Doctor Who [9]

I loved the last episode- had a bit of everything. Full review later.

Figg they talk about men in one scene, what about the scene where Clara and blondie talk about her gran and how much she hates her. Plus last weeks would have passed that stupid test 100 times over given it had 3 women talking and not about men for large parts of it.
Ive always thought it was a bloody stupid test anyway, Gravity fails that test despite having a female lead just because there isnt another women for her  to gossip with in it! Its ridiculous people still hold it up as some sort of meaningful benchmark.



Forest-
'Does anybody die?'- yes loads, hundreds at least, probably thousands, we see the graveyard with all the tombs to the fallen over the 900 years. And its massive.

"I'm not going to give unpublished fan-theories precedence over what the Doctor has mostly said about how old he is."

But you are also ignoring what is in the show itself, which is that the Doctor often not occasionally, contradicts himself about his age. And the show itself strongly hints he is both much older and much more than he lets on.
"Time-lords can live forever, barring accidents"- 2nd Doctor, he also claimed to be thousands of years old, 450 years old and right before he regened 500.
The 3rd Doctor told Kettering he had been a scientist for several thousand years then stopped himself. He made the claim twice on screen, in Mind of Evil and in the Silurians)
The 4th Doctor aid he was 740 then later said he was 760. He also claimed to be somehwere between 800 and a thousand years old. Romanna pointed out that it was hard for Time Lords to keep track of their age after the first few hundred years.
The 5th said he was 813 the 6th 991 when he regened.
"I am more than just another Time Lord"- 7th Doctor. It was also strongly implied as part of the Cartnel Plan, that he was way older, in the thousands of years that 3 spoke of, not hundreds.
9 was again claiming to be only 900 in Rose.
"I was 90 when I saw the Medusa Cascade, just a kid"- 10th Doctor. 10 also claimed to be only 903. Which would make 9 short lived at only 3 years. In Day of the doctor 10 says he is 904. As its generally hinted and held that 10 is taken for his time steam whilst traveling alone during the specials at the end of his run this would mean 10 is the shortest lived version of all the Doctors, at only 1 year.
11 claimed to be 907 at the start. He was 1200 in Mercy and when he later met Clara he told her he was 1000 years old.
By the end of the siege of Trenzalore he was 2100.
12 claimed in Deep Breath he had live for over 2000 years.

To me all this tells us that he either lies about his age, or doesn't know his age any longer and that he makes it up as he goes along now. So how you an claim a set in stone, or even coherent  age system for the Doctor when taking your sources only from the tv show is beyond me. The show doesnt support such a system.

'The Doctor is not a hateful person. He takes the hatred that he has for things like the Daleks and tries to do good anyway. '

Tries to do good yes, but that does not mitigate the genuine hatred he still feels for certain things. In the words of 11- "Good men dont need rules. Today is not a good day to find out why I have so many."
And the Fury of the Timelord, displayed by 10 at the end of Family of Blood- not only was that hatred, it was beyond what a Time Lord should be able to do- how did he trap someone in every mirror everywhere for ever?

Of course as a fan you are allowed an opinion. But that opinion has to base don what actually occurs in the story, not on what you would like to have occurred, or by just ignoring all the stuff that contradicts your own pet theories and then claiming the writers have somehow got it wrong.
One of the huge advantages of Who is that its writer are not required, or stuck with the weight of 50 years of canon, they can alter it, dump it (RTD and losing all the Time Lords in  an offscreen war is a good example of this, or the Cracks in Time eating up unhelpful events to the story of 11 in Moffat era serves a similar purpose).

Well I talked to my sister about it some, and we came to realize that producing an exact age for the Doctor really doesn't matter all that much.
I mean, within the Dr. Who that I've seen so far (9th onward, and the first season of 4) there is an obvious and straightforward more-than-doubling of his age that came across as completely ridiculous, but the point is that Trenzalore was a badly conceived idea. The whole "the Doctor's name will be revealed" thing was month-old horseradish fed to bull seals and then regurgitated into a vat of whale sperm with an added garnish of octopus-innards.
It was an enormous build-up of the Doctor's ego within the show. It was an overemphasis upon the mystery of his name that detracted from the enjoyable aspects of the show are: namely the Doctor having excellent adventures with witty companions. It was blowhardy.


