Review - The End of Time Part II
pbo...@aol.com
after being persuaded to rewatch it I revised my opinion upwards on
second viewing (though on third, watching it as a lead-in to part two,
I was sorely tempted to fastforward in more than a few places).
Will the same happen with part two, I wonder? I very much doubt it,
and frankly I hope no one comes up with glowing reviews of part two to
make me doubt my judgment, because I really, really, REALLY don't want
to have to watch this episode again. Ever. And I say that as someone
who's given Fear Her several runthroughs while rewatching the series
as a whole over the years.
Okay, it's not as downright *bad* as Fear Her - nothing I've seen in
Who is. And I've seen Delta and the Bannermen. But it has so many
embarrassing, horrible moments that I find it hard to decide whether
giving Donna the winning lottery ticket is cheesier than all the
plagiarised movie scenes, from the Star Walls laser practice to
Mission Impossible gatecrashing, or if even those are worse than a
much-loved Doctor's last words being a petulant "I don't want to go".
At least there's no contest for Worst Scene Ever - the Doctor throwing
a tantrum because he has to save Wilf ... rather, that *would* be the
Worst Scene Ever if it hadn't been for the Doctor playing matchmaker
for Captain Jack. But then that pales into significance beside ... no,
actually, that's it. There *is* no worse scene than that. Very
possibly this is true even considering the entire scope of Dr Who
history.
Anyway, I'd better start from the beginning - if I can find it, given
that this episode has a longer, duller ending than Return of the King
(the entire film, that is). And, given how my impressions of part one
changed, I deliberately went into this without looking for things to
pick apart in the subsequent review, just to enjoy the whole silly
spectacle.
The first scene, extended past the bit in the 'exclusive scene', is
actually mostly okay - the only thing that grates is the Magic
Gauntlet bit and the complete indifference of the other Time Lords to
the fact that their leader randomly murdered someone. As with last
week's Master effects, this proved once again to be entirely
unnecessary, making Dalton's character even more unsubtly villainous
than his Evil Megalomaniac(TM) delivery already indicated and thus
less interesting. Which is a shame because otherwise the Gallifrey
scenes generally were okay (though why was the planet covered in what
seemed to be baby Dalek saucers?) The link with the Master was
explained as well as it could have been in the circumstances, although
using him as a homing beacon doesn't really explain why the drums
sounded louder *to him* as the Time Lords got closer - surely the
reverse should have been true?
Oh, and a tip, RTD - if you have a McGuffin you want people to talk
about in reverential, portentous terms, give it a less laughable name
than "white point star".
As for the Master, he's rather sidelined this time round - his
billions of Masters weren't much more than a cliffhanger ending, and
are done away pretty much as an afterthought - all they're there for
is to give the Master slaves, which is surely the very *last* thing
all those billions of Masters would be? If they're all the Master,
surely they'd be busy backstabbing one another and trying to grab
power for themselves at the expense of the others.
I was surprised the Vinvochi had such a large role in this story - for
a start, I expected them to be the expendable ones showing just what a
dangerous threat had been unleashed, rather like the Tritovores in
Planet of the Dead. Well, that and they're personality-less effeminate
cacti. If they were just interested in buggering off, why go to the
trouble of saving the Doctor and Wilf anyway? No doubt kids will love
the rescue sequence, but even with his pop culture leanings I have a
hard time seeing the Doctor uttering the phrase "Worst ... rescue ...
ever!" Their ship was cute, in a "We took Starbug from Red Dwarf and
made it more angular" way, but why was it apparently powered by
hydraulics and looking generally like the inside of an industrial
estate within? Is this a homage to the reference to steampunk
spaceships in Tooth & Claw? It's pretty much the only episode that
*wasn't* referenced in that overly self-indulgent end sequence, after
all.
Anyway, that's pretty much the story - Time Lords at the beginning, a
lot of time sitting on a spaceship doing nothing followed by an overly-
long blockbuster ripoff effects sequence, followed by the Doctor
revolving interminably while pointing a pistol at people (why not
shoot whatever the explody thing behind the Master was at the start?)
as a giant planet (is Gallifrey meant to be tha big?) appears and
implausibly fails to perturb the Earth even slightly despite being
only a few metres overhead, followed by several hours of ending.
Donna's foreshadowed recollections come to nothing, just an effect
that sends her to sleep until the end of the episode, and she gets no
new goodbye with the Doctor (probably for the best, since her last
would have been hard to top)
Of course, this is Tennant's finale, so something needs to be said
about his regeneration sequence - and never in Who history has a
regeneration taken so long (well, except for the gap between Stolen
Earth and Journey's End, when the regeneration took a whole week - no,
actually, a week was shorter than this). The Doctor throwing tantrums
and the extended endings are so bad that it's easy (or at least
desirable) to block the whole thing from one's mind, but let's look
briefly at what prompted the regeneration. The Doctor absorbed a huge
quantity of radiation (hang on, wasn't that what he did last time? The
last real time, that is) to save Wilf. Hooray! An admirable, suitable
end for our hero, surely?
Well, sadly, he even screws this up. He has to save Wilf because Wilf
bumbled into a cupboard for no terribly good reason - if he'd been
forced in there, fine, a noble and heroic act of self-sacrifice (or it
would be if not preceded by an uncharacteristic tantrum whining about
how unimportant Wilf is and how the Doctor's so much more deserving,
and how grudgingly he saves Wilf at all), but no, he does it because
Wilf's a clumsy twit who got himself in trouble. And why on Earth does
his regeneration destroy the TARDIS, other than to give Moffatt a
chance to rebuild it? And, since he knows his regenerations tend to go
wrong, why does he regenerate while flying the thing through space
instead of with it quietly parked somewhere?
Onto the ending(s), insofar as I haven't already mentioned them. The
nod to Human Nature was actually a nice touch - there was no rhyme or
reason to change who Martha was married to except to get an excuse to
squeeze Mickey in, and RTD characteristically overdoses on returning
aliens, with reappearances from every recurring alien in the show's
recent history except the Cybermen and Daleks - and the Hath too,
which now officially makes them a recurring alien, I suppose (well, I
quite liked them). But are Martha and Luke really so accident-prone
that the Doctor shows up at random points and has to save them? It's a
shame, too, that RTD couldn't find a way to include K-9 in the goodbye
sequence - I think that makes him the only recurring companion, other
than Pete Tyler (who's got the excuse of being (a) dead and (b) in a
parallel universe, if he even counts as a companion) from the current
series not to show up for the Big Goodbye.
This leaves only one thing - the 11th Doctor. It's hard to gauge Matt
Smith here - he seems to be trying too hard to match Tennant's mania
to get a feel for who his character is, save that he seems to have
crossed Tennant's hyperactivity with Davison's absent-mindedness.
Shame about the change of costume - he looks good in Tennant's suit! I
did enjoy RTD's pokes at his appearance, and while he needs to tone
his act down a bit for the regular series, I found him more
immediately engaging than Tennant, who I took an episode or three to
get used to.
So, where does this leave Moffatt? We're told time and again that he
wants a clean slate, but the Time Lords are still gone, he still needs
to find a way to bring Davros and the Daleks back (and in the case of
the Daleks he's got to do so in all of one episode...), and as far as
we know the Master is still out there living with the consequences of
his failed resurrection, and presumably eating people to do so, since
he exited stage left with no one batting an eyelid or even thinking to
ask where he'd gone (told you he was sidelined in this episode).
Still, RTD's done Moffatt a favour - after this outing, the only way
the show can go is up.
Phil
The Doctor
RTD is terrible at closings.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
Merry Christmas 2009 and Happy New Year 2010
dbf
<127855cb-c4e4-4b42...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
"pbo...@aol.com" <pbo...@aol.com> wrote:
> Smith here - he seems to be trying too hard to match Tennant's mania
> to get a feel for who his character is, save that he seems to have
> crossed Tennant's hyperactivity with Davison's absent-mindedness.
He did just regenerate!
Soze
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:127855cb-c4e4-4b42...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> Well, I was pretty scathing in my original review of part one, but
> after being persuaded to rewatch it I revised my opinion upwards on
> second viewing (though on third, watching it as a lead-in to part two,
> I was sorely tempted to fastforward in more than a few places).
>
> Will the same happen with part two, I wonder? I very much doubt it,
> and frankly I hope no one comes up with glowing reviews of part two to
> make me doubt my judgment, because I really, really, REALLY don't want
> to have to watch this episode again. Ever. And I say that as someone
> who's given Fear Her several runthroughs while rewatching the series
> as a whole over the years.
Best you steer clear of the Gallifrey Base forums then. Out of just over
1,100 voters in the `rate the episode` section 90% of them have given it at
least a 7/10...with 45% having given it full marks.
> Okay, it's not as downright *bad* as Fear Her - nothing I've seen in
> Who is. And I've seen Delta and the Bannermen. But it has so many
> embarrassing, horrible moments that I find it hard to decide whether
> giving Donna the winning lottery ticket is cheesier than all the
> plagiarised movie scenes, from the Star Walls laser practice to
> Mission Impossible gatecrashing, or if even those are worse than a
> much-loved Doctor's last words being a petulant "I don't want to go".
> At least there's no contest for Worst Scene Ever - the Doctor throwing
> a tantrum because he has to save Wilf ... rather, that *would* be the
> Worst Scene Ever if it hadn't been for the Doctor playing matchmaker
> for Captain Jack. But then that pales into significance beside ... no,
> actually, that's it. There *is* no worse scene than that. Very
> possibly this is true even considering the entire scope of Dr Who
> history.
Actually I thought the Cribbens / Tennant scenes were brilliant, the
highlight of the story. The Jack at the bar thing was bloody awful though.
> Anyway, I'd better start from the beginning - if I can find it, given
> that this episode has a longer, duller ending than Return of the King
> (the entire film, that is). And, given how my impressions of part one
> changed, I deliberately went into this without looking for things to
> pick apart in the subsequent review, just to enjoy the whole silly
> spectacle.
I just *knew* someone would mention Return of the King!!
> The first scene, extended past the bit in the 'exclusive scene', is
> actually mostly okay - the only thing that grates is the Magic
> Gauntlet bit and the complete indifference of the other Time Lords to
> the fact that their leader randomly murdered someone. As with last
> week's Master effects, this proved once again to be entirely
> unnecessary, making Dalton's character even more unsubtly villainous
> than his Evil Megalomaniac(TM) delivery already indicated and thus
> less interesting. Which is a shame because otherwise the Gallifrey
> scenes generally were okay (though why was the planet covered in what
> seemed to be baby Dalek saucers?) The link with the Master was
> explained as well as it could have been in the circumstances, although
> using him as a homing beacon doesn't really explain why the drums
> sounded louder *to him* as the Time Lords got closer - surely the
> reverse should have been true?
I liked the Gallifrey scenes, the only thing that didn`t work for me was the
mad old prophet woman who looked and sounded silly. I thought we got a
pretty good reason for explaining why the Time Lords have gone barmy and
personally I thought Dalton was terrific!
> Oh, and a tip, RTD - if you have a McGuffin you want people to talk
> about in reverential, portentous terms, give it a less laughable name
> than "white point star".
>
> As for the Master, he's rather sidelined this time round - his
> billions of Masters weren't much more than a cliffhanger ending, and
> are done away pretty much as an afterthought - all they're there for
> is to give the Master slaves, which is surely the very *last* thing
> all those billions of Masters would be? If they're all the Master,
> surely they'd be busy backstabbing one another and trying to grab
> power for themselves at the expense of the others.
I saw them as kind of subsections of his main persona...that they were all
part of his mind obeying instructions from the `master` Master so to speak.
> I was surprised the Vinvochi had such a large role in this story - for
> a start, I expected them to be the expendable ones showing just what a
> dangerous threat had been unleashed, rather like the Tritovores in
> Planet of the Dead. Well, that and they're personality-less effeminate
> cacti. If they were just interested in buggering off, why go to the
> trouble of saving the Doctor and Wilf anyway? No doubt kids will love
> the rescue sequence, but even with his pop culture leanings I have a
> hard time seeing the Doctor uttering the phrase "Worst ... rescue ...
> ever!" Their ship was cute, in a "We took Starbug from Red Dwarf and
> made it more angular" way, but why was it apparently powered by
> hydraulics and looking generally like the inside of an industrial
> estate within? Is this a homage to the reference to steampunk
> spaceships in Tooth & Claw? It's pretty much the only episode that
> *wasn't* referenced in that overly self-indulgent end sequence, after
> all.
I didn`t like any of that stuff, the Vinvochi were rubbish and I hated that
spaceship / missile flight. Although I concede it was a scene the kids would
probably have found fun.
> Anyway, that's pretty much the story - Time Lords at the beginning, a
> lot of time sitting on a spaceship doing nothing followed by an overly-
> long blockbuster ripoff effects sequence, followed by the Doctor
> revolving interminably while pointing a pistol at people (why not
> shoot whatever the explody thing behind the Master was at the start?)
I said as much somewhere else...and why exactly did shooting that machine
resolve the problem?
> as a giant planet (is Gallifrey meant to be tha big?)
I don`t think the size of Gallifrey has ever been mentioned...there`s no
reason why it *shouldn`t* be that big...that does seem a slightly nitpicky
crititcism!!
> appears and
> implausibly fails to perturb the Earth even slightly despite being
> only a few metres overhead, followed by several hours of ending.
The Vinvochi do mention that it will affect the Earth`s orbit but no
explanation is given for why it isn`t already...in all honesty science has
never been a strong point in the RTD years so that was something I was
prepared to go with. After all, if we can have planets being towed through
space by a spaceship than anything goes!
> Donna's foreshadowed recollections come to nothing, just an effect
> that sends her to sleep until the end of the episode, and she gets no
> new goodbye with the Doctor (probably for the best, since her last
> would have been hard to top)
Why didn`t one of the other Masters go and get her at this point? I know the
4 or 5 that were there at the time fell to their arses but there would have
been plenty of others who could have gone and dealt with her afterwards.
> Of course, this is Tennant's finale, so something needs to be said
> about his regeneration sequence - and never in Who history has a
> regeneration taken so long (well, except for the gap between Stolen
> Earth and Journey's End, when the regeneration took a whole week - no,
> actually, a week was shorter than this). The Doctor throwing tantrums
> and the extended endings are so bad that it's easy (or at least
> desirable) to block the whole thing from one's mind, but let's look
> briefly at what prompted the regeneration. The Doctor absorbed a huge
> quantity of radiation (hang on, wasn't that what he did last time? The
> last real time, that is) to save Wilf. Hooray! An admirable, suitable
> end for our hero, surely?
>
> Well, sadly, he even screws this up. He has to save Wilf because Wilf
> bumbled into a cupboard for no terribly good reason - if he'd been
> forced in there, fine, a noble and heroic act of self-sacrifice (or it
> would be if not preceded by an uncharacteristic tantrum whining about
> how unimportant Wilf is and how the Doctor's so much more deserving,
> and how grudgingly he saves Wilf at all), but no, he does it because
> Wilf's a clumsy twit who got himself in trouble.
I loved that part of it myself. I honestly thought the whole scene from the
Doctor hearing Wilf knocking to him leaving the booth and starting to
regenerate were brilliant. Everyone expected the 10th Doctor to go out
rescuing humanity, destroying the Master, saving the world or some such yet
here we have him sacrificing himself for the life of one old man he`s come
to love and respect. It was a great scene, found it quite moving. I didn`t
get the feeling that he begrudged saving Wilf ( "it`ll ba an honour" ), just
that he was angry at the way fate had mocked him. There was never any
question the Doctor would give himself up to save Wilf...and that, to me, is
very much in character with the 10th Doctor ( and most of the others ).
> And why on Earth does
> his regeneration destroy the TARDIS, other than to give Moffatt a
> chance to rebuild it? And, since he knows his regenerations tend to go
> wrong, why does he regenerate while flying the thing through space
> instead of with it quietly parked somewhere?
Good points...I`m hoping we don`t get such a prolonged regeneration for
Smith, with no other recurring characters I`m guessing we`ll see him fairly
stable quickly.
> Onto the ending(s), insofar as I haven't already mentioned them. The
> nod to Human Nature was actually a nice touch - there was no rhyme or
> reason to change who Martha was married to except to get an excuse to
> squeeze Mickey in, and RTD characteristically overdoses on returning
> aliens, with reappearances from every recurring alien in the show's
> recent history except the Cybermen and Daleks - and the Hath too,
> which now officially makes them a recurring alien, I suppose (well, I
> quite liked them). But are Martha and Luke really so accident-prone
> that the Doctor shows up at random points and has to save them? It's a
> shame, too, that RTD couldn't find a way to include K-9 in the goodbye
> sequence - I think that makes him the only recurring companion, other
> than Pete Tyler (who's got the excuse of being (a) dead and (b) in a
> parallel universe, if he even counts as a companion) from the current
> series not to show up for the Big Goodbye.
In confidential RTD said the scene with Luke was an in-joke...he often
complains that the kids in SJS never look when they`re crossing roads so he
had the Doctor come in to save him in as such. The farewell scens were hit
and miss...I too loved the Human Nature one, hated the Jack one, quite liked
the Martha/Mickey one, thought the SJS one was wasted and the Rose one
worked great. A nice nod to the beginning of the RTD years and helped to
give it a certain completeness. Sure it all went on a bit but I can forgive
that personally...it was the big fareweel for a lot of these characters,
actors and production staff and I`d imagine the majority of viewers enjoyed
the chance to say goodbye to these characters as well.
> This leaves only one thing - the 11th Doctor. It's hard to gauge Matt
> Smith here - he seems to be trying too hard to match Tennant's mania
> to get a feel for who his character is, save that he seems to have
> crossed Tennant's hyperactivity with Davison's absent-mindedness.
> Shame about the change of costume - he looks good in Tennant's suit! I
> did enjoy RTD's pokes at his appearance, and while he needs to tone
> his act down a bit for the regular series, I found him more
> immediately engaging than Tennant, who I took an episode or three to
> get used to.
He struck me as being very mad cap from this scene but it`s post
regeneration so time will tell. Seems OK though!
> So, where does this leave Moffatt? We're told time and again that he
> wants a clean slate, but the Time Lords are still gone, he still needs
> to find a way to bring Davros and the Daleks back (and in the case of
> the Daleks he's got to do so in all of one episode...), and as far as
> we know the Master is still out there living with the consequences of
> his failed resurrection, and presumably eating people to do so, since
> he exited stage left with no one batting an eyelid or even thinking to
> ask where he'd gone (told you he was sidelined in this episode).
Do we know for sure the daleks are only getting one episode? I`m sure the
Master will be back at some point, probably regenerated. The viewers saw
what happened to the Master, don`t really think there was an yneed to have
loads of scenes where the Doctor tells other people, safe to presume if
anyone asked he told them!
> Still, RTD's done Moffatt a favour - after this outing, the only way
> the show can go is up.
Well, I was underwhelmed by it after really enjoying the first episode but I
do think you`re being harsh. Overall it was a middling story for me with a
couple of good scens and a couple of crappy ones.
pbo...@aol.com
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:127855cb-c4e4-4b42...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Well, I was pretty scathing in my original review of part one, but
> > after being persuaded to rewatch it I revised my opinion upwards on
> > second viewing (though on third, watching it as a lead-in to part two,
> > I was sorely tempted to fastforward in more than a few places).
>
> > Will the same happen with part two, I wonder? I very much doubt it,
> > and frankly I hope no one comes up with glowing reviews of part two to
> > make me doubt my judgment, because I really, really, REALLY don't want
> > to have to watch this episode again. Ever. And I say that as someone
> > who's given Fear Her several runthroughs while rewatching the series
> > as a whole over the years.
>
> Best you steer clear of the Gallifrey Base forums then. Out of just over
> 1,100 voters in the `rate the episode` section 90% of them have given it at
> least a 7/10...with 45% having given it full marks.
Maybe they're just squealing in fanboyish ecstasy because Tim Dalton
turned out to be Rassilon - though that's just about the worst random
continuity insert I can think of, a use of the name that will annoy
fans who recognise it because no detail is given explaining how
Rassilon came to lead the Time Lords in the Time War, and mean nothing
to anyone else.
> > Okay, it's not as downright *bad* as Fear Her - nothing I've seen in
> > Who is. And I've seen Delta and the Bannermen. But it has so many
> > embarrassing, horrible moments that I find it hard to decide whether
> > giving Donna the winning lottery ticket is cheesier than all the
> > plagiarised movie scenes, from the Star Walls laser practice to
> > Mission Impossible gatecrashing, or if even those are worse than a
> > much-loved Doctor's last words being a petulant "I don't want to go".
> > At least there's no contest for Worst Scene Ever - the Doctor throwing
> > a tantrum because he has to save Wilf ... rather, that *would* be the
> > Worst Scene Ever if it hadn't been for the Doctor playing matchmaker
> > for Captain Jack. But then that pales into significance beside ... no,
> > actually, that's it. There *is* no worse scene than that. Very
> > possibly this is true even considering the entire scope of Dr Who
> > history.
>
> Actually I thought the Cribbens / Tennant scenes were brilliant, the
> highlight of the story.
I thought even these lacked lustre - they said nothing new, and
Cribbens had hardly any dialogue in them - mostly they were "Tennant
and Cribbins were shown in the same scene" (like that tantrum scene,
where all Cribbens does is stand in his box looking sad while Tennant
hurls things around the room).
The Jack at the bar thing was bloody awful though.
But look on the bright side, he managed to restrain his urge to
torture small children, as a certain poster would have it...
> > The first scene, extended past the bit in the 'exclusive scene', is
> > actually mostly okay - the only thing that grates is the Magic
> > Gauntlet bit and the complete indifference of the other Time Lords to
> > the fact that their leader randomly murdered someone. As with last
> > week's Master effects, this proved once again to be entirely
> > unnecessary, making Dalton's character even more unsubtly villainous
> > than his Evil Megalomaniac(TM) delivery already indicated and thus
> > less interesting. Which is a shame because otherwise the Gallifrey
> > scenes generally were okay (though why was the planet covered in what
> > seemed to be baby Dalek saucers?) The link with the Master was
> > explained as well as it could have been in the circumstances, although
> > using him as a homing beacon doesn't really explain why the drums
> > sounded louder *to him* as the Time Lords got closer - surely the
> > reverse should have been true?
