Author Topic: Unified Doctor Who thread (Read 147505 times)

YingJanshi · « **Reply #540 on:** 20 March 2014, 23:37:46 »

Just watched "The Doctor's Wife" (really good episode by the way), and it has brought up a point I have trouble with in the 50th and the season finale.

Namely that the Doctor never destroyed Gallifrey. He locked it and the entire time war in a time lock. That's what the moment did. "The Stolen Earth"/"Journey's End", "The End of Time" show this. And in fact he didn't do it to protect the Time Lords, he did it to protect the Universe from the Time Lords (remember the Lord High President (Rassilon) and the other members of the High Council wanted to destroy the universe. (The same as Davros and the Daleks incidentally.)

But back to "The Doctor's Wife"...there is a moment where the Doctor is talking to Amy and Rory about the other Time Lord he thinks may be there. And he is talking about what he did and why he did it.

So that's my biggest problem with the last two episodes. They directly contradict "The End of Time" in how they portray the Time Lords. So if the Doctor was so terrified of them coming back that he was (for a second) ready to kill the Master to prevent it, why would he be happy now? Also why would they give him a new set of regenerations?

I don't know...there are and have been conflicts in continuity, but this seems like a blatant rewrite. Maybe there is a plan behind this, but I can't see it.

(Also, I have to be honest, the way the Doctor got his new regenerations felt sooo lame. I was expecting something exciting and then got that...fan-fic...

monbvol · « **Reply #541 on:** 21 March 2014, 00:12:26 »

Actually it is not as contradictory/inconsistent as you might think. The End of Time made it pretty clear that The Moment was in possession of the Doctor and had not been resolved in it's use yet. This could have caused a temporary/limited time lock while that particular event played out and the Oracle was foretelling the fall of Gallifrey, not it's imprisonment. This is backed up by how they decided to send an escape plan back in time to the Master.

With Rassilon's death it is entirely plausible that he was exerting some rather extraordinary influence on much of the rest of the High Council that was now removed and they were able to see how misguided they had become under his rather despotic leadership.

So when the Moment was resolved and the Doctor realized he had found another way and that Rassilon and his scheme was at an end he had a change of heart about the return of Gallifrey.

At least that's my theory as best as I can cram it into the available evidence.

gyedid · « **Reply #542 on:** 21 March 2014, 01:16:02 »

Quote from: YingJanshi on 20 March 2014, 23:37:46

So that's my biggest problem with the last two episodes. They directly contradict "The End of Time" in how they portray the Time Lords. So if the Doctor was so terrified of them coming back that he was (for a second) ready to kill the Master to prevent it, why would he be happy now? Also why would they give him a new set of regenerations?

Well, he got them into the pocket universe, he's probably the only one who can get them out. By giving him a full set of regenerations, rather than just one or two, they increase the chance that eventually he'll find a way to get them out of it.

Also, could be that one of the reasons the war went south for the Time Lords was a disconnect between the politicians and the military, as so often happens in real life. The Time Lord general is heard commenting to his subordinate about the High Council that "they have their own plan", which the generals apparently weren't privy to. So, if/when Gallifrey is eventually released, how the Doctor (and us) should receive the Time Lords depends on which faction is in control. The military seemed to have at least a shred of decency left.

The scariest option is that the Master has killed Rassilon and taken control of the High Council.

cheers,

Gabe

ANS Kamas P81 · « **Reply #543 on:** 21 March 2014, 06:39:34 »

Quote from: glitterboy2098 on 19 March 2014, 18:38:04

keep in mind.. the Doctor had been told that saying his name while on that planet would bring about destruction on a universal scale.

Well, that super-regeneration sure as hell did for the Daleks.

Lore · « **Reply #544 on:** 21 March 2014, 21:18:31 »

Quote from: Lorcan Nagle on 20 March 2014, 04:56:27

There isn't even a date for UK airings yet. I believe they're talking about one full series in August instead of splitting it in two again.

