O.K. I'm posting this without reading any ofthe other posts first, so if I repeat any points others have made I apologise in advance.
This was a great improvement over the previous weeks episode. I thought they did the interior of the sub very well, which leads me to my first point. How the hell did the Tardis materialise inside that small confined space ?. Second point, the Ice Warrior. This looked magnificiant, upgraded enough for modern audiences but still easily recognisable as an Ice Warrior. Thirdlly, the plot. Not overcomplecated easy to follow and with some good characters. Finaly the most contentous point of all. Why was it suddenly revealed that the Ice Warrior was actually a suit of battle armour ? That instantly destroyed the mythos of the race for me. IMO it was a direct steal from the aliens from Independence Day and came as a total surprise. OK I could almost accept that all the previous Ice Warrioirs we have seen were in fact suits of armouir but for one thing When you look at "classic" Ice Warrioirs they all have hair protuding from their joints. Even the model kit produced back in the 80's by Sevans, had pieces of hair to stick in place. So my question is this, which is correct ? Were the "classic" warriors's armour just badly put together with gaps for hair to stick out of or is it only the modern General's who wear body armour and the rest of the species are as we have always seen them to be. Either way this seems to be a major shift away from the Ice Warriors that we have been used to.
Liked the ending in that mercy was shown to the crew and the punchline about getting a lift to the South Pole was a funny line to finish on. All in all a great improvement.
Same could be said for appearing on the plane in Bells of St John, probably an even smaller space.
The TARDIS probably cheats and either shrinks a bit (it's done it before) or doesn't materialize all of the outer shell.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - Not convinced. When they loaded it into Concorde in Timeflight they had to lie it ion its side, if the above is the case why did Doc 5 not just materialise a bit of its outer shell. Slipshod writing IMO
That might explain why her performance was a bit off then, she hadn't got a grasp on the role yet.
...
Both unexplained/not utilised, which was a bit of a recurring theme in this episode - throw in something vaguely interesting for 3 seconds then it's forgotten about for most of the rest of the episode, with no link to even hint that it may be relevant in the future. Just seemed random even for DW, though the Clara drowning bit is probably just bad editing.
I think the drowning scene was hugely significant. What is the one thing we know about Clara? She dies but comes back.
Almost certainly she drowned and died in that scene. The later Clara wearing a jacket (akin to the Doctor's vanishing and appearing jacket in Flesh and Stone) is a new Clara which would explain some of her odd behaviour. She is having to learn how to 'be Clara' anew.
It looked as if there was a scene that was cut - likely we will see the full version of events later, some explanation of how dead Clara was replaced with new jacketed Clara.
I am also guessing that the HADS is not a throwaway reference to classic Who, but that the Doctor was lying as he knew there was a *third party piloting the TARDIS*! Whether it is another copy of Clara, or another Doctor, or River Song or Rose, etc., etc. remains to be seen but I strongly doubt it was the HADS.
I think the drowning scene was hugely significant. What is the one thing we know about Clara? She dies but comes back.
Almost certainly she drowned and died in that scene. The later Clara wearing a jacket (akin to the Doctor's vanishing and appearing jacket in Flesh and Stone) is a new Clara which would explain some of her odd behaviour. She is having to learn how to 'be Clara' anew.
It looked as if there was a scene that was cut - likely we will see the full version of events later, some explanation of how dead Clara was replaced with new jacketed Clara.
I am also guessing that the HADS is not a throwaway reference to classic Who, but that the Doctor was lying as he knew there was a *third party piloting the TARDIS*! Whether it is another copy of Clara, or another Doctor, or River Song or Rose, etc., etc. remains to be seen but I strongly doubt it was the HADS.
I think the HADS was correct and Clara stuff was just bad editing
Ah, but that's what they said about the Doctor's jacket in Flesh and Stone
But that notion was only seized on by people who were ignoring that the Flesh and Stone scene was a very clearly seperate scene of its own with dialogue etc quite deliberately shouting out to the world "I am a mysterious scene, with a Doctor entering stage right who is quite clearly not in the same timeline as the one that just departed stage left."
The fact that they had just cleverly made the Doctor lose his jacket in a prominent and unmissable scene was another huge signpost shouting "This scene is not an editing mistake".
I think the drowning scene was hugely significant. What is the one thing we know about Clara? She dies but comes back.
I think you're reading way too much into it. When Clara dies she stays dead. She gets buried or vapourized or whatever. She only comes back in a different time period not the same one.
I just took the scene for what it was. She lost consciousness underwater, was revived and someone put a jacket round her to warm her up.
Yes, that Clara is definitely dead (like all the others). She appeared in a different time period as a 'fresh' Clara. A later version of the Doctor then brought her back to replace her drowned self. He left in the TARDIS and his earlier self was forced to pretend it was the HADS operating the ship.
Pretty simple and fits with the dreamlike drowning sequence and choppy editing.
Extra thought: Maybe she 'downloads' into a new body like the Cylons in the reimagined BSG.
Yes, that Clara is definitely dead (like all the others). She appeared in a different time period as a 'fresh' Clara. A later version of the Doctor then brought her back to replace her drowned self. He left in the TARDIS and his earlier self was forced to pretend it was the HADS operating the ship.
