95 comments

1. @JimTheFish   Wow! Just in from three hours of running around in the rain, and lo! A whole new blog for my reading pleasure. There’s far too much here for me to make much response without a careful second reading, but I fully agree with a lot of your take on the series. I am hoping to get a chance to watch through the whole series again over the next couple of weeks, marathon style, so as to get a better sense of what I think about the series as a whole.

   Thanks for doing this. There’s lots here to think about and respond to, and I think it’s just what was needed to spark some more lively discussion! I’m looking forward to it.

    

2. @JimTheFish stunning writing, thank you, a joy to wake up to, and whilst I personally loved the finale I can absolutely see where you’re coming from -your everything-but-the-kitchen-sink logic and spectacle was spot on -thing is, I did like shootin’ cybermen but as for hidden men being an implacable fear that would be very true. These stomping cyber guys are a little ‘long in the tooth’; they’ve been doing that for so long. I recall the hundreds of them in Nightmare in Silver -and their effect was also lost.

   I re-watched all of Smith’s episodes last week and found that the long game was played right from the beginning -perhaps you’re right; Moff is going for that High Arc and this final episode is a screen shot for the final, much bigger reveal.

3. @JimTheFish thank you for another excellent blog. I too agree with most of your points but am with @purofilion re’ the finale which I too thought was great. The cybermen themselves are not “scary” and never really felt like a threat, more a gesture. The real issue was the loss of emotion and responsibility, the responsibilty of the soldier verses the necessary loss of emotion and this is something to a degree, which we do to our own soldiers. In order to operate they often have to repress the human instinctive aversion to killing and the natural reaction to death and suffering. Danny and the brigadeer demonstrate that the respression of emotion does not mean the loss of responsibilty. To me the real horror is the suggestion that those who are “cyberised” still retain some memory of who they were.

   Overall I thought it was one of the best seasons of AG Who. As I said in the Death in Heaven thread at first it seemed that Capaldi was working his way into the role, not fully “The Doctor” but on re watcing I realised I was entirely wrong about that. The problem was not Capaldi but me. I take time to get to know every new regeneration. To begin with I wanted to like Capaldi but it was not until four or five episodes in that I fully accepted him. Now he is firmly lodged in my affections as The Doctor and on rewatching the first episodes I see that there was never any uncertainty in his approach to the role.

   As to Clara, whether one likes her or not she was very much the heart of this series. I think she will be one of the assistants who is long remembered. Her “journey” on our screens has been a painful one as much for her personal failings, (the inexcusable lying) as for her sadness at the end. She has been one of the most flawed but interesting assistants. Not a rival of Donna’s for the spot of favourite AG companion but certainly high on the list of contenders. I am really looking forward to seeing how her story develops or resolves in the Christmas Special.

   And Jim the fish, Santa as ‘The Meddling Monk.” What a brilliant suggestion. Well, as I have always said, he has to be a time lord surely. Only a time lord could get around the world in a night and the Sleigh must be bigger on the inside. 🙂

   Cheers

   Janette

4. @Arbutus Me too! (well more like a week away rather than hours) but what a lovely blog to come back to. I’m going to be really boring and agree with most of what Mr @JimtheFish has said, especially about this series being a 12 episode regeneration crisis.  I said a while back that I thought they were trying to do a Colin Baker initially abrasive style Doctor, but show how it should be done.  Tho I stick to what I said about it being 13 episodes. I think I liked Death in Heaven quite a lot more than you (I’d give it a 4, and Dark Water a 5 (out of 5)).  But only if it is indeed the middle episode. The ending is just too bleak otherwise.  It didn’t quite feel like the end though, there needs to be some resolution. And if this Dr is going to settle down with the metaphorical pipe and slippers if he finds Gallifrey lets hope he never does, haha!

   But as a huge fan of the cybermen of my childhood (Tenth Planet Tomb, Moonbase) I have to agree with you that they are scarier when they lurk rather than stomp. “Scientists rather than soldiers” – I like that. I can forgive DW/DiH for characterising them the way they did  – these cybermen are Missy’s version, and she’s made them to be an army to tempt the Doctor with.  But it would be great to see someone pick up a less robotic soldier concept for them.  I really liked the zombie vibe to them climbing out of the graves (maybe because they were unpredictable at that stage, and not stompy), but if I was being picky, maybe a bit less of that and more of the temptation of the Doctor by Missy would have better highlighted the dastardliness of her plan.

   Appreciation of this series probably rests a lot on whether the viewer took to Danny. I liked Danny, and his character rang true for me, as someone who has almost completely closed down because of past experiences, and also for his being setup as the counter to the Doctor’s questioning of his officer role . His death was sudden (tho some of us had been predicting it quite a few episodes before) for us, as it was for Clara. She doesn’t take time to think.  Her bit of the world has stopped while everyone else is moving on (I thought that was shot beautifully). Danny’s funeral hasn’t happened yet, when she confronts the Doctor to help.

   I also agree with you that this series has taken a lot of risks for the most part. Fairy stories (definitely of the original Grimm type) rather than pure SF 😉 And I really haven’t worked out why I was quite happy with a moon dragon but the Forest concept irked me! For some reason Kill the Moon (for me) had a resonance in its themes (even while  the science was totally bonkers) that Forest of the Night didn’t.  Maybe KtM just felt more like Doctor Who.

   All in all, I’m loving Capaldi’s take on the Doctor, with its slow reveal.  He’s crotchety (yes, VERY Hartnell 😀 ) ) on the outside yet such a softie under it.  Completely new-regeneration-and-just-just-been-spat-out-by-a-TRex bonkers  in the first episode, and yet he still tunes into the fact that Mme Vastra has set her dino taming gizmos wrong and is causing the dino distress.  And more and more revealed as the series goes on. Yup, more Capaldi, more JLC would do me fine. (Watch as the Ming Mong fandoms explode if that happens 😉 )

   Definitely more Michelle Gomez. And River. At least just once! (Sod the demographic!!) Now that could be a confrontation.

