|
Post by Timelord007 on Feb 18, 2020 8:40:58 GMT
As I said, my mind is blown. This is hands down better than the Mary Shelley stories from BF.
I loved this! I find it hard to believe this is the same team and the same actors who did last series. Have they been taken over by Zygons or what?
Whittaker is amazing as DARK Doctor. She is downright terrifying.
13 definitely has become the modern eras 7, starts out all silly and clownish but then gradually turns into a dark chess master🤔😈 Completely agree, all we need now is a chess board.
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Feb 18, 2020 8:57:58 GMT
Just watched a Youtube Review by Council of Geeks who I follow. He made a very good point which I overlooked on first viewing. What has happened to "I never met a person who was not important" ?
The Doctor goes on about how important Percy Shelley is and that his life must be saved, because famous writer. (I admit I have never read anything from the man myself) At the same time, the serving class in the house are basically redshirts and die like flies... This sends pretty mixed messages. So only rich famous people are worth saving, and there is not even a side mention of the servants? What about one of the servant descentants becomes a rich famous person in 500 years time? What worries me more, I am by now so used to servants dying in entertainment, I do not even notice it anymore until pointed out!
We seriously need another Sam Gamgee as the glowing hero in a story to rectify this!
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Feb 18, 2020 9:00:38 GMT
Hello again. Are we in our own little perception filtered bubble. Has Doctor Who just withdrawn back to appealing just to diehard fans? The reaction of the general public, youtube, comments to review sections in other media as lukewarm at best and downright hostile at worst. It is very strange to me, the disconnect between us on here who are generally positive and the outside world where the reaction to Doctor Who is that it has become too PC and 'woke', which is one of those awful labels. This era does feel like McCoy's era. The viewing figures have dropped considerably even allowing for Iplayer viewing, they seem to be lower. Does anyone have any analysis on this? Perhaps it is just part of the cycle. Doctor Who has been on for 15 years now. My youngest was born a week after NuWho started, which makes me feel really old. Despite there being a female Doctor none of my three daughters watched after Arachnids in 2018. Oh well, I should just be thankful, that unlike 1989, the BBC actually supports the programme and so do we. I am so glad I keep away from these corners of the internet. Seriously, when I want negativity in my life, I go to work. There are too many people in the world who seem to go into the basement to have a laugh (German saying).
Well, the youtube reviewers I am following were full of praise (apart from a few nitpicks).
I think it always depends where you look and of course the negative toxic people are always the ones screaming the loudest.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Feb 18, 2020 10:47:53 GMT
I think the key here is commitment: this is a Gothic horror story of the era, through and through. Ghosts and the walking dead (I mean, the Cyberman does kid of count); a creepy, isolated house; primal fears about isolation, mortality and paranoia; skulls and skeletons aplenty and this unrelenting atmosphere of something unfahtomable, always waiting to reach out. The Holmesian heritage is undeniable, but it's less overt when compared to Holmes' pastiches - its nods to Frankenstein are there, but way less overt or specific to a particular version, compared to Brain of Morbius (not a good or bad thing, just an observation of a difference). Alderton clearly did her homework and I can see why Chibbs is keeping her around - as a spooky haunted house thrill ride, probably the best since Knock Knock, if maybe a tad better narratively.
The lone Cyberman is great too, and very different to the use in The Silver Turk - this one's an intelligent, manipulative and wholly unhinged monster, through and through, and you never empthise with it, save for the fake-out. The broken casing and dessicated flesh underneath is ghoulishly delightfully, and I like that since World Enough, we have leaned back into the body-horror part of the Cybermen. Yes, the ghost callback is a bit obvious, but because of Alderton's commitment to this type of story, it's justified. It's always moving, always playing with you and your expectations. While I think some of the supporting players got more to do than others - Byron's fun, but it's hard not to think of 'The Romans' Nero when it comes to playing this serial user of women as funny, and Claire kind of gets lost in the shuffle - it hits where it counts with the Shelleys and their fears. And Sullivan weaves it all together with fantastic direction.