I don't get the humongous graveyard thing that we saw in The Name of the Doctor.
It is that to which Petty is referring when he mentions all the casualties of the invasion-thing, but the Christmas town in "Day of the Doctor" is utterly separate in my mind from the giant graveyard from before the 50th.
These place are not the same. The christmas town thing is protected by the Doctor for the entire stretch of time and is never destroyed, so what is this Trenzalore place? The Doctor never dies, and the Tardis never dies either (blowing up into a giant version of itself).

The 50th just didn't seem to work within the context of the previous and following episodes.
The time-stream thing is not followed up, and the giant graveyard Petty mentions is never shown again or explained that I remember offhand.

Anyway, annoying discontinuities.

But again your complaint about the Tenzalore thing, and the Doctors name is not that it is against the rules of the show, or internally inconsistent with prior information- but that you personally didnt like it.
Thats fine as an opinion but no good as a criticism of the writers.

I happen to think that if you have the worlds longest running scifi show in its 50th year then its fair game for the writers to use that entire series not just a one off special to explore just what the show is, was and will become. The Doctors name both re-emphasied the mystery of the character, how little we really do know about him, and led thematically into the story of the 50th- the incarnation that never took the name Doctor because of the acts he committed- and it set up an essentially clean slate for the show to go forward.

Regards the grave, the Doctors tomb, and the TARDIS that time line plays out the same up until the final moments when the Time Lords interfere to alter the future line by giving the Doctor the new regen cycle.
So all those who had died up to that point- most of the 900 years, still died. When we first see the people of Trenzalore their appearance is of a pastoral people, by the end of the siege everyone is militarized and most in uniforms. The Doctor did not just defend Trenzalore alone, he did what he had to do, which included teaching the locals how to be soldiers. Towards the end of the siege the Doctor might still be the brains behind the defense but he is no longer capable of being the muscle having got too old. We see this as reports are brought to him by the towns people who are conducting the defense. And they have military equipment, some of it seized from enemy attacks it would seem judging by the huge Dalek gun they have mounted on a tank in the town square.


'It was an enormous build-up of the Doctor's ego within the show.'- Forest

Quite the opposite, the Moffat years have largely been a stripping down of that. In the RTD era we got the legendary Doctor, the Oncoming Storm, the man who can trap people in mirrors for eternity and other suspiciously legendary antics.
The man who gave big speeches about himself and who everyone had heard of as a legend.





Moffat took him to the man who is stripped down precisely because of his ego- which all comes to a head at Demons Run.

Full version of Foxes lounge jazz cover of Queens Dont stop me now from last nights episode-

Loved it! Sucked me in (again). Love all the variety. My biggest scare was that Clara might leave. Hit me heavy in the chest. Could I bear it. Probably not... She changed her mind!  They said in olden days that changing your mind was a woman's privilige. Call me old fashioned, but I'm glad she's staying on. (My strong suspicion is that Pinky will take on more of a role as time goes by). At one moment I thought - the Doctor and Clara - in love??? Why not? Know it won't happen though. That would be too controversial for some. Oh well. This Doctor is incredibly pragmatic. Hits you in the face it does. Like that aspect very much - even though I'm often relieved to see him (blackly) joking - relieves the intensity and makes for light and shade throughout. His timing is impeccable. He really is a quality actor. Now... waiting.... impatiently... for... next... .... week.. ... ...

Yeah I think the whole Doctor/Pink/soldier thing will come to ahead in the series finale Orwell.

But on the matter of Clara she has made a right mess for herself now. She lied to the Doctor about why she was leaving, blaming it on Danny, and she lied to Danny about leaving the Doctor.
Ramifications to come!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Yeah I think the whole Doctor/Pink/soldier thing will come to ahead in the series finale Orwell.

But on the matter of Clara she has made a right mess for herself now. She lied to the Doctor about why she was leaving, blaming it on Danny, and she lied to Danny about leaving the Doctor.
Ramifications to come!

Yeah. One minute it is Robot Hood and the next it's Clara lying and then calling the Doctor a liar... It's excrutiatingly addictive this series!

Somehow the show seems to have it's full mojo back. The other modern series had some top story lines (probably many were better than any in this overall) but none of the actors - including Ecclesone who was top notch - can lay a glove on Capaldi. He handles everything from the sublime to the ridculous, and the light to the dark, with aplomb. And Clara has come of age as a companion. Pink shows excellent signs of  being an excellent companion if it comes that. And/or Courtney too. She is a brilliant throwback to the 1st Doctor and his 'grand daughter' - except a modern obnoxious grand daughter/teenager to suit modern times. More interesting weeks ahead. I say keep the current main cast for at least another series.

