecated on repeatedly, but there you go.
15 January 2020 at 09:30 #69105I actually watched this on Monday night, and then spent a while thinking how I could engage meaningfully with this episode. Then I come in and see so many of you have given it a thorough kicking, and I needn’t have worried. đ And @whisht deserves a good star for that post. Marvellous!
And @bluesqueakpip is on the money here. I don’t mind made up science in normal Hurley burley of sci-fi and sci-fantasy. I think when you address a real world current issue where the truthfulness of the science is questioned constantly, you are honour bound to get the basic science right. This did a lamentable job.
I’m still trying to get my head around how Chibnallls writing team works, beyond the general description of ‘we kind of have a writer’s room’. Has anyone come across an extra or interview where he outlines the process? Because this did not seem to be the same writer as ‘It takes you away’. It was more like a Chibnall script. ‘It takes you away’ was script edited by the writer of next weeks episode, so it will be interesting to compare the two.
Overall though this left me cold and just reminded me of some of the low points of series 11. Workmanlike direction, stodgy dialogue followed by an extremely ‘on the nose’ message that’s just probably going to piss off people who support change rather than actually change hearts and minds.
I did enjoy the comedy of the virus manifesting.
Recycling is good for the environment!
@juniperfish called ‘Planet of the Apes’ and @rorysmith called ‘The Time Machine’. Good observations, but no one called the most obvious reference for Doctor Who.
And you are all forgiven! Because in the first parts of the Sixth Doctor adventure Trial of a Timelord (The part generally known as ‘The Mysterious Planet’) The Doctor and Peri arrive on a world light years from Earth and discover through means of signage of London Underground, that this is actually Earth relocated! Extraordinary!
Raiders of the lost arc!
After Lenny Henry killed his mum last week we have a Daughter-mum grudge match. Dysfunctional families as a recurring thing?
I mention ‘The Mysterious Planet’/’Trial of a Timelord’ (a story so bad it finished of legendary writer Robert Holmes) because it transpired it was the Timelords plot to move the Earth and pin the blame on the Doctor. If we have an arc about the basis of Timelord lies and make reference to a story where they actually lied, that may make sense. I’m kidding myself aren’t I?
13 January 2020 at 11:26 #69025Great to “see” you again.! đ
As soon as I watched spyfall PT 2 that minor exchange from Hell Bent came straight back to me. Made me realise how I missed a lot of insight by contributors on here.
Pretty much agree with everything you say here, but to be charitable to Chibnall, I think the fate of Solomon was requested by Moffat. It dovetails into A town called Mercy and the question of the Doctors morality when not anchored by his friends.
If @miapatrick, @juniperfish and yourself are up for a rewatch of Penny Dreadful, perhaps we can entice others in as well. It’s something that could be enjoyable, perhaps when this series of Who ends?
12 January 2020 at 02:01 #68976While I think they did leave the ending ambiguous, I have a feeling this may be a one – shot like Jekyll (The BBC commissioned it while RTD was in charge because they wanted to see if he could deliver a project like that and take charge of Doctor Who).
I’ve seen all of Penny Dreadful and I think once it settled down it became a stonking piece of TV. My original comment (which compared it to Alan Moore’s League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) is here. If you type Penny dreadful into the search bar, you’ll see a fair few references by others. @miapatrick was an early adopter as well.
I didn’t get to say that series 3 Episode 4 “A blade of grass” that featured Eva Green in the mental institute confronting Dracula and Satan was one of the highlights of that years TV. It features Eva and Rory Kinnear in a two hander the year after Heaven Sent. Both bits of incredible TV.
I’m a bit suspicious of the mindwipe coming back. Moffat was slightly ahead of the #metoo curve and the issue of consent. I do think that for someone who has positioned themselves as progressive, Chibnall can be a bit tone deaf on certain points. We’ll see how it goes.
12 January 2020 at 00:38 #68966Like your style. I will attribute you and other contributers with these and any further observations in my retirement project – A Book entitled “Steven Moffat and his BBC projects – What the hell was going on there?!”. The truth is in here. đ
I was quite surprised by the relatively minor part played by Mina, but I think the Lucy part is a lot more complicated. Her letters, in the book, seem to extole the virtues of the men in her life a lot. They’re much better at everything than she is, etc. Very conformist Victorian.
I think I’m still grappling with her depiction because it is so different. Obviously she and Dracula are Mirrors. When Dracula looks in the mirror he sees horror. When she (burnt) looks in the mirror she sees beauty. Perhaps self image is the key. What I think is clear is that she is a Clara – she’s reckless and drawn to danger. What I find also interesting is that, like Clara there is a distinct emphasis on “consent” in her outcome.
My recent comment on the reapperance of the mind-wipe in Skyfall had everything to do with consent. When Donna was mindwipped in S4 there were serious points made in other places that this amounted to (if you’ll pardon the expression) ‘mind rape’. When we got to Hell Bent I think Jimthefish and I may have read those same conversations because he and I suggested that it was a necessary corrective. Clara argued for her memories to remain intact. Her choice, her consent. Similarly I think the novel and many previous adaptions the fate of Lucy in presented as an invasion. I can’t think of any other adaption where Lucy made the choice and gave consent.
11 January 2020 at 22:58 #68960@fatmaninabox @miapatrick @juniperfish @mudlark
Yeah, Dracula was a rare treat. You’ve already covered many points I had in my notes, but thanks for the reference to the barmaid in the Rose & Crown. Completely missed that on first watch!
I just thought it was constructed brilliantly. I just wanted to point out that the most controversial point for many – the relocation to the present day, was actually in the spirit of the Stoker novel, but it’s easy to miss as it’s considered a “period” piece these days. From the authors point of view he was relocating a medieval vampire who lived a medieval life style to “contemporary” England. It’s Dracula’s desire to see the ‘new world’ that informs the book and this adaption. The book makes reference to phonograph, telegraph and Van Helsing tries to save Lucy with a blood transfusion (some years before it became a standard practice). Truly a land of miracles! I liked the update with Dracula eulogising the modern household.
I have a special fondness for the second episode. There has been a film project in “development hell” for a couple of decades now called “The last voyage of the Demeter”. I have a feeling an actual film might disappoint after this. Well produced with lovely cinematography for a TV budget.
Claus Bang was great as Dracula but was overshadowed by Holly Wells as Sister Agatha. She’s actually the daughter of John Wells – actor, comedian and satirical writer, and a man who’s last TV role was in the Steven Moffat comedy ‘Chalk’ (he played the School Headmaster, Richard Nixon). I must admit, watching this made me wonder what she’d be like as The Doctor with Moffat scripts behind her.
Which is to say that Dracula and Sherlock seem to be companion projects to Doctor Who in many ways. I’ve expounded on this for Sherlock in the past, but suddenly we have a female Doctor and Van Helsing (in a very Doctor-like role). The relationships intrigue me.
I was given a DVD of Moffat’s “Jekyll” for Christmas (I’d been looking for it for a while). Its been years since I saw it so I’m hoping to refresh myself and see if any further parallels can be drawn.
8 January 2020 at 08:27 #68895I have to agree with @craig , @mudlark and others when they suggest this is an improvement on Series 11. To be upfront I didn’t get much from the last series and special at all, and I may write a blog about it sometime rather than going episode by episode.
This had pace (almost frenetic compared to series 11) and I thought the direction and camera work was much more dynamic than last year (which would have really benefitted from an initial carryover of Directors from SMs last year I think).
However…
but it left me kind of cold, sadly
This really. And it was the recycling in this episode that really stopped me getting into it and grading it higher.
We have the the Master blowing up a plane mid air (ah, Missy in Death in heaven), the Doctor communicating to someone from the past via video recording (how could we forget blink) the gang being set up and taunted by the bad guy while pursued through contemporary London ( done better or worse in last of the Timelords do we think?)
Add in remote controlled cars with killer satnav (did no-one learn from ATMOS!) Gallifrey being burned again and even a returning joke from Curse of Fatal Death (at least the Master didn’t have to crawl through sewers this time) and yeah, this just left me disconnected.
It’s a pretty piecemeal approach to developing a story. Now that’s what I call Doctor Who volume 2020 (the RTD and SM years, resampled and remixed).
To someone not overly familiar with the recent past, or a younger viewer I guess this wouldn’t be an issue. But we live in a modern world of binge watching and catch-up.
I can’t help but think that, to someone like that, this density of recycling may make the episode seem a bit tired. And confused, because I think the return of the mindwipe was a big mistake. To a binge watcher we are only a series away from the Doctor getting his memory of Clara back and Bill’s “how would you feel if someone did this to you”. People see future technology all the time in Doctor who. Bringing the memory wipe back seemed like just a call out to Donna, ignoring the fact that she was dying and Ada… Wasn’t.
Ten points from Hufflepuff, Chibnall.
8 January 2020 at 07:29 #68892Thanks for the well wishes. Not there quite yet, health-wise but an end is at least in sight.
Look forward to reading your thoughts on Dracula, there is a small discussion on the TV thread which I’m going to contribute to at the weekend. I’d also be interested to hear what you think of Star Trek Disco @bluesqueakpip. I’ve seen both series, so no spoilers. đ
5 January 2020 at 07:38 #68820I’d like to apologize to all members for my absence. Dysfunctional kidneys seems a poor response, but there you go. I hope to touch on why I think Chibnallls first series is small “c” conservative, Dracula is brilliant, and why Worzel Gummidge could be the saviour of humankind;-) in forthcoming posts. I’m catching up!
5 January 2020 at 06:26 #688195 January 2020 at 06:13 #68816No m’dear @blenkinsopthebrave. He’s a massive bellend with no sense of when he has gone too far. I have awakened and any further infractions will be deleted.
