happy Saturday

[dbskyler]

It's a beautiful Saturday here -- sun in the sky, roses outside the window, and Doctor Who on tonight! I'm really looking forward to seeing River again, and it should be very interesting to see how the Doctor reacts to her. Based on "Silence in the Library / Forest of the Dead" there should have been some unbroadcast encounters between River and Ten (picnic at Asgard, etc.), so this should not be the first time the Doctor has seen her since those episodes. Of course, the question is whether Moffat cares about that continuity or not.

(Of course, most -- all? -- of you reading this already know the answer, having seen tonight's episode already. Is it boring to have me post about two-weeks-old speculation? Or do you just laugh in your superior knowledge?)

I missed PBS' broadcast of "Hamlet" but found it on their website, so I've been watching it. It's really good, and David Tennant is absolutely amazing as Hamlet. He really is a great actor, isn't he? The rest of the production is also top-notch, as you would expect from the Royal Shakespeare Company. It's at first a little jarring to see people in modern clothes -- t-shirt and jeans, for example -- and spouting Shakespeare, but after getting used to it I really like the approach. I saw an interview with Patrick Stewart where he says the modern clothes help to bring the audience in and make the story more contemporary and accessible, and I think he's right. And besides, the play itself -- what happens in it -- is still very modern and relevant even if the language is hard to understand sometimes. So if you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend it.

In other Doctor Who news, I saw "The Time Meddler" for the first time. It was my first introduction to Vicki and Steven, and I liked them both, and it was nice to see more of the First Doctor, too. I loved the Doctor's introduction of the TARDIS to Steven -- "That is the dematerializing control, and that over yonder is the holilondral hold. Up there is the scanner, those are the doors, that is a chair with a panda on it, sheer poetry dear boy! Now please stop bothering me." It was so very . . . Doctor, if that makes any sense. It was also interesting to see the very first introduction of a renegade Time Lord (well, aside from the Doctor himself -- although perhaps Susan qualifies, too?). The Meddling Monk was a little disappointingly ineffectual, though, and I didn't quite get the point of his interference -- did he just want to meet King Harold or something? -- but from a historical point of view it was still very interesting to see the first example of the premise that would later lead to the Master and the Rani. Speaking of which, I wonder if we'll ever see the Rani again?

Comments

[persiflage-1.livejournal.com]

I'm not bored by your two-weeks-behind-mine spec - it's interesting to see you wondering the same things. So, what did you think of 'The Time of Angels'?

And did you note that THIS episode IS part of the continuity River mentioned to Ten back in the Library??

I saw The Time Meddler a while ago - it was pretty amusing in places. And yes, the Meddling Monk was a bit ineffectual - I think the only renegade Time Lord who's actually consistently good at his meddling is the Doctor!

[dbskyler.livejournal.com]

I *loved* "Time of Angels"! But now I'm really wondering what's going on with River -- all those hints ("he doesn't know who and what you are yet") -- so who and what is she?

Okay, don't tell me, I'll find out next week -- or find out next week that we don't find out. It is really interesting to speculate, though. I just hope she doesn't turn out to be his wife, because I like to think that the answer is far more interesting than that.

I'll probably do a full-on reaction post later. After disliking the last two episodes, I am really happy I enjoyed this one so much!

[persiflage-1.livejournal.com]

It was good, wasn't it? The spec about River's identity has been rife. I won't spoil you by telling you about it, though!

[thisbluespirit]

Yays, for any Hartnell love. (And I love Vicki a lot, too.) :-)

What the Meddling Monk wanted to do was change the most famous cornerstone of British history, so maybe it's not been made obvious enough for a non-Brit, although my memory is that it is explained. (Maybe you were distracted by the limp Viking scenes? On the one hand I love The Time Meddler, on the other it's shockingly slow with hammy fights and no music). But, if you don't want to watch it again with a note book, here goes:

The Monk intends to destroy the Viking invasion fleet led by Harald Hardrada and Harold's brother Tostig before it lands in the North, and thereby preventing the battle of Stamford Bridge, leaving King Harold free to meet William and the Normans the moment they pull up in Pevensey, giving the Anglo-Saxons a far greater chance of winning the Battle of Hastings. (In reality, the English forces had sped from the north to the south coast without a break, or collecting reinforcements - and as it was, they still nearly won.) This - and I think the Monk may be indulging in optimism here! - he feels this would have prevented the feudal system being put in place in England, the relatively enlightened Anglo-Saxon systems of justice would have remained in place (although, to be honest, William didn't really overturn them). (To this day, this is why in English all the government/posh words have Latinate origins and all the 'low' words are Anglo-Saxon, because of the imposed new ruling class.) But it's a lot of faith to put in Harold. No wonder the Doctor thinks he's crazy. I expect he intended to stay around and give pointers - "Hamlet on television". (Hmm. That sounds familiar.) But 'what if William had lost the Battle of Hastings?' is the sort of thing so many people have asked, that his playing about with it here is just lovely.

The First Doctor was the one who claimed he couldn't interfere, couldn't rewrite history "Not one line!" and so this contrast with another of his kind, who doesn't abide by this rule and wonders round trying to 'improve' things, regardless of his methods or the consequences. It's appealing, like a schoolboy let lose in history, but as I said, it's a deliberate contrast to the Doctor's attitude (which becomes less severe with time, but at this point, he's adamant about non-interference with history). I think it's a bit of a more interesting argument (and fun) than someone merely wanting to run round being evil. Causing untold damgae for trying to tweak things and seeing what happens... Heh. :-)

You may have noticed me wittering on about Carry On films from time to time - Peter Butterworth is a regular, and even though William Hartnell did appear in the title role of the very first one, Carry On Sergeant, there's something surreal in seeing the two worlds collide in this episode.

