S00.E162: Wild Blue Yonder

[Kite]

5 hours ago, Sailorgirl26 said:

 

Ah yes, the classic ‘across the pond’ terminology difference: “wank”! Teehee!

[Affogato]

12 hours ago, Kite said:

Ah yes, the classic ‘across the pond’ terminology difference: “wank”! Teehee!

I think ‘fan wank’ derives from it.

[libgirl2]

On 12/4/2023 at 10:16 AM, arachne said:

But I must draw the line when it comes to historic figures like Isaac Newton. Giving the part to an apparently non-white actor is unnecessary and overly distracting from the story, and I'm afraid it might give kids (still a good chunk of this audience) the wrong idea. 

(/slightly OT: In case anyone is thinking of it, I don't have the same problem with a musical like Hamilton. That had its own style and its own points to make. /slightlyOT) 

My husband did roll his eyes. Newton was not biracial. I don't mind when you change up fictional characters but not someone who actually existed. Luckily, it was brief. 

Edited December 6, 2023 by libgirl2

[Cthulhudrew]

On 12/2/2023 at 7:46 PM, DoctorAtomic said:

I think she does, and she was trying to get him to open up. 

I agree with you. Tate's expressions were a giveaway, plus the scene (to me) played out like Donna gently probing because if she just fessed up she knew he'd deflect and change the subject. She even makes a comment to that effect at the end about him finding excuses to "get out of awkward conversations" right as she was about to verbalize something important to him.

[Kite]

On 12/7/2023 at 2:39 AM, libgirl2 said:

My husband did roll his eyes. Newton was not biracial. I don't mind when you change up fictional characters but not someone who actually existed. Luckily, it was brief. 

Oh who cares what the colour of his skin was, it's not significant to the story. Too often biracial people are treated as one race or another based on the colour of their skin, so white folks aren't really concerned about the accuracy of race so much as focusing on appearance. No one talks about the fact that the Fifth Doctor was played by a biracial man who attributed his acting success partly to the genetic lottery of pale skin. Biracial figures of history routinely get whitened (such as Beethoven).

Perhaps race and skin colour don't need to have significance attributed to them unless in a specific cultural context. Maybe just "I was born in Cheltenham" is the most important thing about someone's culture, and they get to determine what their particular ancestry means to anyone.

Europe was historically faaaaaar from homogenous in terms of ethnic origin and skin colour, because of incursions, trade, migrations and slavery. And modern understandings of common national and ethnic identity, and the focus on skin colour and perceived ethnic origins as fundamental dividers/categorisers, are just that. There's always been tribal us-and-them instincts, but the basis for division is not as today. In Newton's time, a casting director would likely have a whole set of different criteria to focus on, because skin shade alone was not yet considered one of the fundamental dividers to be "faithful" to. Seeing as you can't get the ACTUAL person in. This has also been used endlessly to argue the Doctor should only be cast as a white man, as opposed to a bunch of other criteria.

It's important to ask why it's so uncomfortable. Maybe that's the point?

Listened to the excellent TARBIS podcast yesterday on this episode, where they WILL focus on race politics in the show, and the Newton casting didn't even rate a mention. It really is mostly white folk getting tangled up in knots over a skin tone and nothing else, why? Go pick on the hairstyle, the apocryphal nature of the apple story, the fabric weave and dye colour authenticity, the social status cues, lol, why is this what takes you out of the story. 

2 minutes ago, Kite said:

Oh who cares what the colour of his skin was, it's not significant to the story. Too often biracial people are treated as one race or another based on the colour of their skin, so white folks aren't really concerned about the accuracy of race so much as focusing on appearance. No one talks about the fact that the Fifth Doctor was played by a biracial man who attributed his acting success partly to the genetic lottery of pale skin. Biracial figures of history routinely get whitened (such as Beethoven).

Perhaps race and skin colour don't need to have significance attributed to them unless in a specific cultural context. Maybe just "I was born in Cheltenham" is the most important thing about someone's culture, and they get to determine what their particular ancestry means to anyone.