Reviewing your conduct towards other members has made me reach for the mind bleech. You really are an objectionable tit of the most massive proportions. I will take pleasure in deleting even the most innofensive post you make until you apologise to @whisht personally via PM or (preferably) make such apology in public.
If you can make one of the most innofensive members of this forum tell you to go fuck yourself, then consider the advice carefully while staring at your cold-blank face in the mirror, you prick.
22 December 2017 at 11:32 #62677Hello, and seasons greetings to one and all.
Just dashing through to post a word of thanks to @wolfweed and post a question about a question.
Wolfweed posted a link a while ago about pre-screenings of Twice Upon A Time up here in t’frozen North. MrsPhaseshift seized the opportunity to apply for tickets and only bloody did it! We go today to Bradford for a showing.
To explain while I’m feeling a bit giddy, I studied Chemistry in Bradford between 88 and 91. I was there at the ‘death’ of Doctor Who’s original run. in that year (89) I met a blazing redheaded maths student who I canoodled with at the Odeon cinema on many a date. The cinema closed later that decade and fell into some disrepair. The blazing redhead was MrsP.
The old building is undergoing a regeneration at the moment and we’ll be present for the first cinema showing for quite a while. It’s going to be a peculiar experience for both of us, I think. Personal Time Travel.
It also sounds as if we have guests with Steven Moffat and Peter Capaldi turning up and a Q&A thing. So my question is really ….. What question would you ask? I’m happy to ask the question you’ve always wanted to ask if I get the opportunity.
Anyway here is a news item about the screening and the cinema.
Hope to have a bit of time between Christmas and New Year to go back to fill in the blanks about series 10 which I had to leave because I was so far behind.
See you all after the show!
8 June 2017 at 22:58 #58763Iâve just got back from the NE and was surprised by the number of spoiler thread comments myself. Iâll be back to post some thoughts on the last couple of episodes tomorrow, but Iâm currently laughing at the notion that Theresa May may have just ‘won’ a hung Parliament. Delightful (but being realistic, unlikely).
Anyways, a while back you @blenkinsopthebrave and @arbutus had a conversation about the Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band. I can only echo @blenkinsopthebrave s thoughts on Viv Stanshall, but just add that the band had another genius in the form of Neil Innes. I was delighted to find out that a large amount of his solo work from âThe Innes Book of Recordsâ has been uploaded to YouTube.
So, on the subject of Elections, here is Neil on the subject of apathy:
And a thought on the nature of democracy by a much older Neil:
27 May 2017 at 22:19 #58110interjecting with a possible Bowie ref for this episode:
On the day of execution/only women kneel and smileHi! Now that is a good catch. I have to admit Iâve listened to Black star (the album) once and found it difficult listening at the time (just after his death). Iâve just listened to the track with the video for the first time. Wow – lots to chew over in that as imagery goes!
27 May 2017 at 22:15 #58109The origin and purpose of The Veritas in the simulation is quite interesting.
Weâre told the book is thousands of years old and somehow came to be in the possession of The Vatican – locked in their library of heresy that was established by The Naughty Female Pope With The Castanets, shortly after she met the Doctor. Doesnât that last bit send alarm bells ringing?
So letâs assume that what SimDoctor said was true – the simulation was too accurate. The Veritas and the Library actually exist. Given what we know the text says, someone in the past, using the terminology of âdemonsâ, etc. seems to accurately predict the scenario where the world is Simulated and leaves a shadow test.
As a time traveller, you think âhey, the people who had the prescience to write The Veritas may have some information on the big bad Demon behind thisâ and set off into the past. Your first port of call is surely to your old friend the Pope to question if she has any clues as to the source of the text sheâs about to lock in her brand new library.
Alas, she doesn’t have a clue about the text. Or the Library. You sigh and think âoh, no – not again!â and sit down to start writing The Veritas from the Simulated recording youâve been sent from your Simulated self. All the time urging The Pope to put her Castanets down and apply herself to the more mundane interior design requirements for a forbidding âLibrary of Blasphemyâ.
If anyone in the real world manages to translate it from the obscure combination of languages youâve selected in the real world, they will be reassured that they are in the real world shortly before bursting into tears that theyâve spent years translating something akin to an April 1st Joke. In the intended Simulated world it would be devastating. A weapon. Ultimately a weapon designed to destabilise the simulation and introduce The Doctor to this âwarâ.
Yep – itâs our old friend the bootstrap paradox. âWho wrote Beethovenâ becomes âWho wrote The Veritasâ (well, precisely)
Not saying this is accurate by any stretch of the imagination, and weâll see how it plays out, but it does use concepts pre-established in the show and should be familiar to viewers. Even though some of them would undoubtedly pour onto the internet claiming it doesnât make sense. Main reason I mentioner this? The writer of Next weeks episode is the same guy as Before the Flood.
It also occurs that the ultimate spoke in the machine of whatever the Monks plans entail is going to be Missy. Locked up in her quantum vault she does represent a huge chaotic variable that I assume the simulations havenât been able to account for. Maybe sheâll be a hero, if only just for one day.
27 May 2017 at 22:10 #58108Some slightly befuddled thoughts because Iâve got that jet lag feeling. I thought production on this was superb. The âinevitable confluence of eventsâ witnessed by the Monks starting with Erikaâs journey to work reminded me of the last season of Sherlock – not only the filming style, zooming to specific points or clues, but the idea that with enough data you could become omnipotent.
Itâs interesting that the Doctor actually recognises the plan and his solution is sound (the countdown clock winds down) but his pride with regard to his sight proves the ultimate undoing as Bill succumbs to the temptation offered. Is she âthe (wo)Man who sold the world?â
I canât help but think that, in recognising and desiring an emotional response we arenât dealing with proto or disguised Cybermen. Their campaign seems directed towards the Doctor. I wonder if their claim to have killed this Doctor âmany timesâ was just in simulation or as a result of something like the Confession Dial. We look like corpses to them because, as Clara once claimed, we all look dead to a Time traveller. A Pyramid materialises out of nowhere? A very Matrix like simulation? Are they somehow Rassilon and the exiled high council?
Probably not. Will need a thorough rewatch of this tomorrow AM I think.
22 May 2017 at 11:12 #57852Hey, Iâm getting better. Itâs only three days later and Iâm reviewing Extremis!
Iâd find this difficult to rate as a standalone, but felt we were getting a little bit more for our time as the âsetupâ phase was out the way. Itâs interesting that the trend to echo the past is still strong though. Silence in the Library comes to mind, not only for the Library, but conjoined with the Simulated world that echoes CALâs environment in that two parter.
Itâs all remixed to good effect . Out of all Moffat’s âpuzzle boxesâ this is the most direct and simple. Iâm pretty bewildered by some assertions elsewhere that this is in any way difficult to follow.
Instead this is much more a character piece looking at our main players and the relationships between them. This concept of Truth we’re highlighting plays into notions like Billâs âclosetedâ status with her Foster Mother and The Doctors reluctance to tell Bill the truth about his eyes. Of all the main players the hapless Nardole seems to be the only one that has no secrets. Heâs doomed I tell you!
Obviously the truth of those two secrets will out, but as I suggested before the episode I think a bigger secret is in play here. I think @alexwho and @mudlark have picked up on it. The offer for Confession for whatever the Doctors remorse is due to by the Cardinal was a punch in the air moment. The fact that the episode immediately segues into a Doctor flashback with Missy would seem to indicate that the Doctor does have a confession to make to Missy. I think that Truth is going to cause a lot of damage.
Random other things:
– The Doctors devastating impact on his companions dating lives continues to raise laughs. This made the comedy of errors between Clara and Danny Pink in Listen look tame. Also loved the fact that the Doctor made up for simDoctors mistake, and bigged-up Billâs confidence to ask Penny out.
– The custodians of the Execution world reminded me heavily of the Jaffa from Stargate, with their ornamental robes and elaborate staffs and neckpieces.
– I thought the âlook me upâ moment (again reminiscent of Silence in the Library) was funny and well earned by the setup. These people obviously take a particular pride in ending life, elevating it almost to a religion. Having âThe Doctorâ as a cause of death in their Database is very funny. Then try to imagine some of the entries that may be on it. Morbius? Magnus Greel? Sutek the Destroyer, ancient Osirian God? Death by Doctor. Satan!? They couldnât run fast enough! đ
As others have said, putting a blond wig on the President would probabloy have been a step too far, but the thought of a president driven to suicide by the revelation that heâs a fake in a fake world, as a fake news report plays in the background is quite a strong image in itself.
Bowie. Well itâs an interesting one this. When Bill and Nardole enter CERNs canteen, their, and our, first clear look a the timer is heavily signified (I think itâs minutely slowed down when I watched it closer on i-player).
Screen grab:
Which reminded me of this
Iâve posted it here because the cover of Heathen, the album itâs on is worth dwelling on. A âblindâ Bowie. And surely the Doctor is the ultimate âHeathenâ being consulted by the Catholic Church. This song is about moving on after a personal loss. Very apt for the Doctor in those flashback scenes.
The rest of the title made me wonder – blind Doctor vs. Weeping Angel? Could Moffat resist?
Need some sleep. Long night doing improbable things in a field. Same again tonight.
Back with more thoughts at some point I hope.
20 May 2017 at 19:21 #57708Hilarious isnât it? I wonder if she knows that the comparison with Supreme Commander Servalan that a lot of people are riffing on now originates with Doctor Who performers and writers like Nicholas Pegg? (Click on the pic as it probably wonât show it all)
Itâs uncanny. pic.twitter.com/Y4xBaYEkOl
— Nicholas Pegg (@NicholasPegg) March 15, 2017
Iâm not on twitter, but I occasionally check out feeds for writers and directors on there. I thought @janetteb may enjoy this. Writer Jamie doing some bonkers theorising on his own episode!
