Doctor Who [7]

To be filed under incredible but true-

"Tributes have been paid to Doctor Who in the House of Lords, the upper house of the UK Parliament.
Baroness Grender, in her maiden speech, referred to Doctor Who and its record breaking weekend.....following the amazing weekend marking the 50th anniversary of Doctor Who. Simulcast in 94 countries, setting a Guinness world record, with record-breaking figures in America, it was event TV drama at its best, delivered around the globe. That thrill of seeing all the Doctors saving Gallifrey is something my eight year-old son will remember until the 100th anniversary.
Lord Birt, former BBC Director General John Birt, also paid tribute to The Doctor. Our comic, eccentric and very British superhero, Doctor Who, who rightly has been much mentioned today, reached 50 last Saturday with a near-simultaneous broadcast in 94 different countries, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned. Nothing like that has ever happened before.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble mentioned the weekend global simulcast.
In closing the debate Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury looked back to the past and directed a question directly at Lord Grade, previous Director of Programmes at the BBC Michael Grade. Finally, as Doctor Who has dominated the debate and I see my noble friend Lord Grade in his seat, I cannot resist wondering whether, had he known that Sylvester McCoy would regenerate into John Hurt, he would still have cancelled the programme? I beg to move."

At the closing line.

I wonder if it is a case of Petty speaking Man and Figgy speaking Woman. Intentional or not, I too hear «my sources can beat up your sources, nyah!» in Petty's replies. {{Sorry Petty...}}

I liked the geekiness text you posted.

Ugh, posting from the phone is so much woooork...

I too hear «my sources can beat up your sources, nyah!» in Petty's replies.- Amarie

Not sure how you get that Amarie as my whole point was to say there is NO point in just throwing quotes and sources at one another as thats not debate, nor our own words.
I have been saying the complete opposite of what you appear to be reading into it.

And now you're doing the same to me. I'm fairly certain Figgy understood me just fine. ((maybe.))

You will really will have to clarify this one in simple steps for me Amarie- from my point of view you first accuse me of a-

«my sources can beat up your sources, nyah!» mentality

when I respond by saying I was stating the opposite of that, which I was, you return with

"And now you're doing the same to me"

 

Amarië wrote:I wonder if it is a case of Petty speaking Man and Figgy speaking Woman. Intentional or not, I too hear «my sources can beat up your sources, nyah!» in Petty's replies. {{Sorry Petty...}}

I liked the geekiness text you posted.

Ugh, posting from the phone is so much woooork...

yes I do understand

the geekiness text is from someone I respect who I have been reading for years, not just dredged up from the internet like Petty unpleasantly insinuated. ((Its funny how my texts are unworthy but his are ok isnt it?))) The blogger, who I have corresponded with, has some very wise things to say about a lot of subjects.
 

not just dredged up from the internet like Petty unpleasantly insinuated- Mrs Figg

Thats not what I said, what I said was -

"or we to descend to scouring the net for blogs supporting our respective positions?"

You will note the plural 'we' there- I was saying that if we only post as our arguments entire articles written by other people that the debate descends into meaninglessness. I never mentioned you dredging up anything, nor was it said with any intended  unpleasantness.

Disagree with me, whatever you like, but dont put words in my mouth just to make me out as some unpleasant bad guy who is bullying you.

what utter codswallop

So now just straight abuse?

how can Walloping Cods be abuse?

{{{They are so cute aren't they.  

Now, why do I have the feeling that if we could only get them to a church they would live happily ever after? }}}

 

I'd need to very drunk... for the next 30 years (at which point by Scottish tradition I drop down dead from heart failure, lung cancer or liver failure)

Oh, dear. So much bickering.
Let me lend an ear and a bit of opinion here, perhaps it'll settle things a bit.

I began with Dr. Who during Tom Baker's era, and I watched every ep through Sylvie McCoy. I liked the Hollywood Who with Paul McGann, and sorrowed that he wasn't able to play him other than on audio.
I did attempt to watch all of the available newer Who eps, but sadly, it's hard to keep up here in the US - and I lost track of where we were, which Doc was doing what, and it became quite a muddle.

