Discussion:
Doctor Who: The Rings of Akhaten (spoilers)
(too old to reply)
The Coca Cola Kid
2013-04-06 22:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Let this be the official review thread for the newest episode of
Doctor Who, 'The Rings of Akhaten'. All others are pretenders.
So far, most of the reviews that I have seen of this episode have
panned it, including one that rated it ten out of ten. (But, that
person always rates stories in the Steven Moffat era ten out of ten,
even when his review was clearly negative, so ... whatever.)
Last week's episode was very ho-hum, an extremely average
execution of some great concepts. Not surprisingly, many fans raved
about it. It was not 'bad', by any stretch of the imagination, but it
was a series of wasted opportunities, and too many set pieces crammed
into forty five minutes. The preview at the end of that episode, for
this week, did not look promising, since they chose the tackiest, most
poorly lit scenes to tease us with in a seemingly disjointed manner.
However, you could tell that it was something that they put a lot of
effort into, and subsequent previews looked much better.
I do not care if this turns out to be an unpopular episode with a
majority of fandom. I would assert that this was a very successful
attempt to make Doctor Who, as *real* sci-fi. Finally, we get a truly
alien planet, with alien cultureS, something that has been sorely
lacking, since Doctor Who has returned in 2005, save for the random
bits and bobs, here and there.
Of course, the forty-five minute, single episode, format of the
series does not lend them enough time to develop the supporting
characters in detail. That is a flaw with the show's current format,
not the current episode.
No doubt, this episode will draw criticisms and ire from those
with strong religious views, for it reveals that the 'God', that is
worshipped by the inhabitants of an entire solar system, to be nothing
more than a parasite, who is not omnipotent, nor even close to it.
I liked the idea of a culture singing a long song, for thousands
of years, to keep the parasite asleep and sated. I was almost
worried, during the climax of the story, that the Doctor and/or his
companion were also going to break out into song. But, thankfully,
they did not go there.
Those who are familiar with the Doctor's long history of repeated
amnesia, in the novels, may also be worried by the alien parasite
'taking' all of his memories. Whether the Doctor actually lost a huge
chunk of his memories remains to be seen, in future episodes. But, he
did not appear to have amnesia at the end of this episode, even though
Clara's leaf disappeared after she offered it to the alien.
Many will probably compare this episode to ones like 'The Long
Game' and 'The Beast Below', which I think were underappreciated, but
I think that this was better than those. Doctor Who has a machine
that can travel anywhere in time and space. It is about time that it
has done some world building, and I would definitely welcome more
episodes like this, as long they took a different angle and did not
just retread the same ground. This episode successfully whet my
appetite, leaving me wanting more.

11/10
Mike Hall
2013-04-06 22:49:22 UTC
Permalink
On 06/04/2013 23:12, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
> Let this be the official review thread for the newest episode of
> Doctor Who, 'The Rings of Akhaten'. All others are pretenders.
> It was not 'bad', by any stretch of the imagination, but it
> was a series of wasted opportunities, and too many set pieces crammed
> into forty five minutes.

So it is bad but they tried really hard to make it good?

> I do not care if this turns out to be an unpopular episode with a
> majority of fandom. I would assert that this was a very successful
> attempt to make Doctor Who, as *real* sci-fi. Finally, we get a truly
> alien planet, with alien cultureS, something that has been sorely
> lacking, since Doctor Who has returned in 2005, save for the random
> bits and bobs, here and there.

Not going to disagree with you totally here, when Clara was allowed to
open her eyes, I was wowing with her. It was all bad masks and ideas
lifted off other sci-fi (e.g. treasured items rather than money) for
most of the rest of the programme.

Was anyone else hoping that Grandfather was a Great Vampire when the
Doctor called him a vampire?


Mike Hall
The Coca Cola Kid
2013-04-07 01:01:12 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 6, 5:49 pm, Mike Hall <***@spam3spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>>It was not 'bad', by any stretch of the imagination, but it
>>was a series of wasted opportunities, and too many set pieces crammed
>>into forty five minutes.
>
>So it is bad but they tried really hard to make it good?

That was referring to 'The Bells of Saint John', the previous week's
episode. I am not sure why you edited my posting, to make it look
like that was referring to this week's story,

>Not going to disagree with you totally here, when Clara was allowed to
>open her eyes, I was wowing with her.  It was all bad masks and ideas
>lifted off other sci-fi (e.g. treasured items rather than money) for
>most of the rest of the programme.

I thought that the masks and costumes were not bad, for a television
budget. What is so bad about the idea of using treasured items,
rather than money, to barter? It not only tied in with the religious
beliefs of the aliens in this story, it was also used as an explicit,
but subtle, jab at the concept of fiat currency.

>Was anyone else hoping that Grandfather was a Great Vampire when the
>Doctor called him a vampire?

That thought did not occur to me, actually. The imagery and
atmosphere of the actual 'god' in this story made me think of the
creature from 'The Satan Pit'. Both of these could be linked to the
Great Vampire(s), and the Yssgaroth.
Charles E. Hardwidge
2013-04-07 01:20:32 UTC
Permalink
"The Coca Cola Kid" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f078773b-8128-4033-8063-***@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

> What is so bad about the idea of using treasured items, rather than money,
> to barter? It not only tied in with the religious beliefs of the aliens
> in this story, it was also used as an explicit, but subtle, jab at the
> concept of fiat currency.

Yes, the 18th Century style patriarchal ownership by the Doctor of women's
property was neatly done. Of course, returning it later was meant to enthuse
her with everlasting gratitude. Still, blatant misogyny is a step up from
Moffat's earlier predatory gaze, I suppose.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge
David Johnston
2013-04-07 01:49:31 UTC
Permalink
On 4/6/2013 7:20 PM, Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
>
> "The Coca Cola Kid" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f078773b-8128-4033-8063-***@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
>> What is so bad about the idea of using treasured items, rather than
>> money,
>> to barter? It not only tied in with the religious beliefs of the aliens
>> in this story, it was also used as an explicit, but subtle, jab at the
>> concept of fiat currency.
>
> Yes, the 18th Century style patriarchal ownership by the Doctor of women's
> property was neatly done.

What the hell are you talking about?
The Doctor
2013-04-07 02:08:24 UTC
Permalink
In article <kjqj65$ort$***@dont-email.me>,
David Johnston <***@block.com> wrote:
>On 4/6/2013 7:20 PM, Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
>>
>> "The Coca Cola Kid" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:f078773b-8128-4033-8063-***@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> What is so bad about the idea of using treasured items, rather than
>>> money,
>>> to barter? It not only tied in with the religious beliefs of the aliens
>>> in this story, it was also used as an explicit, but subtle, jab at the
>>> concept of fiat currency.
>>
>> Yes, the 18th Century style patriarchal ownership by the Doctor of women's
>> property was neatly done.
>
>What the hell are you talking about?

IF only we knew.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
The Coca Cola Kid
2013-04-07 02:30:29 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 6, 8:49 pm, David Johnston <***@block.com> wrote:
>Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
>> Yes, the 18th Century style patriarchal ownership by the Doctor of women's
>> property was neatly done.
>
>What the hell are you talking about?

Clara's ring.
The Doctor
2013-04-07 12:48:00 UTC
Permalink
In article <bc2e6c94-e2e9-4067-b1ba-***@n7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
The Coca Cola Kid <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 6, 8:49=A0pm, David Johnston <***@block.com> wrote:
>>Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
>>> Yes, the 18th Century style patriarchal ownership by the Doctor of women=
>'s
>>> property was neatly done.
>>
>>What the hell are you talking about?
>
>Clara's ring.

Some people need to keep up.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
David Johnston
2013-04-07 18:00:10 UTC
Permalink
On 4/6/2013 8:30 PM, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
> On Apr 6, 8:49 pm, David Johnston <***@block.com> wrote:
>> Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
>>> Yes, the 18th Century style patriarchal ownership by the Doctor of women's
>>> property was neatly done.
>>
>> What the hell are you talking about?
>
> Clara's ring.
>

I seem to have missed the part where the Doctor indicated that he owned
Clara's ring.
The Doctor
2013-04-07 19:50:49 UTC
Permalink
In article <kjsc2i$7bp$***@dont-email.me>,
David Johnston <***@block.net> wrote:
>On 4/6/2013 8:30 PM, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 8:49 pm, David Johnston <***@block.com> wrote:
>>> Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
>>>> Yes, the 18th Century style patriarchal ownership by the Doctor of women's
>>>> property was neatly done.
>>>
>>> What the hell are you talking about?
>>
>> Clara's ring.
>>
>
>I seem to have missed the part where the Doctor indicated that he owned
>Clara's ring.

She paid for the sccoter with the ring.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
David Johnston
2013-04-07 19:53:03 UTC
Permalink
On 4/7/2013 1:50 PM, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <kjsc2i$7bp$***@dont-email.me>,
> David Johnston <***@block.net> wrote:
>> On 4/6/2013 8:30 PM, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>>> On Apr 6, 8:49 pm, David Johnston <***@block.com> wrote:
>>>> Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
>>>>> Yes, the 18th Century style patriarchal ownership by the Doctor of women's
>>>>> property was neatly done.
>>>>
>>>> What the hell are you talking about?
>>>
>>> Clara's ring.
>>>
>>
>> I seem to have missed the part where the Doctor indicated that he owned
>> Clara's ring.
>
> She paid for the sccoter with the ring.
>

Which indicated that the Doctor owned Clara's ring...how?
The Coca Cola Kid
2013-04-07 02:34:48 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 6, 8:49 pm, David Johnston <***@block.com> wrote:
> On 4/6/2013 7:20 PM, Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
>
>
>
> > "The Coca Cola Kid" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:f078773b-8128-4033-8063-***@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> What is so bad about the idea of using treasured items, rather than
> >> money,
> >> to barter?  It not only tied in with the religious beliefs of the aliens
> >> in this story, it was also used as an explicit, but subtle, jab at the
> >> concept of fiat currency.
>
> > Yes, the 18th Century style patriarchal ownership by the Doctor of women's
> > property was neatly done.
>
> What the hell are you talking about?
The Coca Cola Kid
2013-04-07 02:20:43 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 6, 8:20 pm, "Charles E. Hardwidge" wrote:
> Yes, the 18th Century style patriarchal ownership by the Doctor of women's
> property was neatly done. Of course, returning it later was meant to enthuse
> her with everlasting gratitude. Still, blatant misogyny is a step up from
> Moffat's earlier predatory gaze, I suppose.

That was another aspect of it. And yes, I do think that we were meant
to question why the Doctor was acting like such a d***, towards
Clara. This is the guy who is known to have bottomless, or least
dimensionally transcendental, pockets. He almost certainly had other
things, of value, besides his sonic screwdriver, in his coat pockets.
I think that he was testing her, to see what she values, trying to
figure out if she is real, or if there was some clue that pointed to
who, or what, she really might be.
Speaking of predatory, this week's opening sequence really comes
across as creepy, when taken out of context, along with the prequel to
'The Bells of Saint John', If it is true, that there is a mandate, by
the BBC, to include a certain number of child characters, methinks
that the writers have been taking the p***, with the Doctor stalking
his companions since they were children..
The Doctor
2013-04-07 12:45:22 UTC
Permalink
In article <4ec44263-2070-4766-a922-***@g4g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
The Coca Cola Kid <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 6, 8:20=A0pm, "Charles E. Hardwidge" wrote:
>> Yes, the 18th Century style patriarchal ownership by the Doctor of women'=
>s
>> property was neatly done. Of course, returning it later was meant to enth=
>use
>> her with everlasting gratitude. Still, blatant misogyny is a step up from
>> Moffat's earlier predatory gaze, I suppose.
>
>That was another aspect of it. And yes, I do think that we were meant
>to question why the Doctor was acting like such a d***, towards
>Clara. This is the guy who is known to have bottomless, or least
>dimensionally transcendental, pockets. He almost certainly had other
>things, of value, besides his sonic screwdriver, in his coat pockets.
>I think that he was testing her, to see what she values, trying to
>figure out if she is real, or if there was some clue that pointed to
>who, or what, she really might be.
> Speaking of predatory, this week's opening sequence really comes
>across as creepy, when taken out of context, along with the prequel to
>'The Bells of Saint John', If it is true, that there is a mandate, by
>the BBC, to include a certain number of child characters, methinks
>that the writers have been taking the p***, with the Doctor stalking
>his companions since they were children..

Why did Moffat write that in?
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
solar penguin
2013-04-07 18:10:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 19:20:43 -0700, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:

> On Apr 6, 8:20 pm, "Charles E. Hardwidge" wrote:
>> Yes, the 18th Century style patriarchal ownership by the Doctor of
>> women's property was neatly done. Of course, returning it later was
>> meant to enthuse her with everlasting gratitude. Still, blatant
>> misogyny is a step up from Moffat's earlier predatory gaze, I suppose.
>
> That was another aspect of it. And yes, I do think that we were meant
> to question why the Doctor was acting like such a d***, towards Clara.
> This is the guy who is known to have bottomless, or least dimensionally
> transcendental, pockets. He almost certainly had other things, of
> value, besides his sonic screwdriver, in his coat pockets.

To be fair, he'd only started wearing this outfit part way through the
previous episode, so he probably hasn't filled the pockets with much
stuff yet. That's assuming he's even got round to dimensionally
transcendentalising them in the first place.

And even if he has, hw tends to acquire random bits and pieces on a whim,
rather than hang on to emotionally-significant, sentimental objects.
Agamemnon
2013-04-07 19:42:42 UTC
Permalink
"solar penguin" <***@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:kjscq2$eo1$***@dont-email.me...
> On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 19:20:43 -0700, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>
>> On Apr 6, 8:20 pm, "Charles E. Hardwidge" wrote:
>>> Yes, the 18th Century style patriarchal ownership by the Doctor of
>>> women's property was neatly done. Of course, returning it later was
>>> meant to enthuse her with everlasting gratitude. Still, blatant
>>> misogyny is a step up from Moffat's earlier predatory gaze, I suppose.
>>
>> That was another aspect of it. And yes, I do think that we were meant
>> to question why the Doctor was acting like such a d***, towards Clara.
>> This is the guy who is known to have bottomless, or least dimensionally
>> transcendental, pockets. He almost certainly had other things, of
>> value, besides his sonic screwdriver, in his coat pockets.
>
> To be fair, he'd only started wearing this outfit part way through the
> previous episode, so he probably hasn't filled the pockets with much
> stuff yet. That's assuming he's even got round to dimensionally
> transcendentalising them in the first place.
>
> And even if he has, hw tends to acquire random bits and pieces on a whim,
> rather than hang on to emotionally-significant, sentimental objects.

Clara had other rings on her fingers. Why didn't she give the dog lady one
of those? Why didn't she give her, her jacket or handbag or some other item
of clothing?