Next week's Who: 'Mining Station Chasm Forge'
Same rhythm in my head as Khazad Doom
or Z'ha'dum
And 'If you go to Z'ha'dum, you will die…'— Jamie Mathieson (@Jamti) May 9, 2017
20 May 2017 at 16:54 #57702Intertextuality Alert!
Do not continue if specultion on intertextuality disturbs you, brings you out in hives, etc! Skip this one and make a calming cup of camomile tea instead.
Yes, Veritas – the Goddess of Truth. That most elusive of beings and concepts. She was often thought to hide in a well, according to myth.
When Sherlock went seeking the truth of his sister, he too found an unexpected truth hidden in a well.
Yep – Iâll be back on intertextuality watch between now and the end of the series. I canât help but think the general shape of the Euros plot will be mirrored onto Missy, but the path will be reversed. I think the Doctor holds a big secret or truth about Missy – the original reason he left the Confession Dial to her, to open only on his death. Something he feels guilty about. Something about her daughter, perhaps. A bit of a game changer.
Needless to say, Iâm looking forward to the next seven weeks.
20 May 2017 at 16:14 #57700I like pushing the Bowie envelope a bit, so:
It was ‘The Passenger’ that sent us on the Bowie frenzy, believe it or not. The version I posted can be found here (easy to miss as the music thread can take some time to load)
+ @cathannabel & @whisht
I was really surprised noone selected this. The enemy in space – lower pressure. The time when you see the Universe’s true face? When they are Under Pressure.
‘Walk away from it all like a blind man’
20 May 2017 at 15:57 #57699Iâve only just watched Oxygen, and pretty much loved it. Itâs strange to say, perhaps, but can anyone think of an episode of Doctor Who in recent times being this âhard sci-fiâ in approach?
I think there are an astonishing number of references to other works (including Who history) in this but, unlike Smile a few weeks ago, I thought it produced something coherent and very direct from them.
Pearl Mackie continues to be a compelling foil for Capaldi. I actually thought Nardole was a useful addition here as well. I think the revelation that his past is quite shady, coupled with his nervous tendencies but pragmatic âlet’s get this over withâ style puts me in mind of Vila from Blakeâs 7. Iâm guaranteed to be drawn to him in other words and would guess at this point his own Arc will not end happily but with a certain nobility.
A lot of people have mentioned Ark in Space, mainly I think for the Space Station design. I came away thinking of the follow up to that story set on station Nerva Beacon – Revenge of the Cybermen, because the basic nature of the body in a robot suit eerily echoes them.
Iâll also say that the effect of the âsuit virusâ that passes between suits and disables the wearers nervous system, that network of blackening lines on the face, is very similar to the Cybermen neurotrophic virus used in Moonbase and Revenge. Iâm left with a haunting impression that this could actually have been the greatest Cyberman story that weâve never seen in the modern era.
Something else from the past that Iâm surprised our Frobisher appreciation society pals @wolfweed @jimthefish and @frobisher didnât mention – the run of Doctor Who comics for Six with the Penguin introduced the âSkeletoidsâ basically a design for a space combat suit with AI. The AIs decided that the weak link in the ongoing strategy were the humans inside, so they kept them docile while they went about their business and until they went nice and gooey.
Ultimately though, I think itâs a delight to have that message that capitalism taken to its logical extreme sees its workers as easily disposable assets broadcast on a Saturday night. I wonder if Theresa May still claims to be a fan?
Like @miapatrick , while Iâm looking favourably at the initial batch of Episodes for message and essentially âdoubling downâ on certain issues, Iâm hoping that tonightâs episode by Moffat ups the bonkers level significantly. A conceptual trio of linked stories by Moffat, the writer of Kill the Moon and writer of God Complex may be just the ticket.
6 May 2017 at 21:03 #57170Oooh – An early entry on choose-a-choon from @wolfweed .
I’m afraid my choice is a little more predictable. Yes, it’s Knock on Wood.
Possibly not the one you were expecting though. đ
6 May 2017 at 20:45 #57166I don’t really know Mike Bartlett, as Doctor Foster passed me by. That was a nice little self-contained house of horror story though, and the general feel of it, with the rumbling thunder and lightning in the background, was just right.
Again, there were a couple of notes in Capaldiâs performance that I think I want to rewatch. I donât know if anyone missed it, but the BBC are releasing a version of this story with a soundtrack designed to provide a 3D experience if you use headphones on i-player. I have no idea how or if this will be available outside the UK, but I think Iâll try to do my rewatch using that version. There is an article about it with a couple of comparison clips here.
My single watch of Thin Ice didnât throw any immediate Bowie references at me, but the storage box for the 1977 residents in this had a seven inch single of âHeroesâ inside it. Result!
Do we think there are any other candidates for being in the vault other than Missy with that dialogue at the end?
6 May 2017 at 16:22 #57162My commiserations on your workload. I find myself in a similar position as you can probably guess. Itâs frustrating as I would have liked more time to talk through Moffat s last full series as showrunner.
& @nick
Thanks both for the comments, and I agree. One of the things I was going to mention was that the stories superficial similarities to The Beast Below (which I think many people have picked up on) really highlight this issue. In that, we had Amy becoming familiar with the Doctor and his instincts to break his rules âwhenever a Child criesâ.
I was just thinking about the Mysterio Christmas special and the Doctors instinctive grabbing onto Grants legs and he rises and flies. There is something in the scene with Spider that is troubling. It is that lack of immediate instinct and apparent care. There is a lot of ambiguity in Capaldi s performance around this point, but is that fear?
I also canât help but remember Sarah Dollard s last script in Face the Raven. The transformation in Clara to mirror the Doctor making her more fearless (or reckless). If this is the opposite, with the Doctor becoming more human, is he more fearful? As in that a more immediate instinct for self preservation is kicking in?
Good to see you back @nick. I donât think you were around to comment on The Pilot, so the bit that made me sit up was the line:
Bill: I saw it all for a moment. Everything out there. She was going to let me fly with her. She was inviting me. I was too scared.
The Doctor: Scared is good. Scared is rational. She wasnât human anymore.And then the Doctor offers her the same thing as Heather (Everything out there). Heâs never been human though, but perhaps living like a human is making him subconsciously think from their/our perspective?
6 May 2017 at 14:23 #57159Late last week also saw the news of the passing of a true great in comics and illustration, Leo Baxendale. There is a fine & comprehensive tribute to the man by the Guardian’s political cartoonist Steve Bell, here.
From my point of view growing up as a nipper in the 1970s, some of his biggest achievements were in the past. He was responsible for creating characters like Minnie the Minx and The Bash Street Kids in The Beano during the 1950s and 1960s. His combination of intricate jokes and anarchic anti authority stance were hugely popular and influential. His first strip for the Bash Street Kids saw them commandeer a tank and deliberately crash it into a Police station. Thatâs pretty strong now. Imagine it in the buttoned up 1950s!
The material I experienced in the 1970s included his work on Wham with Grimly Feendish (surely the inspiration for Gru in Despicable Me) and the completely and wonderfully bonkers Badtime Bedtime and Willy the Kid books. A heady combination of anarchic subversion with occasional forays into the macabre.
Those later books sometimes drew on or lovingly parodied concepts from Doctor Who, which was always a delight when two of your childhood interests came together. From the Willy the Kid books, Willy meets the Loch Ness Dalek:
If anyone wants to learn a bit more about this period in comics, and the impact Leo had (he features), this BBC documentary narrated by Armando Iannucci is fab:
6 May 2017 at 14:15 #57158Yes, very sad about the death of Moray Watson. One of those character actors who always seemed to turn up in things Iâd be drawn to. Such a long career as well, all the way back to The Quatermass Experiment in â53.
We did indeed look back on Black Orchid during our last major series of retrospectives.
6 May 2017 at 14:01 #57154So Thin Ice. Generally loved the look and feel of this one. After Smile, which seemed almost a two-hander for the majority of itâs run time, this one seemed bursting with life with the kids, revellers, performers a moustache twirler of villain and assorted henchmen.
I think the relatively simple story with so many repeated aspects does allow a glimpse of what may be the defining characteristic for Capaldiâs final year – the change in the Doctor that inevitably leads to regeneration. With 10 it was the Time Lord Victorious stuff. With 12 I think itâs the fact that he is thinking and, more importantly, reacting immediately like a human. The Doctor’s speech about how progress is measured is brilliant. The flaw is that itâs delivered after the punch.
The punch. Who doesnât love a punched fascist? I have a phone gif of Rory punching Hitler that I can watch and it always raises a smile. Itâs a very human reaction isnât it? Not really the Doctors style though. In fact itâs lampshaded immediately before with the Iâm a 2000 year old alien and I donât have the time for the luxury of outrage bit. Followed by a instinctive outraged punch.
The child drowning is also unusually positioned. Like @whisht it originally occurred to me they were highlighting the Doctors more âalienâ quality, but I think we are past that now. I think the only time Capaldi has played it slightly aloof with a Child was with Danny Pink, very early on. His subsequent child encounters such as In the forest of the night, young Davros, through to his delight at Rigsbyâs baby âBring the New Human!â and his easy relationship with young Grant in the Christmas special. This scene doesn’t really feel quite right somehow. Maybe after a rewatch.
So yes, I think Iâm adding these to my list of slightly off-putting Doctor behaviour to consider as the series goes on. Like the line about Heather not being human, and the instinctive desire to blow up the Vardy in Smile.
Canât wait for tonight. That’s the one good thing about not being able to watch this one until today. I get a double bill! Or double the Bill, even!