Fast forward to two nights ago, when I saw the teaser for The Day of The Doctor.
I crowed with delight.
Getting to see Karn again, and the Sisterhood! YES! They are my favorite aliens...the campiness of Tom Baker's era, brought back to life (with very crappy costumes, I might add. The head-dresses in Tom Baker's Karn were delightful, and so was the makeup) but anyway, and to be treated to Paul McGann, again as the Doctor?! Sheer delight! And to end it with a vision of young John Hurt? I was excited, to say the least.

I searched for Day of The Doctor as soon as I knew it was available.
I liked it - that's not to say loved, it - certainly bringing back old aliens can be easy, but in my mind, a little fruitless. Nevermind that, it's trivial.

Bring up the Time War, and introducing John as the missing Doctor - now that was brilliant. Somehow I wish that he had the chance to play the Doctor in less trying times, to be able to see the sheer genius that he could have brought to the role. I guess it was good enough for me to see him as The Doctor at least once, However short a time it was. I very much liked the solution to the loss of Galifrey. And of course I loved seeing Tom Baker again.

You know, it's funny watching the older actors - do you notice how they eat up the camera, how their every move is precise, broad, totally personal? I don't see that as often with the newer actors. Paul McGann seems to have a little of it, but - look at the way Tom Baker chews his lines - how John Hurt flashes his eyes... and suddenly time seems to stand still? I recently watched an acting class with Michael Caine, and he explained the subtle differences that can be made by an actor who is wholly absorbed in his role, from the way he holds his body to the way he delivers his lines. Sometimes slower is better.

Anyway, I had no trouble following the ep and felt as though it had really been written for us older folks. It certainly gave me hope that Doctor Who will be open to working with more classical actors, and hopefully, drawing in some very special talent in the near future.

I began with Dr. Who during Tom Baker's era- Yavanna

Baker was my Doctor too. For most of my childhood.

And I agree the whole Karn thing and Sisterhood was brilliant to bring back in. I reay enjoyed everything in that minisode. Probably the best minisode Who has done yet.

"certainly bringing back old aliens can be easy, but in my mind, a little fruitless."

I think its justified for the 50th in particular, but even in general- TD vrought back the Daleks, Cybermen, Autons, Rachni, Davros and others, Moffat has brought back Ice Warriors and now Zygons (still hoping for Yeti's).
Although on a related topic I think in the new monster stakes with potential for classic status Moffat has the lead- RTD gave us Slitheen, Moffat gave us weeping Angels, RTD gave us the Absorbathon, Moffat gave us the Silence.

"I very much liked the solution to the loss of Galifrey."

Me too, both narratively but more importantly for restoring the Doctor to his classic status as the man who helps.

"it's funny watching the older actors - do you notice how they eat up the camera, how their every move is precise, broad, totally personal? I don't see that as often with the newer actors."

I think Capaldi might give us this sort of Doctor performance, ore so than his recent predecessors, although he could be quite manic at time sin his body language as Malcolm Tucker.
And I wouldn't be surprised given how Moffat tees things up, if the War Doctors chastising of his younger selves for their mannerism, and use of sonics was not to prepare the ground by way of a reminder of other ways the doctor can be played.

"felt as though it had really been written for us older folks"

I feel you certainly get a lot more out of it if you were also a fan of classic. There are just so many nods, references and stylistic cues from classic throughout that for someone who only knows NuWho a lot would obviously go over their head. But then it was a celebration of 50 years.

Glad you overall enjoyed it though.
I found it also improves with repeat viewings as more subtleties become apparent (I missed the connection between Elizabeths the Firsts letter to the Doctor and the Curator first time through for example).

On a side thought- I love the circular existence of the fez- 11 gets it from the Under Gallery display, he throws it in to the Time rift where 10 gets it in Elizabethan times. 10 joins 11 and throws the fez back into the rift- it comes out on Galllfrey and to the War Doctor, he brings it back to Elizabethan England where they are taken prisoner, the fez falls into the possession of Queen Elizabeth and ends up in the Under Gallery in a display, where the 11th Doctor finds it, and so on and on. Its a Time-wimey fez!  

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I too hear «my sources can beat up your sources, nyah!» in Petty's replies.- Amarie

Not sure how you get that Amarie as my whole point was to say there is NO point in just throwing quotes and sources at one another as thats not debate, nor our own words.
I have been saying the complete opposite of what you appear to be reading into it.

If I may, I think the point is that Mrs Figg has quite clearly stated she does NOT want to debate you or anybody else. She just wants to log her opinion on the thread and move on. I expect she'd be open to a civil discussion about the differences of opinion as long as nobody is expecting her to change her position. But debate tactics are often by their nature a bit personal, and that's clearly hurtful to her.

