Sea Devils And Die: GeroniMoffat's Doctor Who In The 2010s

If there's anything worse than an unnecessary Moffat explanation, it's an unnecessary Moffat explanation flagged up in advance as being "really very clever and much smarter than anything you dimwitted nerds on the internet have thought of"

really the big red flag for me here is Rusty involvement

yeah, i was gonna say

Is Capaldi wearing a cardigan under that coat? Bold choice imo.

I interpret that quote ("I don't kmow if we'll get to it...") as Moffat's polite way of saying "thanks but lol no"

as to why there were two Peter Capaldis in the Who universe

it's called ACTING you feeb

would love to have heard a parallel dick wolf interview where he explains their clever theory abt why there are two jerry orbachs running around the law and order universe

is there anything in particular about the aesthetics of sci-fi that would give this kind of silliness any pertinence? role replacements are fairly infrequent in realistic tv styles/genres (it's hard not to think of becky from 'roseanne' as the example), but even when the realism is running pretty high no one thinks to bat an eye when an actor recurs in bit parts or even graduates to a major role. even to the extent of complete defiance—thinking of law and order again, some of the later-season major roles were filled by people who had -very recently- appeared in different, minor roles, at the extreme jeremy sisto playing a lawyer at the end of s17 and playing a detective from the beginning of s18 on. and all those sharp detectives never noticed a thing!

on the face of it if any show should be utterly unflappable about this sort of 'problem' it's doctor who. so is there something about it that makes the producers go for the explaining, e.g. making martha jones adola's cousin, this roman business? the doctor is always noticing identities of people who don't look like themselves, people who look right but aren't yet in the right place and time, people who are disguised, transformed, etc., and obv. he himself has some issues wrt himself there. so maybe who he is in the stories licenses some viewer wondering about that, so it makes sense for the producers/writers to make some concessions?

The Clara explanation WAS actually kind of clever and mostly fell flat because the lead-in stories spent more time thinking the mystery made her interesting rather than her being interesting in and of herself (really, the best parts of Clara's characterization have been the moments where she's like "um this situation totally sucks and I don't think I actually want to do this, but I have no choice so I'd better suck it up and do it" and those moments were supposed to point towards her eventual self-sacrifice but they didn't land hard enough in the context of Wacky Smith Is Wacky Plus They Might Kiss)

Oh thank god.

The same actors turn up in different roles in long-running series like Eastenders and Holby City and whatever all the time. It doesn't need explanation because literally no one other than idiot sci-fi nerds actually cares.

uh dude, they didn't do it with Philip Madoc or Jean Marsh or Ian Marter or Colin Baker or Karen Gillan or Nicholas Courtney or any of the dozens and dozens of other actors who played different roles in the history of the show. if there's any reason now, it's because they're afraid nerds won't stfu if they're not given something to suck on.

xpost

well that explanation would suggest that sci-fi nerds are unable to accept certain fundamental differences between reality and fiction, which might be something xp

I find myself increasingly annoyed with the kind of drama writing that is in constant meta-dialogue with its fanbase as it actually happens. Gatiss did this with the comeback episode of Sherlock as well, it's just lame. I blame social media.

Weirdly it's less annoying when Abed does it in Community but possibly because it's less nudge-nudge when it happens, or perhaps it's just better writing.

Well meta-dialogue is kind of half the point of Community.

the only time I remember old-Who doing this was with Romana's regeneration; it strikes me very much as being a nu-Who obsession with dotting every I and making everyone in the vortex of the show's weird related to each other

there's an interesting metastory lurking behind this in the idea that the Doctor pulls entire dynasties of families into his orbit; like say if someone creates a genealogy that shows that Bret Vyon is a descendent of Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stuart and the Doctor's adventures with his ancestor put his family line on the path that ended up pulling him into the Dalek Masterplan story, it's a neat-for-supernerds idea that also gives an in-universe for why the two characters look so similar (obv the actual real-life "they were played by the same actor" answer should be fine but world-building rules, you drool etc)

so basically as a dude who owns all of the original Virgin books and 95% of the BBC books before the show's relaunch, I'm not opposed to this in concept but the execution is starting to annoy the fuck out of me

so is there something about it that makes the producers go for the explaining, e.g. making martha jones adola's cousin, this roman business? the doctor is always noticing identities of people who don't look like themselves, people who look right but aren't yet in the right place and time, people who are disguised, transformed, etc., and obv. he himself has some issues wrt himself there. so maybe who he is in the stories licenses some viewer wondering about that, so it makes sense for the producers/writers to make some concessions?

I think it's not just that Dr. Who is sci-fi, but that time travel and regeneration and (like you say) general fascination with transformation/disguises/doubles and other sorts of "out of place" weirdness are big elements in the show... For example, various Star Trek shows had loads of supporting actors appearing in two or more different roles, but they almost never tried to explain these in any way, even though time travel and cloning and other sci-fi things that could provide an explanation do exist in Stra Trek too. I think it's because ST is "harder" and more cerebral sci-fi than Dr. Who, and has less interest in bodies and their mutability. So the "need" to explain these things certainly seems to rise from Who's specific qualities, even if usually there's no real need for explanation.

I mean to be honest, there's no better example of how the ppl running nu-Who view it as a big toybox where everyone is related than Rusty's "look at everyone flying the TARDIS in perfect harmony oh and btw eventually Mickey and Martha get married" shit

For example, various Star Trek shows had loads of supporting actors appearing in two or more different roles, but they almost never tried to explain these in any way, even though time travel and cloning and other sci-fi things that could provide an explanation do exist in Stra Trek too. I think it's because ST is "harder" and more cerebral sci-fi than Dr. Who, and has less interest in bodies and their mutability.