Europe was historically faaaaaar from homogenous in terms of ethnic origin and skin colour, because of incursions, trade, migrations and slavery. And modern understandings of common national and ethnic identity, and the focus on skin colour and perceived ethnic origins as fundamental dividers/categorisers, are just that. There's always been tribal us-and-them instincts, but the basis for division is not as today. In Newton's time, a casting director would likely have a whole set of different criteria to focus on, because skin shade alone was not yet considered one of the fundamental dividers to be "faithful" to. Seeing as you can't get the ACTUAL person in. This has also been used endlessly to argue the Doctor should only be cast as a white man, as opposed to a bunch of other criteria.

It's important to ask why it's so uncomfortable. Maybe that's the point?

Listened to the excellent TARBIS podcast yesterday on this episode, where they WILL focus on race politics in the show, and the Newton casting didn't even rate a mention. It really is mostly white folk getting tangled up in knots over a skin tone and nothing else, why? Go pick on the hairstyle, the apocryphal nature of the apple story, the fabric weave and dye colour authenticity, the pre-existence of the word gravity, the social status cues, the TARDIS in a tree, lol, why is this what takes you out of the story. 

 

Edited December 10, 2023 by Kite

[libgirl2]

8 hours ago, Kite said:

Oh who cares what the colour of his skin was, it's not significant to the story. Too often biracial people are treated as one race or another based on the colour of their skin, so white folks aren't really concerned about the accuracy of race so much as focusing on appearance. No one talks about the fact that the Fifth Doctor was played by a biracial man who attributed his acting success partly to the genetic lottery of pale skin. Biracial figures of history routinely get whitened (such as Beethoven).

Perhaps race and skin colour don't need to have significance attributed to them unless in a specific cultural context. Maybe just "I was born in Cheltenham" is the most important thing about someone's culture, and they get to determine what their particular ancestry means to anyone.

Europe was historically faaaaaar from homogenous in terms of ethnic origin and skin colour, because of incursions, trade, migrations and slavery. And modern understandings of common national and ethnic identity, and the focus on skin colour and perceived ethnic origins as fundamental dividers/categorisers, are just that. There's always been tribal us-and-them instincts, but the basis for division is not as today. In Newton's time, a casting director would likely have a whole set of different criteria to focus on, because skin shade alone was not yet considered one of the fundamental dividers to be "faithful" to. Seeing as you can't get the ACTUAL person in. This has also been used endlessly to argue the Doctor should only be cast as a white man, as opposed to a bunch of other criteria.

It's important to ask why it's so uncomfortable. Maybe that's the point?

Listened to the excellent TARBIS podcast yesterday on this episode, where they WILL focus on race politics in the show, and the Newton casting didn't even rate a mention. It really is mostly white folk getting tangled up in knots over a skin tone and nothing else, why? Go pick on the hairstyle, the apocryphal nature of the apple story, the fabric weave and dye colour authenticity, the social status cues, lol, why is this what takes you out of the story. 

 

Okay. 

[monkeypox]

I didn't understand Donna's saying "brainbox" proving she's human because people "can believe two completely different things at the same time." Does that term have two opposite meanings? Merriam-Webster says that a chiefly British definition is "a very intelligent person." Is it also slang for a stupid person in Britain? 

I feel kind of stupid for not understanding this.

[Llywela]

17 minutes ago, monkeypox said:

I didn't understand Donna's saying "brainbox" proving she's human because people "can believe two completely different things at the same time." Does that term have two opposite meanings? Merriam-Webster says that a chiefly British definition is "a very intelligent person." Is it also slang for a stupid person in Britain?

No, it isn't. It just means a clever person. It was a very confusing exchange!

[JustHereForFood]

9 hours ago, monkeypox said:

I didn't understand Donna's saying "brainbox" proving she's human because people "can believe two completely different things at the same time." Does that term have two opposite meanings? Merriam-Webster says that a chiefly British definition is "a very intelligent person." Is it also slang for a stupid person in Britain? 

I feel kind of stupid for not understanding this.

I thought that was just how she referred to the Doctor once she was certain which one he was and he already knew she was her, which is why he called her Earth Girl.

[PurpleTentacle]

On 12/4/2023 at 12:37 AM, Starchild said:

It looked to me like the Doctor was "protected" from the time change. He knows the word is (was?) gravity, but he realizes they changed something while they were with Newton, so he's accepted that for everyone who speaks English it's now "mavity" and he's rolling with it.

Although obviously, Newton wouldn't have used "mavity", he would have still used the word that descends from the Latin language (gravis, gravitas), like most English-speaking scientists.