If she posts the opinion of somebody else she agrees with from time to time, what's wrong with that?  I think many of us do that when we see something we want to share with our friends here.

I know you'd love nothing better than a good sparring partner, Petty. But I think it's clear the Mrs Figg doesn't want to play.

Edit: When you two spar on other topics it's often silly and fun, the emphasis being on wit rather than winning. But for some reason the Who discussions quickly turn lethal,( and frankly a bit boring). Not sure why..... 

Mrs Figg has quite clearly stated she does NOT want to debate you or anybody else. She just wants to log her opinion on the thread and move on.- David

The post in question she made as a response to someone elses post (which she quotes at the start so it is clear it is a response) so it was already part of a debate and deployed in the debate as a debating point by Mrs Figg.
It was in my view therefore fair enough to comment upon within the context of the ongoing debate.

"If she posts the opinion of somebody else she agrees with from time to time, what's wrong with that?"

Nothing at all, but as I just noted that was not the case here, it was part of and in response to an ongoing discussion.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

The post in question she made as a response to someone elses post (which she quotes at the start so it is clear it is a response) so it was already part of a debate and deployed in the debate as a debating point by Mrs Figg.
It was in my view therefore fair enough to comment upon within the context of the ongoing debate.

"If she posts the opinion of somebody else she agrees with from time to time, what's wrong with that?"

Nothing at all, but as I just noted that was not the case here, it was part of and in response to an ongoing discussion.

You don't seem to be making any distinction between debate and discussion. To me the first is by its nature adversarial, the second is often collaborative. Your thoughts?

ok firstly I want to apologize for being antagonistic to Petty.

I have been wondering why here on the Who thread (as Dave rightly says) I really get steamed up over seemingly nothing.
I think its because I genuinely believe that Moffat is peddling and perpetuating some dangerous rubbish about women. Subtlely obviously, and under the disguise of a fun family programme which makes it all the more dangerous for very young people who's minds are being shaped by all this sublimmywotsit information.
I get mad at Petty because I think he should see through it and not be falling for it. But this is me projecting on him my expectations and that is not fair or sensible. He loves Moffat end of story, (although the constant slighting of RTD to puff up Moffat is wearing a bit thin).

So sorry about the boring bickering, I mean that. I will try to stop it.  

As to Moffat I think he is basically projecting his views and is writing about himself when he writes Doctor episodes, Moffat is the genius cool guy with the bowtie (cos its cool) Moffat is the guy who thinks women should be feisty(becuse its cool). All this sociopathic genius/inability to relate to normal women schtick works brilliantly in Sherlock, because Sherlock is all of those things, its intrinsic to his character and all the clever twisty timey confusing things is fundamental to the show. When it comes to the Doctor however its wrong when it comes to the women thing, the Doctor is alien but he is sometimes more human than Sherlock, he can be dangerous and cold but he is also compassionate and never ever would he have gone through all the River/Amy drivel which is shockingly bad. Thats all Moffat projecting himself and it makes me mad. So in future as Dave said when I comment about the show, its just me commenting, I dont mind AT ALL people commenting back and saying they dont agree, but I dont want to have to justify and qualify everything, or get a challenge based on refuting my argument. If you dont agree with me thats fine but I dont like it when I am told my argument is silly or risible or ridiculous, that would irritate anyone. Not on Who, everywhere else its ok, arguing about PJ is more of a level playing field as I believe PJ is not a pernicious sexist, he is just a bit egotistical about his art like some showbizzy film people are.

You don't seem to be making any distinction between debate and discussion.- David

I dont, to me they are just two different words for the same thing.

Mrs Figg I have no desire to be belligerent, and especially not to make you feel in anyway bullied, so I accept you apology and offer my own if I have offended. Sorry.

On the matter of sexism, I really dont see it. And if he was such an obvious sexist why would the shows female Producer, all its actresses and all the many other females who contribute to the show behind the scenes work so hard just to do down their own sex and produce a blatantly sexist show? I dont get it and I don't see it in his writing or characters.

As I mentioned before the great irony of these accusations to me is that Moffat made his name (and garnered a lot of praise at the time from actresses and groups representing women) as a writer of strong female characters playing roles usually reserved for male leads. For him now he is famous to be accused of the exact opposite is, interesting.