29 April 2017 at 15:21 #56866@mersey @jimthefish @juniperfish @mudlark @bluesqueakpip
Just as a contribution on the tricky question of clues and our interpretation of them, my own particular take on them is this:
A lot of what we talk about is invariably a construct we propose and then test. The one thing Iâve always liked about this forum and the group of people who participate in it and, in the past, our former home of the Guardian was the breadth of knowledge we bring to the table. I suppose the ultimate question is whether you think the show deserves such analysis or not.
I think it does, and perhaps I can give an indication of why. The costume designer from Asylum of the Daleks through to Last Christmas was a guy called Howard Burden. A nice bloke and lovely interviewee (his previous work includes Red Dwarf and he appears quite a lot on the extensive DVD documentaries for that show). His interview in Doctor Who magazine when he âretiredâ was actually quite revealing. For the series he worked on (7 & 8) he was given comprehensive notes from Moffat on the episodes, notes on the periods the show was visiting and the ultimate goals and ideas of the series Arc. He was then left to work with the Directors, cast and wider production to make choices reflecting what he had been told with practicalities like the Actor’s personal tastes.
Itâs a fascinating glimpse into a deep production process from a point of view Iâve never really followed – clothes. He confirmed he played with reds and blues for the Doctor âcontinuing the trend of his predecessorâ. This will surely delight @juniperfish whose dogged determination in following the red and blue shift of the Eleventh Doctor’s bow-ties is legendary. He worked extensively with Jenna in Series seven to mirror the Doctor (note red in Asylum and blue in the Snowmen) but also made use of anachronistic combinations of styles in the lead up to Name of the Doctor to indicate Clara was âmisplaced in timeâ. The choice of poppy print blouses throughout series eight for Clara was a choice based on the final revelation of the soldier’s promise and Remembrance. Itâs astonishing stuff that just indicates a fraction of the stylistic and symbolic significance that the wider production team place into the series because they are encouraged to think that way.
I, like many others, would love to see a RTD style âWriter’s Taleâ style book from Moffat on his approach. I think it would confirm a lot of aspects we talk about in terms of âtextureâ to the show. I enjoyed Russell s take on the show in the main but there appears to be a massive gear change with Moffat with adventurous choices in writing, production and direction. Much more experimental.
As for certain lines of thought or clues being âdead endsâ I must point out that Moffat loves misdirection both in real life and scripts. Itâs a tradition in the Detective fiction works that @mersey compares it to. The âRed Herringâ, a clue deliberately placed to misdirect or provide false alibi, etc. In some ways, I think references to Magician’s and conjurers are, in a small way, how Moffat may see his own work. Show the audience a puzzle box, and misdirect them with sleight of hand. Iâm sure this approach infuriates as many as it attracts. Iâm one them it attracts. I donât think weâll get that book I mentioned earlier though. Conjurers are loath to reveal how their tricks work. They prefer to have it talked about and analysed for some time after the event. It adds longevity.
I think Iâll post some thoughts about Chibnall after this series finishes. I canât help but think it may be a period that wonât engage me as much and will be deliberately more purposefully populist in approach. Whether that actually translates into being âpopularâ will be another matter. My hope is that Chibnall has been chosen because heâs now best known as a character based mystery writer. One would hope that, even if his own inclination is not to add this âtextureâ, he will be inheriting a production team who will continue to do so.
Generally I think most of what Moffat has done is commendable. Heâs avoided a lot of tricks and traps that devil writers, played with the episode and series structure making the experience unformulaic, discounted huge amounts of troublesome âlegacyâ continuity and left the âwhoniverseâ largely reset and open for his successor. Letâs hope Chibnall grasps the legacy with both hands.
28 April 2017 at 22:31 #56843Great choice of track for Smile. A warm-fuzzy was experienced.
I was drawn to to concept of the false Smile, with my immediate reaction being old friends of the forum and the people who gave us âHeaven Sent/Hell Bentâ (thanks @craig) The The, with Uncertain Smile (a version with Jools Holland from Later with..?)
But, with the plea for âmodern musicâ combined with the thought the synths were quite strong at certain parts of the soundtrack for Smile, I bring you something from this century. Astonishing, I know. From the Earth year 2005, when a little show called Doctor Who came back. I love the 80s synths at the beginning of this as I love them in Smile. The Killers – Smile Like you mean it.
As an extra, I thought you, specifically, @whisht may enjoy this because I remember your comments the last time I posted a Carter USM track. Itâs a fun cover version of the Pet Shop Boys Rent (The Doctors offer to negotiate made me remember it). I wish it were more widely known rather than being an obscure B-side to a single. Enjoy:
25 April 2017 at 11:43 #56700No, @thane15 , I think @tardigrade has called this one pretty well, because I came in to make the some of the same points. I hope @tardigrade wonât mind if I post what I wrote last night as it reiterates certain points. Fair warning – @tardisgrade was kinder than I am.
—–
So, third rewatch and Smile still baffles me slightly. I like a lot of what it does – the start, and exploration of the problem is great (special mention must be to the soundtrack which is quite synth heavy in parts -eerie 80s synths!). Itâs the resolution that seems a bit messy. I was sure Iâd missed something on the first couple of watches, but Iâm not convinced the thing I was looking for was actually there. I was looking for the point of it all.
Iâll pick out a couple of things I noticed which I think havenât been discussed first.
– Bill’s classification of the Doctor as a sort of interstellar policeman is interesting given the montage she later reads in the book that profiles the rise and fall of humanity. The montage before the bomb is heavy with politically charged pictures of Policemen. Orgreave, the Poll Tax protests, race riots are all in there in a âBlink and youâll miss themâ montage. In Bowie terms, âtake a look at the lawman beating up the wrong guyâ, perhaps. I suppose this leads into:
– The Doctor wanting to blow something up as first option is pretty unusual. Itâs more like Pertwee era Brigadier. Thatâs pretty much mirrored by the reaction of Med-Tech One. Heâs the highest qualified Medical person on the mission. Heâs a Doctor, and he getâs pretty gung ho himself from the off.
Both these points are pretty aimless and don’t really play into anything other than maybe the Doctor isnât as sharp as he was?
Weirder still, the Doctor seems to preempt that the Vardy are sentient by calling them a âgeneric slave raceâ early in the episode. Slavery is a loaded word. You take the freedom from a self determining being by making it do what you want rather than what it wants. I understand the original understood derivation of Robot as âslaveâ but language changes. If anyone seriously suggested that a BMW assembly Robot was a âslaveâ Iâd be tempted to give them a slap for devalueing the term âslaveâ. The Doctor may as well come into your house an berate you for using a dishwasher or washing machine for doing your chores. âStop oppressing your Toaster! You could build a fire and burn bread yourself!â
I think realisation that the Vardy have developed sentience is fine and the relationship between human and Vardy would have to change. But the fact that the Doctors solution on discovering their sentience is to effectively âmind wipeâ them as first action doesn’t particularly sit well with the resolution of The Pilot. There are some real mixed signals here, especially the final thought that the hope filled agrarian Utopia could not have developed a relationship between Human and Vardy that was a bit different than – Capitalism, yay!
Very odd.
but i accepted it as the least of three evils, the two greater ones being: wipe out the vardy to save the humans (which, if done successfully, would cause the building around them to possibly collapse, or simply doom the colonists to a slow death without their helpers?), or allow the humans to be killed in a war with the vardy (yâknow, kinda like humans are wont to do, like, always and forever). the reboot was simply grasping at the closest solution to hand, to save the maximum amount of life, on both sidesâŚ
Maybe there is another option though.
You know the point at which the Doctor launches the emojibot into the cold fusion reactor, and it squeals? Perhaps we could cut to the others and they show puzzlement? One of us is not here anymore.
The Doctor could sonic another. A cut scene shows some emojibots with âangerâ and some with âsorrowâ.
The colonists fire on the emojibots and the Vardi, and the tsumani of emotions resonates. Fear. Anger. Surprise. Sadness. The Vardi, in experiencing loss come to understand âgriefâ and start to show it with âideaâ and âembarrassmentâ They stay their hand, showing they have understood and they are sentient. And then the negotiations begin. At a point where grief is not the enemy of happiness, but is the fertiliser of hope that may lead to happiness? This may seem trite. There are other ways. I think I would have preferred it to the hollow mess the underlying story actually is though.
Ultimately I canât help but think this tries to take a broad swipe at a lot of issues and in too short a time and doesnât actually connect with any of them. Iâll keep coming back to it as time progresses and see if any themes seem relevant.
22 April 2017 at 21:47 #56570I have to confess to being totally knackered when I watched this, and I need to rewatch to get a feel for it. Tomorrow!
Overall though, my first impression was, like @jimthefish ‘old-skool’ with a bit of the jauntiness of the modern show rubbed down. I think they are letting Pearl and Peter gel by having them do a lot of talking in relative quiet moments at the start. If this is a one seriea deal for both of them this could be important – Pearl doesn’t have the time for an expansive arc like Amy and Clara.
This does look gorgeous though. I think if you go back and watch The End of the World and then compare it to this, the texture and ambition of the show has grown so much.
* even if the outline was to some extent predictable for anyone who has read a lot of the science fiction written in the past 50 years or more
Just on that I was interested in the reference to Erewhon, a book that was recommended to me years ago and I’ve still not read. I know it’s a satire on utopias, but I just wondered if anyone has read it?
I think that may have been Benjamin Cook who writes for DW magazine? I think he said the last time they bumped into each other he said ‘no – I’m not doing Doctor Who’ and ran away. I think the context was more ‘I’m sick of this question’ đ
22 April 2017 at 20:18 #56563“I’m so happy, I hope you’re happy too”
@cathannabel and all. I think the Bowie Game is surely on! đ
22 April 2017 at 18:58 #56560Just got in after a lousy run at work, but my mind’s buzzing with a couple of ideas so Iâll mind-splurge ahead of tonights show.