Really? Last I read, which was last month, it stated that we'd get the full 13-episode Eighth Season without the split.

Lorcan Nagle · « **Reply #545 on:** 21 March 2014, 21:31:53 »

That's what I said - no split this year.

gyedid · « **Reply #546 on:** 21 March 2014, 23:47:14 »

Why does the BBC do this? Looking back over the program's history, it seems they've never settled it into a consistent schedule. Personally I had no problem with the split schedule.

Since all 13 episodes will air from August to December, the season will presumably end with the Christmas special--when something big usually happens. Any word yet on whether Peter Capaldi will return for another series?

cheers,

Gabe

GreenDragon · « **Reply #547 on:** 22 March 2014, 02:15:30 »

There is a rumor he's a one and done, and is just here to ride out Moffatt's final year, while all his dangling plots are resolved.
By the way, the same rumor says that this is Moffatt's final year.

Also rumored (by McCoy) the Master has been cast. It is further rumored that we saw him last year, working with Clara.

YingJanshi · « **Reply #548 on:** 22 March 2014, 02:27:59 »

Hmmm...have a little theory about the Valeyard...you know how he was supposed to be a distillation of all of the Doctor's worst attributes? Well...I think we may have already seen him...

My theory...the Valeyard is the Dream Lord from "Amy's Choice". Yes, yes. The Doctor said it was just that weird spore thingy. But rule #1....the Doctor lies. Also, why did the Doctor see a reflection of the Dream Lord at the end? So the Doctor's explanation is that the spores fed or were directed or whatever by the Doctor's darker side. Isn't that exactly what the Valeyard is?

gyedid · « **Reply #549 on:** 22 March 2014, 22:52:48 »

Quote from: YingJanshi on 22 March 2014, 02:27:59

Hmmm...have a little theory about the Valeyard...you know how he was supposed to be a distillation of all of the Doctor's worst attributes? Well...I think we may have already seen him...

My theory...the Valeyard is the Dream Lord from "Amy's Choice". Yes, yes. The Doctor said it was just that weird spore thingy. But rule #1....the Doctor lies. Also, why did the Doctor see a reflection of the Dream Lord at the end? So the Doctor's explanation is that the spores fed or were directed or whatever by the Doctor's darker side. Isn't that exactly what the Valeyard is?

I was thinking the same thing when I saw that episode, "that actor would make a great Valeyard."

cheers,

Gabe

gyedid · « **Reply #550 on:** 24 March 2014, 21:19:17 »

Another thing I missed the boat on: why was there no full series in 2009?

cheers,

Gabe

Lorcan Nagle · « **Reply #551 on:** 25 March 2014, 04:26:39 »

According to Russell T. Davies (in The Writer's Tale) it was to allow Steven Moffat and the incoming production team enough time to get up to speed and prepare for their first series. While David Tennant took the opportunity of the shorter work year on the show to play Hamlet, he decided to do so after he was informed of the show. It's often assumed that the specials were in response to Tennant's desire to get back into theatre.

Lore · « **Reply #552 on:** 25 March 2014, 22:43:03 »

Quote from: Lorcan Nagle on 21 March 2014, 21:31:53

That's what I said - no split this year.

Sorry, I was reading your earlier reply on a smaller screen and I missed a little of your post.

Lore · « **Reply #553 on:** 25 March 2014, 22:44:26 »

Quote from: Lorcan Nagle on 25 March 2014, 04:26:39

According to Russell T. Davies (in The Writer's Tale) it was to allow Steven Moffat and the incoming production team enough time to get up to speed and prepare for their first series. While David Tennant took the opportunity of the shorter work year on the show to play Hamlet, he decided to do so after he was informed of the show. It's often assumed that the specials were in response to Tennant's desire to get back into theatre.

It had a little to do with Moffat's crosswork on Sherlock as well, which also tended to absorb a lot of his production time.

GreenDragon · « **Reply #554 on:** 26 March 2014, 03:20:48 »

That might also explain why Sherlock is only 3 2hr episodes a year.