   @Purofilion re the long arc for Smithy – Moffat claims that he knew exactly who Amy was (relative to River) when he came up with the character. I’m sure he also just chucks names and ideas in sometimes, to be picked up and developed at a later stage.  🙂

5. @JanetteB

   Great post. I agree with you about the cybermen/soldiers metaphor, especially given the date it was broadcast. I found that and cyberised Danny very moving. I liked that he finally got resolution to his actions in the war and his accidental killing of the boy.

   I hope they will still address Clara’s lying. Maybe it developed as she became more doctorish.  (Not meant to sound negative btw. I just want to be right for once!!)

   And yes, the Meddling Monk as Santa – what a great idea.  Ho Ho Ho indeed 😆

6. The horrors of shift work.  I’m still up at this hour on Friday night, and as others have said before me, it’s delightful that there is a new blog – and so well written, and so carefully thought out – to chew on.

   I can’t provide such a detailed analysis myself, so I will pluck out some of the author’s words and respond to them directly.

   I’ve also been slightly surprised at just how of a ‘Malcolm Tucker in space’ edge he’s had to him at times

   I myself think this is lazy writing on the part of the DW team.  People (apparently) know Peter Capaldi mostly for Malcom Tucker.  Lazy lazy lazy to try to write The Doctor in a way that focuses on the current actor’s most famous role.  (For me, PC is best known for Local Hero.  If there were ways to add his horror at the ‘lapin’ in his white wine sauce, now that would have made me grin.  But it shouldn’t be a ‘thing’, just a nod-n-wink to the viewers.)

   There’s also a surprising vulnerability in there too, which is an interesting choice to make in an actor of his age

   Why can’t a 55 year old man have vulnerability?

   But I think we probably should see a Doctor who’s a little more front and centre, a little more at the heart of the stories, especially as Jenna seems to be on the verge of moving on.

   Personally, I’d like to see a Doctor with a team of companions.  With only one, there’s an obvious focus on that one.  A situation made more stark by having Moffat’s ‘Companions With An Arc’ – The Girl Who Waited, The Impossible Girl.  I would like to request not only multiple companions, but companions who join The Tardis for very different reasons, and it would be good to see one or more who don’t necessarily ‘grow’ or ‘develop’ during their time with The Doctor.  This might not meet current narrative demands, though, I admit.

   The author brings up several references which I don’t understand – “The King’s Demons”, “Firefly”, “Buffy”, etc.  (This is not a dig at the blog author.  Simply some grudging admiration at cultural references which are probably brilliant, but which flew over my head.)

   I’d never really got into Being Human

   I LOVED ‘Being Human’.  It jumped its own shark and should have ended a series and a half sooner than it did.  But it was filled with interesting ideas about co-existence with non-supernaturals, and with preternaturally long life which, now that I think about it, could be fleshed out into a full-length blog on its own with respect to The Doctor and how he manages to survive with 2000 years of memories in his head.

   For the first time over on the Graun I had to admit that some of the Ming-Mongs

   Erm, that was a bit close to the edge.  I don’t want to come over all PC-speak, and I’m sure you’re doing some sort of Ricky Gervais hommage, but still.  Please don’t use ‘Ming-Mongs’ again to describe people whose opinions you don’t agree with.

   I find it difficult to draw a linear thread from each ep to the next – and this is perhaps the result of eps being shot out-of-order to how they’re transmitted.  I thought this series was an interesting confluence between an arc-heavy series and the Matt Smith half-series that was supposed to be self-contained eps.  Each ep in this series had its own tone, level of humour, amount of scariness, danger and death — but I agree with your overall thesis that this was a series-long look at a regeneration crisis.

   The arc, I think, was focusing on The Doctor’s self-image crisis of whether he is a ‘good man’.  Re-writing his own history of genocide should have made him know how good he is.  Interestingly, Moffat gave the audience several weeks worth of stories to demonstrate that no matter how much good one person can do, that person can still wonder if that was the best he could do, or if what he did simply illustrates his own weaknesses. *

   * The denouemeant of Death in Heaven, for that reason IMO, was wonderful.  The Doctor can clearly see what The Master wants to give him – what The Master wants of him – and he can finally say ‘NO.  I am not that person.’

7. @Apopheniac  I think that @JimTheFish is using the term Ming Mongs not to refer to all those who have opinions that are contrary to his but to those whose weekly abuse of the show does not rise to the status of “opinions”, in other words, trolls. Unfortunately they currently proliferate over on the Guardian killing all meangingful discussion there.

   I agree with you re’ having more than one companion. I think two companions works best, three can be overwhelming though it really depends upon the characters, actors, scripts, direction etc. The three companion team worked well with the first Doctor, back in the days when “character development” was not yet in the rule book. (Before there was a rule book.)

   Cheers

   Janette

8. I’m in agreement with everyone here- wonderful thoughts and thank you Jim the Fish !
   I guess I just wanted to emphasize that it turned out to be 1 of the best series yet for me and it
   really wasn’t about any particular episode but more about how it was all tied together. I have
   always loved the Doctor’s magical world but this series was so full of cultural myths and symbols
   and that intrigued me greatly. Also the notion of the Doctor striving to find peace with
   his new self and the epiphany he had in “Death in Heaven” was very satisfying for not only him
   but for all of us as well. But it was also fun to try to find all the different symbolic references in each
   episode as if they were secret coded clues to the larger story arc. I found myself watching for that
   everywhere this particular season from the chess board in “the Caretaker” to the Cybermen eyes on the
   walls etc. I found myself very engaged in those aspects. I hope there is lots more of the same in the
   next series! All the characters did a fabulous job! It was a totally cracking season!

9. @JimTheFish

   Excellent stuff as usual Mr. Fish. I’ll put some thoughts into a long response later today. Overall, I was pleased with a couple of minor reservations which I’ll expand on.

   I just thought I’d head this one off at the pass though:

   @Apopheniac (@janetteB)

   I don’t want to come over all PC-speak, and I’m sure you’re doing some sort of Ricky Gervais hommage, but still.

   Not a hommage to Gervais. A hommage to one Russell T Davies who coined the term in an interview with SFX while he was showrunner to describe fans with a certain “fixed” mindset. It was later suggested he may have been given the term by Victoria Wood. I may be paraphrasing as it’s been a while since I read it. It was a preview of a series and he says a certain episode “is the comedy episode. The residents of the Planet Ming-Mong will hate it.”

