Doctor Who Series 12B: The Timeless Chibnall (Xmas special & pre-Series 13 chat)

[Thomas]

I'm still laughing at "mind-numbing adventures".

Mind-numbing!!

no not the mind numb

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

Talalay turned up on the four-hour Nightmare on Elm Street documentary I watched the other night (thanks to Famous Mortimer, who recommended it in the Elm Street thread in Deeper Into Movies).

She comes across as such a lovely person, really sharp, amusing and self-aware. A hugely talented director who is just, you know, ace in every way.

[BritishHobo]

Can I just apologise to Chris Chibnall for getting wrecked last night and calling him an awful cunt or something - your stupid fuckin Timeless Child twist was absolute dogshit mate but I'm sure your friends like you

[Malcy]

Saw an interview with Gaiman the other day saying he'd like to write for Jodie, annoyed he never had the time to write for Capaldi etc.

He also mentioned that he wrote a Lockdown story about the Corsair. Did anyone read it? I don't remember hearing about I or even seeing it around.

[olliebean]

He also mentioned that he wrote a Lockdown story about the Corsair. Did anyone read it? I don't remember hearing about I or even seeing it around.

Supposedly it was for an anthology book for Children in Need. Can't find anything else about it, though. Maybe it hasn't been published yet (might be due to come out around Children in Need time).

[Malcy]

Supposedly it was for an anthology book for Children in Need. Can't find anything else about it, though. Maybe it hasn't been published yet (might be due to come out around Children in Need time).

Ah of course. I was thinking it had been in March. Always get that and Comic Relief mixed up.

[Mister Six]

Wasn't it just "13 facts about The Corsair" or something? Not a proper story (or it was 13 micro stories, depending on how you look at it).

[olliebean]

Wasn't it just "13 facts about The Corsair" or something? Not a proper story (or it was 13 micro stories, depending on how you look at it).

This? https://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/30786184930/eleven-things-you-probably-didnt-know-about-the

That's from 2012 though, so I don't think that can be what he was talking about.

[Replies From View]

Never been a massive fan of Neil Gaiman's Doctor Who efforts.  Even The Doctor's Wife where the consensus was that it was so brilliant.

[daf]

Ah of course. I was thinking it had been in March.

Don't know if I'm thinking of the same thing, but, in April, Gaiman posted a pic of the Corsair facts page while doing the Lockdown Who for The Doctor's Wife - as seen here

[olliebean]

Never been a massive fan of Neil Gaiman's Doctor Who efforts.  Even The Doctor's Wife where the consensus was that it was so brilliant.

As I think has been mentioned before, it can be inferred from Gaiman's blog posts on the subject plus the odd bit of scuttlebutt I've heard that The Doctor's Wife was pretty heavily rewritten in the end by Moffat, after Gaiman had failed to knock it into practically film-able shape over the course of a dozen or so drafts. (It was originally planned to be in the previous series, but needed too much work to be ready in time.) Even so, I thought it was overrated, but certainly miles better than the rubbish Cybermen one Gaiman did next.

[Replies From View]

I always thought it was rubbish that the TARDIS ended up in the body of an attractive Helen Bonham Carter woman, as it simplified the Doctor's relationship with the TARDIS into something irrelevant.

Would the story have played out in the exact same way if the TARDIS had instead taken over the body of Johnny Vegas?  The answer is no, and that's the problem I have with it.

[Kelvin]

Would the story have played out in the exact same way if the TARDIS had instead taken over the body of Johnny Vegas?  The answer is no, and that's the problem I have with it.

That's a daft way of looking at things. If you had Johnny Vegas as the TARDIS, you'd obviously write it differently, play up the incongruity, but the fundamental way it and the Doctor connect would still essentially be the same. Instead, they used a woman to play the role, in order to play up the bickering couple and weird sexual tension. But their connection, their history and affection for one another, would still be the heart of the story, regardless of who was playing the TARDIS.     

Whether boiling their connection down to something romantic - or even human - was a good idea in the first place is a different matter. But the fact they'd write the story differently depending on the actor/metaphor is irrelevant.   

[pigamus]

Maybe you should have a rule where Doctor Who should only be written by good writers who don't like it or hardly ever watch it.

[Thomas]

That's a daft way of looking at things. If you had Johnny Vegas as the TARDIS, you'd obviously write it differently, play up the incongruity, but the fundamental way it and the Doctor connect would still essentially be the same. Instead, they used a woman to play the role, in order to play up the bickering couple and weird sexual tension. But their connection, their history and affection for one another, would still be the heart of the story, regardless of who was playing the TARDIS.     