>
> I liked the Gallifrey scenes, the only thing that didn`t work for me was the
> mad old prophet woman who looked and sounded silly. I thought we got a
> pretty good reason for explaining why the Time Lords have gone barmy
What, "they got more aggressive as time went on"? Not much of a
reason, good or otherwise.
> > As for the Master, he's rather sidelined this time round - his
> > billions of Masters weren't much more than a cliffhanger ending, and
> > are done away pretty much as an afterthought - all they're there for
> > is to give the Master slaves, which is surely the very *last* thing
> > all those billions of Masters would be? If they're all the Master,
> > surely they'd be busy backstabbing one another and trying to grab
> > power for themselves at the expense of the others.
>
> I saw them as kind of subsections of his main persona...that they were all
> part of his mind obeying instructions from the `master` Master so to speak.
Which gives pretty sinister implications for the Vinvochi 'medical
device' - does it usually enslave its patients? While we're on the
subject, the Doctor said that killing the Master would reverse its
effects - what sort of medical apparatus would be designed to make
people ill again once the template used to cure them died?
> > I was surprised the Vinvochi had such a large role in this story - for
> > a start, I expected them to be the expendable ones showing just what a
> > dangerous threat had been unleashed, rather like the Tritovores in
> > Planet of the Dead. Well, that and they're personality-less effeminate
> > cacti. If they were just interested in buggering off, why go to the
> > trouble of saving the Doctor and Wilf anyway? No doubt kids will love
> > the rescue sequence, but even with his pop culture leanings I have a
> > hard time seeing the Doctor uttering the phrase "Worst ... rescue ...
> > ever!" Their ship was cute, in a "We took Starbug from Red Dwarf and
> > made it more angular" way, but why was it apparently powered by
> > hydraulics and looking generally like the inside of an industrial
> > estate within? Is this a homage to the reference to steampunk
> > spaceships in Tooth & Claw? It's pretty much the only episode that
> > *wasn't* referenced in that overly self-indulgent end sequence, after
> > all.
>
> I didn`t like any of that stuff, the Vinvochi were rubbish and I hated that
> spaceship / missile flight. Although I concede it was a scene the kids would
> probably have found fun.
Except that kids have probably seen the first Star Wars film so know
what it was ripped from...
> > Anyway, that's pretty much the story - Time Lords at the beginning, a
> > lot of time sitting on a spaceship doing nothing followed by an overly-
> > long blockbuster ripoff effects sequence, followed by the Doctor
> > revolving interminably while pointing a pistol at people (why not
> > shoot whatever the explody thing behind the Master was at the start?)
>
> I said as much somewhere else...and why exactly did shooting that machine
> resolve the problem?
I presume the Magic Diamond was in it. I don't know why killing either
the Master or the President would have, either - if the Master was
just a homing beacon, now they were there it shouldn't make any
difference if he's alive or dead (and he'd just regenerate anyway).
> > appears and
> > implausibly fails to perturb the Earth even slightly despite being
> > only a few metres overhead, followed by several hours of ending.
>
> The Vinvochi do mention that it will affect the Earth`s orbit but no
> explanation is given for why it isn`t already...in all honesty science has
> never been a strong point in the RTD years
Or any others, but still, in a story that has something to recommend
it it can be overlooked (though fire on Mars was going a bit far even
so) - this doesn't have anything to recommend it, so it stands out
more. Plus, it was such a dull, plodding story that it just draws
attention to small details that might otherwise be lost in the
shuffle.
so that was something I was
> prepared to go with. After all, if we can have planets being towed through
> space by a spaceship than anything goes!
But at least that *looked* cool.
> > Well, sadly, he even screws this up. He has to save Wilf because Wilf
> > bumbled into a cupboard for no terribly good reason - if he'd been
> > forced in there, fine, a noble and heroic act of self-sacrifice (or it
> > would be if not preceded by an uncharacteristic tantrum whining about
> > how unimportant Wilf is and how the Doctor's so much more deserving,
> > and how grudgingly he saves Wilf at all), but no, he does it because
> > Wilf's a clumsy twit who got himself in trouble.
>
> I loved that part of it myself. I honestly thought the whole scene from the
> Doctor hearing Wilf knocking to him leaving the booth and starting to
> regenerate were brilliant. Everyone expected the 10th Doctor to go out
> rescuing humanity, destroying the Master, saving the world or some such yet
> here we have him sacrificing himself for the life of one old man he`s come
> to love and respect.
My problem isn't with that bit of it - it's with the way it was so
unnecessary. Why did Wilf need to be in there (okay, he saved the
random nobody who otherwise would have been, but he didn't know that
at the time)? It just made him seem a liability blundering around
where he didn't belong (especially since he did nothing of much
practical use in the story apart from give the Doctor a gun).
It was a great scene, found it quite moving. I didn`t
> get the feeling that he begrudged saving Wilf ( "it`ll ba an honour" ), just
> that he was angry at the way fate had mocked him. There was never any
> question the Doctor would give himself up to save Wilf...and that, to me, is
> very much in character with the 10th Doctor ( and most of the others ).
It's the "I'm so important and I have to save this nobody" speech that
was out of character.
> > And why on Earth does
> > his regeneration destroy the TARDIS, other than to give Moffatt a
> > chance to rebuild it? And, since he knows his regenerations tend to go
> > wrong, why does he regenerate while flying the thing through space
> > instead of with it quietly parked somewhere?
>
> Good points...I`m hoping we don`t get such a prolonged regeneration for
> Smith, with no other recurring characters I`m guessing we`ll see him fairly
> stable quickly.
With River and the Daleks, and somehow finding time to pick up girls
on 21st Century Earth, packed into his first story, it would be a bit
overburdened to throw in a failed regeneration too.
A nice nod to the beginning of the RTD years and helped to
> give it a certain completeness. Sure it all went on a bit but I can forgive
> that personally...it was the big fareweel for a lot of these characters,
It wasn't much of a farewell to any of them, and most of them had
*had* farewell scenes with the Doctor before - except Jack and Mickey,
who didn't get farewell scenes worth mentioning anyway, what with
Mickey being a tacked-on bit part in Martha's farewell.
> > So, where does this leave Moffatt? We're told time and again that he
> > wants a clean slate, but the Time Lords are still gone, he still needs
> > to find a way to bring Davros and the Daleks back (and in the case of
> > the Daleks he's got to do so in all of one episode...), and as far as
> > we know the Master is still out there living with the consequences of
> > his failed resurrection, and presumably eating people to do so, since
> > he exited stage left with no one batting an eyelid or even thinking to
> > ask where he'd gone (told you he was sidelined in this episode).
>
> Do we know for sure the daleks are only getting one episode?
No, I mean he's got to do it in one episode because the Daleks are
back in the very next story - i.e. no time to set up their return.
I`m sure the
> Master will be back at some point, probably regenerated. The viewers saw
> what happened to the Master,
Well, I seem to have missed it, but from what others have said he got
pulled into the time lock - which just puts Moffatt in an even
trickier position if he chooses to reuse him (and a very difficult one
to explain how he managed to survive there - you'd have thought he'd
be the first target for Rassilon's Magic Glove).
Phil
AlanSailsbury
> Okay, it's not as downright *bad* as Fear Her - nothing I've seen in
> Who is. And I've seen Delta and the Bannermen. But it has so many
> embarrassing, horrible moments that I find it hard to decide whether
> giving Donna the winning lottery ticket is cheesier than all the
> plagiarised movie scenes,
Right let's see how Mr. Reviewer is so shit at reviews shall we?
Cheesy? It was a nice way to help Donna and was keeping in character.
Isn't she just the type who WOULD win the lottery?
>from the Star Walls laser practice to
> Mission Impossible gatecrashing, or if even those are worse than a
> much-loved Doctor's last words being a petulant "I don't want to go".
I guess you missed the point that 10 was so full of life that he was
unwilling to let go.
> At least there's no contest for Worst Scene Ever - the Doctor throwing
> a tantrum because he has to save Wilf ...
Not a tantrum. A normal reaction for someone who thought he'd cheated
death only to discover he hadn't. Perhaps you've never met anyone in
such a situation. if so, lucky you.
>rather, that *would* be the
> Worst Scene Ever if it hadn't been for the Doctor playing matchmaker
> for Captain Jack. But then that pales into significance beside ... no,
> actually, that's it. There *is* no worse scene than that. Very
> possibly this is true even considering the entire scope of Dr Who
> history.
Why was that so bad for you? Read between the lines. The Doctor is
matchmaking a man who's lost everything with a man who is destined to
die. The Doctor is giving both men a brief period of happiness.
>
> The first scene, extended past the bit in the 'exclusive scene', is
> actually mostly okay - the only thing that grates is the Magic
> Gauntlet
Not "magic", science. It's quite Doctor Doom but it worked.
>bit and the complete indifference of the other Time Lords to
> the fact that their leader randomly murdered someone.
Yeah, people tend to be nervous around megalomaniacs in case they're
the next target. Again, you've misunderstood the scene.
>As with last
> week's Master effects, this proved once again to be entirely
> unnecessary, making Dalton's character even more unsubtly villainous
> than his Evil Megalomaniac(TM) delivery already indicated and thus
> less interesting.
You're contradicting yourself. The scene was necessary to SHOW how
villainous he was. Subtlety? This is a show watched by kids. It has to
be obvious, not subtle, when defining its villains.
>Which is a shame because otherwise the Gallifrey
> scenes generally were okay (though why was the planet covered in what
> seemed to be baby Dalek saucers?)
Jesus Christ did you not follow the plot at ALL? The Time Lords were
involved in a war with Daleks. Hence the battlefield scene. They
weren't "baby" saucers. They were FAR AWAY. Things LOOK SMALLER the
further they are away.
>The link with the Master was
> explained as well as it could have been in the circumstances, although
> using him as a homing beacon doesn't really explain why the drums
> sounded louder *to him* as the Time Lords got closer - surely the
> reverse should have been true?
Why?
>
> Oh, and a tip, RTD - if you have a McGuffin you want people to talk
> about in reverential, portentous terms, give it a less laughable name
> than "white point star".
Yes that was naff.
>
> As for the Master, he's rather sidelined this time round - his
> billions of Masters weren't much more than a cliffhanger ending, and
> are done away pretty much as an afterthought - all they're there for
> is to give the Master slaves, which is surely the very *last* thing
> all those billions of Masters would be? If they're all the Master,
> surely they'd be busy backstabbing one another and trying to grab
> power for themselves at the expense of the others.
Sigh. Wasn't it obvious The Master would have considered this and set
up his copies as subordinates? He is the "Master" after all.
>
> I was surprised the Vinvochi had such a large role in this story - for
> a start, I expected them to be the expendable ones showing just what a
> dangerous threat had been unleashed, rather like the Tritovores in
> Planet of the Dead. Well, that and they're personality-less effeminate
> cacti. If they were just interested in buggering off, why go to the
> trouble of saving the Doctor and Wilf anyway?
Perhaps because it was obvious to them The Doctor might be useful
against someone as powerful as The Master? Or perhaps because it made
for a funny rescue scene for the kids.
>No doubt kids will love
> the rescue sequence,
Now you get it.
>but even with his pop culture leanings I have a
> hard time seeing the Doctor uttering the phrase "Worst ... rescue ...
> ever!"
Why? He's familiar with other phrases. Besides, it was funny BECAUSE
it was unexpected.
>Their ship was cute, in a "We took Starbug from Red Dwarf and
> made it more angular" way, but why was it apparently powered by
> hydraulics and looking generally like the inside of an industrial
> estate within?
'Cos it's alien that way.
>Is this a homage to the reference to steampunk
> spaceships in Tooth & Claw?
Probably, probably not.
>It's pretty much the only episode that
> *wasn't* referenced in that overly self-indulgent end sequence, after
> all.
>
Methinks you don't "get" a sense of occasion.
> Anyway, that's pretty much the story - Time Lords at the beginning, a
> lot of time sitting on a spaceship doing nothing followed by an overly-
> long blockbuster ripoff effects sequence, followed by the Doctor
> revolving interminably while pointing a pistol at people (why not
> shoot whatever the explody thing behind the Master was at the start?)
Because he hadn't thought of that then.
> as a giant planet (is Gallifrey meant to be tha big?) appears and
> implausibly fails to perturb the Earth even slightly despite being
> only a few metres overhead,
It was easily thousands of miles away. People were ducking because,
well, that's how people would react so something advancing that fast.
>followed by several hours of ending.
> Donna's foreshadowed recollections come to nothing, just an effect
> that sends her to sleep until the end of the episode,
Yep. Didn't expect it though did you?
>and she gets no
> new goodbye with the Doctor (probably for the best, since her last
> would have been hard to top)
You got it.
>
> Of course, this is Tennant's finale, so something needs to be said
> about his regeneration sequence - and never in Who history has a
> regeneration taken so long (well, except for the gap between Stolen
> Earth and Journey's End, when the regeneration took a whole week - no,
> actually, a week was shorter than this). The Doctor throwing tantrums
> and the extended endings are so bad that it's easy (or at least
> desirable) to block the whole thing from one's mind, but let's look
> briefly at what prompted the regeneration. The Doctor absorbed a huge
> quantity of radiation (hang on, wasn't that what he did last time? The
> last real time, that is) to save Wilf. Hooray! An admirable, suitable
> end for our hero, surely?
Yes. That is what killed him you know.
>
> Well, sadly, he even screws this up. He has to save Wilf because Wilf
> bumbled into a cupboard for no terribly good reason - if he'd been
> forced in there, fine, a noble and heroic act of self-sacrifice (or it
> would be if not preceded by an uncharacteristic tantrum whining about
> how unimportant Wilf is and how the Doctor's so much more deserving,
> and how grudgingly he saves Wilf at all), but no, he does it because
> Wilf's a clumsy twit who got himself in trouble.
Wilf went in there to get someone else out didn't he?
>And why on Earth does
> his regeneration destroy the TARDIS, other than to give Moffatt a
> chance to rebuild it?
Sigh. Think outside the box. The Doctor was fighting his regeneration.
The TARDIS is tuned into The Doctor, as we know, so it's plausible
that the struggle caused the TARDIS to blow up. In fact it was OBVIOUS
that's what happened!
>And, since he knows his regenerations tend to go
> wrong, why does he regenerate while flying the thing through space
> instead of with it quietly parked somewhere?
Because he wanted to get the TARDIS out of Rose's 2005 timeline in
case he died/ became an unstable Doctor who might bump into her and
change her future? THINK man, THINK!
>
> Onto the ending(s), insofar as I haven't already mentioned them. The
> nod to Human Nature was actually a nice touch -
Glad you liked SOMETHING!
>there was no rhyme or
> reason to change who Martha was married to except to get an excuse to
> squeeze Mickey in,
sigh. Another indication you haven't paid attention. Who said it
changed who she was married to? We've never seen WHO she married until
now! Nice touch, I thought.
>and RTD characteristically overdoses on returning
> aliens, with reappearances from every recurring alien in the show's
> recent history except the Cybermen and Daleks - and the Hath too,
> which now officially makes them a recurring alien, I suppose (well, I
> quite liked them). But are Martha and Luke really so accident-prone
> that the Doctor shows up at random points and has to save them?
You didn't think it was a nice touch? A nice farewell for the
characters?
>It's a
> shame, too, that RTD couldn't find a way to include K-9 in the goodbye
> sequence - I think that makes him the only recurring companion, other
> than Pete Tyler (who's got the excuse of being (a) dead and (b) in a
> parallel universe, if he even counts as a companion) from the current
> series not to show up for the Big Goodbye.
>
> This leaves only one thing - the 11th Doctor. It's hard to gauge Matt
> Smith here - he seems to be trying too hard to match Tennant's mania
> to get a feel for who his character is, save that he seems to have
> crossed Tennant's hyperactivity with Davison's absent-mindedness.
As it was written by RTD that might explain why 11 was so similar to
10 in that sequence. Expect to see a quieter Doctor in the Spring once
his regeneration calms down.
> Shame about the change of costume - he looks good in Tennant's suit! I
> did enjoy RTD's pokes at his appearance, and while he needs to tone
> his act down a bit for the regular series, I found him more
> immediately engaging than Tennant, who I took an episode or three to
> get used to.
>
> So, where does this leave Moffatt? We're told time and again that he
> wants a clean slate, but the Time Lords are still gone, he still needs
> to find a way to bring Davros and the Daleks back (and in the case of
> the Daleks he's got to do so in all of one episode...),
Smith's first episode is set in 1993. It's entirely possible for time-
traveling Daleks to turn up anywhere!
>and as far as
> we know the Master is still out there living with the consequences of
> his failed resurrection, and presumably eating people to do so, since
> he exited stage left with no one batting an eyelid or even thinking to
> ask where he'd gone (told you he was sidelined in this episode).
He went into the void with the Time Lords.
>
> Still, RTD's done Moffatt a favour - after this outing, the only way
> the show can go is up.
>
> Phil
Perhaps you'll pay more attention to the new series then.
The Doctor
pbo...@aol.com
> On Jan 1, 4:24 pm, "pbow...@aol.com" <pbow...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Okay, it's not as downright *bad* as Fear Her - nothing I've seen in
> > Who is. And I've seen Delta and the Bannermen. But it has so many
> > embarrassing, horrible moments that I find it hard to decide whether
> > giving Donna the winning lottery ticket is cheesier than all the
> > plagiarised movie scenes,
>
> Right let's see how Mr. Reviewer is so shit at reviews shall we?
>
> Cheesy? It was a nice way to help Donna and was keeping in character.
In her character - in the Doctor's? He can know that Donna in her
current state would hardly be the sort to use the money wisely. But
simply on principle, the idea that time travel allows you to go back
to check winning lottery numbers is so hackneyed it's a common joke -
I could help thinking Back to the Future 2 at that point.
> >from the Star Walls laser practice to
> > Mission Impossible gatecrashing, or if even those are worse than a
> > much-loved Doctor's last words being a petulant "I don't want to go".
>
> I guess you missed the point that 10 was so full of life that he was
> unwilling to let go.
I guess you missed the point about being petulant. A toddler who moans
about letting go of a favourite toy is unwilling to let that toy go -
that he's unwilling to let go is obvious but, sorry, saying it doesn't
make it any more profound or any less petulant. He's known for the
best part of a year that he's *going* to go (and in fact refused to
shut up on the subject for three specials), and by this point he knows
he's undergoing the regeneration process - unwilling or not (and I
doubt most of the others were very willing to die), that he doesn't
show his characteristic stoicism or maturity in dealing with it is a
very low point for the character.
> > At least there's no contest for Worst Scene Ever - the Doctor throwing
> > a tantrum because he has to save Wilf ...
>
> Not a tantrum. A normal reaction for someone who thought he'd cheated
> death only to discover he hadn't. Perhaps you've never met anyone in
> such a situation. if so, lucky you.
I suspect I am lucky, if it's a normal reaction to respond by
belittling those around you and whining that you're so much more
deserving of life than they are.
> >rather, that *would* be the
> > Worst Scene Ever if it hadn't been for the Doctor playing matchmaker
> > for Captain Jack. But then that pales into significance beside ... no,
> > actually, that's it. There *is* no worse scene than that. Very
> > possibly this is true even considering the entire scope of Dr Who
> > history.
>
> Why was that so bad for you?
Well, quite apart from Jack's painfully bad pick-up lines, it's
demeaning for either the Doctor or Jack, if not both, that the
Doctor's way of saying farewell to Jack is to give him a tip on
picking someone up at a bar - either the Doctor's opinion is that Jack
is so superficial that's the thing he'd appreciate most, or Jack
genuinely is that superficial.
Read between the lines. The Doctor is
> matchmaking a man who's lost everything with a man who is destined to
> die. The Doctor is giving both men a brief period of happiness.
Didn't Frame survive Voyage of the Damned? He's no more destined to
die than anyone else - and this scene has to be set in the present day
as Jack is off-Earth and recognises the Doctor (the only time he's
left Earth post-Utopia being after Children of Earth, and therefore
long after Voyage of the Damned). Frame's no more "destined to die"
than anyone else. Nor is there any implication any long-term
relationship is likely to result from this encounter, and I doubt the
Doctor would equate a quick shag with "a brief moment of happiness".
Readiing between the lines is not the same as "making it up as a hasty
post-hoc justification".
> >bit and the complete indifference of the other Time Lords to
> > the fact that their leader randomly murdered someone.
>
> Yeah, people tend to be nervous around megalomaniacs
Yes, they likely are. Nervous is a rather different reaction from
'entirely unresponsive'. This scene called for acting that none of the
extras displayed.
in case they're
> the next target. Again, you've misunderstood the scene.
Again, you've misunderstood the point - it's not that no one stood up
to challenge him, it's that they all behaved as though it was the most
normal thing in the world, betraying no sign of being either nervous
in front of a megalomaniac dictator, shocked or for that matter
pleased. It was just "Time Lady goes up in smoke. Next item on the
agenda".
> >As with last
> > week's Master effects, this proved once again to be entirely
> > unnecessary, making Dalton's character even more unsubtly villainous
> > than his Evil Megalomaniac(TM) delivery already indicated and thus
> > less interesting.
>
> You're contradicting yourself. The scene was necessary to SHOW how
> villainous he was.
Note the phrase "even more unsubtly" - he was obviously villainous
from the start, hence it being unnecessary to drive it home any
further. No contradiction implied.
Subtlety? This is a show watched by kids. It has to
> be obvious, not subtle, when defining its villains.
It was obvious, but there's a difference between "obvious" and
"chewing the scenery". Justify flaws in Dr Who episodes by pointing
out it's a kids' show by all means (an argument, however, that holds
little water - see below), but don't try to justify it by suggesting
it's a show aimed at particularly stupid kids.