   It gave rise to a fanzine called “Planet of the Ming-Mongs” (news article), and is oft-quoted in articles of the time (like the second paragraph of this one in the G).

10. Hello @janetteB

    Sorry, I got home from work last night feeling like @Arbutus‘s ROUSs had trampled me.  @JimTheFish, ‘ming-mong’ struck a nerve because I work in the mental health sector and phrases like that grate something terrible.  I think on another thread someone coined the phrase ‘thundering bell-end’ which is much better.

    Hello @lisa

    You mentioned the chessboard in The Caretaker and it reminded me for some reason that we didn’t get a real answer for the hand-written equations The Doctor was doing.  We also don’t know why there were 2 post-its in Dark Water that each said ‘3 months’, and how the older sister came back (and where she came from) in Forest of the Night.  Are there any other details or memes in this series that haven’t been explained yet?

    Hello @ScaryB

    “But it would be great to see someone pick up a less robotic soldier concept for them.”  I watched The Tenth Planet recently, and it changed the way I think of Cybermen (having only seen them post-2005).  The metallic, droning voice and fabric costume were actually scarier to me – I tried to watch the story wearing a child’s eyes – than the stomping / clonking later versions.  But I take your point about Missy’s army and this makes sense, also in 10’s encounters where it was made explicit that the hard shell coating was for their own protection.  (not that it did much good when they faced off against the Daleks, hah hah hah)

11. Hello @PhaseShift

    Sorry, I didn’t see your response before I typed mine.  If RTD used ‘ming-mong’ that still doesn’t make it an acceptable term.  I must stand firm on this.  Terms which are pointlessly derogatory and cruel toward people with cognitive or other mental handicaps / disorders should be consigned to the scrapyard.  Because of the work I do, I know how hurtful such phrasing can be.

    Many people on this website make comments about how welcoming and friendly it is.  I would like to request that no matter what “ming-mong’s” history is in the DW world, could we please use ‘thundering bell-end’ or something similar and neutral in this space?  Thank you.

12. @apopheniac — @phaseshift is correct and the reference is to the RTD interview (and subsequent usage). The term is in no way a reference to people with any kind of disability (except perhaps with a disability to move on from their own overly fixed viewpoint). It’s referring to the stuck-in-their-ways trollish element of fandom and very little else. The actual words I think are meant to evoke the monsters at the crapper end of the old-Who spectrum. It’s unfortunate that it bears a rather close phonological relationship to the word used in the Gervais incident but I certainly don’t think that the phrase should suddenly be off-limits because of what is essentially a coincidence.

    But to repeat — NOTHING to do with anyone with any kind of mental of physical disorder whatsoever. No such inference was ever intended by RTD, and nor by me.

    I wholeheartedly agree with you that terms derogatory to those with physical or cognitive disorders should be on the scrapheap but ‘Ming Mongs’ doesn’t in any way count because it isn’t one.

    On a lighter note, I think I disagree with your a TARDIS-full of companions idea. Largely because we’ve seen it tried before and it sucked. Davison gave us a Doctor who should really be remembered more fondly than he is — and it’s largely because an over-abundance of companions trashed the majority of his era. I like the classic lone companion scenario but because of modern sensibilities, this will always contain an element of sexual tension. The Amy/Rory dynamic I think worked well and circumvented this and I’d have no problem seeing this repeated. In fact, I i think a trick was missed by not having Danny being a more regular presence in the TARDIS. A much more ambivalent companion would have been interesting and as I said above would have made us more invested in his death.

13. @ScaryB I agree wholeheartedly that an encounter between Missy and River would be delicious

    @JimtheFish Yes, I like your suggestion this season was a long slow regeneration crisis. I think it’s bigger than the usual regeneration crisis, because Capaldi, still burdened by the guilt of the War Doctor, doesn’t feel worthy of (or rather feels condemned by) a whole new set of regenerations. Hence his question, “Am I a good man?” which indeed hangs over the entirety of the series.

    @Apopheniac I have to agree with you that “Ming-Mongs” is rather distasteful. It’s true it has a history in Doctor Who culture, as do creators being rude about their fans (John Nathan Turner referred to obsessive fans as “barkers”) but RTD, who did so much for diversity of representation on the programme regarding sexuality and ethnicity, suffered a “fail” here, I think.

14. @JimTheFish Maybe we will end up with Clara and Orson as regular travellers in the Tardis. Orson seemed like a good candidate for a Companion. (Much better than Danny who was carrying rather too much emotional “baggage” sadly.) I hated the companions in the Davison era but remember the three companion model worked well in the first series with Barbara, Ian and Susan then Vicki.

    @apopheniac Not being aware of the Ricky Gervias incident you refer to I thought the term, which with I was also unfamiliar, refers to exactly what it refers to, an obsessive kind of fan or simply Dr Who troll of the kind whose sole purpose of existance seems to be to bag the show after every episode. I understand your reaction given that you were unfamilair with the specific term. Language is such a tricky thing and slang terms especially so.

    Cheers

    Janette

     

15. Hello @JimTheFish

    The word ‘mong’ has been in the vernacular here in the UK far longer than that execrable Ricky Gervais ‘sitcom’.  He merely publicised it, on the back of his success with The Office and Extras, and he made many people feel it was acceptable to say again.

    The fact that you and several other people on this site are defending your usage of that term (@JuniperFish aside) makes me feel ill.  I’ve had problems with many other Doctor Who sites before due to their cruelty and harshness to anyone who opposed their ‘groupthink’, and came to this site in the real hope that this would be a different kind of community.

    You are a designated ‘Time Lord’ which I think I’ve gleaned means you are a Moderator on this site.  Your word, as does @PhaseShift‘s, directs the tone of this site.

    The word of you two directs how people on this site should continue to think, the words they can with impunity use, to define other people.  My job deals with severely damaged people, quite a few of whom are damaged by people who think that words don’t mean anything other than what those people personally decide they should mean.

    I asked politely if you could stop using ‘ming-mong’ and start using what another of your commenters suggested, which was ‘thundering bell-end’.  You and @PhaseShift both demanded your right to continue using a phrase which I, as a mental health professional, politely asked you to stop using due to its historical (and current) connotations.