The Doctors Dream- from the end of Day of the Doctor-

Spoiler:

Retconning the Time War

I wanted to take a look at the Time War in NuWho- much has been said already here about what Moffat has chosen to do and how it alters what has gone before.
But thats not what I want to highlight.
What I want to highlight is that this is not the first time it has been dramatically changed from what we were told- the first person to do that was RTD.

In the time of the 9th Doctor the Time War is presented as a 'War for all Creation', one which the Time Lords lost.
Thats important- they lost before the Doctor used the Moment.

10- "There was a war, between my people and a race called the Daleks. A war for all creation, and we lost."

In the original concept as presented the Doctor uses the Moment, wiping out both sides solely to stop the Daleks, who having taken Gallifrey would now be free to pile through time and space in their billions destroying every other sentient race until only Daleks are left.
That is the choice he has to make, he is destroying the Daleks, the tragedy is there is no way to do so  without also killing all his own people (at least those still alive which would have been the general populace- remember Gallifreyeans are not Time Lords, Time Lords are Gallifreyeans who have gone through the Academy training to become Time Lords).

Dalek: I demand orders!
9th Doctor: They're never gonna come! Your race is dead. You all burned—all of you. Ten million ships on fire. The entire Dalek race, wiped out in one second.
Dalek: You lie!
9th Doctor: I watched it happen. I made it happen.
Dalek: You destroyed us?
9th Doctor: I had no choice.
Dalek: And what of the Time Lords?
9th Doctor: Dead. They burned with you. The end of the last great Time War.



Nowhere up until End of Time is there any mention of evil Time Lords, or corruption or any of that stuff.
The set up was simple, the Daleks had won, the Doctor had to use the Moment to stop them, it wiped out everyone. He sacrificed his own race to save everyone else's.

The retcon- and its really quite clumsy comes in End of Time, when 10 tells Wilf the Time Lords are returning Wilf quite rightly sees this as a good thing- afterall there is nothing in NuWho up to this point to indicate it wouldn't be.

Wilfred: But I've heard you talk about your people like they're wonderful.

And then 10 says this-

"That's how I choose to remember them. "

And then the Time War is completely rewritten- now the Daleks no longer won, and the Doctor no longer sacrificed his own people to stop the Daleks.
Now the Time Lords are just as bad as the Daleks and have an evil plan to save themselves whilst destroying the universe in the process and must be stopped, and we are told this was really th ereaosn the Doctor used the Moment, not the Daleks at all.
Its a complete rewrite of the Time War, and why the Doctor did as he did.
This Doctor apparently knowingly wiped out all the civilians on Gallifrey- to stop their mad governemnt- bit like wiping out everyone in Nazi Germany  as a solution to stopping the Nazi party.
It undermines entirely the original concept of the Time War and the Doctors role in it. As well as, IMO, removing any sort of justification the Doctor might have originally had for doing it.
Now he is just someone who wiped everyone out for essentially politics- Gallifrey wasnt defeated, they might even still have won, the Daleks werent poised to take the universe and in those circumstances the only thing the Doctor could think to do was destroy everyone?

In many ways Moffat actually reconciles these two alternate versions RTD created- in Day we see the Fall of Arcadia and its pretty clear the capital city is soon going to follow, they are about to lose- which fits with the original premise.
And he solves the problem of the Doctor committing genocide on two races over the government of the day by restoring the desperation of the situation militarily, reinforcing the idea they lost the War and by having the Doctor find a way t be the Doctor by saving the innocents.

Ahh, PT, wonderful post you wrote there.

On an off note, I was curious to check out a convention that happened in my area and I didn't get to go to because I was volunteering for a benefit at the time.
I found this piccy:

I often go to Stony Brook ICON and attend the "after party" at the local Holiday In,, but this year due to budget constraints, they made it a Dr. Who con, and invited Sylvie, who is just a wonderful conversationalist, and a genuinely warm person.
I've discussed everything from Who to personal family problems with him over a pint, and was sad to have missed his visit this year.
BUT!
They have a lovely audio interview with him:


You can tell what fun it is to talk with him as he gives a slightly different perspective on everything that he's done and is doing. Pity the interview couldn't have been longer! Enjoy...! I'm still looking for more pictures of him there.

I am sure Yavanna I have seen a youtube interview taken at that convention- he is wearing the same clothes.