And the Doctor could have given her his glasses. Why not those? Different
prescription? What about his bow tie? Shoes? A lock of hair?
David Johnston
2013-04-07 19:56:22 UTC
Permalink
On 4/7/2013 1:42 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
> "solar penguin" <***@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:kjscq2$eo1$***@dont-email.me...
>> On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 19:20:43 -0700, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 6, 8:20 pm, "Charles E. Hardwidge" wrote:
>>>> Yes, the 18th Century style patriarchal ownership by the Doctor of
>>>> women's property was neatly done. Of course, returning it later was
>>>> meant to enthuse her with everlasting gratitude. Still, blatant
>>>> misogyny is a step up from Moffat's earlier predatory gaze, I suppose.
>>>
>>> That was another aspect of it. And yes, I do think that we were meant
>>> to question why the Doctor was acting like such a d***, towards Clara.
>>> This is the guy who is known to have bottomless, or least dimensionally
>>> transcendental, pockets. He almost certainly had other things, of
>>> value, besides his sonic screwdriver, in his coat pockets.
>>
>> To be fair, he'd only started wearing this outfit part way through the
>> previous episode, so he probably hasn't filled the pockets with much
>> stuff yet. That's assuming he's even got round to dimensionally
>> transcendentalising them in the first place.
>>
>> And even if he has, hw tends to acquire random bits and pieces on a whim,
>> rather than hang on to emotionally-significant, sentimental objects.
>
> Clara had other rings on her fingers. Why didn't she give the dog lady one
> of those? Why didn't she give her, her jacket or handbag or some other item
> of clothing?

Because it had to have emotional significance.

>
> And the Doctor could have given her his glasses. Why not those?Different
> prescription? What about his bow tie? Shoes? A lock of hair?

Because he didn't care about any of those things.


>
>
>
Agamemnon
2013-04-07 20:10:14 UTC
Permalink
"David Johnston" <***@block.net> wrote in message
news:kjsisg$uo1$***@dont-email.me...
> On 4/7/2013 1:42 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
>> "solar penguin" <***@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:kjscq2$eo1$***@dont-email.me...
>>> On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 19:20:43 -0700, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 6, 8:20 pm, "Charles E. Hardwidge" wrote:
>>>>> Yes, the 18th Century style patriarchal ownership by the Doctor of
>>>>> women's property was neatly done. Of course, returning it later was
>>>>> meant to enthuse her with everlasting gratitude. Still, blatant
>>>>> misogyny is a step up from Moffat's earlier predatory gaze, I suppose.
>>>>
>>>> That was another aspect of it. And yes, I do think that we were meant
>>>> to question why the Doctor was acting like such a d***, towards Clara.
>>>> This is the guy who is known to have bottomless, or least dimensionally
>>>> transcendental, pockets. He almost certainly had other things, of
>>>> value, besides his sonic screwdriver, in his coat pockets.
>>>
>>> To be fair, he'd only started wearing this outfit part way through the
>>> previous episode, so he probably hasn't filled the pockets with much
>>> stuff yet. That's assuming he's even got round to dimensionally
>>> transcendentalising them in the first place.
>>>
>>> And even if he has, hw tends to acquire random bits and pieces on a
>>> whim,
>>> rather than hang on to emotionally-significant, sentimental objects.
>>
>> Clara had other rings on her fingers. Why didn't she give the dog lady
>> one
>> of those? Why didn't she give her, her jacket or handbag or some other
>> item
>> of clothing?
>
> Because it had to have emotional significance.

And are you telling me that a woman's handbag doesn't?

>
>>
>> And the Doctor could have given her his glasses. Why not those?Different
>> prescription? What about his bow tie? Shoes? A lock of hair?
>
> Because he didn't care about any of those things.

Of course he did. Look at how picky he was about his bow tie and where would
he have been without his glasses?
David Johnston
2013-04-07 21:17:03 UTC
Permalink
On 4/7/2013 2:10 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
> "David Johnston" <***@block.net> wrote in message
> news:kjsisg$uo1$***@dont-email.me...
>> On 4/7/2013 1:42 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
>>> "solar penguin" <***@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kjscq2$eo1$***@dont-email.me...
>>>> On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 19:20:43 -0700, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 6, 8:20 pm, "Charles E. Hardwidge" wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, the 18th Century style patriarchal ownership by the Doctor of
>>>>>> women's property was neatly done. Of course, returning it later was
>>>>>> meant to enthuse her with everlasting gratitude. Still, blatant
>>>>>> misogyny is a step up from Moffat's earlier predatory gaze, I suppose.
>>>>>
>>>>> That was another aspect of it. And yes, I do think that we were meant
>>>>> to question why the Doctor was acting like such a d***, towards Clara.
>>>>> This is the guy who is known to have bottomless, or least dimensionally
>>>>> transcendental, pockets. He almost certainly had other things, of
>>>>> value, besides his sonic screwdriver, in his coat pockets.
>>>>
>>>> To be fair, he'd only started wearing this outfit part way through the
>>>> previous episode, so he probably hasn't filled the pockets with much
>>>> stuff yet. That's assuming he's even got round to dimensionally
>>>> transcendentalising them in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> And even if he has, hw tends to acquire random bits and pieces on a
>>>> whim,
>>>> rather than hang on to emotionally-significant, sentimental objects.
>>>
>>> Clara had other rings on her fingers. Why didn't she give the dog lady
>>> one
>>> of those? Why didn't she give her, her jacket or handbag or some other
>>> item
>>> of clothing?
>>
>> Because it had to have emotional significance.
>
> And are you telling me that a woman's handbag doesn't?

Given the number of handbags I've seen women of my acquaintance go
through, probably not more than their practical utility.

>
>>
>>>
>>> And the Doctor could have given her his glasses. Why not those?Different
>>> prescription? What about his bow tie? Shoes? A lock of hair?
>>
>> Because he didn't care about any of those things.
>
> Of course he did. Look at how picky he was about his bow tie and where would
> he have been without his glasses?

Same place I am without my glasses. Looking for a new set of glasses.
Ross
2013-04-08 12:03:26 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 7, 4:10 pm, "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> "David Johnston" <***@block.net> wrote in message
>
> news:kjsisg$uo1$***@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4/7/2013 1:42 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
> >> "solar penguin" <***@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:kjscq2$eo1$***@dont-email.me...
> >>> On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 19:20:43 -0700, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>
> >>>> On Apr 6, 8:20 pm, "Charles E. Hardwidge"  wrote:
> >>>>> Yes, the 18th Century style patriarchal ownership by the Doctor of
> >>>>> women's property was neatly done. Of course, returning it later was
> >>>>> meant to enthuse her with everlasting gratitude. Still, blatant
> >>>>> misogyny is a step up from Moffat's earlier predatory gaze, I suppose.
>
> >>>> That was another aspect of it.  And yes, I do think that we were meant
> >>>> to question why the Doctor was acting like such a d***, towards Clara.
> >>>> This is the guy who is known to have bottomless, or least dimensionally
> >>>> transcendental, pockets.  He almost certainly had other things, of
> >>>> value, besides his sonic screwdriver, in his coat pockets.
>
> >>> To be fair, he'd only started wearing this outfit part way through the
> >>> previous episode, so he probably hasn't filled the pockets with much
> >>> stuff yet.  That's assuming he's even got round to dimensionally
> >>> transcendentalising them in the first place.
>
> >>> And even if he has, hw tends to acquire random bits and pieces on a
> >>> whim,
> >>> rather than hang on to emotionally-significant, sentimental objects.
>
> >> Clara had other rings on her fingers. Why didn't she give the dog lady
> >> one
> >> of those? Why didn't she give her, her jacket or handbag or some other
> >> item
> >> of clothing?
>
> > Because it had to have emotional significance.
>
> And are you telling me that a woman's handbag doesn't?
>
>
>
> >> And the Doctor could have given her his glasses. Why not those?Different
> >> prescription? What about his bow tie? Shoes? A lock of hair?
>
> > Because he didn't care about any of those things.
>
> Of course he did. Look at how picky he was about his bow tie and where would
> he have been without his glasses?

Caring about something isn't the same as having a sentimental
attachment to it. The tie is *new*. He cares about it because he likes
it, not because he's got some history with it. They were pretty
specific about what gives things their value to the people of Akhaten,
and it has to do with there being a personal story attached to it.
Agamemnon
2013-04-08 21:14:40 UTC
Permalink
"Ross" <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote in message
news:12051b85-c6ba-4476-bc17-***@q6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 7, 4:10 pm, "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> "David Johnston" <***@block.net> wrote in message
>
> news:kjsisg$uo1$***@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4/7/2013 1:42 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
> >> "solar penguin" <***@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:kjscq2$eo1$***@dont-email.me...
> >>> On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 19:20:43 -0700, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>
> >>>> On Apr 6, 8:20 pm, "Charles E. Hardwidge" wrote:
> >>>>> Yes, the 18th Century style patriarchal ownership by the Doctor of
> >>>>> women's property was neatly done. Of course, returning it later was
> >>>>> meant to enthuse her with everlasting gratitude. Still, blatant
> >>>>> misogyny is a step up from Moffat's earlier predatory gaze, I
> >>>>> suppose.
>
> >>>> That was another aspect of it. And yes, I do think that we were meant
> >>>> to question why the Doctor was acting like such a d***, towards
> >>>> Clara.
> >>>> This is the guy who is known to have bottomless, or least
> >>>> dimensionally
> >>>> transcendental, pockets. He almost certainly had other things, of
> >>>> value, besides his sonic screwdriver, in his coat pockets.
>
> >>> To be fair, he'd only started wearing this outfit part way through the
> >>> previous episode, so he probably hasn't filled the pockets with much
> >>> stuff yet. That's assuming he's even got round to dimensionally
> >>> transcendentalising them in the first place.
>
> >>> And even if he has, hw tends to acquire random bits and pieces on a
> >>> whim,
> >>> rather than hang on to emotionally-significant, sentimental objects.
>
> >> Clara had other rings on her fingers. Why didn't she give the dog lady
> >> one
> >> of those? Why didn't she give her, her jacket or handbag or some other
> >> item
> >> of clothing?
>
> > Because it had to have emotional significance.
>
> And are you telling me that a woman's handbag doesn't?
>
>
>
> >> And the Doctor could have given her his glasses. Why not
> >> those?Different
> >> prescription? What about his bow tie? Shoes? A lock of hair?
>
> > Because he didn't care about any of those things.
>
> Of course he did. Look at how picky he was about his bow tie and where
> would
> he have been without his glasses?

<<<Caring about something isn't the same as having a sentimental
attachment to it. The tie is *new*. He cares about it because he likes
it, not because he's got some history with it. They were pretty
specific about what gives things their value to the people of Akhaten,
and it has to do with there being a personal story attached to it.>>>

The tie had the whole of the Doctor's regeneration story and costume change
attached to it.
Ross
2013-04-09 12:14:16 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 8, 5:14 pm, "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> "Ross" <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote in message
>
> news:12051b85-c6ba-4476-bc17-***@q6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 7, 4:10 pm, "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "David Johnston" <***@block.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:kjsisg$uo1$***@dont-email.me...
>
> > > On 4/7/2013 1:42 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
> > >> "solar penguin" <***@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:kjscq2$eo1$***@dont-email.me...
> > >>> On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 19:20:43 -0700, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>
> > >>>> On Apr 6, 8:20 pm, "Charles E. Hardwidge" wrote:
> > >>>>> Yes, the 18th Century style patriarchal ownership by the Doctor of
> > >>>>> women's property was neatly done. Of course, returning it later was
> > >>>>> meant to enthuse her with everlasting gratitude. Still, blatant
> > >>>>> misogyny is a step up from Moffat's earlier predatory gaze, I
> > >>>>> suppose.
>
> > >>>> That was another aspect of it. And yes, I do think that we were meant
> > >>>> to question why the Doctor was acting like such a d***, towards
> > >>>> Clara.
> > >>>> This is the guy who is known to have bottomless, or least
> > >>>> dimensionally
> > >>>> transcendental, pockets. He almost certainly had other things, of
> > >>>> value, besides his sonic screwdriver, in his coat pockets.
>
> > >>> To be fair, he'd only started wearing this outfit part way through the
> > >>> previous episode, so he probably hasn't filled the pockets with much
> > >>> stuff yet. That's assuming he's even got round to dimensionally
> > >>> transcendentalising them in the first place.
>
> > >>> And even if he has, hw tends to acquire random bits and pieces on a
> > >>> whim,
> > >>> rather than hang on to emotionally-significant, sentimental objects.
>
> > >> Clara had other rings on her fingers. Why didn't she give the dog lady
> > >> one
> > >> of those? Why didn't she give her, her jacket or handbag or some other
> > >> item
> > >> of clothing?
>
> > > Because it had to have emotional significance.
>
> > And are you telling me that a woman's handbag doesn't?
>
> > >> And the Doctor could have given her his glasses. Why not
> > >> those?Different
> > >> prescription? What about his bow tie? Shoes? A lock of hair?
>
> > > Because he didn't care about any of those things.
>
> > Of course he did. Look at how picky he was about his bow tie and where
> > would
> > he have been without his glasses?
>
> <<<Caring about something isn't the same as having a sentimental
> attachment to it. The tie is *new*. He cares about it because he likes
> it, not because he's got some history with it. They were pretty
> specific about what gives things their value to the people of Akhaten,
> and it has to do with there being a personal story attached to it.>>>
>
> The tie had the whole of the Doctor's regeneration story and costume change
> attached to it.

Look closer. The tie he wears in this episode is one he's never worn
before.

When they show a close-up of it in the opening scene, I was thinking
how strange it was that he was wearing a different tie than he usually
wears -- in the past two seasons, he always wore a solid red tie for
stories set in the future and a blue tie for ones set in the past, but
this tie was a sort of orangey-red and polka-dotted. It occurred to me
that maybe this meant that Moffat didn't want us to know if this was
the future or the past. But when they did the scene with Clara having
to give up her ring, it all became clear: the Doctor was wearing a new
tie *because the writer needed the Doctor to not be wearing something
with a history*
Agamemnon
2013-04-09 20:01:56 UTC
Permalink
"Ross" <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ee09baff-9cd2-43ca-83ea-***@p12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 8, 5:14 pm, "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> "Ross" <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote in message
>
> news:12051b85-c6ba-4476-bc17-***@q6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 7, 4:10 pm, "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "David Johnston" <***@block.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:kjsisg$uo1$***@dont-email.me...
>
> > > On 4/7/2013 1:42 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
> > >> "solar penguin" <***@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:kjscq2$eo1$***@dont-email.me...
> > >>> On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 19:20:43 -0700, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>
> > >>>> On Apr 6, 8:20 pm, "Charles E. Hardwidge" wrote:
> > >>>>> Yes, the 18th Century style patriarchal ownership by the Doctor of
> > >>>>> women's property was neatly done. Of course, returning it later
> > >>>>> was
> > >>>>> meant to enthuse her with everlasting gratitude. Still, blatant
> > >>>>> misogyny is a step up from Moffat's earlier predatory gaze, I
> > >>>>> suppose.
>
> > >>>> That was another aspect of it. And yes, I do think that we were
> > >>>> meant
> > >>>> to question why the Doctor was acting like such a d***, towards
> > >>>> Clara.
> > >>>> This is the guy who is known to have bottomless, or least
> > >>>> dimensionally
> > >>>> transcendental, pockets. He almost certainly had other things, of
> > >>>> value, besides his sonic screwdriver, in his coat pockets.
>
> > >>> To be fair, he'd only started wearing this outfit part way through
> > >>> the
> > >>> previous episode, so he probably hasn't filled the pockets with much
> > >>> stuff yet. That's assuming he's even got round to dimensionally
> > >>> transcendentalising them in the first place.
>
> > >>> And even if he has, hw tends to acquire random bits and pieces on a
> > >>> whim,
> > >>> rather than hang on to emotionally-significant, sentimental objects.
>
> > >> Clara had other rings on her fingers. Why didn't she give the dog
> > >> lady
> > >> one
> > >> of those? Why didn't she give her, her jacket or handbag or some
> > >> other
> > >> item
> > >> of clothing?
>
> > > Because it had to have emotional significance.
>
> > And are you telling me that a woman's handbag doesn't?
>
> > >> And the Doctor could have given her his glasses. Why not
> > >> those?Different
> > >> prescription? What about his bow tie? Shoes? A lock of hair?
>
> > > Because he didn't care about any of those things.
>
> > Of course he did. Look at how picky he was about his bow tie and where
> > would
> > he have been without his glasses?
>
> <<<Caring about something isn't the same as having a sentimental
> attachment to it. The tie is *new*. He cares about it because he likes
> it, not because he's got some history with it. They were pretty
> specific about what gives things their value to the people of Akhaten,
> and it has to do with there being a personal story attached to it.>>>
>
> The tie had the whole of the Doctor's regeneration story and costume
> change
> attached to it.