Klep · « **Reply #555 on:** 26 March 2014, 10:18:01 »

Quote from: GreenDragon on 26 March 2014, 03:20:48

That might also explain why Sherlock is only 3 2hr episodes a year.

Actually it's Doctor Who that's more the outlier in that regard. Most British television only runs a handful of episodes per "series". Sherlock's production cycle is fairly typical for the BBC.

YingJanshi · « **Reply #556 on:** 27 March 2014, 12:28:55 »

What Klep said. I think the average is 4 or 6 episodes a series for most shows.

GreenDragon · « **Reply #557 on:** 27 March 2014, 14:25:09 »

Most of the ones I've watched were 13.

Lorcan Nagle · « **Reply #558 on:** 27 March 2014, 15:14:07 »

It really depends on the show. Comedies tend to be 6-12 episodes per series, dramas anything from 2-14. Some shows will have multiple series in a given year, especially popular magazine shows like Top Gear and panel shows like QI or Never Mind the Buzzcocks. And there are some shows that run all year around, especially soap operas (which will run 2-5 episodes per week all year around!).

Doctor Who, for example ran for between 39 and 45 weeks in the year during the First and Second Doctor's tenures, before settling into 25-26 weeks for the Third Doctor and hovering around that until the Sixth Doctor's first year, when they switched to 14 45 minute episodes, and then 14 half hour episodes for his second year and the Seventh's three years.

gyedid · « **Reply #559 on:** 29 March 2014, 10:32:16 »

OK, so I just went to see "Mr. Peabody and Sherman" (actually managed to get an English-language showing here in China)...and while I never paid much attention to the original cartoons as a kid, there is something oddly familiar about the setup...

Considering that "The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show" aired from 1959-1964, is it at all conceivable that Mr. Peabody and his WABAC machine were at least a partial inspiration for the Doctor and the TARDIS???

cheers,

Gabe

Lorcan Nagle · « **Reply #560 on:** 29 March 2014, 11:15:32 »

Probably not, as I understand it American TV wasn't regularly imported to the UK until the 70s.

gyedid · « **Reply #561 on:** 29 March 2014, 11:47:15 »

Quote from: Lorcan Nagle on 29 March 2014, 11:15:32

Probably not, as I understand it American TV wasn't regularly imported to the UK until the 70s.

But recall that the creator of Dr. Who, Sydney Newman, was Canadian, and from Toronto. As such he would've been fairly familiar with American TV programs. Although, at the time Rocky and Bullwinkle began, he would've been working for what's now ITV...

cheers,

Gabe

gyedid · « **Reply #562 on:** 31 March 2014, 03:03:21 »

Not a good week for past Doctor Who contributors...

Kate O'Mara, who played the Rani, has passed away age 74:
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-26809417.

And earlier, Arthur Martinus, director of "The Tenth Planet" (and a few other Who serials), was, um, "upgraded" (depending on your spiritual point of view):
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-26789825

cheers,

Gabe

gyedid · « **Reply #563 on:** 03 April 2014, 07:34:26 »

Here you can see another shot of Peter Capaldi and Jenna Coleman on set, with Capaldi already changed into the new costume:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s7/doctor-who/news/a556148/doctor-who-peter-capaldis-first-episode-thrilling-says-mark-gatiss.html#~oAn7hAgESSDcnq

I think the look on Jenna's face says it all about how Clara is dealing with this new Doctor...