Also, Ryan gets perhaps his best comedy bits here with Polidori demanding a duel - Tosin just nails the timing and Ryan's oblviousness-bullheadedness about it.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Feb 18, 2020 11:57:54 GMT
Just watched a Youtube Review by Council of Geeks who I follow. He made a very good point which I overlooked on first viewing. What has happened to "I never met a person who was not important" ? The Doctor goes on about how important Percy Shelley is and that his life must be saved, because famous writer. (I admit I have never read anything from the man myself) At the same time, the serving class in the house are basically redshirts and die like flies... This sends pretty mixed messages. So only rich famous people are worth saving, and there is not even a side mention of the servants? What about one of the servant descentants becomes a rich famous person in 500 years time? What worries me more, I am by now so used to servants dying in entertainment, I do not even notice it anymore until pointed out! We seriously need another Sam Gamgee as the glowing hero in a story to rectify this!
Interestingly, this modern TV tendency is completely unlike the 'golden age' detective stories by Christie, Sayers, etc. in which working-class people are very rarely victims - unless of course they Know Too Much which is usually fatal for anyone in detective stories! Far better for life expectancy to be a valet or cook in a Christie-era novel than a 'Star Trek' security guard!
To be fair to the Doctor, she'd save everyone if she could, but when the Cyberman attacked before, she wasn't there. And in this story we know the real histories of Mary and her literary 'circle', so they all have to survive; if anyone is going to die for dramatic purposes, it can't be one of them.
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Feb 18, 2020 12:34:31 GMT
Eh. We know from Across the Darkened City that the Time War has impacts on past lives of the Doctor, and from the beginning of The Starship of Theseus that parts of Eight's life have been rewritten by the War. I'm content to handwave the discrepancy away as being a result of the war. I don't think we even need the War given that this story was caused by time being disrupted in the first place. The Doctor even mentions on a few occasions that this isn't what's supposed to be happen. The Alliance sending the Cyberium back in time rewrote history, replacing the Mary's Story+trilogy timeline with the Series 12 one. Simple. And I don't think we really need an explanation for why the Eighth Doctor forgot he'd been there already. But We DDoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by elkawho on Feb 18, 2020 13:51:56 GMT
Just watched a Youtube Review by Council of Geeks who I follow. He made a very good point which I overlooked on first viewing. What has happened to "I never met a person who was not important" ? The Doctor goes on about how important Percy Shelley is and that his life must be saved, because famous writer. (I admit I have never read anything from the man myself) At the same time, the serving class in the house are basically redshirts and die like flies... This sends pretty mixed messages. So only rich famous people are worth saving, and there is not even a side mention of the servants? What about one of the servant descentants becomes a rich famous person in 500 years time? What worries me more, I am by now so used to servants dying in entertainment, I do not even notice it anymore until pointed out! We seriously need another Sam Gamgee as the glowing hero in a story to rectify this!
Interestingly, this modern TV tendency is completely unlike the 'golden age' detective stories by Christie, Sayers, etc. in which working-class people are very rarely victims. Far better for life expectancy to be a valet or cook in a Christie-era novel than a 'Star Trek' security guard!
To be fair to the Doctor, she'd save everyone if she could, but when the Cyberman attacked before, she wasn't there. And in this story we know the real histories of Mary and her literary 'circle', so they all have to survive; if anyone is going to die for dramatic purposes, it can't be one of them.
Yep, I agree with you 13. I was trying to find a much nicer way of saying "That's BS" and you did it wonderfully. Unfortunately the Doctor can't always save everyone, and in this case the upper class folks HAVE to survive. But that in no way means that the Doctor doesn't think those people important in their own way. (It has the be said that The Doctor sometimes contradicts him/herself anyway. Ten talking to Donna in The Runaway Bride, "Why you? You're not important." (paraphrasing) ) That to me is the mixed message. Not here. The Doctor has to KNOW you're in danger and be available to help, but if not it doesn't mean that character isn't important, in general. Although it may mean that the character isn't important to the ongoing story, or even that that character's death is important to the ongoing story itself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2020 13:59:13 GMT
Just watched a Youtube Review by Council of Geeks who I follow. He made a very good point which I overlooked on first viewing. What has happened to "I never met a person who was not important" ? The Doctor goes on about how important Percy Shelley is and that his life must be saved, because famous writer. (I admit I have never read anything from the man myself) At the same time, the serving class in the house are basically redshirts and die like flies... This sends pretty mixed messages. So only rich famous people are worth saving, and there is not even a side mention of the servants? What about one of the servant descentants becomes a rich famous person in 500 years time? What worries me more, I am by now so used to servants dying in entertainment, I do not even notice it anymore until pointed out! We seriously need another Sam Gamgee as the glowing hero in a story to rectify this! Well, I think The Doctor would know the distinction between someone being "important" - which everyone is, to someone - and "vital to the tapestry of time itself". Fixed points and all that. Just because someone isn't neccessary for the course of history doesn't mean they're not important is what The Doctors saying, surely. In real terms, of course, it's also so we can have peril but without tedious butterfly effect lectures every time someone dies. Imagine The Doctor having to check everyone's descendants to see if they "need" to be saved or not.