> >Which is a shame because otherwise the Gallifrey
> > scenes generally were okay (though why was the planet covered in what
> > seemed to be baby Dalek saucers?)
>
> Jesus Christ did you not follow the plot at ALL? The Time Lords were
> involved in a war with Daleks. Hence the battlefield scene. They
> weren't "baby" saucers. They were FAR AWAY. Things LOOK SMALLER the
> further they are away.
>
> >The link with the Master was
> > explained as well as it could have been in the circumstances, although
> > using him as a homing beacon doesn't really explain why the drums
> > sounded louder *to him* as the Time Lords got closer - surely the
> > reverse should have been true?
>
> Why?
Because they were the ones needing to find him, he didn't need to find
them? They should pick up his signal more strongly as they get close
(think how any other tracking system works), there's no reason for him
to pick up their signal any more strongly since he's only a
transmitter, not a receiver. It makes a difference to a mobile phone
signal how close a mast is; it makes no difference to the mast how
close a mobile phone is.
> > As for the Master, he's rather sidelined this time round - his
> > billions of Masters weren't much more than a cliffhanger ending, and
> > are done away pretty much as an afterthought - all they're there for
> > is to give the Master slaves, which is surely the very *last* thing
> > all those billions of Masters would be? If they're all the Master,
> > surely they'd be busy backstabbing one another and trying to grab
> > power for themselves at the expense of the others.
>
> Sigh. Wasn't it obvious The Master would have considered this and set
> up his copies as subordinates? He is the "Master" after all.
What is obvious is that it was a bad plot device - the X billion
Masters thing is meant to be scary because they are *all* "the
Master", just as every one of X million Daleks is a Dalek - every one
as dangerous as any other. What we get here is a batch of slaves no
different from the Toclafane or the Master's human cronies except in
the effects. Yes, it is obvious that it was RTD's intent to use it as
a device to give the Master control of the world, but (a) it makes no
sense in terms of the way the machine was described (a medical device
that enslaves everyone who gets healed to the healer is sinister to
say the least), and (b) it was the wrong plot device for this
situation - you either want X billion scary Masters, or you want the
Master (singular) with a race of slaves at his command.
Is the reason you place so much faith in professional reviewers to
write reviews perhaps to be found in the apparent fact that you're
rather hazy yourself on what a 'review' actually is, and so presume
that this is likely true of laypeople in general? If so, see below.
> > I was surprised the Vinvochi had such a large role in this story - for
> > a start, I expected them to be the expendable ones showing just what a
> > dangerous threat had been unleashed, rather like the Tritovores in
> > Planet of the Dead. Well, that and they're personality-less effeminate
> > cacti. If they were just interested in buggering off, why go to the
> > trouble of saving the Doctor and Wilf anyway?
>
> Perhaps because it was obvious to them The Doctor might be useful
> against someone as powerful as The Master?
But they had no interest in doing anything to the Master, and no need
to - they were planning to leave and said explicitly that they weren't
getting involved in 'local politics', and could readily have
teleported out.
Or perhaps because it made
> for a funny rescue scene for the kids.
If the kids want random comedy scenes loosely stuck together they can
watch sketch shows. Dr Who is intended to have at least some semblance
of coherent plotting.
Bear in mind what this is - a review. I do take it you understand what
the implications of that are? A review is a critical evaluation of a
product - not a statement of intent ("it's there for the kids" - you
wouldn't get far with a review of a camera if you described it as
"being there to take photos" but the camera itself didn't work
properly), nor just an assessment of whether the product is fit for
purpose (both Fuji and Canon make cameras, but a review that compared
both by saying "they both take pictures" wouldn't be any use to
anyone). It's an assessment of how well it does its job.
In this case, yes, a show is being made to entertain kids - and it may
well do so. But it's being made to entertain kids in a specific format
- that of an adventure story - which demands attention be paid to such
elements as plotting. Other specific formats have different
requirements, that would demand reviews that take those into account
in the same way. I note that you haven't had anything specifically
positive to say about the episode yourself in your critique, just
comments on what RTD wanted it to say or flimsy justifications for
aspects that don't work - or, as here, ignoring problems as though
saying 'it's just for the kids' is sufficient justification for them.
> >Their ship was cute, in a "We took Starbug from Red Dwarf and
> > made it more angular" way, but why was it apparently powered by
> > hydraulics and looking generally like the inside of an industrial
> > estate within?
>
> 'Cos it's alien that way.
Alien because it looks like half the industrial estate sets used in
the show and spinoffs to represent places on Earth?
> > Anyway, that's pretty much the story - Time Lords at the beginning, a
> > lot of time sitting on a spaceship doing nothing followed by an overly-
> > long blockbuster ripoff effects sequence, followed by the Doctor
> > revolving interminably while pointing a pistol at people (why not
> > shoot whatever the explody thing behind the Master was at the start?)
>
> Because he hadn't thought of that then.
He's obviously a pretty slow thinker.
> >followed by several hours of ending.
> > Donna's foreshadowed recollections come to nothing, just an effect
> > that sends her to sleep until the end of the episode,
>
> Yep. Didn't expect it though did you?
I wouldn't have expected her to turn into a flying pig either, but
being unexpected does not make it good drama by default.
> >and she gets no
> > new goodbye with the Doctor (probably for the best, since her last
> > would have been hard to top)
>
> You got it.
Which does rather raise the question, why bother putting her in it...?
> > Of course, this is Tennant's finale, so something needs to be said
> > about his regeneration sequence - and never in Who history has a
> > regeneration taken so long (well, except for the gap between Stolen
> > Earth and Journey's End, when the regeneration took a whole week - no,
> > actually, a week was shorter than this). The Doctor throwing tantrums
> > and the extended endings are so bad that it's easy (or at least
> > desirable) to block the whole thing from one's mind, but let's look
> > briefly at what prompted the regeneration. The Doctor absorbed a huge
> > quantity of radiation (hang on, wasn't that what he did last time? The
> > last real time, that is) to save Wilf. Hooray! An admirable, suitable
> > end for our hero, surely?
>
> Yes. That is what killed him you know.
Read on...
> > Well, sadly, he even screws this up. He has to save Wilf because Wilf
> > bumbled into a cupboard for no terribly good reason - if he'd been
> > forced in there, fine, a noble and heroic act of self-sacrifice (or it
> > would be if not preceded by an uncharacteristic tantrum whining about
> > how unimportant Wilf is and how the Doctor's so much more deserving,
> > and how grudgingly he saves Wilf at all), but no, he does it because
> > Wilf's a clumsy twit who got himself in trouble.
>
> Wilf went in there to get someone else out didn't he?
But not for any clear reason - he wasn't given any reason to believe
that anyone in the box was in danger, and the Doctor specifically told
him not to go in.
> >And, since he knows his regenerations tend to go
> > wrong, why does he regenerate while flying the thing through space
> > instead of with it quietly parked somewhere?
>
> Because he wanted to get the TARDIS out of Rose's 2005 timeline in
> case he died/ became an unstable Doctor who might bump into her and
> change her future? THINK man, THINK!
Nope, doesn't wash, I'm afraid. Firstly, he knew he was regenerating,
not dying, and said as much in the script, so there was no danger of
abandoning Time Lord technology on Earth if that's what he was
concerned about (not that he's ever worried in the past where he
leaves the TARDIS as far as his mortality's concerned). Secondly, not
only is that explanation for leaving Rose's timeline a stretch (not
least because he deliberately bumped into her...), but he could
readily have shifted to a different time without flying off into
space.
And then of course there's the question of how, being in space and
apparently out of Earth orbit, he could crash anyway...
> >there was no rhyme or
> > reason to change who Martha was married to except to get an excuse to
> > squeeze Mickey in,
>
> sigh. Another indication you haven't paid attention. Who said it
> changed who she was married to? We've never seen WHO she married until
> now! Nice touch, I thought.
*sigh* What was that about paying attention? We learned she was
getting married in the middle of season 4 - Mickey was stuck in a
parallel universe until the end of that year. She hadn't even met him
then, let alone had him save her life (which she says her then-fiance
did).
> >and RTD characteristically overdoses on returning
> > aliens, with reappearances from every recurring alien in the show's
> > recent history except the Cybermen and Daleks - and the Hath too,
> > which now officially makes them a recurring alien, I suppose (well, I
> > quite liked them). But are Martha and Luke really so accident-prone
> > that the Doctor shows up at random points and has to save them?
>
> You didn't think it was a nice touch? A nice farewell for the
> characters?
Not very, no. Aside from Mickey those characters have had farewells,
and if the Doctor is going to say goodbye to other former companions
with 'gifts' of sorts that match their aspirations, it's not saying
much if all he has to offer Martha is saving her from a Sontaran that
(a) she should have seen anyway, and (b) he would have done for any
random passer-by. I know how it was *intended*, but how it came across
was as a random "Superman saves the day" sequence of the sort that
provides filler in superhero films.
Possibly that's your difficulty in interpreting my reviews - you're
looking at things in terms of how they're intended, I'm looking at
them in terms of how the actual message is put across (i.e. actually
reviewing them), not scoring it on whether or not I 'get' it.
> >It's a
> > shame, too, that RTD couldn't find a way to include K-9 in the goodbye
> > sequence - I think that makes him the only recurring companion, other
> > than Pete Tyler (who's got the excuse of being (a) dead and (b) in a
> > parallel universe, if he even counts as a companion) from the current
> > series not to show up for the Big Goodbye.
>
> > This leaves only one thing - the 11th Doctor. It's hard to gauge Matt
> > Smith here - he seems to be trying too hard to match Tennant's mania
> > to get a feel for who his character is, save that he seems to have
> > crossed Tennant's hyperactivity with Davison's absent-mindedness.
>
> As it was written by RTD that might explain why 11 was so similar to
> 10 in that sequence.
RTD showed with Eccleston and Tennant that he can write different
Doctors as different characters. A taste of what's to come would have
been welcome - or, come to that, have Moffatt write his character's
brief skit.
> > Shame about the change of costume - he looks good in Tennant's suit! I
> > did enjoy RTD's pokes at his appearance, and while he needs to tone
> > his act down a bit for the regular series, I found him more
> > immediately engaging than Tennant, who I took an episode or three to
> > get used to.
>
> > So, where does this leave Moffatt? We're told time and again that he
> > wants a clean slate, but the Time Lords are still gone, he still needs
> > to find a way to bring Davros and the Daleks back (and in the case of
> > the Daleks he's got to do so in all of one episode...),
>
> Smith's first episode is set in 1993. It's entirely possible for time-
> traveling Daleks to turn up anywhere!
And a 51st Century River?
Phil
AlanSailsbury
> > >there was no rhyme or
> > > reason to change who Martha was married to except to get an excuse to
> > > squeeze Mickey in,
>
> > sigh. Another indication you haven't paid attention. Who said it
> > changed who she was married to? We've never seen WHO she married until
> > now! Nice touch, I thought.
>
> *sigh* What was that about paying attention? We learned she was
> getting married in the middle of season 4 - Mickey was stuck in a
> parallel universe until the end of that year. She hadn't even met him
> then, let alone had him save her life (which she says her then-fiance
> did).
>
Pay attention to what I said: "We've never seen WHO she married until
now!". I even emphasized "WHO" so you'd get it, but obviously you
didn't. We know she was engaged, but obviously that's not who Martha
married. Engagements do fall through you know!
>
> > Smith's first episode is set in 1993. It's entirely possible for time-
> > traveling Daleks to turn up anywhere!
>
> And a 51st Century River?
>
> Phil
River isn't IN Smith's first episode!
Fred
> If the kids want random comedy scenes loosely stuck together they can
> watch sketch shows. Dr Who is intended to have at least some semblance
> of coherent plotting.
Oh c'mon now. Doctor Who has, at its core, always exhibited horrible
writing and acting. It wound up getting a number of things right over
the years, but those were just accidents. Its never been highbrow
entertainment.
TEOT part 2 was uneven and cringeworthy in several respects. But so
were a lot of episodes over the years with every Doctor.
My favorite bit and least favorite bit in this episode:
Favorite bit:
The Doctor's overture to the Master to join him in exploring the
universe.
Least favorite bit:
The Ood saying "we will sing to you while you stagger to your TARDIS
in pain." Thanks. Big help. That sort of cringeworthy,
unintentional comedy snapped me clean out of the story and made me
wish it was over already.
terryowen
terryowen
Sorry about the slip of the mouse...
All I wanted to say was that if the Doctor had to sacrifice himself to
save a human, better Wilf than that twit Peri. I don't know why
people like Caves so much - it makes me mad every time I watch it...
Terry (nothing against the actress, just the character)
pbo...@aol.com
> On 1 Jan, 23:49, AlanSailsbury <alansailsb...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 4:24 pm, "pbow...@aol.com" <pbow...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >Which is a shame because otherwise the Gallifrey
> > > scenes generally were okay (though why was the planet covered in what
> > > seemed to be baby Dalek saucers?)
>
> > Jesus Christ did you not follow the plot at ALL? The Time Lords were
> > involved in a war with Daleks.
Which fails to explain the absence of wrecked Daleks while
simultaneously failing to explain the abundance of wrecked
*spacecraft* on a planetary surface.
Hence the battlefield scene. They
> > weren't "baby" saucers. They were FAR AWAY. Things LOOK SMALLER the
> > further they are away.
If they were far away, something was seriously wrong with perspective
in this scene. The citadel was in the background, the saucers in the
foreground - and the citadel far larger, despite the scale Stolen
Earth established for Dalek saucers vs. large buildings.
Phil
pbo...@aol.com
> On Jan 1, 5:02 pm, "pbow...@aol.com" <pbow...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > If the kids want random comedy scenes loosely stuck together they can
> > watch sketch shows. Dr Who is intended to have at least some semblance
> > of coherent plotting.
>
> Oh c'mon now. Doctor Who has, at its core, always exhibited horrible
> writing and acting.
Very true - and that's justifiably lampooned on the same basis.
It wound up getting a number of things right over
> the years, but those were just accidents. Its never been highbrow
> entertainment.
It doesn't need to be "highbrow entertainment" to have a plot. When
you decide to make a show in a particular style rather than another
you do so for a reason; in the case of adventure stories that reason
is to tell an exciting tale of adventure to enthrall the kiddies. And
a story needs a plot - kids may laugh at someone being carried down
the stairs tied to a chair, but without a plot that's just sketch-show
comedy. To do a show like this well demands incorporating the funny
scenes into a coherent story framework.
Again, the issue isn't so much whether the show does the job ("please
the kids") as *how well* it does the job - just as no camera review
will actually say "It takes pictures". What RTD gives us here is fit
for purpose in the broad sense, but it's far closer to a Fuji than a
Canon.
> Least favorite bit:
>
> The Ood saying "we will sing to you while you stagger to your TARDIS
> in pain." Thanks. Big help. That sort of cringeworthy,
> unintentional comedy snapped me clean out of the story and made me
> wish it was over already.
I'm impressed you stayed alert long enough to notice. By that point
I'd already lost the will to live and was dull to the pain of further
embarrassment.
Phil
pbo...@aol.com
Oh, I completely agree - but did Peri get into trouble as a result of
her own stupidity?
That's the big problem for me with this sequence - I wanted to cheer
the Doctor on for saving our beloved Wilf, and the revelation that
Wilf was the one whose four knocks would herald the Doctor's death was
the most inspired part of the episode. But I couldn't - mostly because
the Doctor was so grudging about it, but also partly because he had a
point - it was Wilf's own stupid fault.
Phil
Sweet Zombie Jeebus
>
> It's the "I'm so important and I have to save this nobody" speech that
> was out of character.
>
Yes, but wasn't that just a sign of his desperation / terror of his
impending regeneration (or from the point of view of his current
persona, death?)
The Doctor
AlanSailsbury <alansa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Jan 2, 1:02=A0am, "pbow...@aol.com" <pbow...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> > >there was no rhyme or
>> > > reason to change who Martha was married to except to get an excuse to
>> > > squeeze Mickey in,
>>
>> > sigh. Another indication you haven't paid attention. Who said it
>> > changed who she was married to? We've never seen WHO she married until
>> > now! Nice touch, I thought.
>>
>> *sigh* What was that about paying attention? We learned she was
>> getting married in the middle of season 4 - Mickey was stuck in a
>> parallel universe until the end of that year. She hadn't even met him
>> then, let alone had him save her life (which she says her then-fiance
>> did).
>>
>
>Pay attention to what I said: "We've never seen WHO she married until
>now!". I even emphasized "WHO" so you'd get it, but obviously you
>didn't. We know she was engaged, but obviously that's not who Martha
>married. Engagements do fall through you know!
>
TRoll off will you?!
>
>>
>> > Smith's first episode is set in 1993. It's entirely possible for time-
>> > traveling Daleks to turn up anywhere!
>>
>> And a 51st Century River?
>>
>> Phil
>
>River isn't IN Smith's first episode!
>
>
>
Do you have the new schedule?
The Doctor
Fred <koko...@gmail.com> wrote:
You must a friend of Alan Sailsbury.
The Doctor
terryowen <terr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 2, 12:55=A0am, terryowen <terryo...@gmail.com> wrote:
It is in the Doctor's nature.
pbo...@aol.com
wrote:
The Doctor's been desperate and scared before - even if not to this
extent, I still maintain that in any context it's out of character for
the Doctor to take his issues out on other people - at least it ought
to be.
Phil
The Doctor
pbo...@aol.com <pbo...@aol.com> wrote:
>On 2 Jan, 01:02, "pbow...@aol.com" <pbow...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 1 Jan, 23:49, AlanSailsbury <alansailsb...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > >Which is a shame because otherwise the Gallifrey
>> > > scenes generally were okay (though why was the planet covered in what
>> > > seemed to be baby Dalek saucers?)
>>
>> > Jesus Christ did you not follow the plot at ALL? The Time Lords were
>> > involved in a war with Daleks.
>
>Which fails to explain the absence of wrecked Daleks while
>simultaneously failing to explain the abundance of wrecked
>*spacecraft* on a planetary surface.
>
> Hence the battlefield scene. They
>> > weren't "baby" saucers. They were FAR AWAY. Things LOOK SMALLER the
>> > further they are away.
>
>If they were far away, something was seriously wrong with perspective
>in this scene. The citadel was in the background, the saucers in the
>foreground - and the citadel far larger, despite the scale Stolen
>Earth established for Dalek saucers vs. large buildings.
>
>Phil
Points well taken.
The Doctor
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 1, 3:24=A0pm, "pbow...@aol.com" <pbow...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Well, I was pretty scathing in my original review of part one, but
>> > > after being persuaded to rewatch it I revised my opinion upwards on
>,
>> > > I was sorely tempted to fastforward in more than a few places).
>>
>> > > Will the same happen with part two, I wonder? I very much doubt it,
>o
>> > > make me doubt my judgment, because I really, really, REALLY don't wan=
>t
>> > > to have to watch this episode again. Ever. And I say that as someone
>> > > who's given Fear Her several runthroughs while rewatching the series
>> > > as a whole over the years.
>>
>> > > Okay, it's not as downright *bad* as Fear Her - nothing I've seen in
>> > > Who is. And I've seen Delta and the Bannermen. But it has so many
>> > > embarrassing, horrible moments that I find it hard to decide whether
>> > > giving Donna the winning lottery ticket is cheesier than all the
>> > > plagiarised movie scenes, from the Star Walls laser practice to
>> > > Mission Impossible gatecrashing, or if even those are worse than a
>> > > much-loved Doctor's last words being a petulant "I don't want to go".
>g
>> > > a tantrum because he has to save Wilf ... rather, that *would* be the
>> > > Worst Scene Ever if it hadn't been for the Doctor playing matchmaker
>,
>> > > actually, that's it. There *is* no worse scene than that. Very
>> > > possibly this is true even considering the entire scope of Dr Who
>> > > history.
>>
>> > > Anyway, I'd better start from the beginning - if I can find it, given
>> > > that this episode has a longer, duller ending than Return of the King
>> > > (the entire film, that is). And, given how my impressions of part one
>> > > changed, I deliberately went into this without looking for things to
>> > > pick apart in the subsequent review, just to enjoy the whole silly
>> > > spectacle.
>>
>> > > The first scene, extended past the bit in the 'exclusive scene', is
>> > > actually mostly okay - the only thing that grates is the Magic
>> > > Gauntlet bit and the complete indifference of the other Time Lords to
>> > > the fact that their leader randomly murdered someone. As with last
>> > > week's Master effects, this proved once again to be entirely
>> > > unnecessary, making Dalton's character even more unsubtly villainous
>> > > than his Evil Megalomaniac(TM) delivery already indicated and thus
>> > > less interesting. Which is a shame because otherwise the Gallifrey
>> > > scenes generally were okay (though why was the planet covered in what
>> > > seemed to be baby Dalek saucers?) The link with the Master was
>h
>> > > using him as a homing beacon doesn't really explain why the drums
>> > > sounded louder *to him* as the Time Lords got closer - surely the
>> > > reverse should have been true?
>>
>> > > Oh, and a tip, RTD - if you have a McGuffin you want people to talk
>> > > about in reverential, portentous terms, give it a less laughable name
>> > > than "white point star".
>>
>> > > As for the Master, he's rather sidelined this time round - his
>> > > billions of Masters weren't much more than a cliffhanger ending, and
>> > > are done away pretty much as an afterthought - all they're there for
>> > > is to give the Master slaves, which is surely the very *last* thing
>> > > all those billions of Masters would be? If they're all the Master,
>> > > surely they'd be busy backstabbing one another and trying to grab
>> > > power for themselves at the expense of the others.
>>
>r
>> > > a start, I expected them to be the expendable ones showing just what =
>a
>> > > dangerous threat had been unleashed, rather like the Tritovores in
>e
>> > > cacti. If they were just interested in buggering off, why go to the
>> > > trouble of saving the Doctor and Wilf anyway? No doubt kids will love
>> > > the rescue sequence, but even with his pop culture leanings I have a
>> > > hard time seeing the Doctor uttering the phrase "Worst ... rescue ...