    Continue on with your website.  I shall have to find another Doctor Who community to converse with.

16. @everyone

    Language is very tricky. Ming Mang Mong has nothing to do with people with mental disabilities; ‘Ming Mang’ means ‘board game’ and the game of Ming Mang is played in Mongolia (and Tibet).

    Ming Mang Mong, in the West, is a game played enthusiastically by the primary school set and very drunk young adults. 😉 You sit in a circle. The first person goes ‘Ming’, the next goes ‘Mang’ and the third goes ‘Mong’ and then you keep going, faster and faster, until someone loses track and says the wrong word.

    At which point, you’re the person who said ‘Mong’ after ‘Ming’. You’re a ‘Ming-mong’.

17. @apopheniac @jimthefish @phaseshift

    Like @juniperfish, I think this was one of RTD’s misses. I know it was probably just a derivation of ding-dong with maybe a bit of Morlock thrown in, which he definitely meant light-heartedly, but I can see why it could cause offence, as it has done here.

    I don’t want to be the thought police but I do think it probably best if we find another term. I was quite happy with ARSE (for those who don’t know the acronym: someone with A Raging Sense of Entitlement – which came from JimTheFish). We should probably stick to that or find something else. It might be a bit too much to call all of those on The Graun bellends though!

    @apopheniac I’m sorry you have been offended. I know, in fact I am 100% sure, that Jim and Phaseshift meant no offence. If you don’t want to come back that’s fine – it’s your choice obviously. But you are welcome back any time and there will be no hard feelings.

18. @Bluesqueakpip I learn something new every day!

19. I think that, unfortunately, it is one of those words whose roots have been throughly overwhelmed by a more derogatory meaning – initially for a person with Down’s Syndrome, but now anyone with mental impairment.

20. @Craig

    The Graun bellends though!

    Oi! That’s thundering bellends!

21. @apopheniac @jimthefish @phaseshift @craig

    re the offending term – I hadn’t come across it till I heard it in connection with RTD, when it conjured up images of Emperor Ming and his followers (cheap scifi, mindless followers (with apologies to @Craig‘s previous avatar!!)). It never crossed my mind to associate it with mental health. And I’m not a Gervais fan!

    I’m not for censorship in any form, but I also don’t think we should be using terms here which cause reasonable members offence. As @pedant points out language is constantly evolving and what is inoffensive 1 week can acquire other connotations by the following one. Similarly some terms fall out of use and their original meanings forgotten by people coming after, but they still have resonance with people who remember their original usage.

    Let’s see it as an opportunity to be creative in our terms of abuse  🙂 But let’s not fall out about an innocent use of a term whose associations are at best cloudy.

    And a point of order mighty Emperor @Craig – @JimtheFish came up with the phrase – I came up with the ARSE acronym! (So there!!)

    @Bluesqueakpip – you never cease to amaze me 😀

22. @ScaryB

    I can also thrill you with details of ‘Peggy Babcock’ and the immortal ‘Zip Zap Booinng!’ 🙂

23. Oh dear, that escalated. I wish I hadn’t had to go shopping now. Even though the household would have likely starved after me being a week away.

    @apopheniac

    You and @PhaseShift both demanded your right to continue

    No – if you read carefully, I really didn’t demand anything like that. I provided context to a point. Because no-one deserves to be labelled a Ricky Gervais tribute act on this site. Perhaps I can add more context?

    The world is made up of language which has to be used in context. I think @JimTheFish used an expression he thought a lot of people on the site would get as a reference from RTD, in an article that ended with a reference to the finale being “very RTD”.

    He also used a couple of references which you questioned as pop culture references, which I will explain:

    “The King’s Demons” – A Doctor Who Peter Davison serial set in the court of Prince John with a guest appearance by The Master.
    “Firefly” – A Joss Whedon show. Cowboys in Space. Highly recommended.
    “Buffy” – Buffy the Vampire slayer. Same Joss. Again, Highly recommended.

    Everything is context and we can assume too much of our readers. For instance, Russell T made, in a specialist magazine devoted to the History and what’s new in Science Fiction, a joke. It anticipated a level of Pop Culture knowledge on the reader’s part that wasn’t there. Because it’s really old.

    While many rushed to judgement on the second killer word, they forgot to evaluate the first. Dwelling on the first may give some room for thought. And if you have ever seen the baseline avatar of our beloved Emperor, @craig, you may get it if you recognise it.

    Yes – he says that the petty tyrants of fixed views who promptly declare what “is” and “is not” Doctor Who will be pretty cheesed off by the comedy episode. They’ll hate it.

    They’ll rail and splutter as petty tyrants do. Like that bloke, what was him name? In Flash Gordon. Ming, wasn’t it? Ming the Merciless. That’s it. From the planet Mongo. Ming of Mongo. Planet of the Ming Mongs.

    In my next post I shall use “Mings of Mongo” as a descriptor instead of any alternative for those of fixed perspective. You can casually use the search function in the top bar to check I’ve never used the unpalatable alternative in the past.

24. @jimthefish – wow. Fantastic summary and making me want a rainy day i can re-watch the series in one go!
    Agree with most of what you’ve said (based on memory of seeing them once).

    I don’t have time to express this well I fear so forgive if this is clumsy.

    In terms of the term ‘mong’ its probably a play on Ming of the planet Mong but as a noun for online idiots it really does bring back mong in another context. Not your fault.
    @apopheniac has brought it up as an unfortunate usage. If I’d used “twat” and someone had said “actually that’s offensive to women” then I’d think “oh – really? Actually I was trying to offend someone else”.

    Youre a good writer so maybe, hopefully, you’ll see it as an illustration of the power of words rather than overbearing PC (not that you said that) or anything. tbh like pedant you’ll have an even better word than fuckwittingeejit or somesuch.

    damn this was clumsier than i thought.

25. Well, M&M-gate has truly kicked off. In the interests of not causing further offence, I’m happy to consider it a phrase off-limits in future.

    However–

    I’m the last one to want to side with the ‘political correctness gone mad’ Daily Heil brigade but this seems to be a prime illustration of what Jimmy Carr described as offence being taken rather than given. I’m more than on board with what @ScaryB and @pedant say about the connotations of certain words evolving (or de-evolving) over time — Godfrey Bloom and his spluttering ‘slutgate’ nonsense being a case in point. But as someone who works with words professionally, the growing encroachment of the culture of offence bugs me greatly.