<<<Look closer. The tie he wears in this episode is one he's never worn
before.>>>

It's the same one he wore last week and it doesn't matter if he's never worn
it before that day since it's either been in the TARDIS wardrobe for almost
1000 years or there's a story attached to him buying it and putting it on
and piloting the TARDIS with it on etc.

<<<When they show a close-up of it in the opening scene, I was thinking
how strange it was that he was wearing a different tie than he usually
wears -- in the past two seasons, he always wore a solid red tie for
stories set in the future and a blue tie for ones set in the past, but
this tie was a sort of orangey-red and polka-dotted. It occurred to me
that maybe this meant that Moffat didn't want us to know if this was
the future or the past. But when they did the scene with Clara having
to give up her ring, it all became clear: the Doctor was wearing a new
tie *because the writer needed the Doctor to not be wearing something
with a history*>>>

It could have been set in the present.
David Johnston
2013-04-09 20:23:43 UTC
Permalink
On 4/9/2013 2:01 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
> "Ross" <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:ee09baff-9cd2-43ca-83ea-***@p12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 8, 5:14 pm, "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>> "Ross" <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:12051b85-c6ba-4476-bc17-***@q6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 7, 4:10 pm, "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "David Johnston" <***@block.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> news:kjsisg$uo1$***@dont-email.me...
>>
>>>> On 4/7/2013 1:42 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
>>>>> "solar penguin" <***@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:kjscq2$eo1$***@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 19:20:43 -0700, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 8:20 pm, "Charles E. Hardwidge" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yes, the 18th Century style patriarchal ownership by the Doctor of
>>>>>>>> women's property was neatly done. Of course, returning it later
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> meant to enthuse her with everlasting gratitude. Still, blatant
>>>>>>>> misogyny is a step up from Moffat's earlier predatory gaze, I
>>>>>>>> suppose.
>>
>>>>>>> That was another aspect of it. And yes, I do think that we were
>>>>>>> meant
>>>>>>> to question why the Doctor was acting like such a d***, towards
>>>>>>> Clara.
>>>>>>> This is the guy who is known to have bottomless, or least
>>>>>>> dimensionally
>>>>>>> transcendental, pockets. He almost certainly had other things, of
>>>>>>> value, besides his sonic screwdriver, in his coat pockets.
>>
>>>>>> To be fair, he'd only started wearing this outfit part way through
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> previous episode, so he probably hasn't filled the pockets with much
>>>>>> stuff yet. That's assuming he's even got round to dimensionally
>>>>>> transcendentalising them in the first place.
>>
>>>>>> And even if he has, hw tends to acquire random bits and pieces on a
>>>>>> whim,
>>>>>> rather than hang on to emotionally-significant, sentimental objects.
>>
>>>>> Clara had other rings on her fingers. Why didn't she give the dog
>>>>> lady
>>>>> one
>>>>> of those? Why didn't she give her, her jacket or handbag or some
>>>>> other
>>>>> item
>>>>> of clothing?
>>
>>>> Because it had to have emotional significance.
>>
>>> And are you telling me that a woman's handbag doesn't?
>>
>>>>> And the Doctor could have given her his glasses. Why not
>>>>> those?Different
>>>>> prescription? What about his bow tie? Shoes? A lock of hair?
>>
>>>> Because he didn't care about any of those things.
>>
>>> Of course he did. Look at how picky he was about his bow tie and where
>>> would
>>> he have been without his glasses?
>>
>> <<<Caring about something isn't the same as having a sentimental
>> attachment to it. The tie is *new*. He cares about it because he likes
>> it, not because he's got some history with it. They were pretty
>> specific about what gives things their value to the people of Akhaten,
>> and it has to do with there being a personal story attached to it.>>>
>>
>> The tie had the whole of the Doctor's regeneration story and costume
>> change
>> attached to it.
>
> <<<Look closer. The tie he wears in this episode is one he's never worn
> before.>>>
>
> It's the same one he wore last week and it doesn't matter if he's never worn
> it before that day since it's either been in the TARDIS wardrobe for almost
> 1000 years or there's a story attached to him buying it and putting it on
> and piloting the TARDIS with it on etc.

I have some clothing dating back to my teenage years, and feel
absolutely no sentiment toward it whatsoever.
Agamemnon
2013-04-10 02:56:37 UTC
Permalink
"David Johnston" <***@block.net> wrote in message
news:kk1t7j$h8d$***@dont-email.me...
> On 4/9/2013 2:01 PM, Agamemnon wrote:

>>> <<<Caring about something isn't the same as having a sentimental
>>> attachment to it. The tie is *new*. He cares about it because he likes
>>> it, not because he's got some history with it. They were pretty
>>> specific about what gives things their value to the people of Akhaten,
>>> and it has to do with there being a personal story attached to it.>>>
>>>
>>> The tie had the whole of the Doctor's regeneration story and costume
>>> change
>>> attached to it.
>>
>> <<<Look closer. The tie he wears in this episode is one he's never worn
>> before.>>>
>>
>> It's the same one he wore last week and it doesn't matter if he's never
>> worn
>> it before that day since it's either been in the TARDIS wardrobe for
>> almost
>> 1000 years or there's a story attached to him buying it and putting it on
>> and piloting the TARDIS with it on etc.
>
> I have some clothing dating back to my teenage years, and feel absolutely
> no sentiment toward it whatsoever.
>

After the scene in TBOSJ where the Doctor specifically chooses that
particular bow tie over something else it's pretty obvious that there is
sentiment attached to it and if not that bow tie in particular then bow ties
in general. If the creature can absorb the sentiment in a leaf concerning
things that have not even happened then it can do the same for the sentiment
contained in the Doctor's choice to wear a bow tie rather than something
else or no tie at all and the story attached to him choosing it.

Besides that, the fundamental flaw in this story is it's apparent
contradiction of the established Doctor Who laws about everything in the
universe which state that everything no matter how magical it might seem has
a purely scientific and physical explanation. Where was the scientific
explanation given for how the creature was able to absorb histories from
inanimate or dead objects and why it needed to do that? There should have
been a reveal of the physical mechanism which the creature used to absorb
all these sentiments and how they actually nourished it or gave it energy
without causing a scientific paradox. My guess is that it wasn't actually
feeding from sentiments or stories to gain energy but that it was addicted
learning these histories and that's what I would have suggested if I'd been
script editor and had to point out all the flaws. Also I would have told
them to cut down on the singing and replace it with more development about
the background of the society the Doctor and Clara were visiting.
David Johnston
2013-04-10 15:41:11 UTC
Permalink
On 4/9/2013 8:56 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
> "David Johnston" <***@block.net> wrote in message
> news:kk1t7j$h8d$***@dont-email.me...
>> On 4/9/2013 2:01 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
>
>>>> <<<Caring about something isn't the same as having a sentimental
>>>> attachment to it. The tie is *new*. He cares about it because he likes
>>>> it, not because he's got some history with it. They were pretty
>>>> specific about what gives things their value to the people of Akhaten,
>>>> and it has to do with there being a personal story attached to it.>>>
>>>>
>>>> The tie had the whole of the Doctor's regeneration story and costume
>>>> change
>>>> attached to it.
>>>
>>> <<<Look closer. The tie he wears in this episode is one he's never worn
>>> before.>>>
>>>
>>> It's the same one he wore last week and it doesn't matter if he's never
>>> worn
>>> it before that day since it's either been in the TARDIS wardrobe for
>>> almost
>>> 1000 years or there's a story attached to him buying it and putting it on
>>> and piloting the TARDIS with it on etc.
>>
>> I have some clothing dating back to my teenage years, and feel absolutely
>> no sentiment toward it whatsoever.
>>
>
> After the scene in TBOSJ where the Doctor specifically chooses that
> particular bow tie over something else it's pretty obvious that there is
> sentiment attached to it and if not that bow tie in particular then bow ties
> in general.

"I really like bow ties" isn't that kind of sentiment. What the monster
wanted was stuff that made you think of people you loved.
Charles E. Hardwidge
2013-04-10 16:17:55 UTC
Permalink
"David Johnston" <***@block.net> wrote in message
news:kk411o$jgp$***@dont-email.me...
> On 4/9/2013 8:56 PM, Agamemnon wrote:

>> After the scene in TBOSJ where the Doctor specifically chooses that
>> particular bow tie over something else it's pretty obvious that there is
>> sentiment attached to it and if not that bow tie in particular then bow
>> ties
>> in general.
>
> "I really like bow ties" isn't that kind of sentiment. What the monster
> wanted was stuff that made you think of people you loved.

That rules out Thatcher mugs and memorabilia.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge
The Doctor
2013-04-10 19:36:24 UTC
Permalink
In article <kk436i$6k8$***@dont-email.me>,
Charles E. Hardwidge <***@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>"David Johnston" <***@block.net> wrote in message
>news:kk411o$jgp$***@dont-email.me...
>> On 4/9/2013 8:56 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
>
>>> After the scene in TBOSJ where the Doctor specifically chooses that
>>> particular bow tie over something else it's pretty obvious that there is
>>> sentiment attached to it and if not that bow tie in particular then bow
>>> ties
>>> in general.
>>
>> "I really like bow ties" isn't that kind of sentiment. What the monster
>> wanted was stuff that made you think of people you loved.
>
>That rules out Thatcher mugs and memorabilia.
>
>--
>Charles E. Hardwidge
>

What aobut your thugs Charles?
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
Jim G.
2013-04-10 19:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Ross sent the following on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 05:03:26 -0700 (PDT):
> They were pretty
> specific about what gives things their value to the people of Akhaten,
> and it has to do with there being a personal story attached to it.

Okay, one more "Exactly" and then I'll stop.

Exactly.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER
Jim G.
2013-04-10 19:44:48 UTC
Permalink
David Johnston sent the following on Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:56:22 -0600:
> On 4/7/2013 1:42 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
> >
> > Clara had other rings on her fingers. Why didn't she give the dog lady one
> > of those? Why didn't she give her, her jacket or handbag or some other item
> > of clothing?
>
> Because it had to have emotional significance.

Exactly.

> > And the Doctor could have given her his glasses. Why not those?Different
> > prescription? What about his bow tie? Shoes? A lock of hair?
>
> Because he didn't care about any of those things.

Exactly again. I'm starting to wonder if some people here were nodding
off during the show.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER
The Coca Cola Kid
2013-04-08 01:32:31 UTC
Permalink
"solar penguin" wrote in message news:kjscq2$eo1$***@dont-email.me...

>And even if he has, he tends to acquire random bits and pieces on a whim,
>rather than hang on to emotionally-significant, sentimental objects.

I suspect that the TARDIS is probably cluttered with such objects. Since he
knew what the 'currency' was, on this world, he could have brought such an
object, or even taken a side-trip to procure one, if he really wanted to ...
By the way, I was kind of hoping that he would have given up the sonic
screwdriver, since it is such an annoying prop, and bad joke now.
The Doctor
2013-04-08 03:17:54 UTC
Permalink
In article <kjt6ni$7h3$***@speranza.aioe.org>,
The Coca Cola Kid <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>"solar penguin" wrote in message news:kjscq2$eo1$***@dont-email.me...
>
>>And even if he has, he tends to acquire random bits and pieces on a whim,
>>rather than hang on to emotionally-significant, sentimental objects.
>
>I suspect that the TARDIS is probably cluttered with such objects. Since he
>knew what the 'currency' was, on this world, he could have brought such an
>object, or even taken a side-trip to procure one, if he really wanted to ...
> By the way, I was kind of hoping that he would have given up the sonic
>screwdriver, since it is such an annoying prop, and bad joke now.
>

You are sounding like JN-T.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
Jim G.
2013-04-10 19:44:48 UTC
Permalink
The Coca Cola Kid sent the following on Sat, 6 Apr 2013 19:20:43 -0700
(PDT):
> I do think that we were meant
> to question why the Doctor was acting like such a d***, towards
> Clara. This is the guy who is known to have bottomless, or least
> dimensionally transcendental, pockets. He almost certainly had other
> things, of value, besides his sonic screwdriver, in his coat pockets.
> I think that he was testing her, to see what she values, trying to
> figure out if she is real, or if there was some clue that pointed to
> who, or what, she really might be.

My impression was that that was *exactly* what he was doing. And let's
keep in mind that he got the ring *back* for her in the end.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER
The Doctor
2013-04-10 20:05:04 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>,
Jim G. <***@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>The Coca Cola Kid sent the following on Sat, 6 Apr 2013 19:20:43 -0700
>(PDT):
>> I do think that we were meant
>> to question why the Doctor was acting like such a d***, towards
>> Clara. This is the guy who is known to have bottomless, or least
>> dimensionally transcendental, pockets. He almost certainly had other
>> things, of value, besides his sonic screwdriver, in his coat pockets.
>> I think that he was testing her, to see what she values, trying to
>> figure out if she is real, or if there was some clue that pointed to
>> who, or what, she really might be.
>
>My impression was that that was *exactly* what he was doing. And let's
>keep in mind that he got the ring *back* for her in the end.
>
>--
>Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
>"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER

Scooter for Ring barter.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
The Doctor
2013-04-07 01:57:45 UTC
Permalink
In article <f078773b-8128-4033-8063-***@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
The Coca Cola Kid <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 6, 5:49=A0pm, Mike Hall <***@spam3spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>>>It was not 'bad', by any stretch of the imagination, but it
>>>was a series of wasted opportunities, and too many set pieces crammed
>>>into forty five minutes.
>>
>>So it is bad but they tried really hard to make it good?
>
>That was referring to 'The Bells of Saint John', the previous week's
>episode. I am not sure why you edited my posting, to make it look
>like that was referring to this week's story,
>
>>Not going to disagree with you totally here, when Clara was allowed to
>>open her eyes, I was wowing with her. =A0It was all bad masks and ideas
>>lifted off other sci-fi (e.g. treasured items rather than money) for
>>most of the rest of the programme.
>
>I thought that the masks and costumes were not bad, for a television
>budget. What is so bad about the idea of using treasured items,
>rather than money, to barter? It not only tied in with the religious
>beliefs of the aliens in this story, it was also used as an explicit,
>but subtle, jab at the concept of fiat currency.
>
>>Was anyone else hoping that Grandfather was a Great Vampire when the
>>Doctor called him a vampire?
>
>That thought did not occur to me, actually. The imagery and
>atmosphere of the actual 'god' in this story made me think of the
>creature from 'The Satan Pit'. Both of these could be linked to the
>Great Vampire(s), and the Yssgaroth.

Interesting cross concepts though.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
BW
2013-04-07 12:34:55 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 7, 9:01 am, The Coca Cola Kid <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I thought that the masks and costumes were not bad, for a television
>
Recycling bits of The Hath in one creature.
Is Moffat chopping up stuff from the RTD era to concoct new aliens?
The Coca Cola Kid
2013-04-08 00:29:22 UTC
Permalink
"BW" wrote in message
news:6e9529b0-9b27-430a-afae-***@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

>Recycling bits of The Hath in one creature.
>Is Moffat chopping up stuff from the RTD era to concoct new aliens?