>> > > ever!" Their ship was cute, in a "We took Starbug from Red Dwarf and
>> > > made it more angular" way, but why was it apparently powered by
>> > > hydraulics and looking generally like the inside of an industrial
>> > > estate within? Is this a homage to the reference to steampunk
>> > > spaceships in Tooth & Claw? It's pretty much the only episode that
>> > > *wasn't* referenced in that overly self-indulgent end sequence, after
>> > > all.
>>
>> > > Anyway, that's pretty much the story - Time Lords at the beginning, a
>y-
>> > > long blockbuster ripoff effects sequence, followed by the Doctor
>> > > revolving interminably while pointing a pistol at people (why not
>> > > shoot whatever the explody thing behind the Master was at the start?)
>> > > as a giant planet (is Gallifrey meant to be tha big?) appears and
>> > > implausibly fails to perturb the Earth even slightly despite being
>> > > only a few metres overhead, followed by several hours of ending.
>> > > Donna's foreshadowed recollections come to nothing, just an effect
>> > > that sends her to sleep until the end of the episode, and she gets no
>> > > new goodbye with the Doctor (probably for the best, since her last
>> > > would have been hard to top)
>>
>> > > Of course, this is Tennant's finale, so something needs to be said
>> > > about his regeneration sequence - and never in Who history has a
>> > > regeneration taken so long (well, except for the gap between Stolen
>,
>> > > actually, a week was shorter than this). The Doctor throwing tantrums
>> > > and the extended endings are so bad that it's easy (or at least
>> > > desirable) to block the whole thing from one's mind, but let's look
>> > > briefly at what prompted the regeneration. The Doctor absorbed a huge
>e
>> > > last real time, that is) to save Wilf. Hooray! An admirable, suitable
>> > > end for our hero, surely?
>>
>> > > Well, sadly, he even screws this up. He has to save Wilf because Wilf
>> > > bumbled into a cupboard for no terribly good reason - if he'd been
>t
>> > > would be if not preceded by an uncharacteristic tantrum whining about
>> > > how unimportant Wilf is and how the Doctor's so much more deserving,
>> > > and how grudgingly he saves Wilf at all), but no, he does it because
>s
>> > > his regeneration destroy the TARDIS, other than to give Moffatt a
>o
>> > > wrong, why does he regenerate while flying the thing through space
>> > > instead of with it quietly parked somewhere?
>>
>> > > Onto the ending(s), insofar as I haven't already mentioned them. The
>> > > nod to Human Nature was actually a nice touch - there was no rhyme or
>> > > reason to change who Martha was married to except to get an excuse to
>> > > squeeze Mickey in, and RTD characteristically overdoses on returning
>> > > aliens, with reappearances from every recurring alien in the show's
>> > > recent history except the Cybermen and Daleks - and the Hath too,
>> > > which now officially makes them a recurring alien, I suppose (well, I
>> > > quite liked them). But are Martha and Luke really so accident-prone
>a
>> > > shame, too, that RTD couldn't find a way to include K-9 in the goodby=
>e
>> > > sequence - I think that makes him the only recurring companion, other
>> > > than Pete Tyler (who's got the excuse of being (a) dead and (b) in a
>> > > parallel universe, if he even counts as a companion) from the current
>> > > series not to show up for the Big Goodbye.
>>
>> > > This leaves only one thing - the 11th Doctor. It's hard to gauge Matt
>> > > Smith here - he seems to be trying too hard to match Tennant's mania
>> > > to get a feel for who his character is, save that he seems to have
>> > > crossed Tennant's hyperactivity with Davison's absent-mindedness.
>I
>> > > did enjoy RTD's pokes at his appearance, and while he needs to tone
>> > > his act down a bit for the regular series, I found him more
>> > > immediately engaging than Tennant, who I took an episode or three to
>> > > get used to.
>>
>> > > So, where does this leave Moffatt? We're told time and again that he
>s
>> > > to find a way to bring Davros and the Daleks back (and in the case of
>> > > the Daleks he's got to do so in all of one episode...), and as far as
>> > > we know the Master is still out there living with the consequences of
>> > > his failed resurrection, and presumably eating people to do so, since
>o
>> > > ask where he'd gone (told you he was sidelined in this episode).
>>
>> > > Still, RTD's done Moffatt a favour - after this outing, the only way
>> > > the show can go is up.
>>
>> > > Phil
>>
>> Sorry about the slip of the mouse...
>>
>> All I wanted to say was that if the Doctor had to sacrifice himself to
>> people like Caves so much - it makes me mad every time I watch it...
>
>Oh, I completely agree - but did Peri get into trouble as a result of
>her own stupidity?
>
>That's the big problem for me with this sequence - I wanted to cheer
>the Doctor on for saving our beloved Wilf, and the revelation that
>Wilf was the one whose four knocks would herald the Doctor's death was
>the most inspired part of the episode. But I couldn't - mostly because
>the Doctor was so grudging about it, but also partly because he had a
>point - it was Wilf's own stupid fault.
>
>Phil
Wilf is a nice old fighter!
Andrew
I think it's that Peri had a couple of outstanding qualities that were
well to the fore at the end of "Caves"
Monsieur Tabernac
Yes, but this time he'd been given a prophecy about his death by a
loonie he met on a public bus. Death had never been so certain! :)
The Doctor
Stephen Wilson
"Monsieur Tabernac" <mtab...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u4luj51nf92mkolpr...@4ax.com...
Yep. And as we all know, psychics are always right. I guess that's why so
many have been able to give up their job as entertainers thanks to having
the ability to pick all the winning lottery numbers...
The Face of Po
AlanSailsbury got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:[...]
>>And why on Earth does
>> his regeneration destroy the TARDIS, other than to give Moffatt a
>> chance to rebuild it?
>
> Sigh. Think outside the box. The Doctor was fighting his regeneration.
> The TARDIS is tuned into The Doctor, as we know, so it's plausible
> that the struggle caused the TARDIS to blow up. In fact it was OBVIOUS
> that's what happened!
Not to any of the people I was watching it with.
For a ship that carries Time Lords around, the inability to withstand an
unwilling regeneration would be something of a design flaw.
--
Happiness will prevail
F�achad�ir
<alansa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>. They were FAR AWAY. Things LOOK SMALLER the
>further they are away.
I knew we'd eventually get a Dr Who/Fr Ted crossover.
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
� F�achad�ir
The Doctor
launcelot
> Well, I was pretty scathing in my original review of part one, but
> after being persuaded to rewatch it I revised my opinion upwards on
> second viewing (though on third, watching it as a lead-in to part two,
> I was sorely tempted to fastforward in more than a few places).
Phil, I feel your pain. But - setting aside all the cheese and chop
suey - I'd like to briefly add something else in comment about the
finale that I don't see mentioned elsewhere.
For me, I think what I've always really liked and valued about Doctor
Who is (or was) its firm convictions about the nature of good and
evil. As kid-fare, it's the responsible option to be morally
instructive and Doctor Who always made it doggedly clear that whatever
was lurking in the dark or going bump in the night had nothing to do
with anything supernatural. It might look like magic to the
credulous observer but the Doctor would ever expose it as rational
science. The devil never made them do it - it was always their own
greed, hate, jealousy or sheer bestial instincts that prompted the
monsters towards their depravity.
With RTD - and in this two parter - we get the superstitious stink of
prophecies and destinies, as if life is lived on rails and so that
choices and intentions are irrelevant and, therefore, there is no such
thing as responsibility. I find no value in a Doctor Who that
suggests fortune telling or spiritual evil have any credibility. I
reject this episode as much as I reject The Satan Pit, etc.
Then, on another level, I also hate this fashion of retcon for its own
sake ... and retcon mitigation in particular. For example, with the
Master, we suddenly learn that his whole career of evil was
effectively the result of some kind of criminal psychological
assault. I'm sorry, I don't find that clever writing - it just ruins
a favourite character by messing up its motivation. Same with the
Time Lords. What was always valuable about them as characters was in
their contrast to the Doctor - not because the Time Lords were
meglomaniac baddies, but because they disdained to own any kind of
moral responsibility and act to prevent the arbitrary cruelty and
depredations of other sentient beings. Again, turning the Time
Lords into the baddies of the week wasn't clever IMO - just another
retcon short-term gesture and long-term waste.
When I heard Dalton called Rassilon as a throwaway flourish, I
thought, yeah, actually that's enough from you RTD - please go now.
What I don't see in Mofatt is anything of him being an RTD clone. I
detect Mofatt as a rational humanist and expect this is the territory
he will direct the show back into. He's a good drama writer too.
ALK
FunkyM
>
> Okay, it's not as downright *bad* as Fear Her - nothing I've seen in
> Who is. And I've seen Delta and the Bannermen.
Heh... it wasn't the best, but it wasn't as terrible as all that.
> But it has so many
> embarrassing, horrible moments that I find it hard to decide whether
> giving Donna the winning lottery ticket is cheesier than all the
> plagiarised movie scenes,
Hmmm... dunno, that and the Rose scene were the only two pre-
regeneration scenes that weren't totally superfluous, IMO, given that
Donna was one of the few loose ends RTD had left dangling. Wasn't a
great ending for her, but it was passable IMO.
But those saying they could have skipped straight to the Rose scene
and not lost much, if anything are pretty much right on.
> Anyway, I'd better start from the beginning - if I can find it, given
> that this episode has a longer, duller ending than Return of the King
> The first scene, extended past the bit in the 'exclusive scene', is
> actually mostly okay - the only thing that grates is the Magic
> Gauntlet bit and the complete indifference of the other Time Lords to
> the fact that their leader randomly murdered someone.
Think he was wearing a Nintendo Power Glove. :P
> As with last
> week's Master effects, this proved once again to be entirely
> unnecessary, making Dalton's character even more unsubtly villainous
> than his Evil Megalomaniac(TM) delivery already indicated and thus
> less interesting. Which is a shame because otherwise the Gallifrey
> scenes generally were okay (though why was the planet covered in what
> seemed to be baby Dalek saucers?) The link with the Master was
> explained as well as it could have been in the circumstances, although
> using him as a homing beacon doesn't really explain why the drums
> sounded louder *to him* as the Time Lords got closer - surely the
> reverse should have been true?
The Time Lord High Council chamber was totally the senate chamber from
the Star Wars prequels, but RTD was giving "homage" to so much stuff
(especially from Star Wars - see also the Falcon gun turrets, and was
Capt. Jack in the Cantina on Tatooine?) Maybe it was supposed to be
obvious?
The problem with Timothy Dalton's character was that he got virtually
no development, so we really have no clue how he came to power, how he
got the amount of power he has within the Time Lord government
(obviously a lot since he can murder people on a whim), why he's
acting so evil, etc. He's more of a plot device than a character.
> As for the Master, he's rather sidelined this time round - his
> billions of Masters weren't much more than a cliffhanger ending, and
> are done away pretty much as an afterthought - all they're there for
> is to give the Master slaves, which is surely the very *last* thing
> all those billions of Masters would be? If they're all the Master,
> surely they'd be busy backstabbing one another and trying to grab
> power for themselves at the expense of the others.
Yeah, exactly. On the bright side, John Simm played the Master a lot
less camp this time around...? (That's saying a lot since he was
partly in drag...)
> Anyway, that's pretty much the story - Time Lords at the beginning, a
> lot of time sitting on a spaceship doing nothing followed by an overly-
> long blockbuster ripoff effects sequence, followed by the Doctor
> revolving interminably while pointing a pistol at people (why not
> shoot whatever the explody thing behind the Master was at the start?)
Can't have a big RTD finale without a deus ex machina, it seems. But
shouldn't the Doctor's regeneration have resulted from JUMPING FROM A
MILE UP, OUT OF A MOVING SPACESHIP? :)
> This leaves only one thing - the 11th Doctor. It's hard to gauge Matt
> Smith here - he seems to be trying too hard to match Tennant's mania
> to get a feel for who his character is, save that he seems to have
> crossed Tennant's hyperactivity with Davison's absent-mindedness.
Pretty much the same feeling here. Feeling a little "Tennant"ative
about Matt Smith.
Didn't dislike the episode as much as you seemed to. Maybe it was
because some of the negative comments online made it sound worse than
it was. But it was easy to see the flaws.
The Doctor
launcelot <a...@viva-granada.com> wrote:
Dalton might a Lord President like Borusa who wants to
be a corrupt President Eternal.
solar penguin
pbo...@aol.com wrote:
I thought that was the whole point. To show how much bigger the
Galifreyan Citadel is, compared to the smaller(non-Gallifreyan)
buildings in other episodes.
launcelot
> be a corrupt President Eternal.
> --
> Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
> Merry Christmas 2009 and Happy New Year 2010
If I recall it right, it was the purpose of the Game of Rassilon to
trap loonies like Borusa - ergo, the evidence doesn't point towards
Rassilon himself being an unbalanced character.
But that is continuity going back a billion years and it would be
churlish to demand that RTD treat the Five Doctors like holy
scripture. However, I'm as old as Davies and when he invokes a name
like Rassilon, he is talking directly at people like me and we
instantly know its a tip of the hat to something from forty years
back. He thinks that sort of flippant gesture is clever and amusing -
but I'm saying, no, it's actually rather cringeworthy. It's like
someone sticking their hand up to get your attention and then, when
they've got your attention, it turns out they've got nothing to tell
you. Because all they wanted was your attention.
solar penguin
pbo...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Which gives pretty sinister implications for the Vinvochi 'medical
> device' - does it usually enslave its patients?
I assumed that was something the Master did when he modified the
machine.
But yes, it would have been fun to see the Doctor turning the various
Masters against each other.
> While we're on the
> subject, the Doctor said that killing the Master would reverse its
> effects - what sort of medical apparatus would be designed to make
> people ill again once the template used to cure them died?
Again, I assumed that was another side effect of the Master's
modifications. (After all, we never got to see the machine working
normally in its unmodified state, so it's pointless to speculate on
how it usually works.)
>
> It's the "I'm so important and I have to save this nobody" speech that
> was out of character.
>
I sort-of agree. It's too defeatist for the Doctor.
Instead of moaning, an in-character Doctor would've used that time to
think up a way to rescue Wilf without setting off the radiation. e.g.
Building a teleport and beaming him out from a safe distance, or using
the TARDIS to fetch Jack from the cantina and letting him go into the
glass box.
(And if he had to go in there himself, why didn't he just do a silly
dance to shake all the radiation into his shoe, like in Smith &
Jones? You'd think RTD would be able to remember the superpowers he's
given the Doctor in his own scripts!)
solar penguin
pbo...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Of course, this is Tennant's finale, so something needs to be said
> about his regeneration sequence - and never in Who history has a
> regeneration taken so long (well, except for the gap between Stolen
> Earth and Journey's End, when the regeneration took a whole week - no,
> actually, a week was shorter than this).
What about the six months between Troughton and Pertwee? Last time I
checked, six months was longer than one week...
pbo...@aol.com
> pbow...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Which gives pretty sinister implications for the Vinvochi 'medical
> > device' - does it usually enslave its patients?
>
> I assumed that was something the Master did when he modified the
> machine.
>
> But yes, it would have been fun to see the Doctor turning the various
> Masters against each other.
>
> > While we're on the
> > subject, the Doctor said that killing the Master would reverse its
> > effects - what sort of medical apparatus would be designed to make
> > people ill again once the template used to cure them died?
>
> Again, I assumed that was another side effect of the Master's
> modifications. (After all, we never got to see the machine working
> normally in its unmodified state, so it's pointless to speculate on
> how it usually works.)
Why would the Master want the effects to be reversible? Anyway, the
Doctor never had a look at the apparatus - all he knows of how it
works has to come from the information the Vinvochi gave him, and they
only know how it's meant to work.
> > It's the "I'm so important and I have to save this nobody" speech that
> > was out of character.
>
> I sort-of agree. It's too defeatist for the Doctor.
>
> Instead of moaning, an in-character Doctor would've used that time to
> think up a way to rescue Wilf without setting off the radiation. e.g.
> Building a teleport and beaming him out from a safe distance, or using
> the TARDIS to fetch Jack from the cantina and letting him go into the
> glass box.
Well, with a homage to most other episodes, why not Utopia as well?
Phil
pbo...@aol.com
Troughton changed during War Games - the voice at the closing credits
was Pertwee's. We didn't see the face, but the regeneration was
complete - hence no regeneration sequence (full or partial) at the
start of Spearhead.
Plus, if we're being truly pedantic, Troughton didn't actually
regenerate - he just had his appearance altered by the Time Lords.
Phil
Ignis Fatuus
You can say the same about Every regeneration (or change as it used to
be called) to date.
solar penguin
pbo...@aol.com wrote:
> On 3 Jan, 17:55, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > pbow...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > Of course, this is Tennant's finale, so something needs to be said
> > > about his regeneration sequence - and never in Who history has a
> > > regeneration taken so long (well, except for the gap between Stolen
> > > Earth and Journey's End, when the regeneration took a whole week - no,
> > > actually, a week was shorter than this).
> >
> > What about the six months between Troughton and Pertwee? Last time I
> > checked, six months was longer than one week...
>
> Troughton changed during War Games - the voice at the closing credits
> was Pertwee's. We didn't see the face, but the regeneration was
> complete - hence no regeneration sequence (full or partial) at the
> start of Spearhead.
A lot of people would disagree with that. Including a guy called
Terrance Dicks...
>
> Plus, if we're being truly pedantic, Troughton didn't actually
> regenerate - he just had his appearance altered by the Time Lords.
>
Touche!
solar penguin
Ignis Fatuus wrote:
Eh!?! What!?! Pardon!?! Sorry!?! Every regeneration to date has
been caused by the Doctor being needlessly moaning and defeatist? Or
by executive producers forgetting the superpowers they've created in
their own scripts?
Either way, it's just not true. Have you been taking gibberish
lessons from Yads?
The Doctor
Still it is nice to see Gallifrey's panopticon.
Remember Invasion of Time?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
The Doctor
launcelot <a...@viva-granada.com> wrote:
> > Dalton might a Lord President like Borusa who wants to
>> be a corrupt President Eternal.
>> --
>2k.ab.ca
>> God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist=
> rising!http://twitter.com/rootnl2khttp://www.myspace.com/502748630
>> Merry Christmas 2009 and Happy New Year 2010
>
>If I recall it right, it was the purpose of the Game of Rassilon to
>trap loonies like Borusa - ergo, the evidence doesn't point towards
>Rassilon himself being an unbalanced character.
>But that is continuity going back a billion years and it would be
>churlish to demand that RTD treat the Five Doctors like holy
>scripture. However, I'm as old as Davies and when he invokes a name
>like Rassilon, he is talking directly at people like me and we
>instantly know its a tip of the hat to something from forty years
>back. He thinks that sort of flippant gesture is clever and amusing -
>but I'm saying, no, it's actually rather cringeworthy. It's like
>someone sticking their hand up to get your attention and then, when
>they've got your attention, it turns out they've got nothing to tell
>you. Because all they wanted was your attention.
Well they got it. And the Game of Rassilon might be continuing.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
The Doctor
Ignis Fatuus
<solar....@googlemail.com> wrote:
I'm just following the scenarios you're outlined yourself.
Hartnell could have done a silly dance.
Troughton could have reversed the change of appearance.
Pertwee could have transported the crystal without poisoning himself
and listening to that interminable diatribe.
Baker could have disabled the thingumajig by sonic screwdriver
Davison could have whipped up an antidote
Can't remember what happened to Baker2... although I seem to recall TL
intervention
McCoy should have been more careful with the box.
Eccleston could have saved Rose in a millisecond and then returned to
finish the job...
As I say; None of the regenerations were strictly necessary. They
happened because the Actor was leaving.
launcelot
>
> Well they got it. And the Game of Rassilon might be continuing.
> --
I would have to say that winning attention is not the same thing as
winning admiration.
The only person who even mentioned the Game of Rassilon was me. Even
if it is continuing (and where is the evidence in the narrative?) it
will not be RTD writing it. So, unfortunately, I'm not quite
understanding what informs your speculation.
ALK
solar penguin
That's not the point. The difference is that all those would only
have been obvious to the character with the benefit of hindsight.
e.g. When the second Doctor called in the Time Lords, he didn't know
in advance that they were going to change his appearance; and when the
fifth Doctor set off to get the bat's milk, there was no way he
could've known that he was going to spill half of it leaving only
enough for Peri; and so on for all the others.
OTOH the tenth Doctor _knew_ that he'd get a fatal dose of radiation
if he stepped into the glass box, and chose to stand around moaning
about it, rather than even _trying_ to think up an ingenious way round
it. A moaning, defeatist Doctor is out of character.
The Doctor
The Doctor
launcelot <a...@viva-granada.com> wrote:
>On Jan 3, 6:59=A0pm, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
>>
>> Well they got it. =A0And the Game of Rassilon might be continuing.
>> --
>
>I would have to say that winning attention is not the same thing as
>winning admiration.
>The only person who even mentioned the Game of Rassilon was me. Even
>if it is continuing (and where is the evidence in the narrative?) it
>will not be RTD writing it. So, unfortunately, I'm not quite
>understanding what informs your speculation.
>
>ALK
Bring on Smith and Moffatt.
Ignis Fatuus
<solar....@googlemail.com> wrote:
They could all have saved themselves with a back in time trick. As for
the outburst - it was very Tennant, and very much in keeping with the
pressure he was under. He knew the moment was coming as surely as he
knew the part he'd played (and was still playing) in the Time War (as
the process had begun with Eccleston's Doctor before the new series
began; and must have needed closure from a future self). He didn't
know the detail; he didn't know the full meaning of the signals,
messages etc. coming from different eras; and the closure of his
personal trap took him by storm. However it falls short of your
particular reasoning it was a powerful piece of writing.
Davison might have spilled the milk but a Tardis trick could have
saved the day. Eccleston chose to stay and send Rose home when he
could easily have taken her back and returned before anyone noticed
He'd gone.