    I’d say the phrase in question has connotations of affection as well as criticism of fans — and kudos to @phaseshift, @whisht and others who point out that it’s also supposed to evoke images of Flash Gordon and other historic SF texts (like old-Who) which delighted in using words strong with alliteration and assonance to reflect alien-ness — and those words were chosen because they evoked the more simplistic, possibly less imaginative SF tropes that those fans are often happier with. The expression actually codifies a lot of information about what RTD is trying to convey and none of it was about disability. To put it off limits because of its unrelated similarity to a phrase that is clearly offensive is something that we should be careful about.

    And it was quite clear from the context of both RTD’s original comments and my own that there as no veiled allusion to anyone with any kind of disability. If there had been, I’d been the first to demand it never be used again. But it’s clear that its effect is intended to be primarily comedic. Try putting almost any other consonant in front of the ‘ing/ong’. It doesn’t quite work in the same way. I’m quite often not RTD’s biggest fan but I feel I have to defend him slightly here. Yes, there might be an error of judgement taking place but the error, it seems to me, is on the side of those choosing their interpretation, and then subesquently being offended by it, rather than being on his.

    Taking offence without thinking about that context is to my mind a rather dubious approach and something that we should really question as much as we can. I can see why some might take offence but it’s purely taking offence at the existence of those four letters in that order, and with a bloody-minded refusal to consider the meaning behind them or the context in which they appear. It’s a kind of offence that I think we should at least try to resist because it’s emerging purely from knee-jerk reaction and without any thought being put into it. As @phaseshift says, context is everything and should be the primary factor on whether something is truly offensive or otherwise.

    So, @apopheniac, I think you’re wrong here. It doesn’t make much difference on this forum, of course. And I do hope you stick around. We can find another phrase that it less loaded and ARSE is perfectly good (and for the record @Craig, I think the credit definitely has to go to @ScaryB for that one) but this kind of knee-jerkery is dangerous because in other contexts it allows people to use the armour of Being Offended to shut down all kinds of public dialogue. And that is basically mission creep into decidedly Orwellian territory.

26. Hello @PhaseShift

    How condescending.  But thank you for your precis of cultural references – that added so much to my comprehension of the original blog.

    I haven’t seen many of your posts, but the ones I’ve seen, have been verging on bullying.  Because you are a Moderator (“Special Weapons Mod”), I assume that your attitude is sanctioned by this website.   All the more reason for me to find somewhere else.

    @Arbutus – thank you for your Princess Bride ROUS gift.  They ran rampant until I managed to stop wearing long skirts and listen for the popping noise that’s made before they attack.  Anybody want a peanut?

    To avoid a total take-over of the topic of this thread, I think still that there are some dangling bits in this series that haven’t been addressed so far.  Perhaps in this thread, or another, there could be discussion of the blackboard equations, the ‘3 months’ post-its, the older sister returning, and why Seb disintegrated in the same colours as live people in DiH?

27. On reflection I’ve enjoyed this series immensely. There have been some surprising and brave choices in direction which I think have thrown me on occasion but this is no bad thing.

    Consider a proposition like Doctor Who. Unlike most shows it has a rich and long history. It was originally shown for 26 Seasons (and that term is deliberately chosen) and latterly for 9 Series. Look at most genre shows and it is relatively few that reach 9 years, and those ones that do tend to fall into a steady and unremarkable rhythm. I only continue to watch Supernatural, for example, because of the easy chemistry of the main cast. It’s not going to surprise me with its latest storylines, because it’s been repeating them for the last five years.

    To make Doctor Who (the AG years) a continuing proposition I think Moffat clearly wanted to take risks. He broke the “template” of the series structure RTD set up fairly early on. Budget considerations required splitting the series, but even the long split in Series 7 (while frustrating at the time) stopped people from taking the show for granted, I think. Because the enemy of the BG years was complacency, I’ve always thought. When it lacked the confidence to move on, and simply looked back.

    I think he made a superb choice with Matt Smith and guided the show to a milestone 50th anniversary with an outward swaggering confidence that was bound to annoy some.

    The next chapter, when it came, had to be similarly audacious. He cast (against perceived wisdom) an older chap as the Doctor. “That’s lost the teenagers” huffed the Mings of Mongo. “And bang goes the American audience. And the kids”.

    But Capaldi has been splendid in the role, with some odd delivery, mannerisms and a kind of social ineptness that seems to evolve from Smith’s own, and make is something else – unique to him. I think it was a brave choice to reset the Doctor to someone who leads with his head, rather than his hearts (as I think Smith and Tennant’s Doctors did), but this choice has been possible because of those flashes that this is just another mask. There are issues at the heart of this Doctor, and perhaps regeneration crisis is the thing, but there are tantalising things that haven’t been explored in the series. Like the “choice” of face. There are a fair few strands to pick up.

    I think this transition has been possible because of Jenna Coleman. I truly think she’s been marvellous in front and behind the camera for well over a year. The early news of Smith’s departure made her the de facto ambassador for Who for a while at an important time. I don’t think she expected to be front and centre meeting so many Royals and giving so many interviews at the time, and so BBC Worldwide were very lucky to have her. I think in front of the camera this series she’s been a revelation, seizing some great opportunities, and actually relishing the scenes where the less admirable characteristics of Clara come through. I have no idea if the Christmas Special is her last hurrah, but I predict a great future for her whatever.

    I think the choice of Directors has been great this series, with a few potential Nick Hurran’s delighting in seeing what they can do. The writing (and I think I share @JimTheFish ‘s view here) has on occasion reset to Smith. I think that’s entirely understandable. I think Neil Gaiman ended up thankful for his later rewrites of the Doctor’s Wife because he explained he wrote it with Tennant’s “voice” in his head. After seeing Season 5 he thought “ahhh…that’s who you are”, and rewrote it quite a lot. I think Jamie Mathieson Knocked it for six with his two episodes. I can understand some displeasure about In the Forest, but still think in a 12 – 13 episode run we should have an outlier. To test the boundaries of what is Doctor Who. It has it’s fans, and I have to admit to alternating my views on it quite a bit.