I just had an image, in my mind, about two aliens, watching a show, about
humans. One of them turns, to the other, and says 'that character has the
same features as that Turkish character, that we saw, a while back. How
rubbish is that?'
It is not unreasonable that different types of aliens would have
similarities to others.
The Doctor
2013-04-06 23:03:49 UTC
Permalink
In article <1c00ecb4-b842-42d5-a0ce-***@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
The Coca Cola Kid <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>Let this be the official review thread for the newest episode of
>Doctor Who, 'The Rings of Akhaten'. All others are pretenders.
> So far, most of the reviews that I have seen of this episode have
>panned it, including one that rated it ten out of ten. (But, that
>person always rates stories in the Steven Moffat era ten out of ten,
>even when his review was clearly negative, so ... whatever.)
> Last week's episode was very ho-hum, an extremely average
>execution of some great concepts. Not surprisingly, many fans raved
>about it. It was not 'bad', by any stretch of the imagination, but it
>was a series of wasted opportunities, and too many set pieces crammed
>into forty five minutes. The preview at the end of that episode, for
>this week, did not look promising, since they chose the tackiest, most
>poorly lit scenes to tease us with in a seemingly disjointed manner.
>However, you could tell that it was something that they put a lot of
>effort into, and subsequent previews looked much better.
> I do not care if this turns out to be an unpopular episode with a
>majority of fandom. I would assert that this was a very successful
>attempt to make Doctor Who, as *real* sci-fi. Finally, we get a truly
>alien planet, with alien cultureS, something that has been sorely
>lacking, since Doctor Who has returned in 2005, save for the random
>bits and bobs, here and there.
> Of course, the forty-five minute, single episode, format of the
>series does not lend them enough time to develop the supporting
>characters in detail. That is a flaw with the show's current format,
>not the current episode.
> No doubt, this episode will draw criticisms and ire from those
>with strong religious views, for it reveals that the 'God', that is
>worshipped by the inhabitants of an entire solar system, to be nothing
>more than a parasite, who is not omnipotent, nor even close to it.
> I liked the idea of a culture singing a long song, for thousands
>of years, to keep the parasite asleep and sated. I was almost
>worried, during the climax of the story, that the Doctor and/or his
>companion were also going to break out into song. But, thankfully,
>they did not go there.
> Those who are familiar with the Doctor's long history of repeated
>amnesia, in the novels, may also be worried by the alien parasite
>'taking' all of his memories. Whether the Doctor actually lost a huge
>chunk of his memories remains to be seen, in future episodes. But, he
>did not appear to have amnesia at the end of this episode, even though
>Clara's leaf disappeared after she offered it to the alien.
> Many will probably compare this episode to ones like 'The Long
>Game' and 'The Beast Below', which I think were underappreciated, but
>I think that this was better than those. Doctor Who has a machine
>that can travel anywhere in time and space. It is about time that it
>has done some world building, and I would definitely welcome more
>episodes like this, as long they took a different angle and did not
>just retread the same ground. This episode successfully whet my
>appetite, leaving me wanting more.
>
>11/10

Average so far is 5.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
The Coca Cola Kid
2013-04-07 01:03:50 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 6, 6:03 pm, ***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:

> Average so far is 5.

Remember to post your reviews in this thread. Otherwise, it does not
count. ;-)
The Doctor
2013-04-07 02:06:24 UTC
Permalink
8/10 .

All right Moffat , I remember 42 and Rose's second adventure.

That's the bad

The good I can stomach this!

The Doctor is still trying to Clara in all that he knows.

No luck so far.


The trip to Akhaten, yes the Doctor goes around the idea
of a trip he gave Susan, but what about the other grandfather.

Nice one Moffat about Mary Queen of ... a takeoff of
Mary Queen of Scots, och!

Clara looks to be interesting. The Tardis spits her out an
she encourages MAry.

The Doctor and Clara getting involved, itneresting teaming up.

They can defeat the alarm clock but what about grandfather aka
Akhaten?

IT takes 2.

The Doctor about the Time Wars, the 'passing' of the Time Lords,
the implosion that results i nthe second Big Bang and then some.
Enter Clara and the Maple Leaf.

I do not mind rehashes.

Finally this is Moffat's Gridlock commenting on religion in General.

To you Mr. Moffat gets your facts on religion history straight.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
Agamemnon
2013-04-07 01:19:12 UTC
Permalink
"The Doctor" <***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:kjq9kl$3nj$***@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> In article
> <1c00ecb4-b842-42d5-a0ce-***@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> The Coca Cola Kid <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>11/10
>
> Average so far is 5.

How did you work that one out?

The only scores posted so far have been 11 and 10 and that averages to
10.5/10.
The Doctor
2013-04-07 02:07:04 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@eclipse.net.uk>,
Agamemnon <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>"The Doctor" <***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
>news:kjq9kl$3nj$***@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>> In article
>> <1c00ecb4-b842-42d5-a0ce-***@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>> The Coca Cola Kid <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>11/10
>>
>> Average so far is 5.
>
>How did you work that one out?
>
>The only scores posted so far have been 11 and 10 and that averages to
>10.5/10.
>
>

SW and IF did not think highly of it.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
David Johnston
2013-04-07 01:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Why are they writing Clara as if she was a second Doctor.
The Doctor
2013-04-07 02:07:49 UTC
Permalink
In article <kjqiko$ort$***@dont-email.me>,
David Johnston <***@block.com> wrote:
>Why are they writing Clara as if she was a second Doctor.

Maybe she is?
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
The Coca Cola Kid
2013-04-07 02:29:24 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 6, 8:40 pm, David Johnston <***@block.com> wrote:
> Why are they writing Clara as if she was a second Doctor.

At first, I misread that as writing Clara as if she was *the* second
Doctor, as in the one played by Patrick Troughton.
In answer to your actual question, it is not the first time that
the companion is being written as if they were an 'equal' to the
Doctor. Although, they do seem to be taking it a little more
literally, with the writing of Clara. Which makes you wonder ...
The Doctor
2013-04-07 12:46:39 UTC
Permalink
In article <45a879f6-3663-4dbc-8c20-***@b20g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
The Coca Cola Kid <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 6, 8:40=A0pm, David Johnston <***@block.com> wrote:
>> Why are they writing Clara as if she was a second Doctor.
>
>At first, I misread that as writing Clara as if she was *the* second
>Doctor, as in the one played by Patrick Troughton.
> In answer to your actual question, it is not the first time that
>the companion is being written as if they were an 'equal' to the
>Doctor. Although, they do seem to be taking it a little more
>literally, with the writing of Clara. Which makes you wonder ...

Bit of an Amy Pond effect.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
~consul
2013-04-08 20:33:52 UTC
Permalink
'tis on this 4/7/2013 8:46 AM, wrote The Doctor thus to say:
> In article <45a879f6-3663-4dbc-8c20-***@b20g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> The Coca Cola Kid <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 8:40=A0pm, David Johnston <***@block.com> wrote:
>>> Why are they writing Clara as if she was a second Doctor.
>> At first, I misread that as writing Clara as if she was *the* second
>> Doctor, as in the one played by Patrick Troughton.
>> In answer to your actual question, it is not the first time that
>> the companion is being written as if they were an 'equal' to the
>> Doctor. Although, they do seem to be taking it a little more
>> literally, with the writing of Clara. Which makes you wonder ...
> Bit of an Amy Pond effect.

Eh, I'm seeing more of a Donna Noble retread here. Donna had the whole sexuality suggestion in the beginning too, and she also saw herself as more of an equal to the Doctor than the others did. The main difference being that Donna seemed like a chum/mate of the Doctor, and Clara is still a bit childish/childlike.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
anim8rFSK
2013-04-08 21:35:45 UTC
Permalink
In article <kjv9fh$q4a$***@dont-email.me>,
~consul <***@dolphinsTAKEAWAY-cove.com> wrote:

> 'tis on this 4/7/2013 8:46 AM, wrote The Doctor thus to say:
> > In article
> > <45a879f6-3663-4dbc-8c20-***@b20g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> > The Coca Cola Kid <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 6, 8:40=A0pm, David Johnston <***@block.com> wrote:
> >>> Why are they writing Clara as if she was a second Doctor.
> >> At first, I misread that as writing Clara as if she was *the* second
> >> Doctor, as in the one played by Patrick Troughton.
> >> In answer to your actual question, it is not the first time that
> >> the companion is being written as if they were an 'equal' to the
> >> Doctor. Although, they do seem to be taking it a little more
> >> literally, with the writing of Clara. Which makes you wonder ...
> > Bit of an Amy Pond effect.
>
> Eh, I'm seeing more of a Donna Noble retread here.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK

Donna had the whole
> sexuality suggestion in the beginning too,

She did? That's repugnant.

and she also saw herself as more
> of an equal to the Doctor than the others did.

nobody said she wasn't delusional.

The main difference being that
> Donna seemed like a chum/mate of the Doctor, and Clara is still a bit
> childish/childlike.

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
~consul
2013-04-09 22:04:35 UTC
Permalink
'tis on this 4/8/2013 5:35 PM, wrote anim8rFSK thus to say:
> ~consul <***@dolphinsTAKEAWAY-cove.com> wrote:
>> 'tis on this 4/7/2013 8:46 AM, wrote The Doctor thus to say:
>>> Bit of an Amy Pond effect.
>> Eh, I'm seeing more of a Donna Noble retread here.
> YOU TAKE THAT BACK
> Donna had the whole
>> sexuality suggestion in the beginning too,
> She did? That's repugnant.

IIRC, she thought that the Doctor was acting like a perv trying to get her into his box, much like Clara reacted. The others were more innocent/niave in going into the TARDIS.

> and she also saw herself as more
>> of an equal to the Doctor than the others did.
> nobody said she wasn't delusional.

Well, she was opinionated, but she also was more upfront in that she recognized that just because someone is an expert "this", doesn't mean that they are an expert in "that" or a better person than the next person.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
The Coca Cola Kid
2013-04-07 02:35:55 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 6, 8:55 pm, Monsieur Tabernac <***@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
wrote:
>David Johnston wrote:
>>Why are they writing Clara as if she was a second Doctor.
>
>Maybe the granddaughter comment is foreshadowing?

In what way? We have now seen Clara from the time of her conception,
more or less. Unless there was some type of 'soul transfer' via the
leaf that hit Clara's father in the head ... ?.
The Doctor
2013-04-07 12:49:08 UTC
Permalink
In article <f3769548-9eab-4e58-8d64-***@b20g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
The Coca Cola Kid <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 6, 8:55=A0pm, Monsieur Tabernac <***@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>David Johnston wrote:
>>>Why are they writing Clara as if she was a second Doctor.
>>
>>Maybe the granddaughter comment is foreshadowing?
>
>In what way? We have now seen Clara from the time of her conception,
>more or less. Unless there was some type of 'soul transfer' via the
>leaf that hit Clara's father in the head ... ?.

Susan could be coming back.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
David Johnston
2013-04-07 18:01:56 UTC
Permalink
On 4/6/2013 8:35 PM, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
> On Apr 6, 8:55 pm, Monsieur Tabernac <***@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> David Johnston wrote:
>>> Why are they writing Clara as if she was a second Doctor?
>>
>> Maybe the granddaughter comment is foreshadowing?
>
> In what way?

In the "She talks like him" way. She didn't seem to have a distinct
character voice of her own.
solar penguin
2013-04-07 16:10:50 UTC
Permalink
The Coca Cola Kid wrote:

> I do not care if this turns out to be an unpopular episode with a
> majority of fandom. I would assert that this was a very successful
> attempt to make Doctor Who, as *real* sci-fi. Finally, we get a truly
> alien planet, with alien cultureS, something that has been sorely
> lacking, since Doctor Who has returned in 2005, save for the random
> bits and bobs, here and there.

I sort of agree with you about that. Even if this episode did reuse a
few old ideas, at least it tried to put a new and different spin on
them. I liked it because there were moments when it _didn't_ feel
like Doctor Who at all, although fandom probably hates it for exactly
the same reason.

> Of course, the forty-five minute, single episode, format of the
> series does not lend them enough time to develop the supporting
> characters in detail. That is a flaw with the show's current format,
> not the current episode.

You've got a good point, but even with forty-five minute episodes,
there's no reason why this story couldn't have been a two-parter.
Does anyone know why they didn't do that? It would've worked much
better like that, since the singing scenes wouldn't be interrupting
the pacing so much.

(In fact, at one point, I hoped it was going to be a two-parter, and
kept thinking "Wow! This is building up to a great cliffhanger!"
And then I was surprised when the episode kept on going.)

> No doubt, this episode will draw criticisms and ire from those
> with strong religious views, for it reveals that the 'God', that is
> worshipped by the inhabitants of an entire solar system, to be nothing
> more than a parasite, who is not omnipotent, nor even close to it.

Why would they mind? It only reveals that for one particular alien
'god'. The story didn't make any comments about gods from any real-
life religions. And since followers of real religions usually already
believe that other religions' gods are false, why would they be
bothered by one more rival religion having a false god?

OTOH I didn't like the giant-Halloween-pumpkin-face effect for the
alien god. I kept hoping it wasn't its true, final form, and
wondering if it would morph into Richard E Grant as part of the wider
story arc!

> I liked the idea of a culture singing a long song, for thousands
> of years, to keep the parasite asleep and sated. I was almost
> worried, during the climax of the story, that the Doctor and/or his
> companion were also going to break out into song. But, thankfully,
> they did not go there.

I agree. Definitely something different. The only real
disappointment was that the song wasn't weird and alien enough. Did
Murray Gold compose it? His work is just too mainstream for that.
(Imagine what someone like Delia Derbyshire or even Carey Blyton
could've done with the concept in the classic series!)

> Those who are familiar with the Doctor's long history of repeated
> amnesia, in the novels, may also be worried by the alien parasite
> 'taking' all of his memories. Whether the Doctor actually lost a huge
> chunk of his memories remains to be seen, in future episodes. But, he
> did not appear to have amnesia at the end of this episode, even though
> Clara's leaf disappeared after she offered it to the alien.

Clara said Earth seemed "different" when she returned at the end of
the episode. When the alien choked on the unachieved potential
futures in the leaf, did it have the side effect of turning them into
reality? (Sort of like Amy's Crack in reverse?)

> Many will probably compare this episode to ones like 'The Long
> Game' and 'The Beast Below', which I think were underappreciated, but
> I think that this was better than those. Doctor Who has a machine
> that can travel anywhere in time and space. It is about time that it
> has done some world building, and I would definitely welcome more
> episodes like this, as long they took a different angle and did not
> just retread the same ground. This episode successfully whet my
> appetite, leaving me wanting more.

Me too. I agree with this paragraph 100%.

>
> 11/10

I wouldn't go that far because of the slight flaws mentioned above.
But it's definitely my favourite Matt Smith episode so far.
Agamemnon
2013-04-07 19:06:11 UTC
Permalink
"solar penguin" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca470d6f-3d17-4098-8b66-***@c15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>
>> I do not care if this turns out to be an unpopular episode with a
>> majority of fandom. I would assert that this was a very successful
>> attempt to make Doctor Who, as *real* sci-fi. Finally, we get a truly
>> alien planet, with alien cultureS, something that has been sorely
>> lacking, since Doctor Who has returned in 2005, save for the random
>> bits and bobs, here and there.
>
> I sort of agree with you about that. Even if this episode did reuse a
> few old ideas, at least it tried to put a new and different spin on
> them. I liked it because there were moments when it _didn't_ feel
> like Doctor Who at all, although fandom probably hates it for exactly
> the same reason.