The fact is that by your logic regenerations are all avoidable - but
logic also dictates that the entire series is absurd. Beings with the
power to conquer all of space and time are ridiculous - but I don't
see you complaining when the story turns out Your way.
The fact is you're just nit picking because RTD's trashed the Time
Lords in no uncertain terms - tra la.
solar penguin
Ignis Fatuus wrote:
>
> They could all have saved themselves with a back in time trick.
But back-in-time tricks would be out of character for the Doctor too.
When I
> As for
> the outburst - it was very Tennant,
No. At a push, it might - just might - have been a bit Eccleston in
the right circumstances. But it's not even a tiny bit Tennant.
> The fact is that by your logic regenerations are all avoidable
Yes, with hindsight almost anything's avoidable. Big deal. But like
I said before, that's not the point. The point is whether or not the
Doctor reacts to it in character. And he was reacting out of
character.
> - but
> logic also dictates that the entire series is absurd. Beings with the
> power to conquer all of space and time are ridiculous - but I don't
> see you complaining when the story turns out Your way.
>
> The fact is you're just nit picking because RTD's trashed the Time
> Lords in no uncertain terms - tra la.
Don't forget that I'm the one person here who hates the Time Lord
concept as much as you do. Like I've said before, as far as I'm
concerned Dicks and Hulke made a big mistake when they decided the
Doctor wasn't human.
But there weren't even any other Time Lords in that scene, so what's
that got to do with anything?
solar penguin
The Doctor wrote:
> In article <cqq1k5p00gt6i5cti...@4ax.com>,
> Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
> >
> >I'm just following the scenarios you're outlined yourself.
> >
> >Hartnell could have done a silly dance.
> >Troughton could have reversed the change of appearance.
> >Pertwee could have transported the crystal without poisoning himself
> >and listening to that interminable diatribe.
> >Baker could have disabled the thingumajig by sonic screwdriver
> >Davison could have whipped up an antidote
> >Can't remember what happened to Baker2... although I seem to recall TL
> >intervention
> >McCoy should have been more careful with the box.
> >Eccleston could have saved Rose in a millisecond and then returned to
> >finish the job...
> >
> >As I say; None of the regenerations were strictly necessary. They
> >happened because the Actor was leaving.
>
> Take it easy. No need to be inflammatory.
Yes, he probably is just deliberately being inflammatory. He can't
_really_ be too stupid to understand the difference between "The
Doctor's reaction is out of character," and "This accident could be
avoided with the benefit of hindsight."
But it's fun to see how far he'll continue to keep pretending to miss
the point. Entertaining trolls deserve to be fed, and he's no
exception.
Ignis Fatuus
That decision was made by Newman and Weber back in 1963.
>
>But there weren't even any other Time Lords in that scene, so what's
>that got to do with anything?
It was a fine scene with an unexpected twist which explored the
'humanity' of Wilf And the Doctor. It's been coming since Planet of
the Ood - when Tennant's persona first started becoming more brittle
and defensive. It was brilliantly played by both actors; and brought
the Tennant/RTD era to a fitting conclusion - with a focus on
character rather than technobabble. How you can find fault with it
when you were singing the praises of the absurdities in Waters of Mars
is beyond me.
I've been highly critical of some aspects of New Who; but I'm
delighted to see this era end with a piece that devotes most of it's
energies to the strong points with a fine and focused piece of
writing.
Soze
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e2638351-eaf6-4d2f...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On 3 Jan, 17:55, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> pbow...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Of course, this is Tennant's finale, so something needs to be said
> > about his regeneration sequence - and never in Who history has a
> > regeneration taken so long (well, except for the gap between Stolen
> > Earth and Journey's End, when the regeneration took a whole week - no,
> > actually, a week was shorter than this).
>
> What about the six months between Troughton and Pertwee? Last time I
> checked, six months was longer than one week...
>Troughton changed during War Games - the voice at the closing credits
>was Pertwee's.
Are you sure about this?? I`m pretty sure Pertwee hadn`t even been cast when
The War Games was being filmed and if he had there`s no reason why they
wouldn`t have shown the new actor at the end. From what I`ve read over the
years no-one was entirely sure that Dr Who would even return for a S7 when
S6 was being filmed.
solar penguin
Ignis Fatuus wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 12:09:06 -0800 (PST), solar penguin
> <solar....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Ignis Fatuus wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The fact is you're just nit picking because RTD's trashed the Time
> >> Lords in no uncertain terms - tra la.
> >
> >Don't forget that I'm the one person here who hates the Time Lord
> >concept as much as you do. Like I've said before, as far as I'm
> >concerned Dicks and Hulke made a big mistake when they decided the
> >Doctor wasn't human.
>
> That decision was made by Newman and Weber back in 1963.
>
That's technically true, but a lot of Newman and Webber's decisions
were ignored by production teams. There's no reason why that
couldn't've happened to this one too.
> >
> >But there weren't even any other Time Lords in that scene, so what's
> >that got to do with anything?
>
> It was a fine scene with an unexpected twist which explored the
> 'humanity' of Wilf And the Doctor. It's been coming since Planet of
> the Ood - when Tennant's persona first started becoming more brittle
> and defensive. It was brilliantly played by both actors; and brought
> the Tennant/RTD era to a fitting conclusion - with a focus on
> character rather than technobabble. How you can find fault with it
> when you were singing the praises of the absurdities in Waters of Mars
> is beyond me.
>
When did I ever sing the praises of Waters of Mars? You've clearly
flipped over into total fantasy land now.
> I've been highly critical of some aspects of New Who; but I'm
> delighted to see this era end with a piece that devotes most of it's
> energies to the strong points with a fine and focused piece of
> writing.
Yes, clearly in your own fantasy land.
The Face of Po
solar penguin got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
>
> pbo...@aol.com wrote:
>
[...]
>> It's the "I'm so important and I have to save this nobody" speech that
>> was out of character.
>>
>
> I sort-of agree. It's too defeatist for the Doctor.
>
> Instead of moaning, an in-character Doctor would've used that time to
> think up a way to rescue Wilf without setting off the radiation. e.g.
> Building a teleport and beaming him out from a safe distance, or using
> the TARDIS to fetch Jack from the cantina and letting him go into the
> glass box.
I thought that this incarnation was done for as soon as he fell through
the window and hit the marble floor - that would be enough to mean he'd
have to regenerate fairly soon. But enduring the boxful of radiation
was what pushed him past some limit, and started the regeneration
process, which is why he was then able to heal the scars.
--
Happiness will prevail
Ignis Fatuus
<solar....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>Ignis Fatuus wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 12:09:06 -0800 (PST), solar penguin
>> <solar....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Ignis Fatuus wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The fact is you're just nit picking because RTD's trashed the Time
>> >> Lords in no uncertain terms - tra la.
>> >
>> >Don't forget that I'm the one person here who hates the Time Lord
>> >concept as much as you do. Like I've said before, as far as I'm
>> >concerned Dicks and Hulke made a big mistake when they decided the
>> >Doctor wasn't human.
>>
>> That decision was made by Newman and Weber back in 1963.
>>
>
>That's technically true, but a lot of Newman and Webber's decisions
>were ignored by production teams. There's no reason why that
>couldn't've happened to this one too.
>
It's good to see the new generation nudging the show back towards it's
roots. Lack of respect for it's origins was it's downfall in the first
place - but the main concepts are as much in demand today as they ever
were. It will be stronger still without all the plodding seventies
mythology.
The Doctor
The Doctor
pbo...@aol.com
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
Hmm, sounded like Pertwee's to me - don't suppose they could have
added it at the end to a VHS release (and hence the later DVD
release), recording it while Pertwee was still alive?
Phil
AlanSailsbury
> On 3 Jan, 20:36, "Soze" <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:e2638351-eaf6-4d2f...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On 3 Jan, 17:55, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > pbow...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > > Of course, this is Tennant's finale, so something needs to be said
> > > > about his regeneration sequence - and never in Who history has a
> > > > regeneration taken so long (well, except for the gap between Stolen
> > > > Earth and Journey's End, when the regeneration took a whole week - no,
> > > > actually, a week was shorter than this).
>
> > > What about the six months between Troughton and Pertwee? Last time I
> > > checked, six months was longer than one week...
> > >Troughton changed during War Games - the voice at the closing credits
> > >was Pertwee's.
>
> > Are you sure about this?? I`m pretty sure Pertwee hadn`t even been cast when
> > The War Games was being filmed and if he had there`s no reason why they
> > wouldn`t have shown the new actor at the end. From what I`ve read over the
> > years no-one was entirely sure that Dr Who would even return for a S7 when
> > S6 was being filmed.
No, they weren't sure if the series had a future when they STARTED The
War Games but the episodes were drawn out to replace other aborted
stories.
>
> Hmm, sounded like Pertwee's to me - don't suppose they could have
> added it at the end to a VHS release (and hence the later DVD
> release), recording it while Pertwee was still alive?
>
> Phil
Of course it wasn't Pertwee's voice! For goodness sake, they didn't
care THAT much about such fine details back then. Anyway, it's
obviously Troughton's voice.
Listen to yourselves guys. You're all over-examining Doctor Who. You
really expect TOO MUCH of it! Doctor Who is an entertainment series
for the family. That's ALL it is. It's not hard sf. It's not the
greatest story ever told. Not does it pretend to be. It's fluff. Good,
enjoyable silly exciting fluff but still fluff. That's all it's EVER
BEEN. Don't condemn RTD or his contemporaries for not making it into
something it's not intended to be.
Tune in, switch off your brain, and enjoy. It's a tv show about
heroism and monsters and lots of running about and things blowing up.
If you want something meatier you're looking in the wrong place. This
is the tv show that gave us the Zarbi remember.
The Doctor
AlanSailsbury <alansa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Jan 3, 5:57=A0pm, "pbow...@aol.com" <pbow...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 3 Jan, 20:36, "Soze" <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:e2638351-eaf6-4d2f...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> > On 3 Jan, 17:55, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > pbow...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > Of course, this is Tennant's finale, so something needs to be said
>> > > > about his regeneration sequence - and never in Who history has a
>> > > > regeneration taken so long (well, except for the gap between Stolen
>no,
>> > > > actually, a week was shorter than this).
>>
>> > > What about the six months between Troughton and Pertwee? Last time I
>> > > checked, six months was longer than one week...
>> > >Troughton changed during War Games - the voice at the closing credits
>> > >was Pertwee's.
>>
> when
>> > The War Games was being filmed and if he had there`s no reason why they
>the
>> > years no-one was entirely sure that Dr Who would even return for a S7 w=
>hen
>> > S6 was being filmed.
>
>No, they weren't sure if the series had a future when they STARTED The
>War Games but the episodes were drawn out to replace other aborted
>stories.
>
>>
>> Hmm, sounded like Pertwee's to me - don't suppose they could have
>> added it at the end to a VHS release (and hence the later DVD
>> release), recording it while Pertwee was still alive?
>>
>> Phil
>
>Of course it wasn't Pertwee's voice! For goodness sake, they didn't
>care THAT much about such fine details back then. Anyway, it's
>obviously Troughton's voice.
>
>Listen to yourselves guys. You're all over-examining Doctor Who. You
>really expect TOO MUCH of it! Doctor Who is an entertainment series
>for the family. That's ALL it is. It's not hard sf. It's not the
>greatest story ever told. Not does it pretend to be. It's fluff. Good,
>enjoyable silly exciting fluff but still fluff. That's all it's EVER
>BEEN. Don't condemn RTD or his contemporaries for not making it into
>something it's not intended to be.
>
>Tune in, switch off your brain, and enjoy. It's a tv show about
>heroism and monsters and lots of running about and things blowing up.
>If you want something meatier you're looking in the wrong place. This
>is the tv show that gave us the Zarbi remember.
>
>
>
>
>
>
TRoll on Zarbitroll!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
Born 29 Jan 1969 Redhill,Surrey,England UK
eusebius
>
> What I don't see in Mofatt is anything of him being an RTD clone. I
> detect Mofatt as a rational humanist and expect this is the territory
> he will direct the show back into. He's a good drama writer too.
>
> ALK
Oh yes, that's the most important thing, him being a 'rational
humanist' not whether he is a good producer or not. Get Dick Dwakins
to produce the thing.
I look forward to Moffatt because he is a superior writer (and will I
hope not ask RTD to write any episodes), and has superior taste based
on the available evidence thus far, and I hope will avoid the cheesy
campery and deus-ex-machina copouts RTD is so fond of.
Of course, what you describe is hardly a new phenomenon.
Heard of The Curse of Fenric? The Time Monster? Actually the McCoy era
(spit) was full of such things. Partly why it was so execrable on the
whole.
pbo...@aol.com
> On Jan 3, 3:55 pm, launcelot <a...@viva-granada.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What I don't see in Mofatt is anything of him being an RTD clone. I
> > detect Mofatt as a rational humanist and expect this is the territory
> > he will direct the show back into. He's a good drama writer too.
>
> > ALK
>
> Oh yes, that's the most important thing, him being a 'rational
> humanist' not whether he is a good producer or not. Get Dick Dwakins
> to produce the thing.
The other poster realises, I take it, that RTD's an atheist too? He
doesn't include demons in his stories because he thinks they're
actually real. Nor his use of them anything at all novel in Dr Who -
'ALK' disowns the Satan Pit, but that was just a retelling of Pyramids
of Mars. Why is "big red CGI beast made me do it" any worse than
"Sutekh made me do it" or "alien Celtic goddess made me do it" (Stones
of Blood)? As for the Master, no one made him do anything - he just
had an annoying sound in his head. That he responded to that by
becoming a psychopathic megalomaniac is entirely down to his own
character - and I don't think that detracts from the character at all;
if anything it makes him less the cardboard cutout panto villain he
was in classic Who.
> I look forward to Moffatt because he is a superior writer (and will I
> hope not ask RTD to write any episodes), and has superior taste based
> on the available evidence thus far, and I hope will avoid the cheesy
> campery and deus-ex-machina copouts RTD is so fond of.
I do still wonder how many people have paid attention to Moffatt's
stories. He does deus ex machina (Doctor Dances) and cheesy campery
(Empty Child/Doctor Dances). River Song's comments in Silence in the
Library make the Doctor out to be a more potent superhero than any of
the special powers RTD's bestowed on him.
Phil
Ignis Fatuus
That's because he's got two...
launcelot
Sorry, I don't have a take on Fenric. My range with Old Who only
goes to 1979.
The time monster was revealed as an alien entity - powerful but not
the hand of providence.
What I'm saying is that I prefer Who to have its head in a rational
humanist space - like it did in the good old days - rather than
beating a retreat into mysticism.
I don't mind if other people are cool with prophecies, destinies and
stuff like that in Doctor Who - I'm just saying that *I* think it's
cack and superstition is basically what's wrong with the world ;-)
Like Leela says; it's better to believe in science.
ALK
Ignis Fatuus
Prophesy is only knowledge of what's going to happen. In the world of
Time Travel it's the ability to buy a winning lottery ticket. Destiny
is your destination in a linear, time locked existence. I don't know
my destiny but someone in the future will.
Look through a telescope and you take a slice though time going back
tens, hundreds, thousands, millions, and billions of years - but you
don't get a complete picture. The detail depends on the sensitivity of
your apparatus.
Tie this in with time travel and you might get glimpses of a perceived
'future' that don't amount to more than a hint - or prophesy. A
'mystic' could simply be more 'sensitive' to signals than a regular
Joe - or more adept at interpreting those signals, like some radio or
sonar operators.
The series disappeared up it's bum when time travel was deregulated -
allowing superbeings to have dominion over the forces of nature. The
original Doctor was a voyager; alone and at the mercy of those forces.
Time Lords became creators and manipulators with the power to enslave
and even destroy the whole of creation. This concept is so ridiculous
that it merely subverts any attempt to achieve a plausible or
persuasive piece of fiction.
launcelot
> The other poster realises, I take it, that RTD's an atheist too?
I don't know what he his religiously. I'm just saying that what he
sometimes writes a whole bunch of superstition and christological
claptrap. There was one finale where RTD's Doctor was resurrected by
the prayers of the planet to do battle with the Master and he floats
through the air in a mystical aura while doing the jesus christ pose.
For my Doctor, there are no more things in heaven and earth than are
dreamt of in his philosophy. Science and rationality illuminate.
Evil has an internal origin - not an external influence.
He
> doesn't include demons in his stories because he thinks they're
> actually real. Nor his use of them anything at all novel in Dr Who -
> 'ALK' disowns the Satan Pit, but that was just a retelling of Pyramids
> of Mars. Why is "big red CGI beast made me do it" any worse than
> "Sutekh made me do it" or "alien Celtic goddess made me do it" (Stones
> of Blood)?
Okay, let me explain again. Sutekh and the Cailleach were not
supernatural or divine beings. They both happened to be alien
criminals whose powers might have appeared magical but were infact
shown to be the products of advanced alien science.
The story of the Satan Pit does not make this critical distinction.
The Doctor never reveals that the Beast is really just a big old alien
monster with a chip on its shoulder. In fact, the story does the
opposite and purposely invites speculation that this is the judeo-
christian devil - a being with mystical inexplicable powers who can
apparently possess and turn people evil at will and has a sideline in
prophecy. I even recall RTD preening about how clever he was for
creating an enemy whose nature the Doctor could not explain (other
than in metaphysical terms).
As for the Master, no one made him do anything - he just
> had an annoying sound in his head. That he responded to that by
> becoming a psychopathic megalomaniac is entirely down to his own
> character - and I don't think that detracts from the character at all;
> if anything it makes him less the cardboard cutout panto villain he
> was in classic Who.
I'm sorry, I'm afraid I disagree with this comment too. I'm sure the
sound of drums was intended to be understood as the reason for the
Master's madness - and therefore we were to consider it in mitigation
of his crimes - ie, because he had been effectively driven mad by the
Time Lords.
> I do still wonder how many people have paid attention to Moffatt's
> stories. He does deus ex machina (Doctor Dances) and cheesy campery
> (Empty Child/Doctor Dances). River Song's comments in Silence in the
> Library make the Doctor out to be a more potent superhero than any of
> the special powers RTD's bestowed on him.
Erm, no, again I don't agree with this comment. What superpowers has
Mofatt invested in the Doctor? (ie, extra to the abilities he already
has)
In what way is the Doctor cheesy or camp in the Empty Child? Just
because he dances (badly) ?
ALK
launcelot
>
> Prophesy is only knowledge of what's going to happen. In the world of
> Time Travel it's the ability to buy a winning lottery ticket. Destiny
> is your destination in a linear, time locked existence. I don't know
> my destiny but someone in the future will.
No, I'm afraid you're conflating science with metaphysics.
In Doctor Who, we are asked to accept the conceit that time travel is
possible. We don't know how it is done (obviously) but it is
definitely done out of some feat of science technology.
For sure, the fiction means you can pop along to next week and find
out the winning lottery numbers but that doesn't make Doctor Who a
prophet. Prophecy - and you're welcome to verify this with any
religious authority - is a specifically divine gift. Unlike time
travellers, prophets do not bop along to the future to make their
predictions - they get special knowledge of impending events from some
supernatural source.
> Look through a telescope and you take a slice though time going back
> tens, hundreds, thousands, millions, and billions of years - but you
> don't get a complete picture. The detail depends on the sensitivity of
> your apparatus.
> Tie this in with time travel and you might get glimpses of a perceived
> 'future' that don't amount to more than a hint - or prophesy. A
> 'mystic' could simply be more 'sensitive' to signals than a regular
> Joe - or more adept at interpreting those signals, like some radio or
> sonar operators.
I'm not quite sure what your reasoning is here. It sounds like
you're talking about clairvoyance or somehow being "in tune with the
universe". But that's mysticism not science.
I know that Time Lords have some kind of low-level mental connection
that looks like telepathy but I'd assume was just another product of
their astonishing technology. At least the Doctor never treats it as
a metaphysical power.
ALK
MerseyMal
gkenn...@potatojunkie.co.uk.invalid says...
>
> For a ship that carries Time Lords around, the inability to withstand an
> unwilling regeneration would be something of a design flaw.
Well it's hardly been in tip-top condition since it returned in 2005.
:-)
Ignis Fatuus
<a...@viva-granada.com> wrote:
>On Jan 4, 1:30�pm, Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
>>
>> Prophesy is only knowledge of what's going to happen. In the world of
>> Time Travel it's the ability to buy a winning lottery ticket. Destiny
>> is your destination in a linear, time locked existence. I don't know
>> my destiny but someone in the future will.
>
>No, I'm afraid you're conflating science with metaphysics.
>In Doctor Who, we are asked to accept the conceit that time travel is
>possible. We don't know how it is done (obviously) but it is
>definitely done out of some feat of science technology.
Thank you but I don't conflate. Science and Technology are merely the
products of our understanding of nature. Sound traveled at the speed
of sound long before the principles of jet propulsion were discovered.
If you accept the hypothesis of an object being transported through
space and time then de facto you accept that signals may pass along
the same route. The interpretation of those signals may be passed off
as science or conjury, it may be vague or precise; but even our
current scientific understanding of nature encompasses the probability
of signals that transcend the barrier of time as well as space.
>For sure, the fiction means you can pop along to next week and find
>out the winning lottery numbers but that doesn't make Doctor Who a
>prophet. Prophecy - and you're welcome to verify this with any
>religious authority - is a specifically divine gift.
I suggest you consult some dictionaries and encyclopedias in order to
develop your understanding of the term 'Prophecy', it's uses, and
origins.
prophecy
/proffisi/
� noun (pl. prophecies) 1 a prediction. 2 the faculty or practice of
prophesying.
� ORIGIN Greek propheteia, from prophetes �spokesman�.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/prophecy?view=uk
A few religious sources stipulate a divine origin for the prediction;
but it's not a universal requirement.
If I can tell you next week's lottery numbers then by definition I'm a
prophet. (and living in a tax haven)
> Unlike time
>travellers, prophets do not bop along to the future to make their
>predictions - they get special knowledge of impending events from some
>supernatural source.