I love the ending, the 'space helmet for a cow' (even if Viking didn't have helmets like that), Vicki and Steven discovering the Monk's TARDIS, the Doctor missing Barbara, his talk with Edith. (I'm not so keen on Hartnell having a week off, or the limp Vikings, and I find the almost total lack of music makes it hard to get through, but I love a lot of it nevertheless.) :-)

I can't remember the answers to your qs anyway - two weeks have gone by, my brain is like a sieve!!

[dbskyler.livejournal.com]

Oh, thanks for the explanation! I know about the Battle of Hastings, and I did pick up on that part, but what left me a little confused was how the Vikings fit into it. My (admittedly skimpy) knowledge of the Battle of Hastings didn't include anything about a prior battle with Vikings, and so that part of the episode kind of ran past me a little. It makes more sense now that you've explained, though. Although I still don't quite get why the Meddling Monk wants to change things -- what he gets out of it. Maybe I'm just too used to the Master, but did the Meddling Monk just want to interfere for the sake of interfering? It seemed like he was trying to improve things, and that surprised me because I'm used to renegade Time Lords trying to make things worse, or at least being out for no one but themselves.

[thisbluespirit]

Heh. Yes, the Meddling Monk just wants to improve things, and amuse himself - he also puts money in bank accounts and nips forward to collect the interest... (or he does until the Doctor really annoys him in this - I'm not sure whether he becomes more villainous later, as I've never seen (heard) his second appearance.) It shows what the Doctor could be (he does the things the audience must have been wondering why the Doctor never does 'cheating' with bets, and banks and stuff!) if he went in and changed things even with good intentions - or let Barbara change things in The Aztecs - and it's more of a temptation to him than the Master and the Rani's offers of world domination. The Monk's the naughty schoolboy Time lord renegade, who just wants to see what would happen if you pushed this, tweaked that... He doesn't care about the consequences for time, or the people involved, and the Doctor does.

Plus, this is the first time in the show that they admit that it's possible to change time at all - until then we're led to assume that you can't. (Well, in Earth history, anyway. :lol:) So *deep breath* the Time Meddler gives us the first instance of time being mutable and that being the threat of the story, the first other TARDIS and the first other Time Lord, even if he's just one of the Doctor's 'people' with no more information. I love the 60s where none of the cliches are set... You can tell that, can't you? I love all eras, but there's something about those early stories where it's all new and nobody's blase yet. :-) Of course, some of them are so slow, you could miss an episode and barely notice, but nevertheless, I do love that.

He does explain about it in the serial, I'm sure, but probably not in depth as it's the traditional starting point of English history in schools - certainly back in the 60s. Glad I could help. I could tell you much more than that about why there were three kings scrapping for the throne - and, as the Monk said, it would have saved all those wars with France... but I won't. ;-)

I just wish he'd also had a run in with Troughton - that would have been great fun. Like I said, he may have got a bit more vindictive, being not best pleased at what the Doctor did to his ship. The Doctor's even worse at leaving the Monk stranded than he is the Master. Much worse... ;-)

[dbskyler.livejournal.com]

Really interesting insights into the First Doctor, and the history of the show vis-a-vis Time Lords and changing history. I feel that later on the question of changing history mostly doesn't even get addressed -- either what happens in an episode somehow just fits into history (like when the Fifth Doctor causes the Great Fire of London) or it's never an issue (like when Three and Sarah go back to the Middle Ages to stop a Sontaran). In fact, "Fires of Pompeii" is one of the only times I can think of when not changing history really gets discussed after the First Doctor's era. Although I mostly haven't seen Two's era either . . . And, well, there is "Frontios" where the Fifth Doctor says he's not supposed to interfere, but does anyway. There might be another example or two, but it's pretty rare; or at least, I can't think of many instances.

He does explain about it in the serial, I'm sure, but probably not in depth

No, you're right, it does get explained, but while I know about the Battle of Hastings and the Norman conquest and why we therefore have "poultry" and "beef" as English words, I had literally never heard about the Viking attack before now. I guess that in the U.S. when they taught us about the Battle of Hastings, they weren't too concerned with explaining why Harold's army was tired. So anyway, I right away knew the significance of the year being 1066, but didn't get what Vikings had to do with it, and even though it was explained, I didn't know if that part was actual history or something that had been made up for the plot for some bizarre reason. Basically, it just confused me and made it harder to catch on to just what the Monk was up to and why. But now I feel so educated! I even went and googled "Battle of Hastings" to read a little more on the whole thing.

Troughton meeting up with the Meddling Monk would indeed have been great fun.

[thisbluespirit]

You're very knowledgeable indeed, yes! ;-)

Sadly, there's not an awful lot left of Two to see. Which is an outrage and a tragedy. :-(

Yes, I think they probably had to come to that sort of attitude or the adventues would get limited. But I do like the way in the first series, how new the show is to questions like this and how it debates them quite seriously (well, in between just having jolly japes in history, like The Romans. :-D) Yes, Frontios is interesting - it suggests there are points in the future the Doctor isn't supposed to go beyond. (Love Frontios - one of my fave Five serials. :-D I have multi-era DW ♥ generally. I'm a bit hopeless like that. :lol:)