    I understand the reservations about the “bigger than big” ending for the season, but maybe it was the right way to go. At the end of the day, it still centred on those almost intimate character moments as in previous series. And with a heart breaking ending that can’t be an ending. As Santa says.

    No – all in all, a great start. And to those Mings of the Planet Mongo, with their petty tyrannies of what Doctor Who can be….. we get it you aren’t feeling the love.

    But UK audiences are stable. We didn’t lose the kids. We didn’t lose the teenagers. We didn’t lose the families. BBC America didn’t lose audience, and with Canada’s showings, North America showed a remarkable upswing.

    Moffat will leave when he’s ready. He’ll leave it with a blessing. And astonishingly huge boots to fill.

28. More than stable. Average overnight figures are 5.172 million; final audience is 7.263.

    The live +7 is adding over a million viewers – that would leave Series 8 with an average 8.25 million viewers. If that’s the case, they’ve got back all the viewers they ‘lost’ in the second part of Series 7.

29. @PhaseShift — good points with which I think I entirely agree. I think it’s definitely true that Series 9 will be a strong one for Capaldi because writers will now know what and who they’re writing for much more clearly.

    With regards to the finale — well, I think it’s still a work in progress — with maybe SM testing the waters for some more multi-part stories next year? And you’re right, the character pay-offs were all there — Capaldi pounding his TARDIS, the Doc and Clara ‘lying’ to each other, the ‘I know who I am scene’. But despite that, the plot which contained them was a little too illogical, a little too unrestrained (though this is the Master we’re talking about so why should I be surprised?) and compared to SM’s previous season closers, it was all a little too frenetic, unsatisfying and not quite thought through. That’s not to say I didn’t really enjoy it though. And actually on the second watch, I enjoyed it a whole lot more.

    The continuing lack of understanding or respect for the Cybermen is still irking me though.

30. @Apopheniac

    How condescending.  But thank you for your precis of cultural references – that added so much to my comprehension of the original blog.

    Sorry, but that phrasing sounds like the epitome of condescending to me!

    You admit to only having seen a few of Phaseshift’s posts, maybe you should check out more of his contributions to this site. Possibly also check the context for those with which you have issues. No one is above criticism on this site (including those of us who have been here since the start) but I think that on this occasion you are misreading the tone.

    I think you are right to highlight the issue of language, but I also think you should recognise when you have picked up offence when absolutely none was intended. Not to mention it being a relevant choice of phrase  in the context of this forum.

    @Jimthfish Orwell and Noam Chomsky (among others) have lots of interesting things to say about how available vocabulary can limit our ability to express ideas and concepts, and channel our thinking into what’s “acceptable”. But it’s also easy for unthinking casual use of previously offensive words to creep into language (the current use of “rape” by the youngsters, for example, is one that causes me some discomfort). So we are right to question when it makes us uncomfortable  but also to fight to retain free use of language, without censorship. (Rights vs responsibilities)

    This link (to Elizabethan insults) may prove useful for those wishing to expand their insults vocab http://www.museangel.net/insult.html

    The Elizabethans were nothing if not creative with language! Interesting to note that “fellow” was apparently a term of insult. Tho “those Graun fellows” probably doesn’t have the same impact these days as the earthier “fuckwits”

    🙂

31. @ScaryB

    I think calling people ‘base football players’ might puzzle them a bit…

32. @Phaseshift

    Great post. I think Series 8 will be one which will shine more with repeated viewings. It’s almost unbelievable that the AG series is heading into its 10th anniversary next year. A whole new generation has now grown up with the Doctor. And as you say, probably unheard of in modern TV drama. just look at the amount of speculation and discussion it’s still generating (even the passionate dissenting voices elsewhere are commenting because they still care. Presumably!)). After 9 years there is still no particular pattern, or format. Where series 9 will go is anyone’s guess. Where the NEXT episode will go, likewise.  (I’d love to see JLC team up with Orson in the TARDIS at least for a few episodes).

    As you say, complacency was a major contributing factor to what killed it before. Massive kudos to Moffat for not taking the easy road. And for exploding the budget when he has to 😉  It’s great to see that the viewing figures are supporting what he is doing. There’s a rock solid core of around 5m who will watch it on screening. And then it picks up a massive 2million (minimum) timeshifted views (not including iplayer). And that’s just UK figs.

    Contrary to what the moaners moan about (keeps them happy), the show has brought in a lot new of writers and directors this year (Douglas McKinnon (well, not new, but he hasn’t done a DW for a while), Ben Wheatley,  Jamie Matheson in particular and Rachel Tallalay (of the much maligned female persuasion) did a great job on the 2 finale episodes). I think the current production standards are phenomenal.

    Moffat will leave when he’s ready. He’ll leave it with a blessing. And astonishingly huge boots to fill.

    Won’t he just.

33. @Bluesqueakpip

    I can also thrill you with details of ‘Peggy Babcock’ and the immortal ‘Zip Zap Booinng!’

    I’ve come across Peggy B before but not the “immortal Zip Zap Booinng!”.

    Do tell… 😀

     

34. @ScaryB

    Certainly.

    Your group stands in a circle. Start with a quick ‘zip’ to get everyone going. For ‘zip’ you are only allowed to point to the person next to you while saying ‘zip’. They then point to the next person (while saying ‘zip’).

    Once everyone’s got that bit, add ‘zap’. You use both hands, point, and shout ‘zap’ at any person in the circle (preferably the person who’s a bit hung over, or – for small kids – the one picking their nose or staring vaguely at the ceiling). They then carry on with a ‘zip’ for the person next door. Unless they want to do their own ‘zap’.

    Finally, add ‘booiiing!’ This is a starfish like manoeuvre, which is performed when someone has just zipped or zapped you. For extra effect, bounce into the air while starfishing, shouting ‘booiiing!’ very loudly. It bounces the zip or zap back at the person who just did it, so that they have to find another victim.

    In a desperate attempt to stay vaguely on-topic, I’ll point out that this is one of the very few games that could be played by young Daleks… though you’d probably have to explain that ‘EX-TER-MIN-ATE!’ is against the rules. 😈

35. Incidentally, in a stunning display of the Doctor’s occasional wonky aim in landing, my Series 8 Blu-ray set has landed on my doormat.

