Doctor Who [11]

by **Amarië** Sun Jun 21, 2015 11:01 pm

I love that dance. Laughing

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:08 am

You've objected to the gay marines too, that's their whole identity just there. They are singled out as being weird and unusual, and I don't like that. So sue me.- Amarie

It is their whole identity. But then I think you have to look at their purpose in the script, which is disposable plot moving fodder- now Who is full of these characters in every era, whether its the suspicious amount of rural types in 3rd Doctor era who then almost immediately stumble onto the main plot/villain/instant death, or Martha's poor cousin getting cybered in RTD era, or even last series, the cop who gets shot to death after discovering the Blitzzer.

The two marines are the same characters as all of those serving the exact same narrative function.
Now their characters are defined by Moffat having fun satirising the modern church, church hypocrisy ad taunting it by reversing or satirising its views in a future version- so you have a female Pope (who mmay well be part Mainframe computer), he has given the Church an army to wage religious war with, you have religion as faith without intelligence in the Headless Monks, and for the two disposables he makes them a gay married couple of Bishops.
Now had Moffat called them Dave and Ed we would not be talking about them because we would not ember them any more than the cop in the Caretaker, or Martha's cousin.
But Moffat choose to make a satirical point with them and to do so with a humorous line of dialogue, which is at least memorable, like it or not.
I would even argue the fact it annoys you and you feel those two characters were short changed actually means Moffat added more character to them than is normal for such roles. Normally we just forget about such characters altogether. No one complains about Martha's cousin or wishes she got more than three lines of dialogue because no one remembers her.

So i cant agree they are singled out for being weird, or unusual, they are singled out so as satirise the present day Church- just as all the religious stuff in that episode is.

Also I don't see how Jack can be a symbol that in the future things will be more hopeful, and the future Church openly having married gay Bishop is a bad thing.

by **Amarië** Mon Jun 22, 2015 6:24 am

I should be surprised.

"Also I don't see how Jack can be a symbol that in the future things will be more hopeful, and the future Church openly having married gay Bishop is a bad thing."

I think I am quite done with your Moffat crusade. You be glad you are far away, how dare you put such foul, hateful words in my mouth!

by Forest Shepherd Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:39 am

Another weary soldier falls to the wayside: limbs slack with exhaustion, mind overcome with a gray (grey?) eternity of trudging through the thick, icy mud of defeat.

Ah well, such is the Who forum. Razz

by **Amarië** Mon Jun 22, 2015 9:07 am

Alas, all I can hope for now is for my obituary to be poorly written and cut off at the end, for thus I have been told is the greatest of honours. Go on without me! Adieu!

*this should be read to the tones of Vale Decem*

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Jun 22, 2015 1:15 pm

how dare you put such foul, hateful words in my mouth!- Amarie

I have no idea what you are on about Amarie.
We were discussing the two marine characters, in your previous post you describe Captain Jack as 'the opposite of the two marines' and you also said, 'which made me feel like the Who show believed in a open-minded, inclusive future.'

So by any logical reading of your words the marines are the opposite of your feelings and thoughts about Jack- in your own words not mine- so where Jack makes you happy and positive about the future presumably, to have the OPPOSITE effect the gay marines do not- how else are the words you said to be taken? Which is why I queried you on what seems to me a contradiction.

I am not putting any words in your mouth, I am questioning some of the words that have come out of it- just to be absolutely clear and specific- these exact words of yours-

"Jack is the opposite of the two marines (and then some....). He was introduced as a typical future human being, which made me feel like the Who show believed in a open-minded, inclusive future."

In one sentence you say the marines are the opposite of Jack then go onto describe Jacks appearance in the show as demonstrating a belief in the show being open-minded and inclusive. If the marines are the opposite of this they you must view them as not being open-minded or inclusive. How else can that sentence be read?
So no, don't blame me for pulling you up on this, and how dare you accuse me of putting those words in your mouth, or that its done out of hatefulness or out of defence of Moffat even, when its simply a query of what you said.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:00 pm

Series 9 teaser from BBC America (its really is a teaser- just some snazzy shots of the TARDIS door!)

by **Amarië** Mon Jun 22, 2015 5:03 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:how dare you put such foul, hateful words in my mouth!- Amarie

I have no idea what you are on about Amarie.

Please read my post. I am sure you can find what words I actually said, and what words you added.

We were discussing the two marine characters, in your previous post you describe Captain Jack as 'the opposite of the two marines' and you also said, 'which made me feel like the Who show believed in a open-minded, inclusive future.'

Yup.

So by any logical reading of your words the marines are the opposite of your feelings and thoughts about Jack- in your own words not mine- so where Jack makes you happy and positive about the future presumably, to have the OPPOSITE effect the gay marines do not- how else are the words you said to be taken? Which is why I queried you on what seems to me a contradiction.