Our little game of âchoose-a-choonâ for The Pilot on the music thread (excellent choice of tracks @whisht and @thane15) found us dwelling on the possibility that Heather was a David Bowie tribute (the girl with the mousy hair, with a disconcerting left eye, and more than a little bit of an unearthly starchild).
The question that remained was, really, why? Well, Iâd forgotten something Peter Capaldi mentioned at the beginning of series 9, another thing on his wish list. He would have loved Bowie to appear on the show (he also said that if he had access to a real TARDIS he’d go back to watch the Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders of Mars concerts – showing himself to be a man of impeccable taste). It would have been awesome, especially if theyâd gone with my own suggestion of asking him to reprise his role of Nikola Tesla from The Prestige.
And then came 2016 đ . As Peter seems to be getting some of his other wishes granted this year, Iâd see this as potentially a tribute by a couple of fan boys.
I genuinely havenât met an older fan of Doctor Who who isnât drawn to Ziggy Stardust. They play on the same turf and the call outs to Bowie over the years in Doctor Who have been many and varied. We also know Doctor Who was very much on his radar. In 1973, after recording Jean Jeanie for Top of the Pops, the band went to the BBC television centre Bar to spend an evening drinking with the Doctor Who team who were working on Planet of the Daleks. Apparently onlookers were convinced that the band (who were still in costume) were making an appearance on the show. Much later, Bowie seriously considered playing Sharaz Jek in Caves of Androzani (it didnât go ahead because he was on tour and the production could not delay for three weeks. If Peter Davison’s last story had been the end of the season, with another story before it, it could’ve happened. This is another reason (if any were needed) to dislike Twin Dilemma).
So, yeah, if Heather is part of a tribute then she isnât a monster and things are not as they seem. Watching this, she’s a mirror for the Doctor. She offers Bill travel in Time and Space and keeps her promise to not leave without her. The Doctor warns against it because âshe isnât human anymoreâ. Neither is the Doctor, of course, heâs never been human. But perhaps living like a human in his rooms and having a day job has led him to forget that to an extent. His âalienâ viewpoint may be compromised.
I just thought Iâd put the idea out there. Bowie has a tremendous back catalogue and Iâd be lying if I said my knowledge of his career and work was anywhere near comprehensive. I adore the seventies stuff in the main. So, if you think youâve spotted a reference then make it known.
If, for example, the Mark Gatiss episode (set on Mars apparently) sees the appearance of John Simm as the Master, then that is intertextual gold (John being the Star of Life on Mars of course, a show Iâll recommend to anyone who hasnât seen it).
See you all after the (freakiest) show.
17 April 2017 at 13:42 #56352I was trying to think of a good music link for this and failed with Pilot, but then thought âwell, this is more about The Passenger isnât it?â.
Hence The Iggster of Pop with The Passenger. Then I paused, and thought âooohâ. Iggy wrote the song while a passenger in David Bowie’s touring car. There were some suggestions Bowie may have contributed to writing it, uncredited, but he absolutely provided backing vocals, Piano and Organ. The slogan for this series is âA Time for Heroesâ, and the first episode features an space oddity with an unusual eye. Bowie didnât have heterochromia, but anisocoria, as this interesting article explains.
Indeed, the âstar shapeâ on Heather radiates around her black iris. Almost like a heliosphere to a central âBlack Starâ. Wondering if there are little tributes going on here in the first series since Bowieâs death?
Still, I do think this works (especially Water Heather’s mind meld appeal to Bill):
We’ll see the bright and hollow sky
We’ll see the stars that shine so bright
The sky was made for us tonight16 April 2017 at 18:14 #56277and of course Bill and Heather is a nice little tribute to (the) Hartnell(s)
Oh, well done that fish. Didn’t think of that reference at all. William “Bill” Hartnell and Heather McIntyre. A definite love story. I suddenly feel the need to rewatch An Adventure in Space and Time.
16 April 2017 at 17:48 #56273You’re back! And it’s about time! đ
16 April 2017 at 17:43 #56271Movellans. That necessitated a rewatch of Destiny of the Daleks
I donât really believe in the concept of âguilty pleasureâ but I have to confess that Destiny of the Daleks (a story most fans give a good kicking) is the nearest Iâll come to it.
As an adult I recognise its limitations. Itâs a weak sequel to a big story (Genesis).
But it does have some glorious Douglas Adams touches (he was Script Editor) including introducing Oolon Colluphid, the author of the “trilogy of philosophical blockbusters” entitled Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God’s Greatest Mistakes and Who is this God Person Anyway? from HHGTTG to Doctor Who. The Doctor is pretty scathing when he reads one of his books while trapped.
It introduces Lalla Ward who is officially awesome as Romana. Her relationship with the Doctor a delight from the off. Having Adams on board, the jokes come thick and fast.
I have a massive soft spot for the disco robots. When I first saw the story I thought that the idea that their spacecraft buried themselves on landing was such a cool concept.
Itâs funny, but they were in the same season as Shada, the story Douglas Adams wrote that had to be abandoned because of a BBC strike for the Studio work. Shada saw a retired TimeLord living in a University as Professor Chronotis, which this set up certainly reminds me of. I wondered if the inclusion of The Movellans was to reinforce that link?
16 April 2017 at 17:37 #56270After a second viewing I reiterate my love for this.
Thinking about it, there are a couple of vibes I picked up on this (I think @juniperfish called one with the Rose and chips vibes).
The main ones in terms of AG years came from series 5 and 6. During early series 6 we (and Iâm sure @juniperfish will remember this) expended a lot of pixels on the Guardian blogs talking about âwatery portalsâ and the prevalence of water both as symbolic of time and as a mirror to other realms and dimensions. The other is The Lodger from series 5. An intelligent machine seeking a pilot and gauging candidates by their desire to not be in the place/situation they were in. A desire to escape. But this seems different and, somehow, kinder? The Silent Time Machine simply sought a pilot. This one sought a pilot and companion. Someone to share the journey and escape the mundane.
I canât help thinking that this will be one of those occasions that the Doctor may have it wrong, and rather than a malevolent digesting of Heather, this is something else completely. I donât think weâve seen the last of her. As the Doctor has said, Itâs a big Universe. In front of the TARDIS. (Can I just say, in my capacity as a former Goth teenager of the eighties that if you locked eyes with someone as Bill and Heather did, with Love Will Tear Us Apart as a soundtrack, you may have just found The One, rather than having a crush).
This would fit in with both Series 8&9 both featuring characters as Orpheus, braving extremes like the Nethersphere and Confession Dial to recover loved ones.
15 April 2017 at 21:34 #56221Hi all,
I was genuinely over the moon with that, a lovely introduction to the series and for Bill.
Recent Episodes have got to breakneck speed, but the leisurely pace at the start goes all the way back to Rose, I think, in the amount of space allowed to introduce a companion to the Doctor.
SMs previous companions have been central to a specific mystery, and I though he was going to play a similar trick here, with the Doctors obvious fascination with Bill from the off. Not so, I now think. The fact that she is so Sci-Fi aware could lead to a great avenue to uncovering the real mystery of the vault though, with its mysterious Gallifreyan writings. Not the first time the Doctor has secreted an ancient Gallifreyan artifact near an educational institution. The egg-whisk of Rassilon, perhaps.
We really should list outstanding plot points from the last couple of series though. Rassilon, out there, for instance. Iâll post some thoughts on the BBC approved spoiler thread tomorrow about that final trailer. That got the blood pumping!
18 February 2017 at 20:44 #55593@juniperfish @theconsultingdoctor @thane15
Just on your mediations on memory in Series 4, can I suggest when you rewatch from the start of series 1 you listen out for references to memory. They are many and varied, and when Moffat repeats something in a long game it is usually relevant.
As well as memory, you’ll find references to traumatic childhood in many episodes or, when absent, you may see a child undergoing a traumatic experience (such as the focus on the little girl who sees John trapped in the Bonfire). The Holy Grail of references though – Chekhov’s Dog, if you will, takes place in Series 2 and is reinforced in His Last Vow with Magnussen’s ‘scan’ of Sherlock.
@theconsultingdoctor posted a meta thingy which almost had it on the Abominable Bride thread (congratulations to the author).
The text reads in the Red Pressure points
Redbeard (see file)
Hound of the BaskervillesSo, in that episode, Henry Knight sees his father killed by what he thinks is a monstrous dog. He’s so wrong.
Sherlock: Someone needed to keep you quiet. Needed to keep you as a child to reassert the dream that you both clung on to. Because you had started to remember. Remember now, Henry. Youâve got to remember. What happened here when you were a little boy?
Henry: I thought it had got my dad. The hound. Oh Jesus, I donâtâ I donât know anymore! I donât âŚ
Sherlock: Henry, remember. âLiberty inâ. Two words. Two words a frightened little boy saw here twenty years ago. You started to piece things together, remember what really happened here that night. It wasnât an animal, was it, Henry? Not a monster. A man.
Sherlock: You couldnât cope. You were just a child. So you rationalized it into something very different. Then you started to remember so you had to be stopped. Driven out of your mind so no one would believe a word you said.Now that is great isn’t it? A traumatised child rationalises a human being into a dog. You can understand why, even as a child he subsequently tried to get the police to investigate the Carl Powers Murder (from the last episode of series 1). His first case and Moriarty’s first victim perhaps. One child killing another by ensuring he drowned. Something disturbed the Deep waters of his subconscious.
This was expertly put together.
18 February 2017 at 20:32 #55592Yes, I think Moffat was having more than a little inter-textual fun with Who/ Sherlock this year.