Capaldi looks visibly older than he did in "The Fires of Pompeii". :( If he's really not staying around for more than one series, perhaps there's a reason...

cheers,

Gabe

YingJanshi · « **Reply #564 on:** 03 April 2014, 10:15:07 »

Quote from: gyedid on 29 March 2014, 11:47:15

But recall that the creator of Dr. Who, Sydney Newman, was Canadian, and from Toronto. As such he would've been fairly familiar with American TV programs. Although, at the time Rocky and Bullwinkle began, he would've been working for what's now ITV...

cheers,

Gabe

Except Sidney Newman wasn't involved with creating the show. Not to that degree at least. In, it was one of the script writers (forget his name), who came up with the idea of a police box. Because they were so common at that time. The original idea had been that it would change its appearance each story, however that was deemed too expensive. So the police box staid.

gyedid · « **Reply #565 on:** 03 April 2014, 21:46:22 »

Quote from: YingJanshi on 03 April 2014, 10:15:07

Except Sidney Newman wasn't involved with creating the show. Not to that degree at least. In, it was one of the script writers (forget his name), who came up with the idea of a police box. Because they were so common at that time. The original idea had been that it would change its appearance each story, however that was deemed too expensive. So the police box staid.

I didn't mean the police box specifically, I meant the general idea of somebody with encyclopedic knowledge, a time machine, and a traveling companion. Why settle for a cartoon talking dog when you could do it live-action?

cheers,

Gabe

Marveryn · « **Reply #566 on:** 06 April 2014, 00:19:13 »

the tardis was always explain to not be perfect with lots of issue, among thing the doctor never got around to fixing was the tardis ability to change its outer appearance. I not positive but I think he did manage to get it working for a few shows. Maybe during the original run when they were doing historical shows

YingJanshi · « **Reply #567 on:** 06 April 2014, 11:52:22 »

He did, but always decided he was too attached to the police box. From what I understand his TARDIS was going to be scrapped when he stole it.

gyedid · « **Reply #568 on:** 07 May 2014, 09:29:44 »

OK, still getting caught up on odds and ends, this time "The Angels Take Manhattan".

First of all, SHAME ON YOU STEVEN MOFFAT, FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO TELL THE QIN AND QIN*G* DYNASTIES APART! If you're going to have both the universe's foremost time traveller and a far-future archaeologist make allusions to Chinese culture and history, the least you could do is have a competent Chinese history consultant to make sure you got it right!!!
(see below for further comments)

Second, just how long were Amy and Rory travelling with the Doctor? How much time passed for them, compared to the friends and family they left behind? Was the Doctor kidding when he alluded to Amy's having aged visibly?

Also, I've been getting caught up on that *OTHER* (ahem) series Moffat is showrunner for, and I've noticed a couple of things.

The portrayal of the Tong gang, and especially the Chinese circus in "The Blind Banker" was really quite anachronistic, being far more suited to the original setting of the Holmes stories than modern times--and the gang was even based in the wrong area of China. Combined with the error noted above, I think it shows just how much Moffat really knows about China--a reflection of lingering colonial attitudes among the Brits? (Then again, I'm hardly objective...)

How much creative control and micro-managing does Moffat exert? Does he go so far as to "suggest" how the actors should portray their characters? I wonder, because "Sherlock"'s Irene Adler seems in some ways like an amped-up River Song, while the portryal of Moriarty is more than a bit reminiscent of John Simm's "Mad-ster" (although that predates the Moffat era of Doctor Who).

And does Moffat have some obsession with psychopaths? His Sherlock, Moriarty, and Adler are all fundamentally the same kind of person (Moffat himself described them as such), and in "The Time of the Doctor", the Doctor pretty much calls Tasha Lem a psychopath to her face. River was engineered to be a psychopath, and gives that as one of the reasons why she won't travel full-time with the Doctor, even hinting the Doctor hismelf is one. What gives here?

cheers,

Gabe

ColonelCody · « **Reply #569 on:** 07 May 2014, 11:34:30 »

Quote from: Marveryn on 06 April 2014, 00:19:13

the tardis was always explain to not be perfect with lots of issue, among thing the doctor never got around to fixing was the tardis ability to change its outer appearance. I not positive but I think he did manage to get it working for a few shows. Maybe during the original run when they were doing historical shows

He stole it broken and only got around to fixing it during the Tom Baker run I believe, but if I'm not mistaken he decided to leave it as it had become something of a signature for him.