|
|
|
Post by relativetime on Feb 18, 2020 15:06:33 GMT
Just watched a Youtube Review by Council of Geeks who I follow. He made a very good point which I overlooked on first viewing. What has happened to "I never met a person who was not important" ? The Doctor goes on about how important Percy Shelley is and that his life must be saved, because famous writer. (I admit I have never read anything from the man myself) At the same time, the serving class in the house are basically redshirts and die like flies... This sends pretty mixed messages. So only rich famous people are worth saving, and there is not even a side mention of the servants? What about one of the servant descentants becomes a rich famous person in 500 years time? What worries me more, I am by now so used to servants dying in entertainment, I do not even notice it anymore until pointed out! We seriously need another Sam Gamgee as the glowing hero in a story to rectify this! I think that’s an important point of view to consider, but I also think it could be meant in bad faith, especially since the Eleventh Doctor himself wasn’t saving EVERY servant he met even after he made that comment. That quote was meant in a specific way and I do not believe it should be interpreted to mean every single person the Doctor encounters in the story should be treated with the same weight as the central characters to the story. Not every episode needs to be bogged down with the Doctor lamenting the fact that a few people died just to remind the audience that she does care about their deaths. If the criticism is that the show is focusing too much on humanizing upper class characters over lower class characters, then fair - though I’d counter by pointing to all the numerous occasions that’s been precisely the opposite even since Series 11. I do not believe, however, it’s fair to say the Doctor only cares about saving rich or historically famous people strictly because they’re the ones who survived in a given episode which was MEANT to focus on them.
|
|
|
Post by scriptortempore on Feb 18, 2020 18:52:37 GMT
Just watched a Youtube Review by Council of Geeks who I follow. He made a very good point which I overlooked on first viewing. What has happened to "I never met a person who was not important" ? The Doctor goes on about how important Percy Shelley is and that his life must be saved, because famous writer. (I admit I have never read anything from the man myself) At the same time, the serving class in the house are basically redshirts and die like flies... This sends pretty mixed messages. So only rich famous people are worth saving, and there is not even a side mention of the servants? What about one of the servant descentants becomes a rich famous person in 500 years time? What worries me more, I am by now so used to servants dying in entertainment, I do not even notice it anymore until pointed out! We seriously need another Sam Gamgee as the glowing hero in a story to rectify this! I think that’s an important point of view to consider, but I also think it could be meant in bad faith, especially since the Eleventh Doctor himself wasn’t saving EVERY servant he met even after he made that comment. That quote was meant in a specific way and I do not believe it should be interpreted to mean every single person the Doctor encounters in the story should be treated with the same weight as the central characters to the story. Not every episode needs to be bogged down with the Doctor lamenting the fact that a few people died just to remind the audience that she does care about their deaths. If the criticism is that the show is focusing too much on humanizing upper class characters over lower class characters, then fair - though I’d counter by pointing to all the numerous occasions that’s been precisely the opposite even since Series 11. I do not believe, however, it’s fair to say the Doctor only cares about saving rich or historically famous people strictly because they’re the ones who survived in a given episode which was MEANT to focus on them. I think a more fruitful way to look at it, rather than focusing on the inconsistencies of what the Doctor says, is to look at it from a shift away from the social history of the pure historicals. Even when historically important figures showed up, they never hogged the limelight, the main focus was on 'ordinary people' during whatever historical period it was. I've always had my suspicions that that was linked to social history enjoying a bit more public consciousness at the time, especially given that you had key members of staff producing the show who were excluded from normal historical narratives, people of colour, women etc. Whereas now Doctor Who is such a British institution that it seems to follow the pretty annoying trend, generally there are of course notable exceptions (fires of Pompeii comes to mind), of time-travel historical series where the protagonist has an adventure with a famous figure and that famous figure is really all that matters. And beyond just this episode, I think it's a shame that who has gone that way and I think expressing dissatisfaction with that change in story-telling is a better, and more productive, way to look at the lack of focus on the servants, rather than debating what the Doctor said. I think people are right to bring up that the posh people HAD to live for this episode to keep in line with history. Nonetheless, I don't think that justifies the pretty non-existent reaction to the servants' death beyond Byron being a tad upset. And on the Doctor's reaction, I think part of that is down to the challenge for 13. She can't save everyone and is faced with moral questions not just in the current situation but in the future. I still think she should've reacted more in the meantime to the servants' death but I think it's understandable why she was a LOT more emotional when debating whether to let Shelly die.