Thanks for responding to the hypertext query. Probably my faulty understanding of the Wikipedia entry:
Hypotext is an earlier text which serves as the source of a subsequent piece of literature, or hypertext. For example, Homer’s Odyssey could be regarded as the hypotext for James Joyce’s Ulysses.
So I suppose from that example ACD stories are the Hypotext to Sherlock’s Hypertext?
I think the ‘game’ has been going on from the start though, although it’s very Timey Wimey. Concepts like Clara being addicted to danger in Series 9 mirrors Johns from series 1. The Mind Palace makes a transition from Sherlock to Doctor Who in Heaven Sent. In return, in this series of Sherlock we have a theme of confession and characters forced to make confessions in a seabound fortress (the confession Dial).
Moffat was once asked how he kept writing Sherlock and Doctor Who apart in his head and he suggested:
“I just remember that Doctor Who is about a God who wants to be more human, and Sherlock is about a human who wants to be God”
But both are, apparently “Great men who may well turn out to be Good ones”
It’s an interesting puzzle and if you consider this from that God analogy, that Sherlock often waxes lyrical about the “icy cold reason he holds above all else.” He also makes the point in the first episode that if he enough data he could foresee every possibility. He would, in effect, by omnipotent. The trail of prediction he makes in The lying Detective would seem to suggest this.
From this perspective and knowing that Eurus is much, much better at this than him, then when he walks into that cell, he’s not meeting his sister, he’s daring to approach a God (she is well named). In a meaningful way, she is the God who created the person that Sherlock is now. She’s Nemesis (in the Goddess meaning of the word). I’m not surprised he forgot the code word!
I think the concern about John not recognising bones has to be taken in context with the situation he was in. In a well, poor lighting, under stress. Also, I’m sure he could name all the bones in a body as he breaks them because they are neatly arranged in a body. During murder investigations it can take an expert to identify random bits of one mammal from another. From this, I think you can safely deduce that I’ve watched far too much of the series ‘Bones’, Doctor Temperance Brennen being another direct inheritor of the ACD legacy.
The big question for me regarding the thematic climax of this and Doctor Who is that if this is a man who wishes to become a god, meets one and finds that result to be something terrible what does that mean for the God who wants to be more human?
If Eurus represents Missy, will she also act as Nemesis and give the Doctor what he deserves? After all, from The Magician’s Apprentice.
Doctor: Davros is my archenemy. Why would I want to talk to him?
Missy: No, wait. Hang on a minute, Davros is your archenemy now?
The Doctor: Hush.
Missy: Iâll scratch his eye out.I think the unspoken question here is if Davros is the archenemy, then what is Missy?
I think Moffat deliberately avoids confusing Nemesis and archenemy because he thinks of them as separate things, even though common usage has blurred them. I’ll touch on that and other bits and pieces you’ve mentioned in Who when I get to The return of Doctor Mysterio. Because in that story the Doctor is Grants Nemesis.
I will say that in mapping characters across I think John would represent every companion, but because we deal with a mortal hero he is the constant companion. (This observation doesn’t exclude a sexual relationship between John and Sherlock – the game may use similar characters, events and concepts with different or opposite consequences)
If Irene Adler represents the introduction of the femme fatale to adventure literature then her equivalent in Who is River Song. Both Sherlock and the Doctor are excited by the intellectual challenge as well as being frustrated by them. To them, they are ‘the Woman’.
18 February 2017 at 20:26 #55591@blenkinsopthebrave @thane15 @craig @juniperfish
Many thanks for the kind welcome and best wishes. Much appreciated. I hope you’ll forgive me when I have to drop out of conversation though. Things are still difficult and I’m really hoping that they’ll be better by the time the good Doctor returns in April. And hugs are always welcome Craig.
11 February 2017 at 17:32 #55515Did you miss me? đ
Firstly, a question to all the writers on the forum (of which we have an embarrassment of riches). If we consider the intertextuality of Sherlock and Doctor Who (the deliberate and pointed exchange of ideas between the two) does the fact that they are written in parallel preclude them being considered hypertexts? Is there a better word for what they are? Of course, Sherlock uses its relationship to ACD as its hypertext, and I think drawing a line between ACD towards both BG and AG Who may be the point of Sherlock anyway, so the question may be redundant.
Secondly, apologies for absence. Life (and, unfortunately, a death) rather ruined my 2016 from the start. Let’s just say that the depression of Brexit and Trump suited my mood perfectly. Hopefully, circumstances will be better when Doctor Who returns.
As such, I’ve only recently been able to catch up with the latest offerings from both Doctor Who and Sherlock. Astonishing they are, and if this is the audacious end for Sherlock I applaud it (While hoping for more, obviously).
From the Abominable Bride thread I congratulate the deductive powers of those that unraveled the plot and pointed out the gender neutrality of the sibling (forum cap goes to @blenkinsopthebrave for that I think) and the astonishing knowledge of ACDs canon from @jimthefish , @bluesqueakpip and others. It was an important episode for me for another reason, as the Bride herself unlocked another aspect of this remarkable series. Unfortunately, I’d spent some time whining about this particular aspect, so the blame is mine for not spotting it earlier. I don’t have the depth of knowledge of the Holmes canon that others do, but I do know a good deal of obscure pop culture.
For if we look at what, at the beginning of Sherlock, Gatiss and Moffat promised to do, they’ve done something stunning. They promised to have fun with the canon and be less reverential than other adaptations. Liberties would be taken, other adaptations referenced and paid tribute to, and the wider cultural impact of ACDs legacy celebrated. And the last one’s the killer.
Reading The Final Problem as taking place in the hitherto established âreal worldâ of BBC Sherlock makes absolutely no sense. As @mudlark says there are too many ridiculous and improbable fictions. Eurus has been able to enslave people with her mind since she was five? Then why did she stay locked up on Sherrinford for so long, if she can escape any time she likes?!?!?
I think considering the world of Sherlock to be the, or a “real world” is a mistake, and one which is possibly the cause of much recent criticism. You see, we are actually forewarned about the nature of this world in A Study in Pink with the play on Mycroft’s identity during their first encounter.
Watson: His enemy?
Mycroft: In his mind certainly. If you were to ask him heâd probably say his archenemy. He does love to be dramatic.
Watson: Well thank god youâre above all that.It’s a misdirection, obviously – the audience is supposed to think that Mycroft is Moriarty. We then get:
Watson: People donât have archenemies.
Holmes: What?
Watson: In real life. People donât have archenemies.
Holmes: That sounds a bit dull. So what do people have in their real lives?
Watson: Friends, people they like, people they donât like, boyfriends, girlfriends.
Holmes: Like I said, dull.Ultimately, Moffat is a fair writer. We know that we aren’t in the real world or real life. We know that Sherlock does have an archenemy. The world of Sherlock is filled with archenemies, supervillains (“See Sherlock battle the monstrous …. Gollum!”), secret government installations conducting genetic experiments, fiends, femme fatales, super spies and, ultimately, Nemesis.
As series 4 starts we are wrapping up our adventures in Spy world (let’s call it for now) after the confrontation with the Bondiest Bond villain imaginable. The tone starts to change and become disturbing and hallucinogenic (as @blenkinsopthebrave notes). The world of Sherlock is being invaded by a disturbing force representing the final inheritor of a mini tour of cultural inheritance. Do we not now see who Eurus represents?
MISS ME? But who is me?
MISS Eurus
MISS EBecause Sherlock is being invaded by Doctor Who and Eurus is the Master. Introduced by Terrance Dicks to be (in his own words) the Moriarty to the most Holmes inspired Doctor ever. The Master of disguise. The Master of hypnotism who, when UNIT captured him and locked him up in a prison, takes it over and makes it a convenient headquarters with enslaved servants and all the Clangers he wanted. The Master, whose most recent incarnation came back female when people expected him to be a man. One of the Doctors own people (in Sherlock terms, she’s a Holmes). Someone who knows his secrets and challenges him to see things from his/her point of view.
It’s a brilliant conceit, this Great Game of cultural intertextuality that has overlain Sherlock. Culverton Smith, for example, is one Monster (a serial killer) who represents another. How often do monsters in Who act as a metaphor for the worst of humanity? And through this Great Game we can examine another legacy of ACD – the one that everyone forgets in discussing the great Sherlock Holmes. John Watson.
Season three, for example, sees Sherlock enter the world of Bond. Bond is an indirect inheritor of ACD. Fleming described Bond as Bulldog Drummond from the waist up and Mickey Spillane from the waist down. A blunt instrument. Bulldog Drummond, a replacement (and reaction to) Holmes in The Strand Magazine. Not the ‘effete intellectual’ but a man’s man. Led with his fists with no follow up. An easy patriot and right wing bigot. Mickey Spillane, whose tails of Private Dicks being led by theirs as they followed the femme fatale figure through mundane intrigues. With Fleming boasting a literary inheritance like that no wonder Bond is the man he is.
What Fleming took from ACD directly is the archenemy and ran with it. Every time you see a Bond Villain, with their networks of agents and strange plans you see a shadow of Moriarty. So when we meet Charles Augustus Magnussen he’s clearly a Bond Villain. Hear him say his name in that carefully controlled voice in His Last Vow. When you have the voice in your head imagine him saying Ernst Stavro Blofeld. He’s even played by an actor whose brother recently played a Bond Villain! It’s brilliant!
And so is the series metatext. We’ve already been informed by Mycroft that Sherlock is not the “blunt instrument” of Bond in text. What is Sherlock? He’s “a finely honed surgical instrument wielded with precision”. After the setup establishing Spy World in the Empty Hearse, we get the marriage in the Sign of Three. We are introduced to the Mayfly Man and, let’s be clear here, he’s James Bond. Or rather the Mayfly Man is an assassin who uses women to gain information and access to his target. Pretty much the historic M.O. of Bond. His plan thwarted and his methods treated with contempt by Sherlock, he delivers his verdict. “You should have remained in the shadows”.