>
I didn't suggest that time travel technology requires a physical
journey to the future - anymore than our understanding of the Universe
requires a trip into the past. All journeys are preceded by signals of
one form or another. That's the way nature operates. Signals convey
information; and if a traveler can come back from the future then so
can signals. They don't need to be sent deliberately in order to
convey some useful information; anymore than the light and radio
signals that we use to observe distant objects in the sky.
>> Look through a telescope and you take a slice though time going back
>> tens, hundreds, thousands, millions, and billions of years - but you
>> don't get a complete picture. The detail depends on the sensitivity of
>> your apparatus.
>> Tie this in with time travel and you might get glimpses of a perceived
>> 'future' that don't amount to more than a hint - or prophesy. A
>> 'mystic' could simply be more 'sensitive' to signals than a regular
>> Joe - or more adept at interpreting those signals, like some radio or
>> sonar operators.
>
>I'm not quite sure what your reasoning is here. It sounds like
>you're talking about clairvoyance or somehow being "in tune with the
>universe". But that's mysticism not science.
>
Not at all. The Universe is filled with energy in the form of waves,
particles, or whatever, that convey information if you have the skills
to interpret them. We look back across vast distances of Space And
Time; and if we accept the notion of a physical journey to the future
then we expect to encounter seers (or scientists) who may have
gathered information relevant to the period between our departure and
our arrival. We may also assume that natural signals will convey
information across the barriers of time as well as space. It may be
beyond our current abilities to receive or interpret such signals. But
even cavemen could look up into the past by gazing at the stars,
without possessing the interpretive skills of a modern astronomer. And
even the modern astronomer can only have a vague notion of the real
picture.
The Doctor
AlanSailsbury
> On Jan 4, 9:54 am, "pbow...@aol.com" <pbow...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > The other poster realises, I take it, that RTD's an atheist too?
>
> I don't know what he his religiously.
He's an Atheist, as you've just been told.
>I'm just saying that what he
> sometimes writes a whole bunch of superstition and christological
> claptrap. There was one finale where RTD's Doctor was resurrected by
> the prayers of the planet to do battle with the Master and he floats
> through the air in a mystical aura while doing the jesus christ pose.
> For my Doctor, there are no more things in heaven and earth than are
> dreamt of in his philosophy. Science and rationality illuminate.
> Evil has an internal origin - not an external influence.
>
I'm afraid "your Doctor" is whoever's written him. If RTD wants that
character to have supernatural essence than that's it. It's canon.
launcelot
> I suggest you consult some dictionaries and encyclopedias in order to
> develop your understanding of the term 'Prophecy', it's uses, and
> origins.
>
Fortunately, I don't have any problems with understanding the meanings
of words. Unfortunately, I'm not reading any properly objective
responses to my original points in what you've written. So, rather
than get bogged down with a discussion about the phycial nature of the
universe - fascinating as that subject undoubtedly is for some people
- I think I'd prefer to conclude by inviting you to review my previous
posts where I was talking about writing on Doctor Who.
launcelot
> On Jan 4, 1:37 pm, launcelot <a...@viva-granada.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4, 9:54 am, "pbow...@aol.com" <pbow...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > The other poster realises, I take it, that RTD's an atheist too?
>
> > I don't know what he his religiously.
>
> He's an Atheist, as you've just been told.
I'm told a lot of things but I don't blindly accept everything on face
value just because someone insists that I should and ignore any
evidence to the contrary..
If RTD is an atheist, I think it's fair for me to observe that he
seldom appears to write like one. I've given enough points to
support that already so I'm not going waste time repeating myself.
>
> >I'm just saying that what he
> > sometimes writes a whole bunch of superstition and christological
> > claptrap. There was one finale where RTD's Doctor was resurrected by
> > the prayers of the planet to do battle with the Master and he floats
> > through the air in a mystical aura while doing the jesus christ pose.
> > For my Doctor, there are no more things in heaven and earth than are
> > dreamt of in his philosophy. Science and rationality illuminate.
> > Evil has an internal origin - not an external influence.
>
> I'm afraid "your Doctor" is whoever's written him. If RTD wants that
> character to have supernatural essence than that's it. It's canon.
So your point is that if I think the show is taking a wrong turn, I
should just shut up about it ? You're not Russell T Davies, by any
chance are you?
ALK
Ignis Fatuus
<a...@viva-granada.com> wrote:
>On Jan 4, 3:22�pm, Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
>
>> I suggest you consult some dictionaries and encyclopedias in order to
>> develop your understanding of the term 'Prophecy', it's uses, and
>> origins.
>>
>
>Fortunately, I don't have any problems with understanding the meanings
>of words.
You have a problem understanding the word prophecy if you try
narrowing it down to mysticism.
> Unfortunately, I'm not reading any properly objective
>responses to my original points in what you've written. So, rather
>than get bogged down with a discussion about the phycial nature of the
>universe - fascinating as that subject undoubtedly is for some people
>- I think I'd prefer to conclude by inviting you to review my previous
>posts where I was talking about writing on Doctor Who.
You're reading a properly objective response to your wildly inaccurate
little homily on prophecy
QUOTE
Prophecy - and you're welcome to verify this with any
religious authority - is a specifically divine gift.
UNQUOTE
I have referred you to an authority, the OED, for a definition
prophecy
/proffisi/
� noun (pl. prophecies) 1 a prediction. 2 the faculty or practice of
prophesying.
� ORIGIN Greek propheteia, from prophetes �spokesman�.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/prophecy?view=uk
And posited a mechanism whereby a Prophet may receive signals from the
future, allowing predictions to be made without the need for indulging
in a physical journey through time.
So now we can go back to my original point that 'prophesy' is an
endemic feature of time travel. It's just about getting messages from
the future instead of the gods.
This is a properly objective response to your initial observation,
proposing a rational humanist explanation of Prophecy when viewed in
conjunction with a plausible mechanism for time travel.
QUOTE
What I'm saying is that I prefer Who to have its head in a rational
humanist space - like it did in the good old days - rather than
beating a retreat into mysticism.
I don't mind if other people are cool with prophecies, destinies and
stuff like that in Doctor Who - I'm just saying that *I* think it's
cack and superstition is basically what's wrong with the world ;-)
Like Leela says; it's better to believe in science.
UNQUOTE
Stephen Wilson
"launcelot" <a...@viva-granada.com> wrote in message
news:2e83327b-1358-40c9...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 4, 4:40 pm, AlanSailsbury <alansailsb...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 1:37 pm, launcelot <a...@viva-granada.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 4, 9:54 am, "pbow...@aol.com" <pbow...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > The other poster realises, I take it, that RTD's an atheist too?
>>
>> > I don't know what he his religiously.
>>
>> He's an Atheist, as you've just been told.
>
>I'm told a lot of things but I don't blindly accept everything on face
>value just because someone insists that I should and ignore any
>evidence to the contrary..
RTD has stated quite publically that he's an atheist.
>If RTD is an atheist, I think it's fair for me to observe that he
>seldom appears to write like one. I've given enough points to
>support that already so I'm not going waste time repeating myself.
Religion inspires a lot of SF writers, whatever their faith. Several Dr Who
stories have featured such characters and themes in the past, eg Buddhism
(Planet of the Spiders), Egyptian mythology (Pyramids of Mars), etc.
>
>> >I'm just saying that what he
>> > sometimes writes a whole bunch of superstition and christological
>> > claptrap. There was one finale where RTD's Doctor was resurrected by
>> > the prayers of the planet to do battle with the Master and he floats
>> > through the air in a mystical aura while doing the jesus christ pose.
>> > For my Doctor, there are no more things in heaven and earth than are
>> > dreamt of in his philosophy. Science and rationality illuminate.
>> > Evil has an internal origin - not an external influence.
>>
>> I'm afraid "your Doctor" is whoever's written him. If RTD wants that
>> character to have supernatural essence than that's it. It's canon.
>
>So your point is that if I think the show is taking a wrong turn, I
>should just shut up about it ? You're not Russell T Davies, by any
>chance are you?
Somebody somewhere always thinks the show has taken a wrong turn. The
writers will carry on regardless - they know better than to pay attention to
fan complaints. The producer in charge of the show will do it his/her way,
and the only thing that will alter that is any directive from his/her
superiors. And quite right too!
The Face of Po
I like this explanation. I'm just not sure that the production team saw
it that way - the prophet at the Time Lord table was very much like the
mystical priestesses of mythology.
--
Happiness will prevail
pbo...@aol.com
Keeper of Traken was after 1979, wasn't it? Does that really strike
you as a story based on anything other than mysticism, and cheap
mysticism at that?
Phil
The Face of Po
>
> "launcelot" <a...@viva-granada.com> wrote in message
> news:2e83327b-1358-40c9...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 4, 4:40 pm, AlanSailsbury <alansailsb...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Jan 4, 1:37 pm, launcelot <a...@viva-granada.com> wrote:
>>> > For my Doctor, there are no more things in heaven and earth than are
>>> > dreamt of in his philosophy. Science and rationality illuminate.
>>> > Evil has an internal origin - not an external influence.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid "your Doctor" is whoever's written him. If RTD wants that
>>> character to have supernatural essence than that's it. It's canon.
>>
>>So your point is that if I think the show is taking a wrong turn, I
>>should just shut up about it ? You're not Russell T Davies, by any
>>chance are you?
>
> Somebody somewhere always thinks the show has taken a wrong turn. The
> writers will carry on regardless - they know better than to pay attention to
> fan complaints. The producer in charge of the show will do it his/her way,
> and the only thing that will alter that is any directive from his/her
> superiors. And quite right too!
Sure, producers shouldn't have to read the rantings of every Aggy in
fandom, but a shows failings shouldn't have to go unaddressed until the
Head of Drama or whoever says "Oi, your ratings are slipping, do
something about it!" either. Is there no place for constructive
criticism?
--
Happiness will prevail
The Doctor
AlanSailsbury <alansa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Jan 4, 1:37=A0pm, launcelot <a...@viva-granada.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 9:54=A0am, "pbow...@aol.com" <pbow...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The other poster realises, I take it, that RTD's an atheist too?
>>
>
>He's an Atheist, as you've just been told.
>
>
>>I'm just saying that what he
>> sometimes writes a whole bunch of superstition and christological
>> the prayers of the planet to do battle with the Master and he floats
>> through the air in a mystical aura while doing the jesus christ pose.
>> For my Doctor, there are no more things in heaven and earth than are
>> Evil has an internal origin - not an external influence.
>>
>
>I'm afraid "your Doctor" is whoever's written him. If RTD wants that
>character to have supernatural essence than that's it. It's canon.
>
>
>
Still a good examination of theology from an Atheist.
The Doctor
launcelot <a...@viva-granada.com> wrote:
Still it means Gallifrey is out of place in the Universe.
Soze
"Stephen Wilson" <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:JHq0n.54437$RD3....@newsfe26.ams2...
>
> "launcelot" <a...@viva-granada.com> wrote in message
> news:2e83327b-1358-40c9...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 4, 4:40 pm, AlanSailsbury <alansailsb...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Jan 4, 1:37 pm, launcelot <a...@viva-granada.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Jan 4, 9:54 am, "pbow...@aol.com" <pbow...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > The other poster realises, I take it, that RTD's an atheist too?
>>>
>>> > I don't know what he his religiously.
>>>
>>> He's an Atheist, as you've just been told.
>>
>>I'm told a lot of things but I don't blindly accept everything on face
>>value just because someone insists that I should and ignore any
>>evidence to the contrary..
>
> RTD has stated quite publically that he's an atheist.
He`s actually banged on about it quite a lot. Moffat is an atheist as well
for what it`s worth. As were Bob Holmes and Chris Boucher. A lack of faith
seems a prerequisite for a good Who writer!
launcelot
> You're reading a properly objective response to your wildly inaccurate
> little homily on prophecy
> QUOTE
> Prophecy - and you're welcome to verify this with any
> religious authority - is a specifically divine gift.
> UNQUOTE
>
> I have referred you to an authority, the OED, for a definition
> prophecy
> /proffisi/
>
> • noun (pl. prophecies) 1 a prediction. 2 the faculty or practice of
> prophesying.
>
> — ORIGIN Greek propheteia, from prophetes ‘spokesman’.
>
> http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/prophecy?view=uk
Okay, I think it might help you to consult a non-compact edition of a
dictionary. Lots of words have more subtle definitions than perhaps
you realise.
> This is a properly objective response to your initial observation,
> proposing a rational humanist explanation of Prophecy when viewed in
> conjunction with a plausible mechanism for time travel.
Okay, but I'm not interested discussing your speculations about
physics. Your theories are fascinating I'm sure, but I would have
prefered to talk about Doctor Who.
ALK
launcelot
No, not really.
I'm not going to flesh out an argument to support why it isn't if you
can't even be bothered to set up some points to illustrate why it is.
Sorry.
pbo...@aol.com
> On Jan 4, 9:54 am, "pbow...@aol.com" <pbow...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > The other poster realises, I take it, that RTD's an atheist too?
>
> I don't know what he his religiously. I'm just saying that what he
> sometimes writes a whole bunch of superstition and christological
> claptrap. There was one finale where RTD's Doctor was resurrected by
> the prayers of the planet to do battle with the Master and he floats
> through the air in a mystical aura while doing the jesus christ pose.
And yet this was explained as what passes in Dr Who for science -
effectively the product of a giant neural internet resulting from
connections across humanity generated by the Master's satellites. You
say below that just calling a magic monster from the dawn of time an
alien is enough of a distinction for you - so why isn't this, since it
pretends to be science rather than magic?
> For my Doctor, there are no more things in heaven and earth than are
> dreamt of in his philosophy. Science and rationality illuminate.
> Evil has an internal origin - not an external influence.
Internal to what, however? Internal to the person promoting evil, to
the ones carrying it out, both? Or do you genuinely believe that it's
not possible for evil leaders to indoctrinate their followers into
committing evil acts? That, after all, is what demonic possession is
ultimately a metaphor for - and in keeping with that, the story made a
big thing about how susceptible the Ood were to suggestion.
> He
>
> > doesn't include demons in his stories because he thinks they're
> > actually real. Nor his use of them anything at all novel in Dr Who -
> > 'ALK' disowns the Satan Pit, but that was just a retelling of Pyramids
> > of Mars. Why is "big red CGI beast made me do it" any worse than
> > "Sutekh made me do it" or "alien Celtic goddess made me do it" (Stones
> > of Blood)?
>
> Okay, let me explain again. Sutekh and the Cailleach were not
> supernatural or divine beings. They both happened to be alien
> criminals whose powers might have appeared magical but were infact
> shown to be the products of advanced alien science.
It's time you were let into a little secret of Dr Who: its aliens are
fantasy monsters, its 'science' is magic - not in the Clarke sense of
something that appears magical by virtue of being so advanced, but
genuine magic - i.e. something that works not because of extrapolation
from real or plausible scientific principles, but because its creator
wants it to. Always have been, always will be. Sutekh's powers were no
less magical than the Doctor's Jesus routine in Last of the Time
Lords.
> The story of the Satan Pit does not make this critical distinction.
Actually, it makes it rather more explicitly than many classic
stories. The plot makes a big thing about the Doctor's disbelief in
magic or divine beings, and the Beast is revealed to be 'simply' a
powerful creature from a previous universe.
> The Doctor never reveals that the Beast is really just a big old alien
> monster with a chip on its shoulder.
He reveals that it's an entity with a particular origin, coming from
another universe planet - how does that *not* constitute 'alien'? It
doesn't have to have a named homeworld, or even species, to be an
alien. Neither the Beast nor the Doctor are shown to regard it as
supernatural - the Doctor goes into a long discourse about it
providing a 'rational' basis for mystical stories about devils. This
is exactly analogous to the story in Pyramids, as is the tale about
the Beast being imprisoned when his rivals clubbed together to
imprison him when he got too big for his boots. The only difference is
that it wasn't given a species name like 'Osiran'.
In fact, the story does the
> opposite and purposely invites speculation that this is the judeo-
> christian devil - a being with mystical inexplicable powers who can
> apparently possess and turn people evil at will and has a sideline in
> prophecy.
A prophecy that turned out to be wrong at the end of the episode, when
he got sucked into a black hole...
Yes, it does speculate that it's the Judaeo-Christian devil - i.e.
"the Judaeo-Christian devil is based on stories about a real alien
entity". You might recall that Sutekh likewise attributed devil myths
to himself, and the Celtic goddess turned out to be an alien as well.
Not only are these cases exact analogies, but Impossible Planet/Satan
Pit is a very strange target to pick on when complaining about the RTD
era compared to the past, simply because it is one of the biggest
nostalgia trips of his tenure - everything about it screams "classic
Who".
I even recall RTD preening about how clever he was for
> creating an enemy whose nature the Doctor could not explain (other
> than in metaphysical terms).
What's wrong with showing that the Doctor's knowledge is limited? The
story told us the Beast came from an area the Doctor couldn't access -
a prior universe 'before time' (bit of a problem for a time traveller,
that). That's not at all the same as saying it's metaphysical, and as
above the story went to some lengths to suggest that it was alien,
just not an alien the Doctor could understand.
Midnight likewise presented a being whose nature the Doctor couldn't
explain - and there too, there was no suggestion that it was anything
but an alien being.
> As for the Master, no one made him do anything - he just
>
> > had an annoying sound in his head. That he responded to that by
> > becoming a psychopathic megalomaniac is entirely down to his own
> > character - and I don't think that detracts from the character at all;
> > if anything it makes him less the cardboard cutout panto villain he
> > was in classic Who.
>
> I'm sorry, I'm afraid I disagree with this comment too. I'm sure the
> sound of drums was intended to be understood as the reason for the
> Master's madness - and therefore we were to consider it in mitigation
> of his crimes - ie, because he had been effectively driven mad by the
> Time Lords.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't follow. Yes, it was intended to be the
reason for the Master's madness (although didn't the Doctor say
specifically in Sound of Drums that he didn't know whether the Master
would have turned out badly without it?) But there has never been any
suggestion in any incarnation of the show that the Master is insane in
any legal sense that would diminish culpability for his actions - he's
entirely lucid and demonstrably aware of what he's doing both as he
does it and afterwards (and usually works to premeditated schemes),
which doesn't fit with any form of 'madness' that could be seen to
diminish his responsibility for his actions.
I wonder if you're getting distracted by semantics here - the word
'alien' isn't mentioned in Satan Pit but is in Pyramids, so one is
metaphysical and the other isn't. The word 'mad' is used to describe
the Master, so he must therefore lack responsibility for his actions.
It's more informative to look at the actual story presented and what
that shows us, surely. The Master stories, including the RTD ones,
show a man who's fully aware of and in control of his actions - the
only criteria needed to assign responsibility for them to him.
Pyramids and its derivatives (including Satan Pit) show a monster
capable of possessing people and turning them to evil - whether you
want to call that magical or 'scientific', it's exactly the same to
all intents and purposes in both cases.
> > I do still wonder how many people have paid attention to Moffatt's
> > stories. He does deus ex machina (Doctor Dances) and cheesy campery
> > (Empty Child/Doctor Dances). River Song's comments in Silence in the
> > Library make the Doctor out to be a more potent superhero than any of
> > the special powers RTD's bestowed on him.
>
> Erm, no, again I don't agree with this comment.
You really don't think Doctor Dances had a deus ex machina ending?
What superpowers has
> Mofatt invested in the Doctor? (ie, extra to the abilities he already
> has)
It wasn't specific abilities so much, it was River's comments to the
effect that he can destroy armies just by looking at them and the
like.
> In what way is the Doctor cheesy or camp in the Empty Child? Just
> because he dances (badly) ?
I didn't say the Doctor was camp, I said the story was - chock full of
innuendos likely to make Barrowman blush and, yes, including the
references to 'dancing'.
Phil
pbo...@aol.com
> On Jan 4, 4:40 pm, AlanSailsbury <alansailsb...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4, 1:37 pm, launcelot <a...@viva-granada.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 4, 9:54 am, "pbow...@aol.com" <pbow...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The other poster realises, I take it, that RTD's an atheist too?
>
> > > I don't know what he his religiously.
>
> > He's an Atheist, as you've just been told.
>
> I'm told a lot of things but I don't blindly accept everything on face
> value just because someone insists that I should and ignore any
> evidence to the contrary..
>
> If RTD is an atheist, I think it's fair for me to observe that he
> seldom appears to write like one.
What is it to "write like an atheist"? If he doesn't let his atheism
rule his life to the extent of forming an obsession in everything he
does, more power to him - do we want another Philip Pullman clumsily
disguising sermons as bad fiction? Many would say RTD has never put
much effort into disguising his bad fiction...
You don't have to believe in a religion to appreciate its imagery -
it's a tired refrain to describe religious mythologies as fairy
stories, but guess what? RTD's in the business of writing a kids' show
- why shouldn't he use fairy stories for inspiration?
It's not that he doesn't "write like an atheist", he just writes like
someone who's doing his job without a political point to prove,
atheistic or otherwise, and taking inspiration from whatever sources
make for fun stories - for that he should be applauded (he also,
incidentally, didn't write The Satan Pit).
Phil
The Doctor
>>
>> > On Jan 4, 1:37=A0pm, launcelot <a...@viva-granada.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jan 4, 9:54=A0am, "pbow...@aol.com" <pbow...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > The other poster realises, I take it, that RTD's an atheist too?
>>
>>
>> > He's an Atheist, as you've just been told.
>>
>> I'm told a lot of things but I don't blindly accept everything on face
>> value just because someone insists that I should and ignore any
>> evidence to the contrary..
>>
>> If RTD is an atheist, I think it's fair for me to observe that he
>> seldom appears to write like one.
>
>What is it to "write like an atheist"? If he doesn't let his atheism
>rule his life to the extent of forming an obsession in everything he
>does, more power to him - do we want another Philip Pullman clumsily
>disguising sermons as bad fiction? Many would say RTD has never put
>much effort into disguising his bad fiction...