|
|
|
Post by relativetime on Feb 19, 2020 1:19:19 GMT
I think that’s an important point of view to consider, but I also think it could be meant in bad faith, especially since the Eleventh Doctor himself wasn’t saving EVERY servant he met even after he made that comment. That quote was meant in a specific way and I do not believe it should be interpreted to mean every single person the Doctor encounters in the story should be treated with the same weight as the central characters to the story. Not every episode needs to be bogged down with the Doctor lamenting the fact that a few people died just to remind the audience that she does care about their deaths. If the criticism is that the show is focusing too much on humanizing upper class characters over lower class characters, then fair - though I’d counter by pointing to all the numerous occasions that’s been precisely the opposite even since Series 11. I do not believe, however, it’s fair to say the Doctor only cares about saving rich or historically famous people strictly because they’re the ones who survived in a given episode which was MEANT to focus on them. I think a more fruitful way to look at it, rather than focusing on the inconsistencies of what the Doctor says, is to look at it from a shift away from the social history of the pure historicals. Even when historically important figures showed up, they never hogged the limelight, the main focus was on 'ordinary people' during whatever historical period it was. I've always had my suspicions that that was linked to social history enjoying a bit more public consciousness at the time, especially given that you had key members of staff producing the show who were excluded from normal historical narratives, people of colour, women etc. Whereas now Doctor Who is such a British institution that it seems to follow the pretty annoying trend, generally there are of course notable exceptions (fires of Pompeii comes to mind), of time-travel historical series where the protagonist has an adventure with a famous figure and that famous figure is really all that matters. And beyond just this episode, I think it's a shame that who has gone that way and I think expressing dissatisfaction with that change in story-telling is a better, and more productive, way to look at the lack of focus on the servants, rather than debating what the Doctor said. I think people are right to bring up that the posh people HAD to live for this episode to keep in line with history. Nonetheless, I don't think that justifies the pretty non-existent reaction to the servants' death beyond Byron being a tad upset. And on the Doctor's reaction, I think part of that is down to the challenge for 13. She can't save everyone and is faced with moral questions not just in the current situation but in the future. I still think she should've reacted more in the meantime to the servants' death but I think it's understandable why she was a LOT more emotional when debating whether to let Shelly die. Except the Doctor is upset by the servants deaths? I’m not sure what else Jodie Whittaker could have done here - she even mentions how their deaths are important by stating they need to keep history from unraveling FURTHER and that no one should have died that night. The servants are already dead at this point and her friends and a group of people who she knows for certain are important to key historical events are depending on her to save them, so it’s not like making a big moral outrage scene would have added anything whatsoever. Honestly, how quickly she moves on to her next priority and then the bit at the climax feels like the show revisiting some of the themes Capaldi’s Doctor went through in Mummy on the Orient Express. The Doctor’s basically saying in this moment that she has nothing but bad choices - either she gives up Percy and wipes out the future his words helped create and in the process hundreds of lives. Or she doesn’t and everyone dies. Regardless of whether the person she’s trying to save is a famous historical person or not, the point she’s making is that even one life can change the whole fabric of space and time, which is very much consistent with her what she’s been saying since they discovered the bodies of the servants. In any case, involving the servants more in this story would be detrimental to the story this episode was trying to tell in the first place. It would detract attention away from the characters most important to the story and possibly bog the pacing down as well. Keeping them alive makes the threat of the episode less threatening and given the setting of the episode, you can’t kill any of the other characters either. You might as well go with a different setting at that point. I also disagree with this notion that the show’s historical episodes aren’t focusing enough on the ordinary people. Just last season we had Demons of the Punjab, which certainly focused on the ordinary people of the time. Historicals in the show since 2005 have been decided into three categories really - ones that center around a famous person of the past having an adventure with the team; ones that center around the team having an adventure in a past time; and stories where the team becomes involved with the history and people of the time period. Not every episode has to fit into one category or the other and the presence of one of the other types does not mean the show is saying anything against the other types. I do believe the show should trust a historical story to stand up on its own without the involvement of aliens and if there has to be aliens then episodes need to do a good job justifying their presence, but seeing as I believe those elements work splendidly with this episode, that’s not an issue here.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Feb 19, 2020 1:20:33 GMT
Interestingly, this modern TV tendency is completely unlike the 'golden age' detective stories by Christie, Sayers, etc. in which working-class people are very rarely victims. Far better for life expectancy to be a valet or cook in a Christie-era novel than a 'Star Trek' security guard!