In the next episode something strange has happened. Sherlock uses Janine to gain access to his target. We soon discover why, because we have undergone an exchange of power. Sherlock has traded John Watson to a Spy, Mary, in an episode that revels in revealing to us the astonishing human being John is (a magnificent piece of writing).
The man who can redeem ridiculous men like Sherlock has been traded to a Spy, and he seems to have lost his moral superiority. It’s also dulled his senses because he’s treating Magnussen as a Bond villain, forgetting that all Bond villains are shadows of Moriarty. He assumes that Magnussen’s power comes from his glasses, a gadget (Bond and his enemies are obsessed with technology) or to be found in his Supervillain HQ of Appledore. Magnussen, however, is just a renamed Holmes villain and a distorted reflection of Sherlock. He’s equipped with a Mind Palace.
Faced with a threat to John and Mary, Sherlock has a choice. Lose Watson forever and face a life of Bond, or become the blunt instrument temporarily and hope for redemption later. He chooses the latter and shoots Magnussen. Mycroft looks down at his Brother and sees a lost little boy. In the light of the finale, we fully comprehend and have context for all this. Magnussen may have had access to a file marked Redbeard, but he couldn’t have comprehended the psychology he was dealing with. He’s threatened to take away the best friend of Sherlock Holmes.
The final act of this story becomes apparent in Series 4, Watson shows that he can redeem ridiculous spies to the point they can make a sacrifice themselves. Bond can never be redeemed because the authors Fleming used to formulate Bond didn’t understand the power of Sherlock Holmes. They underestimated the requirement for a Watson. A Watson can redeem a Spy to the point that they will sacrifice themselves for friendship. Bond is not Sherlock Holmes because he has no real friends.
I ask you. Imagine going to the trouble of putting all that together, underlying the obvious narrative, and being presented with a Guardian article saying Sherlock is becoming Bond and this must not stand! Were they taking the piss, do you think? Gatiss wrote a poem. Presumably after screaming in frustration for three continuous hours.
I won’t bore you with the meta for Series 2, just point out that we explore the idea of Sherlock through the eyes of one of his earlier cultural successors. Gotham’s Dark Detective, Batman. Remember the ‘Hat Man and Robin’ headlines in Scandal? The feline quality of Irene Adler, seeing her through a filter of Selina Kyle, Catwoman (The Whip Hand, indeed). With Lestrade as Jim Gordon trying to work out which side of the law Sherlock stands. All a cunning trap weaved by a Moriarty seen through the filter of Batman’s own archenemy, The Joker. This last part, some may remember, was my whinge. “Why him, again!”, I despaired. Then is saw the Bride. Well yes, she is the bloody Joker with her white face and smeared lipstick. Lestrade’s description as he calms his nerves with a drink is straight from the comics. She’s the avatar for Sherlock to work out how Moriarty survived. Nuff said.
It’s just another layer of intertextuality weaved in the mix. The cultural inheritance of ACD. Another part of The Great Game. Did you spot the Alan Moore references, future followers of the game may ask? What could they mean? Did he write for Sherlock Holmes!? (He did, as it happens, in a work that made these points by imposing modern ideas from pop culture on their earlier counterparts). There are others and the game can lead you to many interesting destinations. I’m still being rewarded with other references.
Yep – they did it. They delivered. All of their promises with wit, style, grace, adventurous direction and writing that befit something based on the Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.
When the initial overreactions have calmed down and the increasingly vitriolic internet takes a collective deep breath I think these episodes will be re-evaluated and increasingly celebrated. The message will sink in and the ramifications considered. Just how much popular culture has ACD influenced? The mind boggles. He deserves the tribute, and the fact that fans of caped crusaders, super spies and wandering travellers in time and space and huffily saying that it’s a bit comic book/Bond like/Doctor Who-ish just means that they haven’t got the message. ACD started all this.
Remarkable TV.
6 July 2016 at 04:23 #53120@lisa (and others)
I think he may have been a tad disingenuous
I think ‘disingenuous’ is an interesting word to use in the wider context of this debate.
For example, your Oncologist friend, who is complaining that the EU limits her working hours, may be being a little bit disingenuous in her presentation of the issue. Because I know it to be a fact that she, along with her entire noble profession, has the ability to opt out of the EU Working Time Directive that limits her time to 48hours per week.
If you disbelieve me then consider the guidance issued by the British Medical Association (BMA), your friends Professional body that actually have the power to strip someone of their Medical Practice certification.
It is not possible to opt out of the rest requirements, so doctors will still need to ensure they take the necessary breaks, and their employer will still need to monitor the hours they work. The opt out provision is available to all doctors, however the CC strongly recommends that doctors do not opt out of the collective agreement and are afforded full protection under this health and safety legislation. If you do opt out, make sure you get paid the appropriate number of PAs.
So you can opt out and work more hours as long as you acknowledge the breaks suggested. That’s pretty fair isn’t it? Would you feel comfortable with primary care delivered by a health professional who was obliged to remain on call for 36 continuous hours? That was the situation before these hard won rights were delivered by the EU. Tiredness and stress are big killers, as the health profession continually remind us. It’s probably for that reason, whenever this issue comes up at BMA conferences, Medical practitioners vote overwhelmingly to support them these days. And that the Consultants Committee (CC) advise people like your friend not to take that route. It remains her right to disagree with the consensus. And opt out.
The video you posted is highly disingenuous, having been funded by the backers of UKIP. I smiled at the sight of some old ‘friends’ that have since left the building. Don’t you find it odd that videos produced in the 2000s rely so much on video and issues from the 1970s? Seriously, to put this into context, in the horrible event of a Trump victory, it would be like saying to a Democrate “naaah mate. Don’t worry. It’ll be alright! Just look at this!!”. And then post a Youtube link to one of Trumps speeches.
Finally, the dredging question. I’ve said on many occasions that I am an environmental consultant. It’s what I’ve done for the best part of twenty years. My original discipline was Chemistry to degree level. My MSc is in Environmental Science. I’ve conducted flood risk assessments (site specific, so some supported, some refused), developed mitigation methods and flood defences, investigated flood events in four countries, provided expert witness testimony in Civil and Crown Courts, and contributed to numerous research projects for insurers and regulatory bodies such as the Environment Agency and Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. This is my turf.
My considered opinion on the question of dredging is that it is offensively simplistic to allocate any blame on mass flooding events to a lack of dredging. It’s a simple sound bite for simplistic politicians to be spoon-fed by aligned media to a credulous audience who cannot, or will not, face the true ramifications of global warming coupled with our failure to adequately plan development on River catchment areas.
Any housing, industrial or retail development (with roofed or paved areas) that we add to the mix simply collects water. A lot of it. Whereas before it would percolate slowly downwards through soil to join the aquifer and flow underground to the nearest water body, we efficiently collect it, and send it at high velocity directly towards the nearest surface water. Couple that with changing climate that tends towards short but devastating periodic volumes and you have a disaster. Home government places a low priority on the EU led call for Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) which stop this type of thing (the UK MEPs watered (ho-ho) down the original Directive which would have made SUDS in development a priority). Apparently it was down to us retaining our Sovereignty. Or something.
In over 40 major flooding events I have studied (including two big ones in Carlisle) the damage that could have been prevented by dredging amounts to a fraction of 1%. It is perverse to blame this on the EU when there is no prohibition on the dredging of Rivers AND the UK regularly dips into the EUs emergency budget when it looks like they, and insurers, are going to fail to deliver effective remediation.
On our beloved Sovereignty. I’m led to believe by Politicians with their tongues firmly in their cheeks that this is what they campaigned upon, and not demonising foreigners.
I thought our Sovereignty was pretty much intact to be honest. We and France insist on maintaining a ruinous nuclear deterrent no matter how many of the other EU members laugh at us. We maintained the right to join an ill thought out Invasion of Iraq in spite of our European partners having some serious concerns. We’ve been allowed to implement policies and foster a system where social mobility becomes less likely, and conduct periodic fire sales of our assets to multinationals while more sensible European Partners jealously hang on to theirs.
But no – we’ve truly taken back control, my friends. I have a dream! We will finally have our freedom. Our freedom to be potentially misdiagnosed or mistreated by a junior Doctor Who hasn’t had much sleep in the last week. And blame them. Our freedom to, once again, become the dirty man of Europe. We can let our children paddle in shit infested coastal waters (never did us any harm), breath freely on airborne pollutants (put hairs on your chest) and roll back the many social and environmental benefits we’ve taken for granted! Let us march proudly backwards to the 1970s!
Funny how some dreams turn so rapidly to nightmares, isn’t it?
6 July 2016 at 04:12 #53119During my absence I’ve contributed to a Doctor Who Kickstarter campaign (The campaign is fully funded now, so no pleading for your hard earned dosh). If you’re currently twiddling your thumbs as you wait for the next series of Doctor Who, this may give you a thumb alternative from September.
The campaign was to help pay the licensing costs for a full conversion of the Bally Doctor Who pinball table of the early 1990s into a digital format to play on a device of your choice through Farsights Pinball Arcade App.
I’ve long been a fan of the silver ball and encountered the Doctor Who table in a Bradford pub in 92. It was a marvellous experience for a number of reasons. Primarily because this was post cancellation and the future of the series seemed to lie solely in book form with the New Adventures. This was new, fun and strangely comforting. Perhaps there was life in the old dog yet?
@jimthefish wrote a great blog about the troubled history of Doctor Who computer games (although I don’t seem to be able to find it at the moment), and some of the reasons for the difficulty in translating the Doctor to your computer screen. It’s a problem the more abstract arcade pinball table never had.