It tried to copy ST TNG.

>
>> Of course, the forty-five minute, single episode, format of the
>> series does not lend them enough time to develop the supporting
>> characters in detail. That is a flaw with the show's current format,
>> not the current episode.
>
> You've got a good point, but even with forty-five minute episodes,
> there's no reason why this story couldn't have been a two-parter.
> Does anyone know why they didn't do that? It would've worked much
> better like that, since the singing scenes wouldn't be interrupting
> the pacing so much.
>
> (In fact, at one point, I hoped it was going to be a two-parter, and
> kept thinking "Wow! This is building up to a great cliffhanger!"
> And then I was surprised when the episode kept on going.)

Are you serious? Another 45 minutes listening to that singing would have
left it with no viewers at all, even though it would have still been better
than The Voice.

>
>> No doubt, this episode will draw criticisms and ire from those
>> with strong religious views, for it reveals that the 'God', that is
>> worshipped by the inhabitants of an entire solar system, to be nothing
>> more than a parasite, who is not omnipotent, nor even close to it.
>
> Why would they mind? It only reveals that for one particular alien
> 'god'. The story didn't make any comments about gods from any real-
> life religions. And since followers of real religions usually already
> believe that other religions' gods are false, why would they be
> bothered by one more rival religion having a false god?

That mainly applies to monotheistic religions. The Romans, Egyptians and
Phoenicians worshiped their emperors, pharaohs and kings as gods because
that was the definition of a god.

>
> OTOH I didn't like the giant-Halloween-pumpkin-face effect for the
> alien god. I kept hoping it wasn't its true, final form, and
> wondering if it would morph into Richard E Grant as part of the wider
> story arc!

It was another attempt at doing "42". It should be obvious by now that
they're recycling the same story briefs over and over again and the idea of
a sentient star is ridiculous.

I should update my guess at the brief to read, "write a story about a cosmic
intelligence dwelling within a star or planet and feeding on peoples'
psychic emissions," since it's exactly the same brief they also gave to
write "The Beast Below".

>
>> I liked the idea of a culture singing a long song, for thousands
>> of years, to keep the parasite asleep and sated. I was almost
>> worried, during the climax of the story, that the Doctor and/or his
>> companion were also going to break out into song. But, thankfully,
>> they did not go there.
>
> I agree. Definitely something different. The only real
> disappointment was that the song wasn't weird and alien enough. Did

It was better than the rubbish on The Voice which was the same cat being
strangled over and over again with no variety whatsoever between who was
brought on stage to strangle it.

> Murray Gold compose it? His work is just too mainstream for that.

Probably. It's impossible to read the titles anymore while they're moving
now the morons keep shrinking them down into a tiny box to tell you the
obvious about what's on next.

> (Imagine what someone like Delia Derbyshire or even Carey Blyton
> could've done with the concept in the classic series!)

If you're referring to classic Doctor Who soundtracks then it would have
ended up sounding like Dubstep and she would have been rapping it.

What's the point of will.i.am when they don't the have an rappers on The
Voice?

>
>> Those who are familiar with the Doctor's long history of repeated
>> amnesia, in the novels, may also be worried by the alien parasite
>> 'taking' all of his memories. Whether the Doctor actually lost a huge
>> chunk of his memories remains to be seen, in future episodes. But, he
>> did not appear to have amnesia at the end of this episode, even though
>> Clara's leaf disappeared after she offered it to the alien.
>
> Clara said Earth seemed "different" when she returned at the end of
> the episode. When the alien choked on the unachieved potential

I was thinking it was going to end like Back to the Future with everything
changing for the better and her mother rushing out to meet her.

> futures in the leaf, did it have the side effect of turning them into
> reality? (Sort of like Amy's Crack in reverse?)
>
>> Many will probably compare this episode to ones like 'The Long
>> Game' and 'The Beast Below', which I think were underappreciated, but
>> I think that this was better than those. Doctor Who has a machine
>> that can travel anywhere in time and space. It is about time that it
>> has done some world building, and I would definitely welcome more
>> episodes like this, as long they took a different angle and did not
>> just retread the same ground. This episode successfully whet my
>> appetite, leaving me wanting more.
>
> Me too. I agree with this paragraph 100%.
>
>>
>> 11/10
>
> I wouldn't go that far because of the slight flaws mentioned above.
> But it's definitely my favourite Matt Smith episode so far.

Last week's episode was much better. This week's was disappointing after all
the promise it showed from the trailer.

Appart from stars not being sentient and you'd have to do more than claiming
it's a god to pass that one off along with asteroid sized planets not having
enough gravity to support a breathable atmosphere let alone hold people on
their surface, the whole idea of Clara giving this alien she had only just
met her mother's wedding ring to hire a motorbike, was totally ridiculous
along with the entire nonsense about creatures feeding off the histories of
objects.
The Doctor
2013-04-07 19:48:38 UTC
Permalink
In article <ca470d6f-3d17-4098-8b66-***@c15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
solar penguin <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>
>> I do not care if this turns out to be an unpopular episode with a
>> majority of fandom. I would assert that this was a very successful
>> attempt to make Doctor Who, as *real* sci-fi. Finally, we get a truly
>> alien planet, with alien cultureS, something that has been sorely
>> lacking, since Doctor Who has returned in 2005, save for the random
>> bits and bobs, here and there.
>
>I sort of agree with you about that. Even if this episode did reuse a
>few old ideas, at least it tried to put a new and different spin on
>them. I liked it because there were moments when it _didn't_ feel
>like Doctor Who at all, although fandom probably hates it for exactly
>the same reason.
>
>> Of course, the forty-five minute, single episode, format of the
>> series does not lend them enough time to develop the supporting
>> characters in detail. That is a flaw with the show's current format,
>> not the current episode.
>
>You've got a good point, but even with forty-five minute episodes,
>there's no reason why this story couldn't have been a two-parter.
>Does anyone know why they didn't do that? It would've worked much
>better like that, since the singing scenes wouldn't be interrupting
>the pacing so much.
>
>(In fact, at one point, I hoped it was going to be a two-parter, and
>kept thinking "Wow! This is building up to a great cliffhanger!"
>And then I was surprised when the episode kept on going.)
>
>> No doubt, this episode will draw criticisms and ire from those
>> with strong religious views, for it reveals that the 'God', that is
>> worshipped by the inhabitants of an entire solar system, to be nothing
>> more than a parasite, who is not omnipotent, nor even close to it.
>
>Why would they mind? It only reveals that for one particular alien
>'god'. The story didn't make any comments about gods from any real-
>life religions. And since followers of real religions usually already
>believe that other religions' gods are false, why would they be
>bothered by one more rival religion having a false god?
>
>OTOH I didn't like the giant-Halloween-pumpkin-face effect for the
>alien god. I kept hoping it wasn't its true, final form, and
>wondering if it would morph into Richard E Grant as part of the wider
>story arc!
>
>> I liked the idea of a culture singing a long song, for thousands
>> of years, to keep the parasite asleep and sated. I was almost
>> worried, during the climax of the story, that the Doctor and/or his
>> companion were also going to break out into song. But, thankfully,
>> they did not go there.
>
>I agree. Definitely something different. The only real
>disappointment was that the song wasn't weird and alien enough. Did
>Murray Gold compose it? His work is just too mainstream for that.
>(Imagine what someone like Delia Derbyshire or even Carey Blyton
>could've done with the concept in the classic series!)
>
>> Those who are familiar with the Doctor's long history of repeated
>> amnesia, in the novels, may also be worried by the alien parasite
>> 'taking' all of his memories. Whether the Doctor actually lost a huge
>> chunk of his memories remains to be seen, in future episodes. But, he
>> did not appear to have amnesia at the end of this episode, even though
>> Clara's leaf disappeared after she offered it to the alien.
>
>Clara said Earth seemed "different" when she returned at the end of
>the episode. When the alien choked on the unachieved potential
>futures in the leaf, did it have the side effect of turning them into
>reality? (Sort of like Amy's Crack in reverse?)
>
>> Many will probably compare this episode to ones like 'The Long
>> Game' and 'The Beast Below', which I think were underappreciated, but
>> I think that this was better than those. Doctor Who has a machine
>> that can travel anywhere in time and space. It is about time that it
>> has done some world building, and I would definitely welcome more
>> episodes like this, as long they took a different angle and did not
>> just retread the same ground. This episode successfully whet my
>> appetite, leaving me wanting more.
>
>Me too. I agree with this paragraph 100%.
>
>>
>> 11/10
>
>I wouldn't go that far because of the slight flaws mentioned above.
>But it's definitely my favourite Matt Smith episode so far.

Well a few rehashes about paganism and off you go.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
The Coca Cola Kid
2013-04-08 01:08:49 UTC
Permalink
"solar penguin" wrote in message
news:ca470d6f-3d17-4098-8b66-***@c15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...

>You've got a good point, but even with forty-five minute episodes,
>there's no reason why this story couldn't have been a two-parter.
>Does anyone know why they didn't do that?

I would wager that it was, largely, because they (probably) knew, in
advance, that series seven was to be spread out, over two years, neither of
which over-lapped with series six, nor series eight, that they wanted to
maximise the number of stories, by making them all single-episode,
forty-five minute 'blockbusters'.

>It would've worked much better like that, since the singing scenes
>wouldn't be interrupting the pacing so much.

I agree. And we could have gotten more character development, and even more
world-building.

>Why would they mind? It only reveals that for one particular alien
>'god'. The story didn't make any comments about gods from any real-
>life religions. And since followers of real religions usually already
>believe that other religions' gods are false, why would they be
>bothered by one more rival religion having a false god?

That is true of the ultra-conservative, and ultra-orthodox, religious
followers, who would probably not watch a show like Doctor Who, anyway, but
what about moderately conservative and moderately liberal religious
followers? Many mono-theistic followers often see other mono-theistic
religions as a reflection of their own, and even unite with 'people of
faith' from different types of religions, when it comes to those 'dreaded
atheists'. The narrative in this story seemed to be using the aliens'
belief as a metaphor to comment upon religious beliefs, in general, and it
could be interpreted as belittling those beliefs, and the believers.

>OTOH I didn't like the giant-Halloween-pumpkin-face effect for the
>alien god. I kept hoping it wasn't its true, final form, and
>wondering if it would morph into Richard E Grant as part of the wider
>story arc!

I would rather have something like that revealed in a later episode, like
the finale, rather than have the 'big bad' turn up explicitly, in every
episode, like The Master used to, when that character was originally
introduced.

>I agree. Definitely something different. The only real
>disappointment was that the song wasn't weird and alien enough.

If they had had more time, then I would agree with this. However, I think
that the audience were supposed to identify, or at least empathise, with the
aliens, by the time that the story's climax occurred.

>Clara said Earth seemed "different" when she returned at the end of
>the episode. When the alien choked on the unachieved potential
>futures in the leaf, did it have the side effect of turning them into
>reality?

I was worried that Clara's mum would be magically brought back to life,
negating the earlier background we learned about her character.
Alternatively, the thought occurred to me that the leaf may have been erased
retro-actively, from history, making Clara's existence a paradox. But that
would be silly, of course. (And unoriginal, in the context of Doctor Who.)
It did seem, though, that her comment about it seeming different was a hint,
or a seed, being planted for a later pay-off, just like the TARDIS refusing
to let her inside.
If it was nothing more than a just a short-hand way for showing that
travel makes you see the place that you came from in a totally different
way, then I think that it was unfortunate, and lazily done.

>(Sort of like Amy's Crack in reverse?)

Er ...

>> 11/10
>
>I wouldn't go that far because of the slight flaws mentioned above.

I agree that it was not perfect, and had some flaws. But if someone can
give it ten out of ten, even when that person clearly did not like it, then
I can be just as silly. :-)
Agamemnon
2013-04-08 03:25:59 UTC
Permalink
"The Coca Cola Kid" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kjt5b4$4p4$***@speranza.aioe.org...
> "solar penguin" wrote in message
> news:ca470d6f-3d17-4098-8b66-***@c15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>

>
>>> 11/10
>>
>>I wouldn't go that far because of the slight flaws mentioned above.
>
> I agree that it was not perfect, and had some flaws. But if someone can
> give it ten out of ten, even when that person clearly did not like it,
> then I can be just as silly. :-)

Well actually I did like it, apart from the things I didn't like, and it
wasn't turned into a soap opera.

It was better than the pirate story from last season but not as good as last
weeks.
The Doctor
2013-04-08 03:27:19 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@eclipse.net.uk>,
Agamemnon <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>"The Coca Cola Kid" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:kjt5b4$4p4$***@speranza.aioe.org...
>> "solar penguin" wrote in message
>> news:ca470d6f-3d17-4098-8b66-***@c15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
>>
>>>> 11/10
>>>
>>>I wouldn't go that far because of the slight flaws mentioned above.
>>
>> I agree that it was not perfect, and had some flaws. But if someone can
>> give it ten out of ten, even when that person clearly did not like it,
>> then I can be just as silly. :-)
>
>Well actually I did like it, apart from the things I didn't like, and it
>wasn't turned into a soap opera.
>
>It was better than the pirate story from last season but not as good as last
>weeks.
>
>
>

And then there is the cold War one next week.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
Charles E. Hardwidge
2013-04-08 05:40:20 UTC
Permalink
"Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:***@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> Well actually I did like it, apart from the things I didn't like, and it
> wasn't turned into a soap opera.

So you don't have any objections to dated gender stereotypes like the Doctor
waving his phallicly patriarchal sonicscrewdriver around and the women
having a nice girly conspiratorial behind the Tardis?

Lets not even get into the hairy legged dungaree wearing butch lesbian.

Actually, the demographic gender scoring on IMDB is wildly whacked due to
slight of hand with the script. The emphasis of the show was positive
overall with subjective experiences while the more abstract issues weren't
noticed by anyone unless they were paying attention.

The show is so cis-normative I kinda figured this would happen.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Adam H. Kerman
2013-04-08 14:52:29 UTC
Permalink
Charles E. Hardwidge <***@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>"Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:

>>Well actually I did like it, apart from the things I didn't like, and it
>>wasn't turned into a soap opera.

>So you don't have any objections to dated gender stereotypes like the Doctor
>waving his phallicly patriarchal sonicscrewdriver around and the women
>having a nice girly conspiratorial behind the Tardis?

To you, any rod-shaped hand tool is a phallic symbol. You're a sick boy.
Even if, somehow, the hand tool represents a phallis, what the fuck makes
it patriarchal?

I know that you can't relate, but that was a little princess story, a
near universal fantasy among little girls, and the "conspiracy" was just a
mentoring scene.

>Lets not even get into the hairy legged dungaree wearing butch lesbian.