To be fair to the Doctor, she'd save everyone if she could, but when the Cyberman attacked before, she wasn't there. And in this story we know the real histories of Mary and her literary 'circle', so they all have to survive; if anyone is going to die for dramatic purposes, it can't be one of them.
Yep, I agree with you 13. I was trying to find a much nicer way of saying "That's BS" and you did it wonderfully. Unfortunately the Doctor can't always save everyone, and in this case the upper class folks HAVE to survive. But that in no way means that the Doctor doesn't think those people important in their own way. (It has the be said that The Doctor sometimes contradicts him/herself anyway. Ten talking to Donna in The Runaway Bride, "Why you? You're not important." (paraphrasing) ) That to me is the mixed message. Not here. The Doctor has to KNOW you're in danger and be available to help, but if not it doesn't mean that character isn't important, in general. Although it may mean that the character isn't important to the ongoing story, or even that that character's death is important to the ongoing story itself. Well, I think The Doctor would know the distinction between someone being "important" - which everyone is, to someone - and "vital to the tapestry of time itself". Fixed points and all that. Just because someone isn't neccessary for the course of history doesn't mean they're not important is what The Doctors saying, surely. In real terms, of course, it's also so we can have peril but without tedious butterfly effect lectures every time someone dies. Imagine The Doctor having to check everyone's descendants to see if they "need" to be saved or not. Two-in-one reply here, hope that's OK Elka & Davy, because your comments combined got me thinking about the question of whether the Doctor knows (or not) if someone is important to the Web of Time, even if they aren't famous in written history. (Agree completely that it's fundamental to the Doctor that all life is important in the unique, individual sense - everyone matters equally, even the most evil people must be given a chance, even the Master is worth saving.)
But in the other sense, does the Doctor know instinctively or only from historical knowledge if someone is 'important'? Remember the 'Star Trek' episode in which Spock checked to see if a US pilot they had accidentally scooped up during a mission to 1968 was 'important' enough to risk putting back, or not. (Exactly what you mentioned the Doctor doesn't seem to need to do Davy.) The conclusion was that personally he wasn't, but his descendant would pilot a critical mission to Mars or somewhere in years to come, so he was important to history after all. And returning him was worth the risk of compromising history with his knowledge of the future.
The Doctors usually seem to have these dilemmas about people known to written history - Rosa Parks, Shakespeare, Ada Lovelace and her dad, kings and queens, Tesla etc. And way back Moris Farhi wrote beautifully about this problem with the death of Alexander in 'Farewell, Great Macedon', didn't he? Always people we all know changed the world one way or another, and we know how they changed it. But in 'Demons of the Punjab', the truth had to be deduced starting from Yaz' knowledge of her family history - and they had to very careful not to interfere with the timelines.
So I don't think the Doctor does 'know', instinctively. He was completely wrong about Donna; to start with she didn't seem 'important' to him as you mentioned Elka, just a typical Brit in a very bad mood at being scooped up from her wedding, as anyone would be! But ultimately she saved worlds because she was with him at the right time and because she was Donna - and he didn't see it coming. Or Lucie at the end of the first series of the 8DAs - he thought she was 'important' to Time but didn't know the reason why. It turned out that Lucie was very important because she's Lucie and amazing! - but someone else was the temporally important one and the Doctor didn't know.