Part of me hoping Clara stays, Pink joins the team and so does Courtney. And thats Moffats series end game.
Then we would have basically what the show started with- the Doctor, two teachers from Coal Hill school and one of their pupils off on adventures.

Hey - wouldn't that be great. Love the idea.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I loved the last episode- had a bit of everything. Full review later.

Figg they talk about men in one scene, what about the scene where Clara and blondie talk about her gran and how much she hates her. Plus last weeks would have passed that stupid test 100 times over given it had 3 women talking and not about men for large parts of it.
Ive always thought it was a bloody stupid test anyway, Gravity fails that test despite having a female lead just because there isnt another women for her  to gossip with in it! Its ridiculous people still hold it up as some sort of meaningful benchmark.
.

of course its stupid in your opinion, thats no surprise. Cant remember last week, so bored, but they talked about the Doctor for most of the time, will he wont he is he good is he bad blah blah.

''there isnt another women for her  to gossip with in it'' Petty.

is that what female astronauts do in space. Gossip? wow.

I think its stupid becuase there is a stack of examples of writting, tv and film that have no sexism, strong female leads and would still utterly fail the test, such as Gravity, therefore its not a good test.

'they talked about the Doctor for most of the time'

Um, no they didnt, he was barely mentioned by them at all. They talked mainly about themselves, their own feelings and the choice they were faced with. No reference to the Doctor at all.
In a show like Who where you have a male lead its obvious some of the time companions will be talking about him. This is true if they are female or not.
Nobody claims Who is sexist against men because it fails some silly test counting up how often Jamie or Rory spoke about the Doctor. Because it would be stupid to do so.

'is that what female astronauts do in space. Gossip? wow.'

I chose that word just for you.

Oh, I actually properly liked that one.

Things were solved a bit easily perhaps (a bit like a five minute version of Talons of Weng Chiang), and I'm not sure of the purpose of having the supposed preeminent specialist on extraterrestrial life pretty much contributing nothing but standing around and gaping like goldfish.

But, yeah, I thought that rather good.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I think its stupid becuase there is a stack of examples of writting, tv and film that have no sexism, strong female leads and would still utterly fail the test, such as Gravity, therefore its not a good test.

'they talked about the Doctor for most of the time'

Um, no they didnt, he was barely mentioned by them at all.  They talked mainly about themselves, their own feelings and the choice they were faced with. No reference to the Doctor at all.
In a show like Who where you have a male lead its obvious some of the time companions will be talking about him. This is true if they are female or not.
Nobody claims Who is sexist against men because it fails some silly test counting up how often Jamie or Rory spoke about the Doctor. Because it would be stupid to do so.

'is that what female astronauts do in space. Gossip? wow.'

I chose that word just for you.

basically Gravity is your only example and its a crap one. The Whole film is about one person, alone, in Space.

But Gravity is excellent!
The whole film is about one person who loses her crew in space and must, somehow, make it back down to earth. It satisfies the criteria for character development but with only one person on-screen for most of the film; which is difficult to pull off, very difficult!

I don't think that the Bechel test or whichever it was can be applied to all movies.
I see it work in a vast number of television shows and films but its effectiveness in these cases may rely more upon coincidence than causality.
Films with sexist undertones will often have two women talk together about nothing but some other male character, but the presence of these conversations is not necessarily an indication of said sexism.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:But again your complaint about the Tenzalore thing, and the Doctors name is not that it is against the rules of the show, or internally inconsistent with prior information- but that you personally didnt like it.
Thats fine as an opinion but no good as a criticism of the writers.

What rules of the show? You can't just dictate how Doctor Who works you know Petty!

I called it bad writing, this 900-year scale for the "Siege of Trenzalore." So I would argue that it is a criticism of the writers. Lots of people disliked Rose, that's also a criticism of the writers. That they make decisions for what will happen in the series is why they also get the blame for what happens in the series.

Oh and I did say it was inconsistent. Like I said, the jump from pre-50th to post-50th was jumbled and confusing. The continuity there seemed to take a swift turn in a different direction after Name of the Doctor. I thought the the 50th was excellent, so I don't have any complaints there, but the Christmas special that followed was rather poor Who (mostly because of the exaggerated time-scale upon which it occurred).

basically Gravity is your only example and its a crap one Figg

Um,, no its not, I can provide a list of examples if necessary, I used Gravity because its such a stark and obvious example of a film with a strong female lead which fails the feminist test  applied. Highighting the flaws in such a test in the first place.