Whether boiling their connection down to something romantic - or even human - was a good idea in the first place is a different matter. But the fact they'd write the story differently depending on the actor/metaphor is irrelevant.

I agree with Kelvin. We might as well ask, 'what if River Song was played by Johnny Vegas?'

The dynamic would be totally different, but there'd still be a story to tell. It's just that - on this occasion - the writers chose to go with the more attractive story, with the Doctor-TARDIS relationship personified as romance (though it could feasibly have been something else; we can imagine a story where the Doctor has to care for the TARDIS, the latter having been trapped in the body of that patchwork bloke instead).

In-universe, yes, it's pretty good fortune that the Doctor got to have a bit of a romance - but it's similarly good fortune that the clockwork robots were after Madame De Pompadour rather than John Wayne Gacy.

[Replies From View]

The dynamic would be totally different, but there'd still be a story to tell. It's just that - on this occasion - the writers chose to go with the more attractive story, with the Doctor-TARDIS relationship personified as romance (though it could feasibly have been something else; we can imagine a story where the Doctor has to care for the TARDIS, the latter having been trapped in the body of that patchwork bloke instead).

I think my problem could be that "on this occasion" they went the way that they go on every occasion.  Yes there's another story they could have told, and would it have really pushed their imaginations to breaking point to explore the possibility that the TARDIS would have processed a different formation of love than the exact same kind they always do.

Bit miffed that my Johnny Vegas point has been dismissed so swiftly, as well.  Why should a display of affection between the Doctor and TARDIS depend so heavily on the body containing it?  If the Doctor wouldn't be equally attracted to the same spirit presented within a different body (eg an overweight, male one), then isn't the Doctor attracted to the body rather than the TARDIS?

So yeah, it is a bit like we had a different incarnation of River Song rather than an embodiment of the TARDIS, if you want to put it in those terms.  We had a generic fanciable Time Lady rather than - uniquely - the TARDIS.  I just think that it was therefore a missed opportunity to do something a bit different.

I wouldn't mind so much but people have always gushed over this episode like it's a masterpiece.

[Thomas]

I've not seen the ep in a while, but is the Doctor explicitly attracted to the human TARDIS? Do they kiss?

It translates as a traditional romance for our benefit - man and woman onscreen, a sense of romantic love and sexuality, with jokes from Amy and Rory - but I think it's still a weird, complex relationship within the story. It doesn't diminish the Doctor or the TARDIS - only represents their relationship to us in a particular way. After all, like the TARDIS, the Doctor only looks human. They're both unknowable alien entities.

We, the audience, can read all the coded suggestions of romance, but is it that explicit in the characters?

I'm not sure that the Doctor really would behave much differently if it was Johnny Vegas. First he's confused, then he's thrilled that they can interact, and then he's upset that the TARDIS has to go back into the machine. I don't know how much of the 'romance' theme comes from the trappings and how much actually comes from the characters. I can imagine this scene playing similarly.

I don't know who I'm agreeing or disagreeing with, but I think a Johnny Vegas portrayal could have been successful. It would only have altered the romantic framing, which mainly came down to the music, Amy and Rory's jibes, and the fact that the Doctor and the TARDIS were both being played by attractive people in the conventional man-and-woman mould. I don't think they actually cop off or express mundane romantic love to each other.

Also I guess they just wanted to use the title 'The Doctor's Wife' for real.

[Kelvin]

I think my problem could be that "on this occasion" they went the way that they go on every occasion.  Yes there's another story they could have told, and would it have really pushed their imaginations to breaking point to explore the possibility that the TARDIS would have processed a different formation of love than the exact same kind they always do.

I agree with this. I like that episode, but it does feel like the most obvious and mundane way to approach that relationship. 

Bit miffed that my Johnny Vegas point has been dismissed so swiftly, as well.  Why should a display of affection between the Doctor and TARDIS depend so heavily on the body containing it?  If the Doctor wouldn't be equally attracted to the same spirit presented within a different body (eg an overweight, male one), then isn't the Doctor attracted to the body rather than the TARDIS?

No, because there's a difference between a friend who you deeply connect with, but aren't physically attracted to, and a person you deeply connect with but who also has a sexy face, soapy boobies, wet muscles, toned bum, etc. Attraction isn't purely an intellectual or even emotional connection, so even if their core relationship remained the same, The Doctor would obviously behave differently with a TARDIS he finds physically attractive and one he doesn't. That's not just a writing choice, it's also a logical character trait for Smith's Doctor.