Are there counter-examples where any Doctor does know, instinctively? I think the Doctor wings it most of the time and gets lucky!
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Feb 19, 2020 5:10:05 GMT
Are there counter-examples where any Doctor does know, instinctively? I think the Doctor wings it most of the time and gets lucky! This caught my ear while I was reading that Mickey: You're just making this up as you go along! Tenth Doctor: Yup! -- but I do it brilliantly.(The Age of Steel)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 5:56:03 GMT
Eh. We know from Across the Darkened City that the Time War has impacts on past lives of the Doctor, and from the beginning of The Starship of Theseus that parts of Eight's life have been rewritten by the War. I'm content to handwave the discrepancy away as being a result of the war. I don't think we even need the War given that this story was caused by time being disrupted in the first place. The Doctor even mentions on a few occasions that this isn't what's supposed to be happen. The Alliance sending the Cyberium back in time rewrote history, replacing the Mary's Story+trilogy timeline with the Series 12 one. Simple. And I don't think we really need an explanation for why the Eighth Doctor forgot he'd been there already. I always laugh about our show they can do anything a simple time rewrite and Torchwood never existed now that’s a story am up for 🤪
|
|
|
Post by J.A. Prentice on Feb 19, 2020 6:14:17 GMT
Yep, I agree with you 13. I was trying to find a much nicer way of saying "That's BS" and you did it wonderfully. Unfortunately the Doctor can't always save everyone, and in this case the upper class folks HAVE to survive. But that in no way means that the Doctor doesn't think those people important in their own way. (It has the be said that The Doctor sometimes contradicts him/herself anyway. Ten talking to Donna in The Runaway Bride, "Why you? You're not important." (paraphrasing) ) That to me is the mixed message. Not here. The Doctor has to KNOW you're in danger and be available to help, but if not it doesn't mean that character isn't important, in general. Although it may mean that the character isn't important to the ongoing story, or even that that character's death is important to the ongoing story itself. Well, I think The Doctor would know the distinction between someone being "important" - which everyone is, to someone - and "vital to the tapestry of time itself". Fixed points and all that. Just because someone isn't neccessary for the course of history doesn't mean they're not important is what The Doctors saying, surely. In real terms, of course, it's also so we can have peril but without tedious butterfly effect lectures every time someone dies. Imagine The Doctor having to check everyone's descendants to see if they "need" to be saved or not. Two-in-one reply here, hope that's OK Elka & Davy, because your comments combined got me thinking about the question of whether the Doctor knows (or not) if someone is important to the Web of Time, even if they aren't famous in written history. (Agree completely that it's fundamental to the Doctor that all life is important in the unique, individual sense - everyone matters equally, even the most evil people must be given a chance, even the Master is worth saving.)
But in the other sense, does the Doctor know instinctively or only from historical knowledge if someone is 'important'? Remember the 'Star Trek' episode in which Spock checked to see if a US pilot they had accidentally scooped up during a mission to 1968 was 'important' enough to risk putting back, or not. (Exactly what you mentioned the Doctor doesn't seem to need to do Davy.) The conclusion was that personally he wasn't, but his descendant would pilot a critical mission to Mars or somewhere in years to come, so he was important to history after all. And returning him was worth the risk of compromising history with his knowledge of the future.
The Doctors usually seem to have these dilemmas about people known to written history - Rosa Parks, Shakespeare, Ada Lovelace and her dad, kings and queens, Tesla etc. And way back Moris Farhi wrote beautifully about this problem with the death of Alexander in 'Farewell, Great Macedon', didn't he? Always people we all know changed the world one way or another, and we know how they changed it. But in 'Demons of the Punjab', the truth had to be deduced starting from Yaz' knowledge of her family history - and they had to very careful not to interfere with the timelines.
So I don't think the Doctor does 'know', instinctively. He was completely wrong about Donna; to start with she didn't seem 'important' to him as you mentioned Elka, just a typical Brit in a very bad mood at being scooped up from her wedding, as anyone would be! But ultimately she saved worlds because she was with him at the right time and because she was Donna - and he didn't see it coming. Or Lucie at the end of the first series of the 8DAs - he thought she was 'important' to Time but didn't know the reason why. It turned out that Lucie was very important because she's Lucie and amazing! - but someone else was the temporally important one and the Doctor didn't know.