Why not? It seems to be preying on your mind, so let's get it out
into the open, and perhaps you'll get better.
Charles E. Hardwidge
2013-04-08 15:20:00 UTC
Permalink
"Adam H. Kerman" <***@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:kjuljd$ojp$***@news.albasani.net...
> Charles E. Hardwidge <***@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>"Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>>>Well actually I did like it, apart from the things I didn't like, and it
>>>wasn't turned into a soap opera.
>
>>So you don't have any objections to dated gender stereotypes like the
>>Doctor waving his phallicly patriarchal sonicscrewdriver around and the
>>women having a nice girly conspiratorial behind the Tardis?
>
> To you, any rod-shaped hand tool is a phallic symbol. You're a sick boy.
> Even if, somehow, the hand tool represents a phallis, what the fuck makes
> it patriarchal?
>
> I know that you can't relate, but that was a little princess story, a
> near universal fantasy among little girls, and the "conspiracy" was just a
> mentoring scene.
>
>>Lets not even get into the hairy legged dungaree wearing butch lesbian.
>
> Why not? It seems to be preying on your mind, so let's get it out
> into the open, and perhaps you'll get better.

Along with you thinking you know someone else's mind you're missing the
whole internalised kyriarchy thing among all the mansplaining.

Would you like to back up and take another run?

--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Adam H. Kerman
2013-04-08 18:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Charles E. Hardwidge <***@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <***@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Charles E. Hardwidge <***@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>"Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:

>>>>Well actually I did like it, apart from the things I didn't like, and it
>>>>wasn't turned into a soap opera.

>>>So you don't have any objections to dated gender stereotypes like the
>>>Doctor waving his phallicly patriarchal sonicscrewdriver around and the
>>>women having a nice girly conspiratorial behind the Tardis?

>>To you, any rod-shaped hand tool is a phallic symbol. You're a sick boy.
>>Even if, somehow, the hand tool represents a phallis, what the fuck makes
>>it patriarchal?

>>I know that you can't relate, but that was a little princess story, a
>>near universal fantasy among little girls, and the "conspiracy" was just a
>>mentoring scene.

>>>Lets not even get into the hairy legged dungaree wearing butch lesbian.

>>Why not? It seems to be preying on your mind, so let's get it out
>>into the open, and perhaps you'll get better.

>Along with you thinking you know someone else's mind you're missing the
>whole internalised kyriarchy thing among all the mansplaining.

>Would you like to back up and take another run?

It's your fantasy. Go on. Tell us all about it.
The Doctor
2013-04-08 22:19:15 UTC
Permalink
In article <kjv31f$n73$***@news.albasani.net>,
Adam H. Kerman <***@chinet.com> wrote:
>Charles E. Hardwidge <***@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>"Adam H. Kerman" <***@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>Charles E. Hardwidge <***@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>"Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>>>>>Well actually I did like it, apart from the things I didn't like, and it
>>>>>wasn't turned into a soap opera.
>
>>>>So you don't have any objections to dated gender stereotypes like the
>>>>Doctor waving his phallicly patriarchal sonicscrewdriver around and the
>>>>women having a nice girly conspiratorial behind the Tardis?
>
>>>To you, any rod-shaped hand tool is a phallic symbol. You're a sick boy.
>>>Even if, somehow, the hand tool represents a phallis, what the fuck makes
>>>it patriarchal?
>
>>>I know that you can't relate, but that was a little princess story, a
>>>near universal fantasy among little girls, and the "conspiracy" was just a
>>>mentoring scene.
>
>>>>Lets not even get into the hairy legged dungaree wearing butch lesbian.
>
>>>Why not? It seems to be preying on your mind, so let's get it out
>>>into the open, and perhaps you'll get better.
>
>>Along with you thinking you know someone else's mind you're missing the
>>whole internalised kyriarchy thing among all the mansplaining.
>
>>Would you like to back up and take another run?
>
>It's your fantasy. Go on. Tell us all about it.

I see you have finally met Charles.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
Charles E. Hardwidge
2013-04-09 08:52:07 UTC
Permalink
"Adam H. Kerman" <***@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:kjv31f$n73$***@news.albasani.net...
> Charles E. Hardwidge <***@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>>Along with you thinking you know someone else's mind you're missing the
>>whole internalised kyriarchy thing among all the mansplaining.
>
>>Would you like to back up and take another run?
>
> It's your fantasy. Go on. Tell us all about it.

I doubt you want to hear anything. I think you just kick up some words to
start an argument then claim your opponent is a control freak who never
listens while shit stirring as you walk away.

This is you not getting a bite and later getting impatient in another
thread:

<<When you go completely over the top by refusing to address the main point
I was making, responding instead with absurdities, you know you've lost the
argument, right?>>

You might know tech (or think you do) but that doesn't make you right about
everything and throwing your weight around doesn't mean you have any social
skills to speak of.

As I asked before, would you like to back up and take another run?

--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Adam H. Kerman
2013-04-09 12:33:04 UTC
Permalink
Charles E. Hardwidge <***@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <***@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Charles E. Hardwidge <***@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>>>Along with you thinking you know someone else's mind you're missing the
>>>whole internalised kyriarchy thing among all the mansplaining.

>>>Would you like to back up and take another run?

>>It's your fantasy. Go on. Tell us all about it.

>I doubt you want to hear anything.

Ah. Too bad you have a reading comprehension problem.

>I think you just kick up some words to start an argument then claim
>your opponent is a control freak who never listens while shit stirring
>as you walk away.

So you're making ad hominem attacks against yourself on my behalf. Thanks.
You have schizophrenia, too.

>This is you not getting a bite and later getting impatient in another
>thread:

><<When you go completely over the top by refusing to address the main point
>I was making, responding instead with absurdities, you know you've lost the
>argument, right?>>

>You might know tech (or think you do) but that doesn't make you right about
>everything and throwing your weight around doesn't mean you have any social
>skills to speak of.

>As I asked before, would you like to back up and take another run?

And now, you're repeating yourself.

Complete and utter lack of anything in this followup concerning your
earlier statements. You have no argument at all. Noted.
Charles E. Hardwidge
2013-04-09 13:01:35 UTC
Permalink
"Adam H. Kerman" <***@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:kk11q0$9u8$***@news.albasani.net...
> Charles E. Hardwidge <***@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>"Adam H. Kerman" <***@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>Charles E. Hardwidge <***@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>Along with you thinking you know someone else's mind you're missing the
>>>>whole internalised kyriarchy thing among all the mansplaining.
>
>>>>Would you like to back up and take another run?
>
>>>It's your fantasy. Go on. Tell us all about it.
>
>>I doubt you want to hear anything.
>
> Ah. Too bad you have a reading comprehension problem.
>
>>I think you just kick up some words to start an argument then claim
>>your opponent is a control freak who never listens while shit stirring
>>as you walk away.
>
> So you're making ad hominem attacks against yourself on my behalf. Thanks.
> You have schizophrenia, too.
>
>>This is you not getting a bite and later getting impatient in another
>>thread:
>
>><<When you go completely over the top by refusing to address the main
>>point I was making, responding instead with absurdities, you know you've
>>lost the argument, right?>>
>
>>You might know tech (or think you do) but that doesn't make you right
>>about everything and throwing your weight around doesn't mean you have any
>>social skills to speak of.
>
>>As I asked before, would you like to back up and take another run?
>
> And now, you're repeating yourself.
>
> Complete and utter lack of anything in this followup concerning your
> earlier statements. You have no argument at all. Noted.

So you storm in not knowing anything and make digs, profess to ask a
question you're not really interested in hearing, and now you've been
rumbled you throw blame and walk away shrugging shoulders?

You unwittingly proved my original statement, didn't you?

Kindly bog off back to your UTF-8 discussion unless, well, you want to man
up and take another run at it? Over to you, butch.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Jim G.
2013-04-10 19:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Charles E. Hardwidge sent the following on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:01:35
+0100:
> [Y]ou want to man
> up and take another run at it?

Man up? MAN UP? Oh, the misogyny...

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER
Charles E. Hardwidge
2013-04-10 19:49:27 UTC
Permalink
"Jim G." <***@geemail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> Charles E. Hardwidge sent the following on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:01:35
> +0100:
>> [Y]ou want to man
>> up and take another run at it?
>
> Man up? MAN UP? Oh, the misogyny...

Misandry.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Jim G.
2013-04-10 19:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Charles E. Hardwidge sent the following on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 09:52:07
+0100:
> I think you just kick up some words to
> start an argument

I just wanted to see this again.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER
The Doctor
2013-04-10 20:05:53 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>,
Jim G. <***@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Charles E. Hardwidge sent the following on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 09:52:07
>+0100:
>> I think you just kick up some words to
>> start an argument
>
>I just wanted to see this again.
>
>--
>Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
>"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER

Good gads!
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
Jim G.
2013-04-10 19:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Adam H. Kerman sent the following on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 18:41:51 +0000
(UTC):
> Charles E. Hardwidge <***@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Along with you thinking you know someone else's mind you're missing the
> >whole internalised kyriarchy thing among all the mansplaining.
>
> >Would you like to back up and take another run?
>
> It's your fantasy. Go on. Tell us all about it.

Stop encouraging him, you bastage. :)

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER
The Doctor
2013-04-10 20:06:22 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>,
Jim G. <***@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman sent the following on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 18:41:51 +0000
>(UTC):
>> Charles E. Hardwidge <***@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >Along with you thinking you know someone else's mind you're missing the
>> >whole internalised kyriarchy thing among all the mansplaining.
>>
>> >Would you like to back up and take another run?
>>
>> It's your fantasy. Go on. Tell us all about it.
>
>Stop encouraging him, you bastage. :)
>
>--
>Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
>"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER

Charles vs Americans.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
Jim G.
2013-04-10 19:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Adam H. Kerman sent the following on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:52:29 +0000
(UTC):
> Charles E. Hardwidge <***@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Lets not even get into the hairy legged dungaree wearing butch lesbian.
>
> Why not? It seems to be preying on your mind, so let's get it out
> into the open, and perhaps you'll get better.

I suspect that he's repressing a fantasy involving the hairy-legged
dungaree-wearing butch lesbian doing naughty things to him with a
phallic device. As such, we probably shouldn't encourage him, given that
repression is the best way to handle a case like this. Best for the rest
of us, that is.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER
Jim G.
2013-04-10 19:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Charles E. Hardwidge sent the following on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 06:40:20
+0100:
> So you don't have any objections to dated gender stereotypes like the Doctor
> waving his phallicly patriarchal sonicscrewdriver around and the women
> having a nice girly conspiratorial behind the Tardis?

No, but I have objections to nut jobs who project their nut job biases
onto other people and other things, and who see nut job stuff that's not
there.

I guess I just object to nut jobs.

> Lets not even get into the hairy legged dungaree wearing butch lesbian.

You just did.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER
Charles E. Hardwidge
2013-04-08 02:29:59 UTC
Permalink
"solar penguin" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca470d6f-3d17-4098-8b66-***@c15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>
>> I do not care if this turns out to be an unpopular episode with a
>> majority of fandom. I would assert that this was a very successful
>> attempt to make Doctor Who, as *real* sci-fi. Finally, we get a truly
>> alien planet, with alien cultureS, something that has been sorely
>> lacking, since Doctor Who has returned in 2005, save for the random
>> bits and bobs, here and there.
>
> I sort of agree with you about that. Even if this episode did reuse a
> few old ideas, at least it tried to put a new and different spin on
> them. I liked it because there were moments when it _didn't_ feel
> like Doctor Who at all, although fandom probably hates it for exactly
> the same reason.
>
>> Of course, the forty-five minute, single episode, format of the
>> series does not lend them enough time to develop the supporting
>> characters in detail. That is a flaw with the show's current format,
>> not the current episode.
>
> You've got a good point, but even with forty-five minute episodes,
> there's no reason why this story couldn't have been a two-parter.
> Does anyone know why they didn't do that? It would've worked much
> better like that, since the singing scenes wouldn't be interrupting
> the pacing so much.
>
> (In fact, at one point, I hoped it was going to be a two-parter, and
> kept thinking "Wow! This is building up to a great cliffhanger!"
> And then I was surprised when the episode kept on going.)
>
>> No doubt, this episode will draw criticisms and ire from those
>> with strong religious views, for it reveals that the 'God', that is
>> worshipped by the inhabitants of an entire solar system, to be nothing
>> more than a parasite, who is not omnipotent, nor even close to it.

I think the problem with Doctor Who is the stories have really only ever
been description not explanation. i.e. furious inactivity.

The Good Wife is 45 minutes long and seems to be much richer and last twice
as long because they make every word count. We experience time in a relative
way and a less dense experience with Doctor Who makes the episodes seem much
more empty and shorter.

I've noticed the big questions in politics come up on a 20 year cycle. RTD
had his gay thing, Moffat flirted with transgenders then lazily falls back
on elitist religion bashing. None of these things is explored deeper than a
patriarchal curiosity.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge
David Johnston
2013-04-08 03:31:57 UTC
Permalink
On 4/7/2013 8:29 PM, Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
>
> "solar penguin" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ca470d6f-3d17-4098-8b66-***@c15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>> The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>>
>>> I do not care if this turns out to be an unpopular episode with a
>>> majority of fandom. I would assert that this was a very successful
>>> attempt to make Doctor Who, as *real* sci-fi. Finally, we get a truly
>>> alien planet, with alien cultureS, something that has been sorely
>>> lacking, since Doctor Who has returned in 2005, save for the random
>>> bits and bobs, here and there.
>>
>> I sort of agree with you about that. Even if this episode did reuse a
>> few old ideas, at least it tried to put a new and different spin on
>> them. I liked it because there were moments when it _didn't_ feel
>> like Doctor Who at all, although fandom probably hates it for exactly
>> the same reason.
>>
>>> Of course, the forty-five minute, single episode, format of the
>>> series does not lend them enough time to develop the supporting
>>> characters in detail. That is a flaw with the show's current format,
>>> not the current episode.
>>
>> You've got a good point, but even with forty-five minute episodes,
>> there's no reason why this story couldn't have been a two-parter.
>> Does anyone know why they didn't do that? It would've worked much
>> better like that, since the singing scenes wouldn't be interrupting
>> the pacing so much.
>>
>> (In fact, at one point, I hoped it was going to be a two-parter, and
>> kept thinking "Wow! This is building up to a great cliffhanger!"
>> And then I was surprised when the episode kept on going.)
>>
>>> No doubt, this episode will draw criticisms and ire from those
>>> with strong religious views, for it reveals that the 'God', that is
>>> worshipped by the inhabitants of an entire solar system, to be nothing
>>> more than a parasite, who is not omnipotent, nor even close to it.
>
> I think the problem with Doctor Who is the stories have really only ever
> been description not explanation. i.e. furious inactivity.
>
> The Good Wife is 45 minutes long and seems to be much richer and last twice
> as long because they make every word count. We experience time in a
> relative
> way and a less dense experience with Doctor Who makes the episodes seem
> much
> more empty and shorter.
>
> I've noticed the big questions in politics come up on a 20 year cycle. RTD
> had his gay thing, Moffat flirted with transgenders then lazily falls back
> on elitist religion bashing. None of these things is explored deeper than a
> patriarchal curiosity.
>

Do you just randomly throw the word "patriarchal" into sentences?
Charles E. Hardwidge
2013-04-08 14:07:22 UTC
Permalink
"David Johnston" <***@block.com> wrote in message
news:kjtdhm$t5s$***@dont-email.me...
> On 4/7/2013 8:29 PM, Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
>>
>> I've noticed the big questions in politics come up on a 20 year cycle.
>> RTD had his gay thing, Moffat flirted with transgenders then lazily falls
>> back on elitist religion bashing. None of these things is explored deeper
>> than a patriarchal curiosity.
>
> Do you just randomly throw the word "patriarchal" into sentences?

No. Why, did you just randomly decide to be a shitlord?

--
Charles E. Hardwidge
jack
2013-04-08 14:29:58 UTC
Permalink
On a different topic:
Is the Doctor robbing the cradle? Is Clara the youngest companion yet?