It has a plot of sorts, separated into three episodes. That naughty Master has trapped all the incarnations of the Doctor at various points in their history with his devilish Time Expander. The Seventh Doctor and Ace manage to escape and must try to free other incarnations of the Doctor (you select a Doctor at the start of each ball). It later emerges that the true power behind the plan is Davros and his Daleks. The Doctors must unite in multiball madness mode to throw waves of invading Daleks into the Time Vortex.
The table really was a gem. Both the Mechanical and Electrical Engineer involved were big American fans of the show from the PBS era. Sylvester McCoy, Anthony Ainley and Terry Malloy recorded dialogue for the soundtrack, and there were lovely little flourishes. One of the interesting things was the selection of Doctor changed the rules (or perhaps the personality) of the table and therefore you could develop different strategies for gaining the most points for those beery as hoc tournaments we indulged in at University.
So, in the run-up to the 30th anniversary in 1993, we had The Seven Doctors anniversary special delivered through the anarchic medium of the silver ball. Much better than Dimensions in Time.
Pinball Arcade is available for just about every device format available today. I tend to play on a relatively inexpensive Acer tablet running Android. Download is free and comes complete with complete access to the Tales of the Arabian Nights table. You can also download trial versions of any of the other tables which let you play to a score limit. You can buy full access to any table or Seasons of table thereafter if you are interested. A new digitised table is released each month and there is a table of the month feature in which you get unlimited plĂ y on one of the older tables.
I’ve found it a great way to revisit some old favourites like Funhouse, Addams Family and Twilight Zone while getting a chance to experience many tables I’ve just heard about by reputation (both good and bad).
NOT JUST NOSTALGIA
Due to the relative success of the Kick-starter and the cooperation of the BBC the developer has gained not only the rights to the various actors, writers and estates of those involved in the original table, but additional ones as well.
They intend to release Doctor Who Pinball: Regenerated to bring the table up to date with post 7 Doctors and features. The layout of the table (ramps, ball runs, etc) will be the same but it sounds very interesting. An image of John Hurt as the War Doctor was released as “how he will appear on the playfield’ to suggest they are going for a more photorealistic backdrop.
The teasing blurb for the game reads:
The Doctorâs existence is fading⌠and only you can save him!
After reshaping the events of the Time War, paradoxical fissures have created a causal nexus by ripping the very fabric of space and time. Taking advantage of these anomalies, the Doctorâs most devious adversaries have entered these tears in an effort to defeat him across various points in his life.
Like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff…
As his newest companion, you can relive all the best moments from the Doctorâs most recent incarnations and adventures.
Revisit old friends. Battle against terrifying villains and monsters. Save the universe with attack eyebrows.
Come on pudding brains, what are you waiting for?
Will Missy be replacing the Delgado image and Ainley voice? Will Cybermen be demanding an upgrade to include them? Will the Eighth Doctor be looking ” like a great big Ponce” ( (c) Lucie Miller) or in Night of the Doctor garb? Will there be Fez bonuses?
I can’t wait to find out!
6 December 2015 at 08:48 #48794We had a series of electrical brownouts last night (probably caused by storm whateverhisnameis) and so I’ve only just managed to watch the episode. If you happened to hear random swear words cursed into the night, possibly curdling milk and disturbing sleeping children then it was probably me. Even if you were in Australia.
As many know, like @jimthefish I’m pretty resistant to the ‘charms’ of the Time Lords. As such I think this is the second best use of them after Deadly Assassin. It shares some characteristics with that story as well, which is probably why it worked. It focused on the hopelessness and fear of the most powerful race in the Universe. And the corruption of their ruling class.
I loved the Western vibe of the drylands. The Doctors foot drawn ‘line in the sand’ then becoming a line of guns in the sand as ‘old Gallifrey’, in the form of Rassilon is humiliated. I also liked the riff on ‘the Mountain must come to Mohammed’ as Rassilon is drawn down the path to his own defeat.
The regeneration of the General was a first. Seriously, in all the Time Lord deaths in the old series we never saw one of them attempt regeneration. And it’s into a black woman, who is relieved her ‘one off’ as a man is over. Take that, conservative fandom. Suck. It. Up.
Loved the idea of the Matrix Wraiths. I was sure I saw a couple of familiar faces in their ever changing screaming Faces. The Castellan from Five Doctors for one.
The idea that something deleted can be determined by the holes it leaves behind is a nod to Nightmare in Silver. Neil Gaiman. He really has got a lot of references this series, including meeting an immortal at the end of time (see his Books of Magic). I loved the knocking on that old (squee inducing) TARDIS door referencing Listen. Awesome Pink lived in fear, potentially, of Maisie Williams who wanted someone to talk to.
Ah, that old TARDIS. With a dodgy chameleon circuit. My headcanon now reads that they stole a museum piece type forty. After countless Adventures with Me she drops it off on Gallifrey, in the past and recommends it to Doctor one. “It’s navigation is knackered, but it’ll give you a lot of fun”. Two careful owners. Stolen as seen. No returns.
So we leave Gallifrey to stew at the end of time. Good riddance. Someone will bring it back, no doubt.
I would have preferred the sadder ending
I think I asked for optimism for Clara, and I think this works. Like the Doctor retreating into his mind palace, she can accomplish so much between her heartbeats,and then face the Raven as you say. Definitely having your cake and eating it. And cake is nice in moderation. đ
Definitely agree with @jimthefish about the corrective nature or counterpoint to Donna in this. Yes, 10 gave Donna a life and saved her, but destroyed the person she had become with no choice on her part. This inverted that choice and left Clara to plead the case she would rather die than change. Can the people who regularly call Moffat a misogynist please STFU?
The answer to who the hybrid is was written all over the series, but articulated by Missy. ” We’re all hybrids, in one way or another”.
Congratulations to @blenkinsopthebrave for calling my speculation that Missy was involved a load of old tosh. I still think Michelle Gomez would have been a fab guest in the last half of this though.
5 December 2015 at 15:03 #48691So, here we are. Facing the end episode. Time for one last spin of the roulette table of bonkers speculation?
Reading people’s theories, I’m inclined to believe that Missy is behind the Raven and Confession Dial scenarios and will make an appearance tonight. I think my reasoning comes down to:
Knowledge
Missy has the advantage of knowing the Doctor ‘since he was a little girl‘. Hence the construction of the veil as a childhood terror of his.
The choice of Rigsby could be Me’s watching events, but I can’t help but remember that Missy appeared to be watching the events of Flatline from the Nethersphere. “Clara, My Clara. I have chosen well.” I think Me may genuinely not have known that Clara would make her sacrifice. Missy may have engineered it though, knowing the bond that they shared on that first encounter.
Opportunity
Missy could touch the Confession Dial and had it for an unspecified time prior to meeting Clara in Magician’s Apprentice. Ample opportunity for tampering. Whether she acted alone or as an agent of the Time Lords or a mixture of the two, she’s in play … they are not.
She’s the one person who could give Me the rather cynical view of the Doctor we saw in The Woman who lived. The one who told Me he ‘ran away’ and about his marvellous Space/Time ship (Me neatly sidestepped the Doctor asking ‘who told you that’ both times).
And generally it just makes sense that if Heaven Sent is an attempt at the Matrix episode of Deadly Assassin, and that we’re going to explore Gallifrey, then both of Gallifrey’s most notorious children will be in the mix. Probably with Missy acting as Time Lord agent, but with her own goals in mind. Having the Doctor grief stricken, and with the knowledge of what his other selves endured to get him out of the Dial must leave him in a delicious place for someone who wants to corrupt him.
Needless to say, I’m really excited for the episode tonight. Will this be that rare beast? A good Gallifrey set tale?
28 November 2015 at 23:26 #48099I hadn’t seen @django s comment on The Prisoner when I typed this on the G, but just to echo @jimthefish:
Dan,
So, @phaseshift was right last week about Gallifrey returning, because what else could have been about to happen? But it isnât clear whether links between the âSkaro degradationsâ, the âCouldâve-Been Kingâ and the Knightmare Child were co-incidences, insanely detailed continuity or so many Theories More Bonkers Than Whatâs Actually Going On.
Look, with my track record of being a Cassandra, I’m claiming a win and doing a lap of honour at the moment!
You know, when I was in my teens in the 80s I got to see The Prisoner on C4. I watched the final two episodes with my father, who had watched the first transmission. I thought it was spellbinding TV. Audacious, bizarre and challenging. He hated it on first transmission and repeat and confessed he wanted to kick the TV screen when the final episode was shown. Such is life, and opinion.
I just want to make the point that on a Saturday night, before the watershed, after a celeb dance show and with a singing competition on the other main channel we’ve been treated with something similarly audacious. A one hander. A 55 minute contemplation on mortality and sacrifice.
Just incredible. Doctor Who. I want to kiss it to death. Thank you to all involved. I wish more TV could dare to be this different.
28 November 2015 at 22:41 #48087I’d also suggest The Veil as a death figure. I think at the end of the series we should take time to reflect on the Tarot issue for series 8 and 9 because there are some interesting notions going on here.
For instance, in series 8 we have the Doctor initially positioning himself as The Magician, before ending the series declaring himself ‘The idiot'(or fool). An inverted journey perhaps?
28 November 2015 at 22:33 #48082Yeah, Howard Burden was the costume creative from Asylum of the Daleks till Death in Heaven (he did Red Dwarf earlier in his career as well). He says he inherited the blue-red convention from his predecessor, rather than coming up with it but says he enjoyed mashing up styles and influences for the Doctor and Clara during his time with clues for the fashion conscious (Clara dressing anachronistically during season 7, poppy print dresses for Remembrance, etc.)
A fun guy.
-
AuthorPosts
