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

[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:)