Are there counter-examples where any Doctor does know, instinctively? I think the Doctor wings it most of the time and gets lucky! The Doctor's instinctive knowledge of the Web of Time is like their instinctive recognition of other Time Lords – it's there when the plot requires it and gone when it would spoil a good reveal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 17:56:41 GMT
^ Exactly. Plot contrivance....but when the plot is interesting the audience give you a pass. I mean, The Ruth Doctor and Jodie could have just compared who they regenerated from and whatnot and we'd have gotten answers...but the plot of the show is that answers come later. So they didn't!
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Feb 19, 2020 18:22:46 GMT
The Doctor's instinctive knowledge of the Web of Time is like their instinctive recognition of other Time Lords – it's there when the plot requires it and gone when it would spoil a good reveal. This is a perfect example of continuity in action!
Just like my personal Golden Rule of Continuity: All TV/BF continuity is valid and must be defended (A) if I like it and (B) until a contradictory idea I like more comes along. Continuity changes I don't like, never happened.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 19:14:12 GMT
Sadly for me, I can't see these final episodes live, so avoiding spoilers over the next couple of weeks is going to be a cow.
Anyway, The Haunting of Villa Diodati was absolutely, absolutely, absolutely superb on every level. I kind of wished Captain Jack had met Byron - imagine the flirtation!
Frankenstein is my favourite piece of fiction, and Doctor Who is my favourite (only) television show, so having them combine could have been a crushing disappointment. And it really wasn't. There was no obvious 'The Doctor inspires Shelley to write 'Frankenstein''; this was far more interesting than that - although there were momentary echoes (a lot of which were turned on their head - appealing to 'the monster's humanity for a start). The lighting, direction, acting, script and Segun's always monumental music ensured that this was truly frightening. A word too for Patrick O'Kane as Ashad: what a fantastic performance. The full-on horror treatement which would have had me firmly entrenched behind the sofa as a youngster.
With all due reverance to Series 11, which I enjoyed, did anyone watching The Tsuranga Conundrum or The Battle of Ranskoor Av Kolos (for example) at the time imagine the show would be this consistently brilliant the following series? I'm not sure I did. This is probably my favourite series since the show came back - my previous, Series 10, had a few duff middle episodes that dragged it down a bit. But this run, even the much maligned Orphan 55, has been utterly wonderful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 19:48:31 GMT
^ Exactly. Plot contrivance....but when the plot is interesting the audience give you a pass. I mean, The Ruth Doctor and Jodie could have just compared who they regenerated from and whatnot and we'd have gotten answers...but the plot of the show is that answers come later. So they didn't! So much seems to be a simple case of 'making it up as you go along'. Don't get hung up on past writers works. Keen viewers/listeners will slot things into established continuity one way or another. In the past it seemed to be a simple case of a writer watching or reading up on a returning villain or characters first and/or most recent past appearance and making a cursory reference and hey presto, fans had a classic series 'story arc'. Of sorts. I'm amazed when I read some threads on this forum, where we can learn more of the likes of Dark Shadows, 7DA, 8DA or Torchwood, with Novels, Audio and TV, being all placed in running order of continuity by keen fans. Somebody's got to do it, i guess.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Feb 20, 2020 0:38:05 GMT
^ Exactly. Plot contrivance....but when the plot is interesting the audience give you a pass. I mean, The Ruth Doctor and Jodie could have just compared who they regenerated from and whatnot and we'd have gotten answers...but the plot of the show is that answers come later. So they didn't! So much seems to be a simple case of 'making it up as you go along'. Don't get hung up on past writers works. Keen viewers/listeners will slot things into established continuity one way or another. In the past it seemed to be a simple case of a writer watching or reading up on a returning villain or characters first and/or most recent past appearance and making a cursory reference and hey presto, fans had a classic series 'story arc'. Of sorts. I'm amazed when I read some threads on this forum, where we can learn more of the likes of Dark Shadows, 7DA, 8DA or Torchwood, with Novels, Audio and TV, being all placed in running order of continuity by keen fans. Somebody's got to do it, i guess. Impressive isn't it? Feats of knowledge and organisation which leave me amazed too - I wouldn't have a clue where to even start!
|
|