>
>You don't have to believe in a religion to appreciate its imagery -
>it's a tired refrain to describe religious mythologies as fairy
>stories, but guess what? RTD's in the business of writing a kids' show
>- why shouldn't he use fairy stories for inspiration?
>
>It's not that he doesn't "write like an atheist", he just writes like
>someone who's doing his job without a political point to prove,
>atheistic or otherwise, and taking inspiration from whatever sources
>make for fun stories - for that he should be applauded (he also,
>incidentally, didn't write The Satan Pit).
>
>Phil
RTD did a better job of it in End of Time
unlike Gridlock!!
Ignis Fatuus
>> ? noun (pl. prophecies) 1 a prediction. 2 the faculty or practice of
>> prophesying.
>>
>> ? ORIGIN Greek propheteia, from prophetes ?spokesman?.
>>
>> http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/prophecy?view=uk
>>
>> And posited a mechanism whereby a Prophet may receive signals from the
>> future, allowing predictions to be made without the need for indulging
>> in a physical journey through time.
>>
>> So now we can go back to my original point that 'prophesy' is an
>> endemic feature of time travel. It's just about getting messages from
>> the future instead of the gods.
>>
>> This is a properly objective response to your initial observation,
>> proposing a rational humanist explanation of Prophecy when viewed in
>> conjunction with a plausible mechanism for time travel.
>
>I like this explanation. I'm just not sure that the production team saw
>it that way - the prophet at the Time Lord table was very much like the
>mystical priestesses of mythology.
Time Lords like their bells and smells, so it doesn't seem out of
place to me; but that doesn't preclude a rational explanation of their
'powers'. If it was fragments of images on a monitor, or calls on a
mobile phone, no-one would bat an eye.
The fire maker was a godlike magician to the caveman. Taking the radio
operator analogy - there are rare individuals with heightened
sensitivity who can detect patterns imperceptible to the majority of
their colleagues. In an advanced society the 'apparatus' could be
minute, or even incorporated into the body of an individual. The
ceremonials are just window dressing akin to the practices of some
members of our own scientific communities.
Unlike the Zombies in Waters of Mars it's just a plot mechanism and
not the focus of attention. The ongoing battle of wits, and the
developing relationships of the principles provide the meat. The
distorted time frames of the context add to the interest.
Having said all of that I'm no fan of archaic ceremonials patched onto
technologically advanced civilisations.
pbo...@aol.com
The story was predicated on the notion of a society that was so 'good'
that 'evil' beings turned to stone on arrival, and those were the
phrases used - not beings with hostile intent, but the metaphysical
concept of 'evil'. Yes, the Keeper had a magic gizmo that allowed him
to generate and maintain the anti-evil field (and, incidentally,
apparently allowed him to make prophecies), but a wizard doesn't
become a scientist just because he's got a wand - a magic tool is
still magic.
Phil
Ignis Fatuus
<a...@viva-granada.com> wrote:
>On Jan 4, 6:14�pm, Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
>
>> You're reading a properly objective response to your wildly inaccurate
>> little homily on prophecy
>> QUOTE
>> Prophecy - and you're welcome to verify this with any
>> religious authority - is a specifically divine gift.
>> UNQUOTE
>>
>> I have referred you to an authority, the OED, for a definition
>> prophecy
>> /proffisi/
>>
>> � � noun (pl. prophecies) 1 a prediction. 2 the faculty or practice of
>> prophesying.
>>
>> � � ORIGIN Greek propheteia, from prophetes �spokesman�.
>>
>> http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/prophecy?view=uk
>
>
>Okay, I think it might help you to consult a non-compact edition of a
>dictionary. Lots of words have more subtle definitions than perhaps
>you realise.
>
So subtle that they contradict and invalidate the definition supplied
above? Perhaps you could point me to an authority which defines
Prophecy as 'a specifically divine gift', thereby completing my
education. Kindly remember that I haven't precluded Divinity as a
source of Prophecy - I've merely suggested Time Travel as a Valid
Alternative; and signals or energy from the future as a source of
information.
>
>> This is a properly objective response to your initial observation,
>> proposing a rational humanist explanation of Prophecy when viewed in
>> conjunction with a plausible mechanism for time travel.
>
>Okay, but I'm not interested discussing your speculations about
>physics. Your theories are fascinating I'm sure, but I would have
>prefered to talk about Doctor Who.
>
My observations about science were a direct and pertinent response to
your own comment
Quote
I don't mind if other people are cool with prophecies, destinies and
stuff like that in Doctor Who - I'm just saying that *I* think it's
cack and superstition is basically what's wrong with the world ;-)
Like Leela says; it's better to believe in science.
Unquote
Perhaps I'm being presumptuous to suppose that my own observations on
science are as pertinent as Leela's? If that's so then I bow to her
superior knowledge and leave the field clear for her to continue the
discussion.
launcelot
> And yet this was explained as what passes in Dr Who for science -
> effectively the product of a giant neural internet resulting from
> connections across humanity generated by the Master's satellites. You
> say below that just calling a magic monster from the dawn of time an
> alien is enough of a distinction for you - so why isn't this, since it
> pretends to be science rather than magic?
Ah, okay, that's a fair point (except that Kronos wasn't a magic
monster). If there was a science rationalisation for what was going
on in that episode then, of course, yes you're correct about the
equivalence and the use of the example needs qualification. Which is,
science rationalisation or not, that in terms of the imagery invoked,
the scenes I'm talking about had very strong messianic overtones. I'd
argue that the visuals came across strongly in their religious
implications. At least, that's what *I* thought.
>
> > For my Doctor, there are no more things in heaven and earth than are
> > dreamt of in his philosophy. Science and rationality illuminate.
> > Evil has an internal origin - not an external influence.
>
> Internal to what, however? Internal to the person promoting evil, to
> the ones carrying it out, both? Or do you genuinely believe that it's
> not possible for evil leaders to indoctrinate their followers into
> committing evil acts? That, after all, is what demonic possession is
> ultimately a metaphor for - and in keeping with that, the story made a
> big thing about how susceptible the Ood were to suggestion.
>
Okay, I feel like I'm being drawn into repeating myself once again but
I'll try, for the last time, to explain my point - because this is
the central point I'm trying to make.
I hope you understand the religious concept of spirtual virtue and
spiritual evil. These are properties that are given to God (virtue)
and the Devil (evil) and, in religious terms, these entities are said
to have influence over people. When anyone says, for example, that
"the devil made me do it", they are rationalising their own aberrant
behaviour as being caused by something outside of themselves. Do you
see now what I mean by internally and externally motivated actions?
Yes, evil people can persuade other people to commit evil acts but the
responsibility for those acts belongs to the perperators primarily and
to the evil mastermind after the fact.
There are, however, no such beings as Gods or Devils. They are false
concepts and the fictional realms that they inhabit - complete with
tempting demons, angels, their earthly effects - like the weaving of
destinies and the sending of prophecies - are also entirely false.
There are no prophecies. There is no possession.
In Doctor Who, what we've been seeing emerging in the background of
the traditional science explanations for the fantastical events, is a
strain of irrationality that gradually assumes equality with science
as a means of understanding phenomena.
When we say the devil made us do it or prefer to believe that we are
riding helplessly along in the tracks of destiny - what we're really
doing is abicating our moral responsibility. I don't like to see
Doctor Who falling into this rut, so I'm glad RTD is buggering off and
more confident that Mofatt will restore the ethical position.
> > He
>
> > > doesn't include demons in his stories because he thinks they're
> > > actually real. Nor his use of them anything at all novel in Dr Who -
> > > 'ALK' disowns the Satan Pit, but that was just a retelling of Pyramids
> > > of Mars. Why is "big red CGI beast made me do it" any worse than
> > > "Sutekh made me do it" or "alien Celtic goddess made me do it" (Stones
> > > of Blood)?
>
> > Okay, let me explain again. Sutekh and the Cailleach were not
> > supernatural or divine beings. They both happened to be alien
> > criminals whose powers might have appeared magical but were infact
> > shown to be the products of advanced alien science.
>
> It's time you were let into a little secret of Dr Who: its aliens are
> fantasy monsters, its 'science' is magic - not in the Clarke sense of
> something that appears magical by virtue of being so advanced, but
> genuine magic - i.e. something that works not because of extrapolation
> from real or plausible scientific principles, but because its creator
> wants it to. Always have been, always will be.
Sorry, I just flat out disagree with this. Doctor Who monsters are
not meant to be understood as magical. Sure, their science is
fictional and improbable but nevertheless in the good old days the
show was quite definite in explaining weird powers as temporal
science. I'm not sure why you can't seem to grasp this. It seems a
simple enough notion to me.
> Sutekh's powers were no
> less magical than the Doctor's Jesus routine in Last of the Time
> Lords.
>
> > The story of the Satan Pit does not make this critical distinction.
>
> Actually, it makes it rather more explicitly than many classic
> stories. The plot makes a big thing about the Doctor's disbelief in
> magic or divine beings, and the Beast is revealed to be 'simply' a
> powerful creature from a previous universe.
Yes, a being that existed prior to the creation of the universe.
Can you really not see the implication in that?
>
> > The Doctor never reveals that the Beast is really just a big old alien
> > monster with a chip on its shoulder.
>
> He reveals that it's an entity with a particular origin, coming from
> another universe planet - how does that *not* constitute 'alien'? It
> doesn't have to have a named homeworld, or even species, to be an
> alien. Neither the Beast nor the Doctor are shown to regard it as
> supernatural - the Doctor goes into a long discourse about it
> providing a 'rational' basis for mystical stories about devils.
Erm, yes, and the rationalisation is that the irrational is rational.
Sorry, but I still don't buy it.
This
> is exactly analogous to the story in Pyramids, as is the tale about
> the Beast being imprisoned when his rivals clubbed together to
> imprison him when he got too big for his boots. The only difference is
> that it wasn't given a species name like 'Osiran'.
Sutekh, an alien mistaken for a god by early man, was not an immortal
being from beyond the dawn of time with magical inexplicable powers.
Sutekh, a mortal sentient creature, chose to do bad things. His
fellow beings, like Horus, apparently chose different moral options.
The two stories don't stand comparison.
>
> In fact, the story does the
>
> > opposite and purposely invites speculation that this is the judeo-
> > christian devil - a being with mystical inexplicable powers who can
> > apparently possess and turn people evil at will and has a sideline in
> > prophecy.
>
> A prophecy that turned out to be wrong at the end of the episode, when
> he got sucked into a black hole...
Leaving a prophecy to be laboured to death for the rest of the season.
>
> Yes, it does speculate that it's the Judaeo-Christian devil - i.e.
> "the Judaeo-Christian devil is based on stories about a real alien
> entity". You might recall that Sutekh likewise attributed devil myths
> to himself, and the Celtic goddess turned out to be an alien as well.
> Not only are these cases exact analogies, but Impossible Planet/Satan
> Pit is a very strange target to pick on when complaining about the RTD
> era compared to the past, simply because it is one of the biggest
> nostalgia trips of his tenure - everything about it screams "classic
> Who".
I'm genuinely surprised that someone actually thinks this. I'd
assumed most people would have counted the Satan Pit as a total wrong
step.
That's not meant as a criticism of yourself, I hope you understand.
But it is very interesting... even if, unfortunately, it tends to
confirm some of my misgivings.
>
> I even recall RTD preening about how clever he was for
>
> > creating an enemy whose nature the Doctor could not explain (other
> > than in metaphysical terms).
>
> What's wrong with showing that the Doctor's knowledge is limited?
Because it's tantamount to saying that there are some things science
will ultimately never be able to explain. And i don't accept that
message because of it's superstitious inclinations.
The
> story told us the Beast came from an area the Doctor couldn't access -
> a prior universe 'before time' (bit of a problem for a time traveller,
> that). That's not at all the same as saying it's metaphysical, and as
> above the story went to some lengths to suggest that it was alien,
> just not an alien the Doctor could understand.
And again, you don't see the implications of what is said to be the
Beast's origins.
The only thing known about 'before time' is what religions have
fabricated to describe such a place. And it turns out that they were
pretty much accurate in Doctor Who - which then declines to do
anything except shrug that it must all be true then.
>
> Midnight likewise presented a being whose nature the Doctor couldn't
> explain - and there too, there was no suggestion that it was anything
> but an alien being.
>
> > As for the Master, no one made him do anything - he just
>
> > > had an annoying sound in his head. That he responded to that by
> > > becoming a psychopathic megalomaniac is entirely down to his own
> > > character - and I don't think that detracts from the character at all;
> > > if anything it makes him less the cardboard cutout panto villain he
> > > was in classic Who.
>
> > I'm sorry, I'm afraid I disagree with this comment too. I'm sure the
> > sound of drums was intended to be understood as the reason for the
> > Master's madness - and therefore we were to consider it in mitigation
> > of his crimes - ie, because he had been effectively driven mad by the
> > Time Lords.
>
> I'm sorry, but this doesn't follow. Yes, it was intended to be the
> reason for the Master's madness (although didn't the Doctor say
> specifically in Sound of Drums that he didn't know whether the Master
> would have turned out badly without it?) But there has never been any
> suggestion in any incarnation of the show that the Master is insane in
> any legal sense that would diminish culpability for his actions - he's
> entirely lucid and demonstrably aware of what he's doing both as he
> does it and afterwards (and usually works to premeditated schemes),
> which doesn't fit with any form of 'madness' that could be seen to
> diminish his responsibility for his actions.
It doesn't seem useful to argue what constitutes being legally mad.
However, I'd say you don't actually have to be foaming at the mouth
before you can be counted as a loon.
The story offers us the possibility of understanding the sound of
drums as the trigger for the Master's behaviour. Your argument seems
to be that he isn't really mad because he isn't dribblling all the
time.
>
> I wonder if you're getting distracted by semantics here - the word
> 'alien' isn't mentioned in Satan Pit but is in Pyramids, so one is
> metaphysical and the other isn't. The word 'mad' is used to describe
> the Master, so he must therefore lack responsibility for his actions.
Er, okay, so you did basically understand what I meant...
>
> It's more informative to look at the actual story presented and what
> that shows us, surely. The Master stories, including the RTD ones,
> show a man who's fully aware of and in control of his actions - the
> only criteria needed to assign responsibility for them to him.
> Pyramids and its derivatives (including Satan Pit) show a monster
> capable of possessing people and turning them to evil - whether you
> want to call that magical or 'scientific', it's exactly the same to
> all intents and purposes in both cases.
... oops, no, actually you didn't. The way that Who characterises
causes of good and evil is apparently irrelevant for you. Well,
okay, moving on from that then, and as I've previously said, the sound
of drums provides mitigation for the Master's behaviour. The madness
was inflicted, therefore the responsibility was diminished.
SP is not derivative of Pyramids. Sutekh's disciples enable his
revival because they desire temporal power through him. I don't think
they are mesmerised or possessed to help him - although if they were
possessed it was by technical means.
>
> > > I do still wonder how many people have paid attention to Moffatt's
> > > stories. He does deus ex machina (Doctor Dances) and cheesy campery
> > > (Empty Child/Doctor Dances). River Song's comments in Silence in the
> > > Library make the Doctor out to be a more potent superhero than any of
> > > the special powers RTD's bestowed on him.
>
> > Erm, no, again I don't agree with this comment.
>
> You really don't think Doctor Dances had a deus ex machina ending?
No. The nano-robots that caused the plague also provide its
resolution. I don't see a sudden plot device in that. It seems
quite coherent to me.
>
> What superpowers has
>
> > Mofatt invested in the Doctor? (ie, extra to the abilities he already
> > has)
>
> It wasn't specific abilities so much, it was River's comments to the
> effect that he can destroy armies just by looking at them and the
> like.
Then please allow me to explain. The character was speaking
metaphorically. She didn't mean that the Doctor literally has death-
ray vision.
>
> > In what way is the Doctor cheesy or camp in the Empty Child? Just
> > because he dances (badly) ?
>
> I didn't say the Doctor was camp, I said the story was - chock full of
> innuendos likely to make Barrowman blush and, yes, including the
> references to 'dancing'.
>
> Phil
As a gay man, I guess it's inevitable that RTD includes gay content in
his scripts. It would be a bit repressed for him not to, I suppose.
Is that what you mean by camp? As for the dancing... well, I don't
know... is dancing gay too?
ALK
The Doctor
Didn't the MAster usro the Gallifreyan net in Deadly Assassin?
launcelot
> So subtle that they contradict and invalidate the definition supplied
> above? Perhaps you could point me to an authority which defines
> Prophecy as 'a specifically divine gift', thereby completing my
> education.
Sure, no problem. Please look up the definition of prophecy on the
online Encyclopedia Britannica. I trust you have heard of Britannica
and hope you'll agree that it has long-standing respect as a reference
of common knowledge.
> >> This is a properly objective response to your initial observation,
> >> proposing a rational humanist explanation of Prophecy when viewed in
> >> conjunction with a plausible mechanism for time travel.
This is fanalysis. It isn't an explanation given in any Doctor Who
script.
> Perhaps I'm being presumptuous to suppose that my own observations on
> science are as pertinent as Leela's? If that's so then I bow to her
> superior knowledge and leave the field clear for her to continue the
> discussion.
Please bear in mind that you said this, not me. Thank you and
goodnight.
ALK
Stephen Wilson
>>
>> I didn't say the Doctor was camp, I said the story was - chock full of
>> innuendos likely to make Barrowman blush and, yes, including the
>> references to 'dancing'.
>>
>
>his scripts. It would be a bit repressed for him not to, I suppose.
>Is that what you mean by camp? As for the dancing... well, I don't
>know... is dancing gay too?
I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but when the Doctor and Captain
Jack "danced", they weren't really dancing at all. They were making love...
launcelot
> > > Keeper of Traken was after 1979, wasn't it? Does that really strike
> > > you as a story based on anything other than mysticism, and cheap
> > > mysticism at that?
>
> > > Phil
>
> > No, not really.
> > I'm not going to flesh out an argument to support why it isn't if you
> > can't even be bothered to set up some points to illustrate why it is.
> > Sorry.
>
> The story was predicated on the notion of a society that was so 'good'
> that 'evil' beings turned to stone on arrival, and those were the
> phrases used - not beings with hostile intent, but the metaphysical
> concept of 'evil'. Yes, the Keeper had a magic gizmo that allowed him
> to generate and maintain the anti-evil field (and, incidentally,
> apparently allowed him to make prophecies), but a wizard doesn't
> become a scientist just because he's got a wand - a magic tool is
> still magic.
>
> Phil
Oh, no please Phil. Tsk. The notion that evil beings turned to
stone on Traken was pretty clearly a folklore explanation for why
Melkurs were imobilised on arrival.
There might have been any other reason for this (possibly atmospheric)
but it was never examined in the story. The single and only Melkur
we ever saw was, in fact, the Master's Tardis in disguise. The so-
called anti-evil field is clearly some kind of mechanical device.
There's nothing magical about it - the damn thing is a technical
instrument.
Okay, I'm sorry but you'll have to excuse me now. In parting, I
might suggest you reflect on the nature of scientific and magical
things because I really do think it's important to be able to
distinguish between the two .... and it's what I've liked about
Doctor Who, that it has actually been very good at doing this over the
course of its history. And it's been one of the reasons why I've
valued it. Again, this was my entire original point.
Thank you and goodnight
ALK
launcelot
<stephen.wilson2004nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but when the Doctor and Captain
> Jack "danced", they weren't really dancing at all. They were making love...
Oh wow. So, when the Doctor was dancing with Rose, was he really
shagging her? ;-0
ALK
The Doctor
launcelot <a...@viva-granada.com> wrote:
>On Jan 4, 11:18=A0pm, "Stephen Wilson"
><stephen.wilson2004nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but when the Doctor and Captain
>..
>
>Oh wow. So, when the Doctor was dancing with Rose, was he really
>shagging her? ;-0
>
>ALK
>
HA! HA! HA!
Ignis Fatuus
<a...@viva-granada.com> wrote:
>On Jan 4, 10:11�pm, Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
>
>> So subtle that they contradict and invalidate the definition supplied
>> above? Perhaps you could point me to an authority which defines
>> Prophecy as 'a specifically divine gift', thereby completing my
>> education.
>
>Sure, no problem. Please look up the definition of prophecy on the
>online Encyclopedia Britannica. I trust you have heard of Britannica
>and hope you'll agree that it has long-standing respect as a reference
>of common knowledge.
>
I have a Complete Set - as well as the Complete OED. Whereas the
Britannica encompasses a broad spectrum of Human knowledge and
learning it is not considered to be an Authoritative work, but merely
informative. The online version is not yet as comprehensive as the
printed version; but it has the virtue of being less cumbersome.
Without reproducing the entire article; On the subject of prophesy it
has this to say:
Quote
The term prophecy also has been used in a strictly predictive sense,
not necessarily dealing with religious themes. In this sense, The
Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, was viewed as
a �prophecy� of things to come; a new approach that goes against the
traditional in literature, art, politics, and other areas may�in this
wider sense�be termed �prophetic.�
Unquote.
I trust you'll agree that this doesn't appear to contradict either
myself or the OED.
The OED Is considered to be an Authoritative Work (although by no
means comprehensive) on the Origins and Meanings of words in the
English Language. Of course, as English is derived from a diversity of
other languages, the OED is also a repository of general linguistic
scholarship.
As our discussion has centred on the Meaning of the word Prophecy,
I'll leave you with this thought transcribed from the Complete OED
Quote
The action, function, or faculty of a prophet...
The foretelling of future events...
The foreshadowing of something to come.
Unquote.
Under Prophet it includes the following
Quote
The 'inspired' or accredited spokesman proclaimer or preacher of some
principle cause or movement...
One who predicts or foretells what is going to happen; a
prognosticator, a predictor (without reference to divine
inspiration)...
Unquote.
As you can see, this is problematic because it does Not entirely
accord with your assertion that a prophecy is 'a specifically divine
gift'.
Perhaps you could enlighten me further?