Jack is introduced as a typical, everyday guy from the future. He's not "the gay guy" who is so different from all others that he doesn't need a name. He is Jack. The guy couple is an oddity, a deviation. So no, they didn't not give me happy, fluffy, positive thoughts. RTD's area was totally weird in may ways, but watching I got the feeling that the future was bright and wonderful with some ugly obstacles on the way. Moffat gives me the feeling that the future is nasty with a few bright spots on the way.

I am not putting any words in your mouth, I am questioning some of the words that have come out of it- just to be absolutely clear and specific- these exact words of yours-

"Jack is the opposite of the two marines (and then some....). He was introduced as a typical future human being, which made me feel like the Who show believed in a open-minded, inclusive future."

In one sentence you say the marines are the opposite of Jack then go onto describe Jacks appearance in the show as demonstrating a belief in the show being open-minded and inclusive. If the marines are the opposite of this they you must view them as not being open-minded or inclusive. How else can that sentence be read?

See above. It's the not actual characters who are non-inclusive, but people around them.

So no, don't blame me for pulling you up on this, and how dare you accuse me of putting those words in your mouth, or that its done out of hatefulness or out of defence of Moffat even, when its simply a query of what you said.

Again, see above. It's not what I said about Jack.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Jun 22, 2015 5:21 pm

Jack is introduced as a typical, everyday guy from the future. He's not "the gay guy" who is so different from all others that he doesn't need a name. He is Jack. The guy couple is an oddity, a deviation. So no, they didn't not give me happy, fluffy, positive thoughts. RTD's area was totally weird in may ways, but watching I got the feeling that the future was bright and wonderful with some ugly obstacles on the way. Moffat gives me the feeling that the future is nasty with a few bright spots on the way. - Amarie

This is all very well, but its not what you said in your previous post- it might be what you meant, but it is not what you said- and I dont think I can be accused so strongly of putting words in you mouth or be held responsible for doing so because fail to interpret what you mean rather what you say.

Now to get into the substance of what you are now saying-

'He's not "the gay guy" who is so different from all others that he doesn't need a name. He is Jack. '

Who needs his sexuality signposted before he has even spoken when he is chatting up Algy and eyeing up Rose and commenting on the shapeliness of her arse. Jack is the multisexual guy more than he is anything else- it never fails to be mentioned, it never fails to come up in episodes he appears in.
In fact name a Jack episode in which he doesnt either- kiss someone, make sexual innuendos to someone, or tell a story about his past sexual encounters- I am betting you cant.

'The guy couple is an oddity, a deviation.'

This is what I am failing to understand about your thinking- what is a 'deviation' about a married gay couple in the future Church?

'watching I got the feeling that the future was bright and wonderful with some ugly obstacles on the way. Moffat gives me the feeling that the future is nasty with a few bright spots on the way.'

I dont disagree with this, but then I found RTD's optimistic future a bit unWho like- the future in classic is often dystopian, corrupt, dark ect
The show also tends to reflect the real world era in which each era exists- Moffat era comes during a time whn things are pretty dark and bleak on the planet and we have folk being thrown to their deaths from buildings for being gay and others burnt alive in cages for the amusement of others.
These are dark days in many ways, the show currently reflects that. All good sci-fi is a translation of the times extrapolated to an invented future.

by **Amarië** Mon Jun 22, 2015 5:26 pm

"what is a 'deviation' about a married gay couple in the future Church?"

That they are a married guy couple in -what you insist is the future Church, rather than a church- rather than a married couple in said church.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Jun 22, 2015 5:38 pm

But the whole Church thing is a satire throughout that episode- the gay married couple are completely in line with the rest- the female Pope, the religious army, the Headless Monks- its all commentary on current Church positions and hypocrisies as well as a commentary on religious thought in general. The two marines fall entirely in line with that commentary.

And I say future Church because its clearly not the present day one- its an amalgamation of various Christian sects- so the gay Bishops are Anglicans but the Pope is presumably from the Catholic faith. But they are all part of the same Church in the future.

by **Amarië** Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:22 pm

But it's not even funny! Huff.... Bah, humbug!

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:38 pm

Well thats more a matter for satirical taste. And you cant slate a writer for not sharing your exact taste.

I actually find Moffat treatment during his tenure of religion rather interesting.
Its often scathing and blatant in its mockery- such as the Headless Monks, who are a head short of subtly in the satire department (though amazing how many still missed it), yet there are other times where its more ambiguous, such as Rings Of Akenten when the Doctor tells Clara that the ceremony is held there because they believe thisis where the universe began, and where God resides.
When Clara asks if its true the Doctors reply can be taken at least two different ways- "Well, its what they believe."
But for me the most interesting stuff is in the first Angels two parter, and our first introduction to the Church via its Bishops soldiers with their Sacred Names.
Again we have smoke mocking of the Church- the Doctor calling out the Chuch for banning self-marriage among the two headed inhabitants of the planet they are on.
Yet the character of the main Bishop displays all the best aspects that faith and belief can bring out in a man at his death, which for me is still one of the best deaths of a secondary character in modern Who-

OCTAVIAN: Sir, the Angels are coming. You have to leave me.
DOCTOR: You'll die.
OCTAVIAN: I will die in the knowledge that my courage did not desert me at the end. For that I thank God, and bless the path that takes you to safety.
DOCTOR: I wish I'd known you better.
OCTAVIAN: I think, sir, you know me at my best.
DOCTOR: Ready?
OCTAVIAN: Content.