    It even has a TARDIS landing sound effect. No, really. It has a sound effect. 😀

36. Hello @ScaryB

    I also think you should recognise when you have picked up offence when absolutely none was intended

    The intention of offence is immaterial.  People used to say ‘nigger’ and intend no offence.  People used to say ‘Paki’ and intend no offence.  Nowadays, people say ‘mong’ and intend no offence.

    I’m no Mary Whitehouse, that is fucking for sure.  I’m simply saying that, as a front-line person dealing daily with people who present multiple mental conditions, all of which it is my job to help them get beyond and move back into general society, using ‘mong’ because it’s been ‘sanctioned’ by Russell T Effing Davies isn’t a good enough excuse.

    And as strongly as I feel about this – and as many times as I’ve championed a workable alternative in this thread (as @pedant said, ‘thundering bell-end’) – you and others on this website are happy to continue to use terminology that should have been dumped in the scrapyard generations ago.  Or, you insist that I am in the wrong to be aggrieved that such language still exists and is still flagrantly used.  Offensive language that has been excused multiple times by multiple people on a website dedicated to a TV programme which celebrates the ultimate in personal difference.  A TV show, by the way, which I discuss with my patients on a regular basis.

    That’s my evening break taken, then.  Back to the trenches of dealing with real people, with real problems.  I have been trained and been working for a few decades to help them, but I don’t think I’ve made a crack in your own perception problems.

37. @Apopheniac

    I completely understand that you feel strongly about this particular word. I’m not disagreeing with you but as my first reply to you pointed out, I wasn’t aware of its derogatory connotations till you mentioned it.  I was just suggesting you recognise when your post has had an effect in modifying the behaviour of the people to whom you pointed it out. I haven’t used it, even in quotes, since your post. @Phaseshift has offered an alternative and @JimtheFish has said he won’t use it again, even though no offence (or the meaning you attribute to his original phrase) was intended. I think the responses to you have been respectful, even when people disagree with you about this particular case. There is no need to continue to be angry. You’ve stimulated a discussion, and you’ve had an effect. (And sympathies on doing a Saturday night shift).

    I also do a lot of work with people with a wide range of abilities and much of my job has to do with words and language, so I do understand where you’re coming from.  But language is continually evolving and what is deeply offensive to one person would not necessarily cause an eyelid flutter in another.  And that’s before you start to get into cross-cultural and other language frames of reference. It’s a minefield!

    @Bluesqueakpip Games for young daleks had me rolling on the floor 😆 😆 😆

38. @Bluesqueakpip

    It even has a TARDIS landing sound effect. No, really. It has a sound effect

    Did you have to pay extra for that?

    *not jealous at all*

39. @apopheniac and @et al – I’ve been involved in workplace harassment for many years (not dishing it out, advising and supporting those on the receiving end) and I support @apopheniac that the fact that no one using the word intended it to be offensive to people with disabilities doesn’t make it OK. Given that the term ‘mong’ is and has been used as a derogatory term for people with Down Syndrome specifically, can we please agree to not use it?  @apopheniac has raised the issue, but who knows how many other forum users feel equally strongly but have not spoken up? I’d hate to see anyone leaving the forum because of this – it is a good place, and it costs us nothing surely to agree not to use the term.  Thundering bell-end offends no one – probably not even thundering bell-ends, since they are unlikely to recognise themselves as such – and is a truly splendid term in its own right.

     

40. @Apopheniac PS

    Apologies if my earlier post to you sounded snarky, it wasn’t intended.

    Your choice of the word “nigger” as being a word which was originally inoffensive is interesting. It might have had a short history of being  a neutral noun but it very quickly evolved into one which was almost always used with derogatory intent. More recently however it has been reclaimed by the black rap community as a way to disempower it. Much the same as some women will use “bitch” or “slut” to describe themselves as a way of pre-empting someone else using it against them. I’m not saying I agree with this, but it is an example of just how complex language is.

    Tone on forums, where all we have is words, can sometimes be hard to gauge.

    *offers olive branch*

41. @JimTheFish    I enjoyed reading your summary of Twelve and his character. I will admit that he had me from the moment he came bursting out the TARDIS, exuding confusion and madness. Everything that came after that only cemented it for me. I believe he is the Doctor I’ve been waiting for since the beginning of the AG series. Interestingly, while I know that some people feel that he took a long time to find his feet, compared to previous Doctors, I never had that feeling myself. I actually felt more that way about Tennant’s first appearance, where it really took me until the end of the second episode to feel as if I understood the character.

    I have often been reminded of Tom Baker’s Doctor, and I think it’s the quality that you describe as whimsical and error-prone that actually does it. He falls into things, bounces from crisis to crisis, but there’s weight behind it, somehow. I think “Malcolm Tucker in space” has been the character’s nod to the modernity that people expect in their Doctor nowadays. Ever since the beginning of the AG show (and it had even started to some degree with McCoy), the Doctor has acknowledged contemporary culture in different ways. I think I prefer this way (or Matt Smith’s way, for that matter) to Ten’s love of pop music and whatever. I’m old school, I know, but I have always preferred my Doctor to be a little bit out of his element!

    I have felt from the start that, rather than a single clear story arc, there have been multiple themes throughout this series. For me, the “regeneration crisis” theme has been the most interesting, followed by the Clara and Danny story, with the Missy-Promised Land mystery in last place. I have loved it that none of these themes prevented me from enjoying each story completely on its own merits as well. The Doctor’s journey through himself paid off so beautiful in the end, in that last graveyard scene with Missy; and I (who tends to sit on the “could we please not have the Doctor kissing women all the time” side of the fence) really adored the “thank you” kiss he gave her then! He was so filled with joy at having finally figured it out. I think (I hope) that it will be possible to see the “slightly more confident Doctor” now, without completely altering the endearing bits of vulnerability.