>> >> This is a properly objective response to your initial observation,
>> >> proposing a rational humanist explanation of Prophecy when viewed in
>> >> conjunction with a plausible mechanism for time travel.
>
>This is fanalysis.
On the contrary it's an extension of accredited scientific thinking to
the fictional realm of Time Travel without specific reference to
Doctor Who or indeed your most reliable authority, Leela. The use of
naturally occurring electromagnetic (and other) waves is a time
honoured means of predicting the future. If I see a Bull charging
towards me I am inspired with a pretty reliable vision of my Destiny.
The postulation of similar signals traveling back to us from the
future is a speculative extension of this mechanism; used amongst
others by Robert Heinlein , HP Lovecraft, and Greg Bear. It's also
been used in Doctor Who with such devices as the Time-Space
Visualiser, which predicted a troublesome encounter with The Beatles
(or was it the Daleks?). Perhaps a prophet is less persuasive than a
TV screen.
pbo...@aol.com
> On Jan 4, 8:40 pm, "pbow...@aol.com" <pbow...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > And yet this was explained as what passes in Dr Who for science -
> > effectively the product of a giant neural internet resulting from
> > connections across humanity generated by the Master's satellites. You
> > say below that just calling a magic monster from the dawn of time an
> > alien is enough of a distinction for you - so why isn't this, since it
> > pretends to be science rather than magic?
>
> Ah, okay, that's a fair point (except that Kronos wasn't a magic
> monster). If there was a science rationalisation for what was going
> on in that episode then, of course, yes you're correct about the
> equivalence and the use of the example needs qualification. Which is,
> science rationalisation or not, that in terms of the imagery invoked,
> the scenes I'm talking about had very strong messianic overtones. I'd
> argue that the visuals came across strongly in their religious
> implications. At least, that's what *I* thought.
You're right, the imagery was - and I also agree that this is a
salient point to pick up on. However, this is also making my case for
me - that's what's important is the message being given by what we're
shown onscreen, not whether we call it science or mysticism.
> > > For my Doctor, there are no more things in heaven and earth than are
> > > dreamt of in his philosophy. Science and rationality illuminate.
> > > Evil has an internal origin - not an external influence.
>
> > Internal to what, however? Internal to the person promoting evil, to
> > the ones carrying it out, both? Or do you genuinely believe that it's
> > not possible for evil leaders to indoctrinate their followers into
> > committing evil acts? That, after all, is what demonic possession is
> > ultimately a metaphor for - and in keeping with that, the story made a
> > big thing about how susceptible the Ood were to suggestion.
>
> Okay, I feel like I'm being drawn into repeating myself once again but
> I'll try, for the last time, to explain my point - because this is
> the central point I'm trying to make.
>
> I hope you understand the religious concept of spirtual virtue and
> spiritual evil. These are properties that are given to God (virtue)
> and the Devil (evil) and, in religious terms, these entities are said
> to have influence over people. When anyone says, for example, that
> "the devil made me do it", they are rationalising their own aberrant
> behaviour as being caused by something outside of themselves. Do you
> see now what I mean by internally and externally motivated actions?
> Yes, evil people can persuade other people to commit evil acts but the
> responsibility for those acts belongs to the perperators primarily and
> to the evil mastermind after the fact.
Quite. And I fail to see why this is an issue for you with what we
were presented with in Dr Who - Pyramids showed Sutekh rather than his
minion to be the primary agent responsible, likewise Satan Pit showed
the Beast rather than Toby or the Ood as the primary agent - it simply
moved responsibility up a level. This isn't equivalent at all to
someone saying "The devil made me do it" as an excuse - because we are
shown very clearly in this story that this devil was a real entity
that was genuinely influencing the behaviour of its minions, just as
Sutekh was. As such, it was a moral agent and responsible for its
actions.
And this is what I mean about focusing on the message rather than the
semantics. You can call it a devil if you like and claim it invokes
mysticism to explain it - but how does that materially affect the fact
that, just like Sutekh, this is presented as a real entity with
culpability for its own actions (and that gets its comeuppance as a
result)? The problem with the religious approach to the devil is that
that devil (unlike the one in Satan Pit) does not demonstrably exist
and can't affect people's behaviour, not that its origins are magical
rather than scientific (in either a real or Who sense).
> There are, however, no such beings as Gods or Devils.
Precisely. Yet in Satan Pit there was such a being as the Beast, and
it can genuinely be culpable for its behaviour.
> > > He
>
> > > > doesn't include demons in his stories because he thinks they're
> > > > actually real. Nor his use of them anything at all novel in Dr Who -
> > > > 'ALK' disowns the Satan Pit, but that was just a retelling of Pyramids
> > > > of Mars. Why is "big red CGI beast made me do it" any worse than
> > > > "Sutekh made me do it" or "alien Celtic goddess made me do it" (Stones
> > > > of Blood)?
>
> > > Okay, let me explain again. Sutekh and the Cailleach were not
> > > supernatural or divine beings. They both happened to be alien
> > > criminals whose powers might have appeared magical but were infact
> > > shown to be the products of advanced alien science.
>
> > It's time you were let into a little secret of Dr Who: its aliens are
> > fantasy monsters, its 'science' is magic - not in the Clarke sense of
> > something that appears magical by virtue of being so advanced, but
> > genuine magic - i.e. something that works not because of extrapolation
> > from real or plausible scientific principles, but because its creator
> > wants it to. Always have been, always will be.
>
> Sorry, I just flat out disagree with this. Doctor Who monsters are
> not meant to be understood as magical. Sure, their science is
> fictional and improbable but nevertheless in the good old days the
> show was quite definite in explaining weird powers as temporal
> science. I'm not sure why you can't seem to grasp this. It seems a
> simple enough notion to me.
Sorry, if a wizard lists the ingredients for his spells, they don't
become any less magical. I'm not arguing semantics, whether something
is to be 'understood' as magical or not, I'm pointing out what, in
practice, the monsters and their abilities amount to. And this is a
critical distinction - your own recital of Leela's quote "Better to
believe in science than religion" points to the very flaw in treating
anything in Dr Who as science. Saying "It's science, therefore better
than religion" doesn't wash - saying *why* science is better than
religion is the important lesson. Dr Who has never made any effort to
do any such thing - and when you see how many people (secular as well
as religious) fundamentally fail to understand how science proceeds,
why it's to be preferred or even really what it is, it becomes a
positive disservice to call something that's equivalent to magic in
all pertinent respects 'science' to give it a veneer of credibility -
because without the scientific process, it *is* just a veneer. Science
is not an alternative belief system to religion; it's a practical
process aimed at understanding phenomena empirically. Dr Who doesn't
dwell on the processes, which is fair enough given its focus, and it
doesn't make any claim to applying genuine scientific laws, which is
also fine so long as it's not taken to be more than the light
entertainment that it is and used in 'science=good, religion=bad'
arguments.
People have been known to call homeopathy science, and New Scientist's
Feedback section is always full of absurd New Agey product
descriptions that appeal to the 'science' of auras, crystal healing or
similar crap. True, there's less danger that anyone will take calling
something in a TV fantasy show 'science' seriously, but the same
principle applies - 'science' is not just a buzzword to be used to
lend credibility to fantasy. If it looks like magic, acts like magic
and feels like magic, it's magic.
> > > The story of the Satan Pit does not make this critical distinction.
>
> > Actually, it makes it rather more explicitly than many classic
> > stories. The plot makes a big thing about the Doctor's disbelief in
> > magic or divine beings, and the Beast is revealed to be 'simply' a
> > powerful creature from a previous universe.
>
> Yes, a being that existed prior to the creation of the universe.
> Can you really not see the implication in that?
I think your interpretation of both real-world mythologies and the
story presented here is somewhat simplistic. "Before this universe"
need not imply "supernatural" - Christians believe in something that
existed before the universe only insofar as they posit a creative
force for the universe; it's not "being before the universe" that is
supernatural in itself. Science too, after all, posits the possible
existence of prior universes, or of different branes whose collision
could generate a big bang event (it's even been suggested the 'axis of
evil' could be an imprint from a converging universe) - possibly the
Beast could have come from one of the colliding branes. This story
establishes that prior to "this universe" there was another material
universe complete with planets and varied alien races, and makes it
clear that the Beast had no role in the creation of the next (current)
universe (it was imprisoned by that time, and refers to the Big Bang
as the "Cataclysm" or somesuch). There's nothing implicitly
supernatural in any of that.
> > > The Doctor never reveals that the Beast is really just a big old alien
> > > monster with a chip on its shoulder.
>
> > He reveals that it's an entity with a particular origin, coming from
> > another universe planet - how does that *not* constitute 'alien'? It
> > doesn't have to have a named homeworld, or even species, to be an
> > alien. Neither the Beast nor the Doctor are shown to regard it as
> > supernatural - the Doctor goes into a long discourse about it
> > providing a 'rational' basis for mystical stories about devils.
>
> Erm, yes, and the rationalisation is that the irrational is rational.
Hmm? It's that the stories could be based on a real entity - there's
nothing especially irrational about that, certainly no more so than
the other times Who has done the same thing.
> This
>
> > is exactly analogous to the story in Pyramids, as is the tale about
> > the Beast being imprisoned when his rivals clubbed together to
> > imprison him when he got too big for his boots. The only difference is
> > that it wasn't given a species name like 'Osiran'.
>
> Sutekh, an alien mistaken for a god by early man, was not an immortal
> being from beyond the dawn of time with magical inexplicable powers.
No, just a mostly immortal being from a long time ago with magical
inexplicable powers,
> Sutekh, a mortal sentient creature, chose to do bad things. His
> fellow beings, like Horus, apparently chose different moral options.
I'm seeing no difference with the tale of the Beast's contemporaries
rising up against him to imprison him.
> > In fact, the story does the
>
> > > opposite and purposely invites speculation that this is the judeo-
> > > christian devil - a being with mystical inexplicable powers who can
> > > apparently possess and turn people evil at will and has a sideline in
> > > prophecy.
>
> > A prophecy that turned out to be wrong at the end of the episode, when
> > he got sucked into a black hole...
>
> Leaving a prophecy to be laboured to death for the rest of the season.
All three episodes of it. When it turned out to be wrong then as well,
except that RTD tried to fudge it. You certainly won't get any
argument from me that that was a dreadful resolution, but it's a
standby of fantasy fiction and much more-or-less genuine sci-fi that
if someone prophesies something, it must come to pass (I was expecting
to see the Beast back due to its prophecy and the lengths RTD went to
to try and make its other part fit) - look at Battlestar Galactica.
> > Yes, it does speculate that it's the Judaeo-Christian devil - i.e.
> > "the Judaeo-Christian devil is based on stories about a real alien
> > entity". You might recall that Sutekh likewise attributed devil myths
> > to himself, and the Celtic goddess turned out to be an alien as well.
> > Not only are these cases exact analogies, but Impossible Planet/Satan
> > Pit is a very strange target to pick on when complaining about the RTD
> > era compared to the past, simply because it is one of the biggest
> > nostalgia trips of his tenure - everything about it screams "classic
> > Who".
>
> I'm genuinely surprised that someone actually thinks this. I'd
> assumed most people would have counted the Satan Pit as a total wrong
> step.
It's one of the more popular stories of its season, I believe, so I
doubt it. But as well as being a nearly exact homage to a prior story
(to the extent I'm not sure why Woolf agreed to the part - surely he
must have been thinking "Hang on, didn't I already do this one?"), it
had the base-under-siege thing, crawls through access ducts that were
there for no terribly discernible reason, and one of the largest casts
of developed, focal guest characters in new Who - very reminiscent of
the way the classic series often focused on serial-specific
characters. Oh, and the monster effects were a bit daft, and I'm
pretty sure a quarry was involved at one point...
> > I even recall RTD preening about how clever he was for
>
> > > creating an enemy whose nature the Doctor could not explain (other
> > > than in metaphysical terms).
>
> > What's wrong with showing that the Doctor's knowledge is limited?
>
> Because it's tantamount to saying that there are some things science
> will ultimately never be able to explain. And i don't accept that
> message because of it's superstitious inclinations.
I think you're looking too hard to find superstition to react against
(or finding it too easily). Science is in the business of making
models, approximations that are likely to reflect the real world to a
useful degree. It's not about finding complete explanations, and it's
a common opinion among scientists that there may very well be some
things science will never be able to explain. This is a rational
concern grounded in the simple observation that the universe wasn't
designed with humans in mind (while the reverse is generally believed
in superstition), but arose from natural processes that have no very
good reason to conform to a level of complexity that happens to be
comprehensible to a group of derived primates on one of its planets.
The fact that some forms of superstition also hijack this notion for
their own ends is immaterial; what matters is not whether it's 'tarred
with association' but, as with anything in scienve, whether it's a
case that can rationally be defended. You might as well declare that
asking about the origin of life is off-limits; since creationists
posit a god being directly responsible, that question could be said to
have "superstitious implications".
I also think you misunderstand the intent of RTD's 'boast' that he
created an adversary the Doctor was unable to explain. The ultimate
quest in any science fiction portraying aliens is to find a way of
presenting them that is, indeed, alien - something whose nature is so
far outside our understanding that we can't readily conceive of them.
Because, after all, men in rubber suits or CGI monsters with human
personalities don't represent what a 'real' alien would be like.
Attempts to make 'alien' aliens include such things as Contact and
Solaris (although since Solaris ends by deciding that the alien is a
baby god, you might not like it - then again, it describes said alien
in scientific terms (genuinely scientific, in that the whole plot
revolves around the characters trying to understand what it is based
on their observations), so you may do).
> The
>
> > story told us the Beast came from an area the Doctor couldn't access -
> > a prior universe 'before time' (bit of a problem for a time traveller,
> > that). That's not at all the same as saying it's metaphysical, and as
> > above the story went to some lengths to suggest that it was alien,
> > just not an alien the Doctor could understand.
>
> And again, you don't see the implications of what is said to be the
> Beast's origins.
See above.
> The only thing known about 'before time' is what religions have
> fabricated to describe such a place.
And what cosmologists have fabricated to describe such a place. Once
again, it's not 'before time' that's important, it's what 'before
time' represents in each case - in religion, the lair of God; in
cosmology, as a component of models to explain the eviolution of such
processes as the 'arrow of time' and the origin of fundamental forces;
in Satan Pit, it's just a device to mean "somewhere a time traveller
can't reach", without any implications beyond that.
> > > As for the Master, no one made him do anything - he just
>
> > > > had an annoying sound in his head. That he responded to that by
> > > > becoming a psychopathic megalomaniac is entirely down to his own
> > > > character - and I don't think that detracts from the character at all;
> > > > if anything it makes him less the cardboard cutout panto villain he
> > > > was in classic Who.
>
> > > I'm sorry, I'm afraid I disagree with this comment too. I'm sure the
> > > sound of drums was intended to be understood as the reason for the
> > > Master's madness - and therefore we were to consider it in mitigation
> > > of his crimes - ie, because he had been effectively driven mad by the
> > > Time Lords.
>
> > I'm sorry, but this doesn't follow. Yes, it was intended to be the
> > reason for the Master's madness (although didn't the Doctor say
> > specifically in Sound of Drums that he didn't know whether the Master
> > would have turned out badly without it?) But there has never been any
> > suggestion in any incarnation of the show that the Master is insane in
> > any legal sense that would diminish culpability for his actions - he's
> > entirely lucid and demonstrably aware of what he's doing both as he
> > does it and afterwards (and usually works to premeditated schemes),
> > which doesn't fit with any form of 'madness' that could be seen to
> > diminish his responsibility for his actions.
>
> It doesn't seem useful to argue what constitutes being legally mad.
Doesn't it? What, then, are you trying to argue? I was assuming that
it was that people should be shown to be responsible for their actions
- this is what the legal approach aims to do, and is also how the
Master is portrayed.
> The story offers us the possibility of understanding the sound of
> drums as the trigger for the Master's behaviour. Your argument seems
> to be that he isn't really mad because he isn't dribblling all the
> time.
No, my argument is that he's responsible for his actions because he's
aware of them, deliberately plans them, and is aware of the
implications when doing so. Your argument strikes me as being a
somewhat simplistic "Well, the script calls him mad, therefore he
can't be responsible for his actions". What I'm saying, once again, is
that the semantics are unimportant - we need to look at the core issue
of whether or not he is responsible for his behaviour, regardless of
what you call that. Which is exactly what would be tested in a court
of law were the Master to be placed before one, hence that comparison.
And I see no evidence that anything in these stories implies that
having the sound of drums in his head diminishes the Master's
responsibility for his actions in any way.
> > I wonder if you're getting distracted by semantics here - the word
> > 'alien' isn't mentioned in Satan Pit but is in Pyramids, so one is
> > metaphysical and the other isn't. The word 'mad' is used to describe
> > the Master, so he must therefore lack responsibility for his actions.
>
> Er, okay, so you did basically understand what I meant...
In which case, our point of disagreement is that I don't believe those
are relevant issues in the context of deciding whether the 'moral
message' RTD's show is sending about responsibility is the same as
that in the classic series or, as you would have it, not.
> > It's more informative to look at the actual story presented and what
> > that shows us, surely. The Master stories, including the RTD ones,
> > show a man who's fully aware of and in control of his actions - the
> > only criteria needed to assign responsibility for them to him.
> > Pyramids and its derivatives (including Satan Pit) show a monster
> > capable of possessing people and turning them to evil - whether you
> > want to call that magical or 'scientific', it's exactly the same to
> > all intents and purposes in both cases.
>
> ... oops, no, actually you didn't. The way that Who characterises
> causes of good and evil is apparently irrelevant for you.
That's a good way of putting it. What matters is surely whether
someone *is* "good" or "evil" in the sense of personal responsibility,
which I rather took it was your original concern.
Well,
> okay, moving on from that then, and as I've previously said, the sound
> of drums provides mitigation for the Master's behaviour. The madness
> was inflicted, therefore the responsibility was diminished.
Once again this argument relies on a particular definition of
"madness" - from what I see of the character's portrayal, nothing in
his madness makes him less responsible for his actions than he was
before 'the sound of drums' was added.
> SP is not derivative of Pyramids. Sutekh's disciples enable his
> revival because they desire temporal power through him. I don't think
> they are mesmerised or possessed to help him - although if they were
> possessed it was by technical means.
Didn't he hypnotise them through the communications relay? For that
matter, the Master had a trademark habit of hypnotising people to do
evil things for him, as I recall. Did Weng-Chiang? Can't recall, but I
think there was something similar.
I agree the Ood were different, but then as presented in Satan Pit the
Ood were just herd animals, not moral agents in the first place, so
they never would have been responsible for their actions whether
possessed or not.
> > > > I do still wonder how many people have paid attention to Moffatt's
> > > > stories. He does deus ex machina (Doctor Dances) and cheesy campery
> > > > (Empty Child/Doctor Dances). River Song's comments in Silence in the
> > > > Library make the Doctor out to be a more potent superhero than any of
> > > > the special powers RTD's bestowed on him.
>
> > > Erm, no, again I don't agree with this comment.
>
> > You really don't think Doctor Dances had a deus ex machina ending?
>
> No. The nano-robots that caused the plague also provide its
> resolution. I don't see a sudden plot device in that.
The sudden plot device is giving them all-new abilities. The nanogenes
we were presented with in Empty Child were, in the Doctor's word,
"idiots" - all they could do was examine physical symptoms and assign
treatment based on those. At the end they suddenly develop the ability
to read DNA (which, if they could do that in the first place, would
have led them to realise that the physical symptoms weren't genetic,
and so they wouldn't have gone rogue), to compare it between
individuals (and somehow identify a family relationship from two
samples with no other apparent information on human genetic
similarity) - and on top of that the Doctor 'reprograms' them to
magically recognise what other humans should be like and sends them to
fix them all.
Once again, it's not as simple as 'this thing was in the plot at the
start - this thing was in the plot at the end - therefore no deus ex
machina". That's a bit like saying there was no deus ex machina in,
say, Journey's End because Donna was there at the start of the story
and also at the end - giving the character all-new magic powers at the
end is what made the DEM; same with the nanogenes. The ones at the end
weren't the ones we started with at the beginning.
> > What superpowers has
>
> > > Mofatt invested in the Doctor? (ie, extra to the abilities he already
> > > has)
>
> > It wasn't specific abilities so much, it was River's comments to the
> > effect that he can destroy armies just by looking at them and the
> > like.
>
> Then please allow me to explain. The character was speaking
> metaphorically. She didn't mean that the Doctor literally has death-
> ray vision.
I'm not suggesting she was. As I say, I'm not talking about
superpowers - I'm talking about making him out to be a superhero in
the sense of the The Doctor, Saviour of the Universe. River's comments
refer to him having an absurdly elevated reputation (and ability - not
in the sense of superpowers, but in the sense of who he can take on
and beat) compared with the bumbling wanderer of the classic series,
and it's in Moffatt's story where he scares the Vashta Nerada into
running away just by telling them to 'look him up' - RTD's done
similar things, but rarely to the same degree except with adversaries
who have a reason to know and be worried about him (such as the
Daleks).
> > > In what way is the Doctor cheesy or camp in the Empty Child? Just
> > > because he dances (badly) ?
>
> > I didn't say the Doctor was camp, I said the story was - chock full of
> > innuendos likely to make Barrowman blush and, yes, including the
> > references to 'dancing'.
>
> > Phil
>
> As a gay man, I guess it's inevitable that RTD includes gay content in
> his scripts.
The Doctor Dances was not an RTD script.
It would be a bit repressed for him not to, I suppose.
> Is that what you mean by camp? As for the dancing... well, I don't
> know... is dancing gay too?
No, by camp I mean incessant innuendo and use of euphemisms for sexual
practices - camp in the Carry On sense. 'Dancing' as a euphemism for
sex is the most persistent example, but there are plenty of others:
"I'm sure he'd like to dance - but who with" etc. And of course the
odd comment like "No one steals my frock". I actually love this sort
of humoiur and still rank Doctor Dances as by far Moffatt's best, but
it's hard to deny that it's either cheesy or camp.
Phil