I was joking. ;)

On 12/5/2023 at 3:17 AM, Kite said:

The conspiracy theory is that RTD is obviously lying and going out of his way to lie. He didn’t have to put such a strong continuity and emotional acknowledgement in, and right away, you know. He could have just ignored it or given the briefest nod at some point. He didn’t have to be quite SO enthusiastic about the idea in interviews. 

That isn't lying. And no, he couldn't just have ignored it. That is what a shitty writer would have done, which RTD is not. All of the things that happened to the doctor in recent regenerations compound to the burden that they are carrying.

Spoiler

Which is why this face came back and why he found Donna. It's the whole arc of the specials.

You can't just leave that out. If you did, the whole thing wouldn't work anymore.

You are the one constructing a conspiracy theory in order to be able to argue against a strawman. Nobody else here talked about any conspiracies.

On 12/5/2023 at 4:22 AM, Affogato said:

You need to sharpen your wanking abilities. In any case, river was explained.. her DNA was timey wimpy epigenetics. So may galifreyans be, too. Because you have the potential does not mean it is realized. May need time travel to start it up. And so on. 

That was the original explaination, yes. But in the timeless child it was explained that the gallifreyans regeneration abilities, actually came from the doctor's DNA, who is an alien from another universe and were spliced into the timelords by Tecteun. With the new timeless child explaination regenerations are genetic and they come from the doctor.

The original explaination for River's regenerations doesn't fit the timeless child explaination. That's the whole point here and the two explainations are so opposed to each other, no amount of fanwanking can make them fit, I'm sorry to say.

On 12/5/2023 at 7:21 AM, Kite said:

I never found it odd. For me I thought it’s a chameleon circuit that adapts to its surroundings and what people psychically expect to see. It doesn’t stay neutral. This is the Doctor’s TARDIS, and to the 13th Doctor, she saw what to her looks like the Doctor’s TARDIS. (And TARDISes have sensitivity to the future and destiny too, they’re a bit magical.) To the Fugitive Doctor, its shape is unremarkable, an earth shape, it constantly changes, assuming they’re seeing the same things which they may not be. It’s quite possible (and my head canon too) that this is actually the same TARDIS which was stolen later on, and One did not remember it. 

That's not how the chameleon circuit works.

On 12/5/2023 at 7:21 AM, Kite said:

Anyway, Chibnall did say in some interview there was a perfectly logical explanation, and it did really sound like it was going to be revealed later.

Well if there was a perfectly logical explaination, he probably should have given it.

On 12/5/2023 at 7:21 AM, Kite said:

EDIT: Pretty sure the between 2nd and 3rd Doctor theory was discredited by Flux, with where Fugitive Doctor was placed in Gallifrey’s ancient timeline?? Or?? I had kind of checked out of wild fandom speculation by that time, I overall enjoyed Flux and wanted to do so in peace! But I sure don’t remember the details now.

It isn't the story the doctor was told by the Master and Tecteun, but you can always retcon that. Way easier than fitting the timeless child into established canon, which "discredits" it pretty thuroughly.

If they want to, they can also come up with something completely original and not use the gap between the 2nd and 3rd doctor. I don't particularly care.

[DanaK]

7-day numbers are 7.142 million viewers and 9th for the week. The 8 programs above were the Strictly results show and the 7 editions of I’m a Celebrity, so Who was the highest rated drama

[John Potts]

I loved this one! A creepy space station is a Who staple (Arc in Space, Robots of Death, 42, Midnight) and this handled it well. My only slight disappointment was that the aliens were actually “evil” – they could still be a threat without actually being malign (like, say, a lion – or The Ambassadors of Death). Did like that they got around the “Security Question” of spotting an impostor by introducing mind reading. And even if I’m not a fan, I’m glad RTD didn’t immediately RetCon that the Doctor is not in fact a Gallifreyan (as far as we know). And I was definitely not expecting to see Wilf at the end (RIP Bernard Cribbins).

One thing I don’t understand – why did the (dead) pilot set off a 5 year countdown rather than a rapid one? It didn’t seem to achieve anything (other than putting our heroes in danger).

[Starchild]

As I understand it, the faster events proceed, the faster the No-things learn. The slower events go, the more lost they are. The captain figured they'd have a much better chance at figuring out how to avert a fast countdown to destruction than a very slow one.