[Blinder Data]

The Doctor's Wife was really good. The only thing that bothered me about it was, if IIRC, the TARDIS taking over the woman's body essentially killed her, and nobody at all, least of all the Doctor, seemed bothered by the loss of her life. Poor lass.

[Mister Six]

It translates as a traditional romance for our benefit

This is the key, I think. The point of the story is to externalise the intensely close relationship that The Doctor has with the TARDIS, and as a bonus to make a little joke about the way some people (men, I suppose) behave with their cars or motorbikes or whatever.

We live in a heteronormative society and so they chose a heterosexual couple of equal attractiveness to sell that story better. That's certainly up for criticism, but I think it's justified - having to negotiate a "gay" (except not) relationship, and one with Johnny Vegas no less, would be a distraction from everything else that's going on (and Gaiman was already struggling to get it all down into the space allotted).

Hopefully we're not too far from the day when same-sex relationships are so normalised and accepted that it wouldn't even raise an eyebrow in this context, but for 2011 it was the right choice for the story.

The Doctor's Wife was really good. The only thing that bothered me about it was, if IIRC, the TARDIS taking over the woman's body essentially killed her, and nobody at all, least of all the Doctor, seemed bothered by the loss of her life. Poor lass.

Yeah it bothered me a bit too, but I suppose they only encountered her after the process took place, and it was a bit of a rush. I believe in an earlier draft the body was left behind and there was a scene with them digging her a grave so there might have been something there, but I suppose the glowy finish is a bit more audience friendly.

[Replies From View]

We live in a heteronormative society and so they chose a heterosexual couple of equal attractiveness to sell that story better. That's certainly up for criticism, but I think it's justified - having to negotiate a "gay" (except not) relationship, and one with Johnny Vegas no less, would be a distraction from everything else that's going on (and Gaiman was already struggling to get it all down into the space allotted).

It wouldn't need to be framed as 'gay' if there wasn't an endless scrabbling need to sexualise these relationships in the first place.

The distraction is that sexual tension 'needed' to be there yet again.  Because that's the only frame of reference the writers seem to have.


Ach, I know it's my own complex because I'm personally asexual so bemoan more than most how these connections always tend to go the same narrow way.  There's a lot of effort now to normalise same-sex relationships, and that's wonderful, but using the Doctor as an asexual role model seems to have passed these writers by since 2005 as well.  I just find it a bit of a missed opportunity.

[Thomas]

Moffat horny

[BritishHobo]

I remember you mentioning the Johnny Vegas idea before, and I do quite like it, much as I do love the episode. I think it sounds quite warm and lovely to have Smith have that kind of dynamic with an affable guy, still keeping that core of genuine love between them without making it a BIG KNOWING BROMANCE or doing a cringeworthy Sherlock-esque running joke about everyone thinking they're gay.

Moffat definitely horny though

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

Lads, we're missing the big picture here. Why has Johnny Vegas never been in Doctor Who? He could potentially be a great festive special guest star. Obviously I don't want him to make a guest appearance any time soon, as it would be a festive special written by Chris Chibnall and therefore shit.

[Replies From View]

He has been in a very crap episode of Red Dwarf.




As long as he doesn't bring that spirit into Doctor Who I'll be happy.

[Mister Six]

Lads, we're missing the big picture here. Why has Johnny Vegas never been in Doctor Who? He could potentially be a great festive special guest star. Obviously I don't want him to make a guest appearance any time soon, as it would be a festive special written by Chris Chibnall and therefore shit.

I'd rather have had him as Santa than Nick Frost. And I quite like Nick Frost. Just not as Santa.

[Jerzy Bondov]

Why do I think Johnny Vegas is a fan? Just seems like it.

[Thomas]

Saw this somewhere: as of July 14th, Doctor Who has been back for longer than it was away.

We're as far now from Rose as we were then from Survival.

[FredNurke]

Addictive tile based regeneration game. Read that barely anyone has managed to complete it. I got 736 on my first go.

You use the arrow keys or swipe the tiles in directions to put two the same together then they regenerate into a tile featuring the next Doctor in the cycle (no pre-Hartnells luckily).

www.doctorwho.tv/games/thirteen

Got a Smith and a Tennant and then it all went pear-shaped. The trick seems to be to jam your highest-ranking Doctor in the corner and then snake the others along the bottom, and restrict yourself to three move buttons except when you have a gridlock.

[Deanjam]

Why do I think Johnny Vegas is a fan? Just seems like it.

He was put into 2000AD because he's a fan of that, so he must like some British sci-fi at least.