    Personally, I never had a problem with Tennant’s changing companions during the specials. I had other issues with the treatment of those stories, but I didn’t mind seeing him meet new people and hang out with them. I would enjoy seeing Capaldi do that as well, for awhile, at least. It would open up the possibility of seeing temporary companions that you might not want for an entire series, but that could be a fun change from the standard “young, footloose, perky” variety. I too think that Coleman has been fabulous throughout the series, and wouldn’t mind seeing her stay as well, although I would personally expect that she would do so as something of a changed person after what she has been through. And if we do have a new companion coming on board, I am hopeful that the casting will be as unexpected as Capaldi’s has been.

42. @Everyone I definitely support using a term other than RTD’s offending one. As @craig says, it was not RTD’s finest hour.

    Language is important. I dislike it when young folks describe something “lame” as “that’s so gay”, and the fact they say “no offence to gay people” when challenged doesn’t undo the fact that “gay” and “rubbish” have a painful history of being associated which the turn of phrase unthinkingly reinforces.

    Group Doctor hug x Although of course, Twelve would squirm and insist we desist!

    Hmmn which Doctors have been huggers and which not? I think Ten was probably the huggiest?

     

43. @Apopheniac, I’m so sorry about the ROUS’s. I just wasn’t thinking. I know better than to give noisy toys to the children of my friends, and any rodent too big for a cage should have been on the same list. If you want to send them back, I can offer you vouchers for a cruise on the pirate ship Revenge instead.  🙂

    And personally, I favour “warthog-faced buffoon” as a derogatory term for those who disagree with me. It didn’t come from @ScaryB’s list of Elizabethan insults, but I think it’s infused with the same spirit.

44. @Juniperfish     Oh, I think Eleven wins the prize for Huggiest Doc Ever!

45. @arbutus @Juniperfish Eleven was the huggiest, but Ten the snoggiest.

46. As one of the forum users with views on the subject who has not voiced their opinion (till now), I strongly agree with @CathAnnabel in everything she said about language.

    On a different topic, I strongly disagree with @CathAnnabel on who has been the snoggiest Doctor. For me at least, that title would have to go to Joanna Lumley in “Curse of the Fatal Death”. Not exactly canon, I admit, but from where I am coming from, there are so few other alternatives for that title…

47. @arbutus @Juniperfish

    I always rated it as:

    • Eccleston – hasn’t been out with girls yet. But pretends he has.
    • Tennant: still hasn’t twigged that he’s hot, but is willing to give this whole ‘dating’ thing a try.
    • Smith: can’t believe he actually married Alex Kingston. Secretly wonders what she sees in him.
    • Capaldi: widower with grown up daughter. 😉

    In terms of hugging random companions, I think that Smith tried hardest but Tennant was more successful.

48. It’s when I think over the individual episodes of the series that I realize I need to see the whole thing again. I can remember how some things impacted me but not always the reasons for it. I think I agree pretty generally with @JimTheFish’s assessment of the episodes, with a couple of exceptions.

    Unlike a lot of people, I loved Robot of Sherwood. It didn’t recall The King’s Demon’s for me at all, because while the two episodes shared a historical period, Robot was meant to be funny, where I don’t remember much attempt at humour in Demons. Definitely Robot was better. I really liked Time Heist and didn’t particularly view it as not really a Capaldi episode. I would have to watch that final scene again to see if I could see the “Smith” in the dialogue, because it didn’t jump out at me the way it seems to have done for some. In the Forest of the Night I rather enjoyed, but I agree that it was a weak point in some ways.

    As for the finale, I think that on the whole, both parts satisfied me. I actually found that the very sudden, very immediate death of Danny worked very well. It was like a bucket of ice water dumped over my expectations; it opened my eyes to the fact that we had already gone in a direction that I wasn’t expecting. The whole thing about the sudden descent into shock and grief is that it is sudden. Your life can change in an instant, and there is no time to process it. While I agree that it was the more intimate moments of Death in Heaven that worked best, I enjoyed pretty much all of it. But I would have to add that I don’t think any of the series finales rank among my favourite episodes. Name of the Doctor came close. And one thing I definitely did like about Death in Heaven was that, although it was certainly another “entire world in peril” finale, that never felt like the real threat. To me, the real threat was the threat to the Doctor’s soul. And I liked that.

    I think @PhaseShift put it very well in talking about risk-taking. If you ever have a series in which there are no episodes that miss the boat for some viewers, then the series just isn’t trying hard enough. Without lows there can be no highs, without misses, no bullseyes, etc. (And if the Forest episode was the low, then in my view it wasn’t half bad!)

49. @JimTheFish, @PhaseShift, @Apopheniac

    TY all for your contributions to the site.  Once again I have learned something new from this forum, which always happens and makes it so great.- TY for another excellent blog.  I will try to add my thoughts to it later, when I have fully digested all the different ideas you wrote about.

     Apopheniac, I agree with @ScaryB that you have made your point, and it was discussed in a relatively polite way so far.  JimTheFish and PhaseShift meant no offense, but now that you brought it to their attention (and others that have only just learned the phrase like me), they have agreed to not use the phrase anymore.  That usually doesn’t happen the same way at other forums, which is another reason why this place is special.  They are not only mods, but they are contibuting members to the forum at the same time.  They have set a good example, by changing out of respect for others opinions and feelings and should be appreciated for doing that.  TY you too Apopheniac for rationally explaining why it was offensive and should be changed.  It’s model behavior by everyone.  Kudos 🙂

     @Arbutus – I really like your idea about multiple companions. I agree with people that more than two companions is probably not good for the show, but now I think there is a way that could work.  It would even be cool to have 10 or more companions possibly! 😆

    Hear me out, before you think I’ve gone all bananas again.  It could work if the companions were all part timers.  Just like we don’t know what the monster will be from week to week, the companions could be the same way.  It is not exactly like the lone Doctor though, since they are characters we already know, the Doctor just pops in on them and takes them along. 

    My list of part time companions so far is Clara (if she leaves), Paternoster Gang, Psi, Saibra, the brig’s daughter (maybe Cyber-Brig), and Orson and maybe even Osgood (if living).  Changing companions all the time would automatically keep things interesting for a long time.  We could compare and discuss which one works best with the Doctor, and bonkerize which one will eventually stick as the full time companion. It sounds fun to me. 😕

50. @Bluesqueakpip     Ha. “The Evolution of the Doctor as a Romantic Hero.” I like it!   🙂