Forest- I am not dictating the rules of the show, quite the opposite. But you seem to me to have been doing so.
Your complaint about Trenzalore seems centered on the time line which you originally said was stupid because it was twice the length of the Doctors entire life to that point- I was pointing out it in fact its not, as previous versions have made all sorts of claims about age that include thousands of years of prior existence.
And so therefore to complain about something on the basis it contradicts, or exaggerates over previous information, is false in this case.

Are we back to this thing?

Ok, this is the reality of it. It's a bad theory, i.e. Petty is right, but it illustrates an actual issue in the entertainment industry and popular culture, so Figg has a more than valid point.

*n response to Petty's point above (new post while I was typing)*

Weeeelll, arguably perhaps, but there's  no denying that it does contradict what the Doctor most often tells people about his age (even if he is lying or has forgotten or whichever).

But further, you must understand that I first started watching Doctor Who only a few years ago and began with Eccleston. So from my point of view, we have a rather clear development from Doctor to Doctor in which no fantastic numbers are involved.
But then with the end of the 11's run it all doubles in an episode that, quite frankly, was one of the worse ones of 11's time.
Within that view of things, (and here I'm trying to reason out an understanding between the two of us, not snipe at your points, hint hint) I think there can be no surprise that I react unfavourably to Moffat's stretching things out of scale. Within the context of my experience the time-skew is monumental!

Of course, if we wish to construe these aggrandizements of Moffat's as the "unthanked struggles of a true fan who only wishes to return to the promise of the past and shake off the hated shackles of RTD's romantic meddlings" (and I know you do) then let us talk no more on this point, for no good can come of my getting more involved in the tedious dick-measuring of your's and Mrs. Figg's favourite show-runners.

(Ok I lied I sniped a little bit there )

P.S.
But shouldn't the Tardis have an idea of how old it is? Surely that could be used as some kind of measuring-stick for how old the Doctor is himself?

i.e. Petty is right, but it illustrates an actual issue in the entertainment industry and popular culture, so Figg has a more than valid point- Blue

I have never argued that there is not a valid point about sexism in the arts. Merely that the test is a poor one to apply to the problem as a measuring rule.

Forest, I just get very tired of what seems to me like people throwing mud at Moffat for things which are perfectly normal and within the parameters of previous showrunners going back the entire 50 years and which passed without comment. It often seems like people are reacting negatively not to the thing itself, but to the fact its Moffat doing the thing. Its seem unfair to me, and I react instinctively hostile to things I perceive as unfair.

Regards the TARDIS she could probably keep track of her own time, but not necessarily the Doctors as they arent always together, and sometimes she goes of on her own or takes a very long time to get where she is going. Also how would you measure time in the vortex?

Forest Shepherd wrote:But Gravity is excellent!
The whole film is about one person who loses her crew in space and must, somehow, make it back down to earth. It satisfies the criteria for character development but with only one person on-screen for most of the film; which is difficult to pull off, very difficult!

I don't think that the Bechel test or whichever it was can be applied to all movies.
I see it work in a vast number of television shows and films but its effectiveness in these cases may rely more upon coincidence than causality.
Films with sexist undertones will often have two women talk together about nothing but some other male character, but the presence of these conversations is not necessarily an indication of said sexism.

yeah Gravity is a great film.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:basically Gravity is your only example and its a crap one Figg

Um,, no its not, I can provide a list of examples if necessary, I used Gravity because its such a stark and obvious example of a film with a strong female lead which fails the feminist test  applied. Highighting the flaws in such a test in the first place.

thou shitteth me. There is only ONE person in the film for 99.9% of the time. It does not fail any test. It shouldnt be used as an example in the first place. plus when she is talking to herself, it certainly aint about men. She has slightly more pressing worries, ie like being turned into spacejelly.

Thats my point- its a test which has no accounting for context.

Yes, that is the point. The test does not work generalized, but it does illustrate Figgs point in specific cases.

You're opinions don't actually conflict.

I had an idea in my head that the Doctor did spend a lot of time separate from the Tardis, but the Vortex might make even near-accurate time-recording impossible.
Oh well!

The whole show-runner thing is why I don't like to think of the show in reference to the current person in charge. They have a polarizing effect on the fanbase that is more nefarious and subtle (more embedded, one could say) than the effect of the actual characters of the show!



{{{Post your action on Roll to Dodge soon please, it's been too long since I updated regularly!}}}

the test is exclusively, 2 female characters talking to each other, if they talk about men they fail the test, if they talk about any other subject they pass the test. simps.

its not rocket science. badoomtush!