If she was 11 in 2005 when her mom died, that would make her just 18 or possibly still 17 in 2013; most likely 17 if the season already has aired in the UK. A bit young to escorting the Doctor, no? In the US he could be arrested for childnapping if she was under 18 with no parental permission.
The Doctor
2013-04-08 14:32:55 UTC
Permalink
In article <0403afa1-f262-49a9-a5c3-***@googlegroups.com>,
jack <***@columbia.edu> wrote:
>On a different topic:
>Is the Doctor robbing the cradle? Is Clara the youngest companion yet?
>
>If she was 11 in 2005 when her mom died, that would make her just 18 or pos=
>sibly still 17 in 2013; most likely 17 if the season already has aired in t=
>he UK. A bit young to escorting the Doctor, no? In the US he could be arr=
>ested for childnapping if she was under 18 with no parental permission.

Try 19? Your math is in error.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
jack
2013-04-08 16:25:31 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, April 8, 2013 10:32:55 AM UTC-4, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <0403afa1-f262-49a9-a5c3-***@googlegroups.com>,
>
> jack <***@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> >On a different topic:
>
> >Is the Doctor robbing the cradle? Is Clara the youngest companion yet?
>
> >
>
> >If she was 11 in 2005 when her mom died, that would make her just 18 or pos=
>
> >sibly still 17 in 2013; most likely 17 if the season already has aired in t=
>
> >he UK. A bit young to escorting the Doctor, no? In the US he could be arr=
>
> >ested for childnapping if she was under 18 with no parental permission.
>
>
>
> Try 19? Your math is in error.
>
> --
>
> Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
>
> God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
>
> http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
>
> I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.

Not if it ran in the UK last year, plus we're only 1/4 the way through the year 2013. But even so, why make Clara so young, the actress is some five years older or so.
David Johnston
2013-04-08 16:21:39 UTC
Permalink
On 4/8/2013 8:29 AM, jack wrote:
> On a different topic:
> Is the Doctor robbing the cradle? Is Clara the youngest companion yet?

Hell no. Ace was supposed to be a teenager, and then there was Math Boy
and Treachery Boy.
peachyashypassion
2013-04-08 21:57:19 UTC
Permalink
On 4/7/2013 11:31 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> On 4/7/2013 8:29 PM, Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
>>
>> "solar penguin" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ca470d6f-3d17-4098-8b66-***@c15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>> The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do not care if this turns out to be an unpopular episode with a
>>>> majority of fandom. I would assert that this was a very successful
>>>> attempt to make Doctor Who, as *real* sci-fi. Finally, we get a truly
>>>> alien planet, with alien cultureS, something that has been sorely
>>>> lacking, since Doctor Who has returned in 2005, save for the random
>>>> bits and bobs, here and there.
>>>
>>> I sort of agree with you about that. Even if this episode did reuse a
>>> few old ideas, at least it tried to put a new and different spin on
>>> them. I liked it because there were moments when it _didn't_ feel
>>> like Doctor Who at all, although fandom probably hates it for exactly
>>> the same reason.
>>>
>>>> Of course, the forty-five minute, single episode, format of the
>>>> series does not lend them enough time to develop the supporting
>>>> characters in detail. That is a flaw with the show's current format,
>>>> not the current episode.
>>>
>>> You've got a good point, but even with forty-five minute episodes,
>>> there's no reason why this story couldn't have been a two-parter.
>>> Does anyone know why they didn't do that? It would've worked much
>>> better like that, since the singing scenes wouldn't be interrupting
>>> the pacing so much.
>>>
>>> (In fact, at one point, I hoped it was going to be a two-parter, and
>>> kept thinking "Wow! This is building up to a great cliffhanger!"
>>> And then I was surprised when the episode kept on going.)
>>>
>>>> No doubt, this episode will draw criticisms and ire from those
>>>> with strong religious views, for it reveals that the 'God', that is
>>>> worshipped by the inhabitants of an entire solar system, to be nothing
>>>> more than a parasite, who is not omnipotent, nor even close to it.
>>
>> I think the problem with Doctor Who is the stories have really only ever
>> been description not explanation. i.e. furious inactivity.
>>
>> The Good Wife is 45 minutes long and seems to be much richer and last
>> twice
>> as long because they make every word count. We experience time in a
>> relative
>> way and a less dense experience with Doctor Who makes the episodes seem
>> much
>> more empty and shorter.
>>
>> I've noticed the big questions in politics come up on a 20 year cycle.
>> RTD
>> had his gay thing, Moffat flirted with transgenders then lazily falls
>> back
>> on elitist religion bashing. None of these things is explored deeper
>> than a
>> patriarchal curiosity.
>>
>
> Do you just randomly throw the word "patriarchal" into sentences?

I vote yes.
The Doctor
2013-04-08 22:21:16 UTC
Permalink
In article <kjveai$5od$***@dont-email.me>,
peachyashypassion <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 4/7/2013 11:31 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 4/7/2013 8:29 PM, Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
>>>
>>> "solar penguin" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ca470d6f-3d17-4098-8b66-***@c15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>>> The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I do not care if this turns out to be an unpopular episode with a
>>>>> majority of fandom. I would assert that this was a very successful
>>>>> attempt to make Doctor Who, as *real* sci-fi. Finally, we get a truly
>>>>> alien planet, with alien cultureS, something that has been sorely
>>>>> lacking, since Doctor Who has returned in 2005, save for the random
>>>>> bits and bobs, here and there.
>>>>
>>>> I sort of agree with you about that. Even if this episode did reuse a
>>>> few old ideas, at least it tried to put a new and different spin on
>>>> them. I liked it because there were moments when it _didn't_ feel
>>>> like Doctor Who at all, although fandom probably hates it for exactly
>>>> the same reason.
>>>>
>>>>> Of course, the forty-five minute, single episode, format of the
>>>>> series does not lend them enough time to develop the supporting
>>>>> characters in detail. That is a flaw with the show's current format,
>>>>> not the current episode.
>>>>
>>>> You've got a good point, but even with forty-five minute episodes,
>>>> there's no reason why this story couldn't have been a two-parter.
>>>> Does anyone know why they didn't do that? It would've worked much
>>>> better like that, since the singing scenes wouldn't be interrupting
>>>> the pacing so much.
>>>>
>>>> (In fact, at one point, I hoped it was going to be a two-parter, and
>>>> kept thinking "Wow! This is building up to a great cliffhanger!"
>>>> And then I was surprised when the episode kept on going.)
>>>>
>>>>> No doubt, this episode will draw criticisms and ire from those
>>>>> with strong religious views, for it reveals that the 'God', that is
>>>>> worshipped by the inhabitants of an entire solar system, to be nothing
>>>>> more than a parasite, who is not omnipotent, nor even close to it.
>>>
>>> I think the problem with Doctor Who is the stories have really only ever
>>> been description not explanation. i.e. furious inactivity.
>>>
>>> The Good Wife is 45 minutes long and seems to be much richer and last
>>> twice
>>> as long because they make every word count. We experience time in a
>>> relative
>>> way and a less dense experience with Doctor Who makes the episodes seem
>>> much
>>> more empty and shorter.
>>>
>>> I've noticed the big questions in politics come up on a 20 year cycle.
>>> RTD
>>> had his gay thing, Moffat flirted with transgenders then lazily falls
>>> back
>>> on elitist religion bashing. None of these things is explored deeper
>>> than a
>>> patriarchal curiosity.
>>>
>>
>> Do you just randomly throw the word "patriarchal" into sentences?
>
> I vote yes.

Welcome back sexy.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
anim8rFSK
2013-04-09 00:32:52 UTC
Permalink
In article <kjveai$5od$***@dont-email.me>,
peachyashypassion <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/7/2013 11:31 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> > On 4/7/2013 8:29 PM, Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
> >>
> >> "solar penguin" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:ca470d6f-3d17-4098-8b66-***@c15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> >>> The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I do not care if this turns out to be an unpopular episode with a
> >>>> majority of fandom. I would assert that this was a very successful
> >>>> attempt to make Doctor Who, as *real* sci-fi. Finally, we get a truly
> >>>> alien planet, with alien cultureS, something that has been sorely
> >>>> lacking, since Doctor Who has returned in 2005, save for the random
> >>>> bits and bobs, here and there.
> >>>
> >>> I sort of agree with you about that. Even if this episode did reuse a
> >>> few old ideas, at least it tried to put a new and different spin on
> >>> them. I liked it because there were moments when it _didn't_ feel
> >>> like Doctor Who at all, although fandom probably hates it for exactly
> >>> the same reason.
> >>>
> >>>> Of course, the forty-five minute, single episode, format of the
> >>>> series does not lend them enough time to develop the supporting
> >>>> characters in detail. That is a flaw with the show's current format,
> >>>> not the current episode.
> >>>
> >>> You've got a good point, but even with forty-five minute episodes,
> >>> there's no reason why this story couldn't have been a two-parter.
> >>> Does anyone know why they didn't do that? It would've worked much
> >>> better like that, since the singing scenes wouldn't be interrupting
> >>> the pacing so much.
> >>>
> >>> (In fact, at one point, I hoped it was going to be a two-parter, and
> >>> kept thinking "Wow! This is building up to a great cliffhanger!"
> >>> And then I was surprised when the episode kept on going.)
> >>>
> >>>> No doubt, this episode will draw criticisms and ire from those
> >>>> with strong religious views, for it reveals that the 'God', that is
> >>>> worshipped by the inhabitants of an entire solar system, to be nothing
> >>>> more than a parasite, who is not omnipotent, nor even close to it.
> >>
> >> I think the problem with Doctor Who is the stories have really only ever
> >> been description not explanation. i.e. furious inactivity.
> >>
> >> The Good Wife is 45 minutes long and seems to be much richer and last
> >> twice
> >> as long because they make every word count. We experience time in a
> >> relative
> >> way and a less dense experience with Doctor Who makes the episodes seem
> >> much
> >> more empty and shorter.
> >>
> >> I've noticed the big questions in politics come up on a 20 year cycle.
> >> RTD
> >> had his gay thing, Moffat flirted with transgenders then lazily falls
> >> back
> >> on elitist religion bashing. None of these things is explored deeper
> >> than a
> >> patriarchal curiosity.
> >>
> >
> > Do you just randomly throw the word "patriarchal" into sentences?
>
> I vote yes.

How matriarchal of you.

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
Siri Cruise
2013-04-09 00:35:23 UTC
Permalink
In article <anim8rfsk-***@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:

> In article <kjveai$5od$***@dont-email.me>,
> peachyashypassion <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 4/7/2013 11:31 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> > > On 4/7/2013 8:29 PM, Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "solar penguin" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:ca470d6f-3d17-4098-8b66-***@c15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> > >>> The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> I do not care if this turns out to be an unpopular episode with a
> > >>>> majority of fandom. I would assert that this was a very successful
> > >>>> attempt to make Doctor Who, as *real* sci-fi. Finally, we get a truly
> > >>>> alien planet, with alien cultureS, something that has been sorely
> > >>>> lacking, since Doctor Who has returned in 2005, save for the random
> > >>>> bits and bobs, here and there.
> > >>>
> > >>> I sort of agree with you about that. Even if this episode did reuse a
> > >>> few old ideas, at least it tried to put a new and different spin on
> > >>> them. I liked it because there were moments when it _didn't_ feel
> > >>> like Doctor Who at all, although fandom probably hates it for exactly
> > >>> the same reason.
> > >>>
> > >>>> Of course, the forty-five minute, single episode, format of the
> > >>>> series does not lend them enough time to develop the supporting
> > >>>> characters in detail. That is a flaw with the show's current format,
> > >>>> not the current episode.
> > >>>
> > >>> You've got a good point, but even with forty-five minute episodes,
> > >>> there's no reason why this story couldn't have been a two-parter.
> > >>> Does anyone know why they didn't do that? It would've worked much
> > >>> better like that, since the singing scenes wouldn't be interrupting
> > >>> the pacing so much.
> > >>>
> > >>> (In fact, at one point, I hoped it was going to be a two-parter, and
> > >>> kept thinking "Wow! This is building up to a great cliffhanger!"
> > >>> And then I was surprised when the episode kept on going.)
> > >>>
> > >>>> No doubt, this episode will draw criticisms and ire from those
> > >>>> with strong religious views, for it reveals that the 'God', that is
> > >>>> worshipped by the inhabitants of an entire solar system, to be nothing
> > >>>> more than a parasite, who is not omnipotent, nor even close to it.
> > >>
> > >> I think the problem with Doctor Who is the stories have really only ever
> > >> been description not explanation. i.e. furious inactivity.
> > >>
> > >> The Good Wife is 45 minutes long and seems to be much richer and last
> > >> twice
> > >> as long because they make every word count. We experience time in a
> > >> relative
> > >> way and a less dense experience with Doctor Who makes the episodes seem
> > >> much
> > >> more empty and shorter.
> > >>
> > >> I've noticed the big questions in politics come up on a 20 year cycle.
> > >> RTD
> > >> had his gay thing, Moffat flirted with transgenders then lazily falls
> > >> back
> > >> on elitist religion bashing. None of these things is explored deeper
> > >> than a
> > >> patriarchal curiosity.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Do you just randomly throw the word "patriarchal" into sentences?
> >
> > I vote yes.
>
> How matriarchal of you.

The Matriarchy has you.
--
Mommy says the people who most need to see a shrink are the ones most
viennaly denying they need one.
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
The Doctor
2013-04-09 14:11:16 UTC
Permalink
In article <anim8rfsk-***@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
>In article <kjveai$5od$***@dont-email.me>,
> peachyashypassion <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/7/2013 11:31 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>> > On 4/7/2013 8:29 PM, Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "solar penguin" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:ca470d6f-3d17-4098-8b66-***@c15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> I do not care if this turns out to be an unpopular episode with a
>> >>>> majority of fandom. I would assert that this was a very successful
>> >>>> attempt to make Doctor Who, as *real* sci-fi. Finally, we get a truly
>> >>>> alien planet, with alien cultureS, something that has been sorely
>> >>>> lacking, since Doctor Who has returned in 2005, save for the random
>> >>>> bits and bobs, here and there.
>> >>>
>> >>> I sort of agree with you about that. Even if this episode did reuse a
>> >>> few old ideas, at least it tried to put a new and different spin on
>> >>> them. I liked it because there were moments when it _didn't_ feel
>> >>> like Doctor Who at all, although fandom probably hates it for exactly
>> >>> the same reason.
>> >>>
>> >>>> Of course, the forty-five minute, single episode, format of the
>> >>>> series does not lend them enough time to develop the supporting
>> >>>> characters in detail. That is a flaw with the show's current format,
>> >>>> not the current episode.
>> >>>
>> >>> You've got a good point, but even with forty-five minute episodes,
>> >>> there's no reason why this story couldn't have been a two-parter.
>> >>> Does anyone know why they didn't do that? It would've worked much
>> >>> better like that, since the singing scenes wouldn't be interrupting
>> >>> the pacing so much.
>> >>>
>> >>> (In fact, at one point, I hoped it was going to be a two-parter, and
>> >>> kept thinking "Wow! This is building up to a great cliffhanger!"
>> >>> And then I was surprised when the episode kept on going.)
>> >>>
>> >>>> No doubt, this episode will draw criticisms and ire from those
>> >>>> with strong religious views, for it reveals that the 'God', that is
>> >>>> worshipped by the inhabitants of an entire solar system, to be nothing
>> >>>> more than a parasite, who is not omnipotent, nor even close to it.
>> >>
>> >> I think the problem with Doctor Who is the stories have really only ever
>> >> been description not explanation. i.e. furious inactivity.
>> >>
>> >> The Good Wife is 45 minutes long and seems to be much richer and last
>> >> twice
>> >> as long because they make every word count. We experience time in a
>> >> relative
>> >> way and a less dense experience with Doctor Who makes the episodes seem
>> >> much
>> >> more empty and shorter.
>> >>
>> >> I've noticed the big questions in politics come up on a 20 year cycle.
>> >> RTD
>> >> had his gay thing, Moffat flirted with transgenders then lazily falls
>> >> back
>> >> on elitist religion bashing. None of these things is explored deeper
>> >> than a
>> >> patriarchal curiosity.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Do you just randomly throw the word "patriarchal" into sentences?
>>
>> I vote yes.
>
>How matriarchal of you.
>
>--
>"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

Irony.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
Jim G.
2013-04-10 19:44:50 UTC
Permalink
peachyashypassion sent the following on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:57:19 -0400:
> On 4/7/2013 11:31 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> > On 4/7/2013 8:29 PM, Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
> >>
> >> I've noticed the big questions in politics come up on a 20 year cycle.
> >> RTD
> >> had his gay thing, Moffat flirted with transgenders then lazily falls
> >> back
> >> on elitist religion bashing. None of these things is explored deeper
> >> than a
> >> patriarchal curiosity.
> >>
> >
> > Do you just randomly throw the word "patriarchal" into sentences?
>
> I vote yes.

