|
Post by Queen E on May 17, 2013 20:32:13 GMT -5
Really? You think they'll really tell?
Discuss!
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on May 18, 2013 22:48:47 GMT -5
Really? You think they'll really tell?
Discuss! Nah. Well, um, that was interesting. I'll have to think on it a bit more. I am getting the feeling that they tried to squash a whole seasons'-worth of story into, what was it, four episodes. I did like the little glimpses of the Doctor's previous incarnations; that was very neatly done. Also, RIVER! *squeeees*
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on May 21, 2013 22:03:37 GMT -5
Really? You think they'll really tell?
Discuss! Nah. Well, um, that was interesting. I'll have to think on it a bit more. I am getting the feeling that they tried to squash a whole seasons'-worth of story into, what was it, four episodes. I did like the little glimpses of the Doctor's previous incarnations; that was very neatly done. Also, RIVER! *squeeees* I agree with your squee...and love the fact that it is post-"The Library" River. One of my, let's say, issues with the Moffat seasons is that they've lacked much of the emotional resonance and often (don't laugh) subtle plotting of RTD's era. When I did my rewatch of season 4, I was struck by the many many ways in which the "Doctor-Donna" arc was suggested throughout the season: the Tardis blue car, the coat in "Turn Left" that looked like the Doctor's coat, etc etc. Moffat is good at plotting, but it rather hits you over the head, as if certain things are there only to be drawn together into a master plot in the last few episodes. Further, consequences seem to not be drawn out in the same way. In RTD's era, Rose's mom and Martha's family were involved and affected by the events around the Doctor. Donna's grandfather and mom had big impacts on how she viewed herself. Moffat's companions are rather "family-less"; it bugged me that the finale of Season 5 made a big deal of introducing Mr. and Mrs. Pond, and then they were never heard from again. Even worse, Season 7 introduced Rory's dad...and we never see his reaction to the fact that his son is lost to him forever. (Apparently there was a deleted scene never filmed that dealt with that, but still.) So this episode really pleased me, in that it dealt with the BIG consequence of River being "saved" (abandoned) in The Library, and their interaction was moving (to me, at least). Plus, I am officially intrigued by John Hurt's appearance, and what that might mean for the 50th anniversary special. (Along with some other casting bits, which, spoilers.) (I really need to stop writing these epic posts...I run the risk of a well-deserved "too long; didn't read.")
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on May 21, 2013 22:05:30 GMT -5
Oh, and I forgot to mention one other thing; even though they didn't reveal the Doctor's name, I actually LOVED the subtly of how the title fitted the episode. That was clever in a resonant way, not the cold cleverness I've come to associate with a lot of the Moffat-era plot twists.
Now I'm shutting up.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on May 22, 2013 21:08:02 GMT -5
Oh, and I forgot to mention one other thing; even though they didn't reveal the Doctor's name, I actually LOVED the subtly of how the title fitted the episode. That was clever in a resonant way, not the cold cleverness I've come to associate with a lot of the Moffat-era plot twists. Now I'm shutting up. No, don't shut up! Your posts are never TLDR, every word is worth reading. I, um rewatched the last bit of this episode yesterday, beginning with River and the Doctor. I am so very pleased that they gave us the emotional content with the two of them. If that makes sense - I'm feeling a bit fuzzy of brain, and shall go forth and change my name again.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Nov 22, 2013 8:48:46 GMT -5
This is something that's been niggling at me since this episode first aired, and now that Kitty's been rewatching Dr Who, it's come back again -
Clara says "I was born to save the Doctor". In that case, who (or Who) created her, and why? And what a horrible way to treat any sentient being, making them live multiple lives only to rescue one person over and over and die doing it. If you believe that, she's nothing but a Doctor-rescuing device. Sure enough, when her job is done, she thinks she has no more purpose, and she stops being. At least in her own mind. Good thing the Doctor sees her as a person.
Anyway, it bothers me that Moffat et al could write a character, and in particular a woman, who's nothing but a useful puppet, in canon, and make her so accepting of it to boot. I do hope she gets to be a real girl some day.
Hrm, I wonder if the fact that the Doctor sees Clara as a person, not just a Doctor-saving device, might be the saving of him, too. He's got a lot of suppressed darkness to work through.
Please excuse woolly-headed liberal thinking (or more than usual, anyway), as it's way too early in the morning.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Nov 23, 2013 11:46:40 GMT -5
This is something that's been niggling at me since this episode first aired, and now that Kitty's been rewatching Dr Who, it's come back again - Clara says "I was born to save the Doctor". In that case, who (or Who) created her, and why? And what a horrible way to treat any sentient being, making them live multiple lives only to rescue one person over and over and die doing it. If you believe that, she's nothing but a Doctor-rescuing device. Sure enough, when her job is done, she thinks she has no more purpose, and she stops being. At least in her own mind. Good thing the Doctor sees her as a person. Anyway, it bothers me that Moffat et al could write a character, and in particular a woman, who's nothing but a useful puppet, in canon, and make her so accepting of it to boot. I do hope she gets to be a real girl some day. Hrm, I wonder if the fact that the Doctor sees Clara as a person, not just a Doctor-saving device, might be the saving of him, too. He's got a lot of suppressed darkness to work through. Please excuse woolly-headed liberal thinking (or more than usual, anyway), as it's way too early in the morning. Not remotely woolly! There has been quite a bit written on the fact that in the Moffat era, female characters have nearly, to a one, been written as a "problem" or "puzzle" for the Doctor to solve, rather than fully developed characters with agency in their own right. I wonder if it's connected with the "youth" of the Doctor; although Matt Smith does a great job of conveying the history of himself within his portrayal, his reactions/interactions with women tend toward the "just discovered girls" phase of adolescence. With Peter Capaldi being significantly older than the last few doctors, I'm thinking that dynamic might change.
|
|