Tuomas, address why Who didn't do it with Marter and Courtney and Marsh and Gillan and Baker and Madoc then

IIRC they didn't do it with Gillan because she had on so much makeup and was such a minor part that no one felt like they had to make the connection; compare/contrast to Eve Myles/Freema Agyman/Jenna Coleman (whose character was created specifically with this type of story in mind). This is totally a nu-Who obsession.

well tuomas i wouldn't explain it that way wrt star trek, there bodily identities/integrities are caught up in a matrix of technological restoration/repair/replacement and phenomenologically unfamiliar-but-explicable alternative modalities (like, they got odo's kinda people, intelligent space clouds, etc.), which probably has the whole roddenberryan space liberal vision in the background somewhere, different peoples and their planets and cultures, joining in to a space federation where they serve common goals hopefully w/o suppressing/losing their identities (their klingon badassness, their control over their vulcan emotions, etc.). so it's less hardness, more the way in which identity is being conceived in relation to those other things which are allowed in the story-world to be relatively reconfigurable, or not.

nu-who seems no less cerebral, it's just that it uses more mythically/fantastically-charged materials.

btw the issue is not nec. why who have not done this when they could/should have, but why they bother on more than one occasion at all when the usual way tv-acting/casting works would give them permission to utterly ignore it with no consequences.

xxxp

I mean, the real answer to this is "fans spent over a decade making their own Who fiction that eventually turned into everyone in the TARDIS being cousins and those are the people who ended up running the relaunch" but that's no fun

As long as the show is fun (and it is, even in the horrible eps) then plotting and consistency is the last thing on my mind.

not every horrible episode is fun, signed a dude who will never of his own free will watch The Idiot's Lantern ever again

That sounds like an invitation to abduct you during the dead of night and strap you down A Clockwork Orange-style for your own personal viewing if I've ever heard one!

Hah i have never seen that one cos of the bad rep.

You should watch it, it's underrated.

/snicker

Come the fuck on: the horrible Olympic torch relay one is the worst.

half of that entire season is the worst

Anna, formerly of this parish, with a good spot

There was no room for the hippies’ peace and love

YES

wait even better

My guess is that this Doctor will be angry, sharp-thinking and mostly very controlled – except on the few occasions he turns into a bit of a berserker.

Doctor in NYC

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Doctor-Who-Complete-8-DVD/dp/B00I3JR9SG

Hahahahaha

what's the funny? they often take preorders before it airs

kinda hoping we get a branding/logo refresh

Reviews all written from the future.

Oh damn. I just skimmed right past that. That's freaking awesome

Other highlights include, 'Lets Kill Osama', a story set in 1066 with absolutely no references to Osama Bin Laden whatsoever and the two-part 'Quarry Quandary' which is set entirely in a quarry in Wales, filmed on location in Singapore.

bwahhhh hah ha

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/doctorwho/articles/Rising-Star-Joins-Doctor-Who-for-Peter-Capaldis-First-Series

I'm fond of the idea the series gets back to where it started, with two teachers from Coal Hill School.

Be kind of neat if the first Capaldi adventure was visiting the stone age.

Clara turns out to be his granddaughter.

ha it just occurred to me that they could bring back Susan any time they wanted to by the magic of regeneration

actress is still alive so hopefully they'd give her the dignity of a regeneration scene

Susan is used really well, and played by Carole Ann Ford, in "season 4" of Big Finish's McGann stories.

also :( at discussing plot points itt seven months before the stories air

Well, what should people do for seven months then?

Btw, I just saw "Star Trek: Into Dumbness", and I was kinda wondering: am I the only one who thought the guy at beginning of the movie (played by Noel Clarke) was actually Mickey, stranded in the 23th century because of some TARDIS-related hijinks?

Sorry sic, I momentarily forgot the spoiler policy on Doctor Who.

Tuomas, Doctor Who threads are pretty much a complete spoiler free zone. One the episode has aired in the UK it's fine for discussion, although there may still be people (and I tend to abide by this) hold back on particularly spoilery things until US and AUS airings (or enough time for people to obtain nefariously if airtime is way off).

Yeah, I get that, but I don't think the "no spoilers" policy should apply to people speculating about future plotlines? AFAIK none of us are working in the Dr. Who staff, so it's just pure speculation for fun, not actually spoiling anything. IMO this sort of speculation and guessing is big part of the fun of fandom, and it happens on pretty much all ILM TV show threads.

"ILE TV show threads"

remember how delightful the first 20 seconds of the 50th anniversary special were? imagine being similarly surprised and heartwarmed by there turning out to be a new male companion who's a teacher at Coal Hill School when you actually watch the episode, not half a year or more before it airs.

I see that, but OTOH there are people (like myself) who like to discuss official Who-related news, such as the announcement of a new companion (which is on the BBC site, not in some gossip mag). Should there be two different threads, one for us, and one for those who want to remain completely spoiler-free? I mean, if we're being strict about spoilers, no one in this thread should've even mentioned Peter Capaldi until "The Day of the Doctor" had aired... Or maybe even until "The Time of the Doctor" had aired, since you didn't see his full face in "Day" and he's uncredited there.

we did this already

Excatly, and that's why I'm apologising to sic.

Sorry again.