Admit it. He had you at "phallic." :)

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER
Jim G.
2013-04-10 19:44:49 UTC
Permalink
David Johnston sent the following on Sun, 07 Apr 2013 21:31:57 -0600:
> Do you just randomly throw the word "patriarchal" into sentences?

It all gets back to the phallic screwdriver, which is probably also
patriarchal. We probably don't want to pursue this line of discussion
too far.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER
Captain Infinity
2013-04-08 05:31:18 UTC
Permalink
Once Upon A Time,
solar penguin wrote:

>Amy's Crack in reverse


Ewwwwwwwww.




**
Captain Infinity
Ross
2013-04-08 11:58:55 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 7, 12:10 pm, solar penguin <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> OTOH I didn't like the giant-Halloween-pumpkin-face effect for the
> alien god.  I kept hoping it wasn't its true, final form, and
> wondering if it would morph into Richard E Grant as part of the wider
> story arc!
>

We don't know when all this is taking place relative to Earth. Maybe
the Intelligence is some fragment of the Old God that survived its
destruction and we just saw the "secret origin" story.

>
> Clara said Earth seemed "different" when she returned at the end of
> the episode.  When the alien choked on the unachieved potential
> futures in the leaf, did it have the side effect of turning them into
> reality?  (Sort of like Amy's Crack in reverse?)
>

It could just mean that her little world seems smaller and more
mundane now that she's had a glimpse of just how big and weird the
universe is. It's a bit clumsy that they didn't elaborate on that at
all

> I wouldn't go that far because of the slight flaws mentioned above.
> But it's definitely my favourite Matt Smith episode so far.

I thought there were about 10-15 minutes in the middle that were dull
and poorly-paced, but the rest of the episode was really good. One
thing Moffat has done a pretty good job at as showrunner is
consistently conveying the idea that the universe is REAL FLIPPING
WEIRD.

At the end, when the Old God imploded, did anyone else think, "Hey,
the sun just went out. Aren't the people of Akhaten gonna need one of
those?"
solar penguin
2013-04-08 13:03:41 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 04:58:55 -0700, Ross wrote:

> On Apr 7, 12:10 pm, solar penguin <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > OTOH I didn't like the giant-Halloween-pumpkin-face effect for the
> > alien god. I kept hoping it wasn't its true, final form, and
> > wondering if it would morph into Richard E Grant as part of the wider
> > story arc!
> >
>
> We don't know when all this is taking place relative to Earth. Maybe
> the Intelligence is some fragment of the Old God that survived its
> destruction and we just saw the "secret origin" story.
>

I thought The Snowmen _was_ the "secret origin" story, where the Great
Intelligence was created as the result of young Simeon's anger and hatred
coming into contact with telepathic snow.

(Of course, that seems to contradict The Abominable Snowmen which implied
the Intelligence had been active since at least the 17th century. But
fixing that with a _second_ secret origin just two episodes later is
overkill!)
Ross
2013-04-08 13:39:52 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 8, 9:03 am, solar penguin <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 04:58:55 -0700, Ross wrote:
> > On Apr 7, 12:10 pm, solar penguin <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > OTOH I didn't like the giant-Halloween-pumpkin-face effect for the
> > > alien god.  I kept hoping it wasn't its true, final form, and
> > > wondering if it would morph into Richard E Grant as part of the wider
> > > story arc!
>
> > We don't know when all this is taking place relative to Earth. Maybe
> > the Intelligence is some fragment of the Old God that survived its
> > destruction and we just saw the "secret origin" story.
>
> I thought The Snowmen _was_ the "secret origin" story, where the Great
> Intelligence was created as the result of young Simeon's anger and hatred
> coming into contact with telepathic snow.
>
> (Of course, that seems to contradict The Abominable Snowmen which implied
> the Intelligence had been active since at least the 17th century.  But
> fixing that with a _second_ secret origin just two episodes later is
> overkill!)

The twist near the end of The Snowmen was that there was more going on
than the Doctor realized at first, and the Intelligence had its own
existence independent from Simeon.
The Doctor
2013-04-08 14:03:25 UTC
Permalink
In article <kjuf7d$no7$***@dont-email.me>,
solar penguin <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 04:58:55 -0700, Ross wrote:
>
>> On Apr 7, 12:10 pm, solar penguin <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > OTOH I didn't like the giant-Halloween-pumpkin-face effect for the
>> > alien god. I kept hoping it wasn't its true, final form, and
>> > wondering if it would morph into Richard E Grant as part of the wider
>> > story arc!
>> >
>>
>> We don't know when all this is taking place relative to Earth. Maybe
>> the Intelligence is some fragment of the Old God that survived its
>> destruction and we just saw the "secret origin" story.
>>
>
>I thought The Snowmen _was_ the "secret origin" story, where the Great
>Intelligence was created as the result of young Simeon's anger and hatred
>coming into contact with telepathic snow.
>
>(Of course, that seems to contradict The Abominable Snowmen which implied
>the Intelligence had been active since at least the 17th century. But
>fixing that with a _second_ secret origin just two episodes later is
>overkill!)

The Intelligence the Old God? That is a bit far fatched.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
The Doctor
2013-04-08 14:02:30 UTC
Permalink
In article <589bd702-40f3-41aa-9771-***@i5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Ross <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>On Apr 7, 12:10=A0pm, solar penguin <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OTOH I didn't like the giant-Halloween-pumpkin-face effect for the
>> alien god. =A0I kept hoping it wasn't its true, final form, and
>> wondering if it would morph into Richard E Grant as part of the wider
>> story arc!
>>
>
>We don't know when all this is taking place relative to Earth. Maybe
>the Intelligence is some fragment of the Old God that survived its
>destruction and we just saw the "secret origin" story.
>
>>
>> Clara said Earth seemed "different" when she returned at the end of
>> the episode. =A0When the alien choked on the unachieved potential
>> futures in the leaf, did it have the side effect of turning them into
>> reality? =A0(Sort of like Amy's Crack in reverse?)
>>
>
>It could just mean that her little world seems smaller and more
>mundane now that she's had a glimpse of just how big and weird the
>universe is. It's a bit clumsy that they didn't elaborate on that at
>all
>
>> I wouldn't go that far because of the slight flaws mentioned above.
>> But it's definitely my favourite Matt Smith episode so far.
>
>I thought there were about 10-15 minutes in the middle that were dull
>and poorly-paced, but the rest of the episode was really good. One
>thing Moffat has done a pretty good job at as showrunner is
>consistently conveying the idea that the universe is REAL FLIPPING
>WEIRD.
>
>At the end, when the Old God imploded, did anyone else think, "Hey,
>the sun just went out. Aren't the people of Akhaten gonna need one of
>those?"

Well i think they left too soon.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
Winston
2013-04-07 17:21:51 UTC
Permalink
The Coca Cola Kid <***@gmail.com> writes:
> No doubt, this episode will draw criticisms and ire from those
> with strong religious views, for it reveals that the 'God', that is
> worshipped by the inhabitants of an entire solar system, to be nothing
> more than a parasite, who is not omnipotent, nor even close to it.

Omnipotence wasn't required. "Able to destroy all life on the seven
worlds" is quite sufficient. Besides, in Earth history, there were lots
of non-omnipotent gods (e.g., Greek, Roman) being worshipped long before
the idea of one omnipotent god above all others being the only one a
person should pray to took hold here on Earth, and there's no reason
extra-terrestrial aliens couldn't think of such a creature as a god,
too. :)
-WBE
The Doctor
2013-04-07 19:50:09 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@UBEblock.psr.com>,
Winston <***@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>The Coca Cola Kid <***@gmail.com> writes:
>> No doubt, this episode will draw criticisms and ire from those
>> with strong religious views, for it reveals that the 'God', that is
>> worshipped by the inhabitants of an entire solar system, to be nothing
>> more than a parasite, who is not omnipotent, nor even close to it.
>
>Omnipotence wasn't required. "Able to destroy all life on the seven
>worlds" is quite sufficient. Besides, in Earth history, there were lots
>of non-omnipotent gods (e.g., Greek, Roman) being worshipped long before
>the idea of one omnipotent god above all others being the only one a
>person should pray to took hold here on Earth, and there's no reason
>extra-terrestrial aliens couldn't think of such a creature as a god,
>too. :)
> -WBE

A planet as a 'God'?
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
David Johnston
2013-04-07 19:57:28 UTC
Permalink
On 4/7/2013 1:50 PM, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <***@UBEblock.psr.com>,
> Winston <***@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>> The Coca Cola Kid <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>> No doubt, this episode will draw criticisms and ire from those
>>> with strong religious views, for it reveals that the 'God', that is
>>> worshipped by the inhabitants of an entire solar system, to be nothing
>>> more than a parasite, who is not omnipotent, nor even close to it.
>>
>> Omnipotence wasn't required. "Able to destroy all life on the seven
>> worlds" is quite sufficient. Besides, in Earth history, there were lots
>> of non-omnipotent gods (e.g., Greek, Roman) being worshipped long before
>> the idea of one omnipotent god above all others being the only one a
>> person should pray to took hold here on Earth, and there's no reason
>> extra-terrestrial aliens couldn't think of such a creature as a god,
>> too. :)
>> -WBE
>
> A planet as a 'God'?
>

If a planet can think and eat you, why not worship it? Do fleas believe
in Dog?
The Doctor
2013-04-07 20:10:35 UTC
Permalink
In article <kjsiug$uo1$***@dont-email.me>,
David Johnston <***@block.net> wrote:
>On 4/7/2013 1:50 PM, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <***@UBEblock.psr.com>,
>> Winston <***@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> The Coca Cola Kid <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> No doubt, this episode will draw criticisms and ire from those
>>>> with strong religious views, for it reveals that the 'God', that is
>>>> worshipped by the inhabitants of an entire solar system, to be nothing
>>>> more than a parasite, who is not omnipotent, nor even close to it.
>>>
>>> Omnipotence wasn't required. "Able to destroy all life on the seven
>>> worlds" is quite sufficient. Besides, in Earth history, there were lots
>>> of non-omnipotent gods (e.g., Greek, Roman) being worshipped long before
>>> the idea of one omnipotent god above all others being the only one a
>>> person should pray to took hold here on Earth, and there's no reason
>>> extra-terrestrial aliens couldn't think of such a creature as a god,
>>> too. :)
>>> -WBE
>>
>> A planet as a 'God'?
>>
>
>If a planet can think and eat you, why not worship it? Do fleas believe
>in Dog?

That depends.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
Jim G.
2013-04-10 19:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Winston sent the following on Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:21:51 -0400:
> Besides, in Earth history, there were lots
> of non-omnipotent gods (e.g., Greek, Roman) being worshipped long before
> the idea of one omnipotent god above all others being the only one a
> person should pray to took hold here on Earth,

You have a point with the Romans, but I'm not so sure about the Greeks.
IIRC, a lot of credit for Greek mythology is attributed to the
Mycenaeans, which was right around the time that, over in Egypt, Tut's
dad (whose name escapes me at the moment) was doing the sole god bit.

But it's been many years since I last geeked out on mythology, so I may
have some of that wrong.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER
Siri Cruise
2013-04-08 19:29:07 UTC
Permalink
> Of course, the forty-five minute, single episode, format of the
> series does not lend them enough time to develop the supporting
> characters in detail. That is a flaw with the show's current format,
> not the current episode.

It should be written like a short story based on a single idea, and everything
written to support that idea.

I think the idea was to deal with Clara's grief for her mother, hence the
openning sequence so we could see the mother as a person, Clara hanging on to
her mother's scrapbook, the ring, the leaf. But the openning sequence got
clutterred with the Doctor antics, the ring got spent friviously. And rather
than going to directly to their god, we had to go through the pyramids of Mars,
the male singer, the alarm clock vampire, the creepy knights templar, and then
finally the god. Too many diversions for just forty-five minutes.

> No doubt, this episode will draw criticisms and ire from those
> with strong religious views, for it reveals that the 'God', that is
> worshipped by the inhabitants of an entire solar system, to be nothing
> more than a parasite, who is not omnipotent, nor even close to it.

Imagine another of the infinite stories. One with sentient binary stars, a red
star and a hot white star that burned out and distributed its star dust
(connecting to the Doctor's story to Mary about how unique Mary was) into the
Rings. The surviving star would have looked less like a parasite than a grieving
lover who sees the people as maggots picking over the bones of his dead love.

That would a create a parallel between Clara mourning her mother and the star
his companion. The death of a loved one is massive psychological wound, and at
first all you have stories of the past, what was and now is lost. Eventually the
wound heals, but the scar remains, but now it can be incorporated into stories
of the future, what you have learned and what you can do with that.

Then Clara's ring would be a nonproductive story of the past, what was lost, but
the leaf would be a productive story of the future, what can be. The parallel
would then be Clara and the star both needing to heal and once again living
whatever will be.

> I liked the idea of a culture singing a long song, for thousands
> of years, to keep the parasite asleep and sated. I was almost
> worried, during the climax of the story, that the Doctor and/or his
> companion were also going to break out into song. But, thankfully,
> they did not go there.

The problem was the lack of focus. We got the Queen of Years running away, a
warehouse scene where nothing was done, spooky knights templar that were
unncessary, some girl talk, and only at the end starting to explain how
important the singing was. Any menace that Mary was at risk was then removed
during the girl talk when it was explained as mere performance anxiety.

Also we got the diversionary dog yapping. If the saleswoman had been allowed to
talk directly to Clara, she could have explained the importance of memories. We
could then see her taking the ring and talking about the strength of the
memories on it.

> Many will probably compare this episode to ones like 'The Long
> Game' and 'The Beast Below', which I think were underappreciated, but

The Long Game and the Beast Below were built on the idea that refusing to
acknowledge your actions make its very difficult to correct shortcomings. In the
Long Game humanity allowed itself to be entertained out of any self-reflection
on its society. And by refusing to remember how they were torturing the Beast,
they couldn't communicate with it to learn it was a willing partner.
--
Mommy says the people who most need to see a shrink are the ones most
viennaly denying they need one.
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
Loading...