It is also Octavian who hits the Doctor hardest and where it really hurts-

AMY: Doctor.
DOCTOR: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm coming. Just go. Go, go, go. Yeah. Called you an idiot. Sorry, but there's no way we could have rescued your men.
OCTAVIAN: I know that, sir. And when you've flown away in your little blue box, I'll explain that to their families.

by Mrs Figg Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:59 pm

"Well, its what they believe."

what a banal statement.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Jun 22, 2015 8:04 pm

I was going on memory, as it turns out not accurately, the exchange is-

DOCTOR: Seven worlds orbiting the same star. All of them sharing a belief that life in the universe originated here, on that planet.
CLARA: All life?
DOCTOR: In the universe.
CLARA: Did it?
DOCTOR: Well, it's what they believe. It's a nice story.
CLARA: Can we see it? Up close?

You can take his reply to be mocking if you choose, or you can take it to mean that everyone has the right to believe what they wish to. And in the context of the overall episode it can mean that the story, the Long Song that never ends, it more important than any notion of facts or reality of Gods which underpin the story ie Grandad and all the religion and ceremony that has sprouted around Him.

It another story with an interesting, and different again, take on religion.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Jun 22, 2015 10:38 pm

I really like this, superb editing, great choices, superb use of the music, recommend bunging the headphones on for it-

I rewatched series 8 with my friend who was here from Australia. Its definitely one of my favourites.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:17 pm

Three more fan vids that caught my eye.

A series 1-7 trailer-

And 2 very well done trailers for series 8.
If you have not yet joined the Who world, and its myriad of, um, hearty topics, then series 8 is as good a place to jump in as any, and these might entice you to try-

by Mrs Figg Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:00 am

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I was going on memory, as it turns out not accurately, the exchange is-

DOCTOR: Seven worlds orbiting the same star. All of them sharing a belief that life in the universe originated here, on that planet.
CLARA: All life?
DOCTOR: In the universe.
CLARA: Did it?
DOCTOR: Well, it's what they believe. It's a nice story.
CLARA: Can we see it? Up close?

You can take his reply to be mocking if you choose, or you can take it to mean that everyone has the right to believe what they wish to. And in the context of the overall episode it can mean that the story, the Long Song that never ends, it more important than any notion of facts or reality of Gods which underpin the story ie Grandad and all the religion and ceremony that has sprouted around Him.

It another story with an interesting, and different again, take on religion.

you seem to be reading a LOT into it.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:10 am

I think you underestimate a good writer plying their craft. (Neil Cross in this case, not Moffat)
The story the writer is telling concerns a society who keep their God placated by feeding it their life stories and memories.
That the writer choose to put this exchange and that line right in the opening precious minutes of the set up is not an accident. You can bet every word in that opening is crafted with care.

by Mrs Figg Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:19 am

like I said. reading far to much in to it. its sound-bite writing.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:28 am

I dont see how - you really think Cross is not a good enough writer to deliberately pick the words he uses? And in something as important as the opening of his episode? (He is also the creator and writer of Luther incidentally, hehas also authored 6 books, one of them a Booker Prize winner)

For me thats like someone looking at a wooden carved table and then accusing the joiner of just getting lucky that a particular join looks right and happens to fit the overall design.

by Mrs Figg Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:18 pm

''For me thats like someone looking at a wooden carved table and then accusing the joiner of just getting lucky that a particular join looks right and happens to fit the overall design.'' Petty

well for me that's like someone banging in a huge peg into a small hole.

er.... scratch

oh!

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:03 pm

Well..all I can say is....um.... Embarassed

...

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Jun 24, 2015 1:41 am

I hope this happens-

'Armando Iannucci, creator of The Thick Of It, hopes to write an episode of Doctor Who, reuniting him with its star, Peter Capaldi.
Iannucci, whose credits include Alan Partridge and White House comedy Veep, said he had talked with Doctor Who showrunner Steven Moffat and had a good idea where he would take the Doctor, played to universal acclaim by Capaldi since last year.
“I’m a big fan of Doctor Who and obviously with Peter, who’s loving it, it would be nice to,” Iannucci said. “I’ve spoken off and on to them but it’s a case of being able to fit something in."- Guardian

by Forest Shepherd Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:14 am

Might be good.

Doctor Who [11]

Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]

Re: Doctor Who [11]