Pretty simple and fits with the dreamlike drowning sequence and choppy editing.
Extra thought: Maybe she 'downloads' into a new body like the Cylons in the reimagined BSG.
I'm sorry, but that isn't remotely simple :eek:
It seems incredibly convoluted and highly unlikely, in my opinion.
I think the drowning scene was hugely significant. What is the one thing we know about Clara? She dies but comes back.
I don't think she dies in the scene but it could certainly be a teasing metaphor for what happens when she dies. As little Clara says in the prequel, when she loses her mojo she goes to a quiet room to find it again.
Some points to note about the scene:
Zuchov asks what is this ? of the Sonic. Timelord tech falling into the wrong hands, at which point the Tardis scarpers.
Clara dives to reach the Sonic, which is at just the right angle, and with its switch upward like a fin, to make a visual comparison with the stricken sub.
Clara blacks out. When she fades back in her face is lit deep blue with white lights adjacent; an unusual choice given the usual red & yellow lighting used for the sub.
And sometimes there isn't any subtext. There's no force in the universe making the sonic screwdriver fall a particular way up and absolutely no reason for it to mimic the look of a submarine. If that was going to be relevant we would have seen its relevance revealed in the episode since it's relevance doesn't extend beyond it.
The HADS is an established feature of the TARDIS from classic Doctor Who. It was invoked because the writer is a fan of classic Doctor Who and he wanted a way to heighten the sense of danger by removing the easy escape route.
HADS activates when the TARDIS is in danger (i.e. when stuck on a sinking nuclear submarine). It's not going to activate because some random russian may or may not get his hands on the sonic screwdriver.
Plus what possible significance would the lighting have? If Clara was invoking some special lighting effect wouldn't everyone else have noticed something odd?
I don't want to be rude but, to me, this all sounds like convoluted nonsense. I'm ready to be proven wrong but I don't believe there's any special clues at all in this episode. It all played out perfectly straight forwardly to me.
And sometimes there isn't any subtext. There's no force in the universe making the sonic screwdriver fall a particular way up and absolutely no reason for it to mimic the look of a submarine. If that was going to be relevant we would have seen its relevance revealed in the episode since it's relevance doesn't extend beyond it.
Plus what possible significance would the lighting have? If Clara was invoking some special lighting effect wouldn't everyone else have noticed something odd?
The force in the universe is called the director. The director and writer are making these visuals. For example, it's not Clara invoking a lighting effect, it's the director making a choice to light her face blue, on screen with white lights, to compare Clara, or the room, with the Tardis.
The director and writer are wanting us to read between the visual lines. It adds depth to the episode and the transmission of ideas.
Well, yes, artistic considerations and allusions do go into these things. But they aren't plot points. And sometimes blue is used because its the best colour for that scene and nothing to do with the tardis.
I'm reminded of Nosferatu - the ship bringing the vampire to the city floats into dock and blocks out the sillhouette of the church in the background. It meant something. And was artistically clever. But the plot was plain for all to see. A blooming great bloodthirsty vampire had just arrived! The artistry of the director etc helped make the film interesting and atmospheric beyond a simple monster story. But the plot was in plain sight.
The force in the universe is called the director. The director and writer are making these visuals. For example, it's not Clara invoking a lighting effect, it's the director making a choice to light her face blue, on screen with white lights, to compare Clara, or the room, with the Tardis.
The director and writer are wanting us to read between the visual lines. It adds depth to the episode and the transmission of ideas.
Not to me, it doesn't. It makes a nonsense of the rules of the universe. What's shown on screen should follow the laws of probability and physics not be malleable to a director's whimsy. The lights are whatever colour the lights should be on a submarine are and that's the end of it. Unless there's an in-show reason for something happening it shouldn't be happening and I don't see any need to read anything into it at all.
Well, yes, artistic considerations and allusions do go into these things. But they aren't plot points. And sometimes blue is used because its the best colour for that scene and nothing to do with the tardis.
I'm reminded of Nosferatu - the ship bringing the vampire to the city floats into dock and blocks out the sillhouette of the church in the background. It meant something. And was artistically clever. But the plot was plain for all to see. A blooming great bloodthirsty vampire had just arrived! The artistry of the director etc helped make the film interesting and atmospheric beyond a simple monster story. But the plot was in plain sight.
But they don't need to be plot points to be clues. Think of the start of AotD.
A woman who looks like a companion (even wants the Doc to find her daughter), stands inside a Dalek statue, intriguing and luring the Doctor in...and then turns out not to be human but a Dalek !
Just one of those rules of good writing; Let the inciting incident mirror the solution.
DotM...Amy and Rory get shot at the edge of things but are still alive in bodybags.
River falls into the Tardis pool. - she ended up in Lake Silencio as the astronaut.
Comments
This was a great improvement over the previous weeks episode. I thought they did the interior of the sub very well, which leads me to my first point. How the hell did the Tardis materialise inside that small confined space ?. Second point, the Ice Warrior. This looked magnificiant, upgraded enough for modern audiences but still easily recognisable as an Ice Warrior. Thirdlly, the plot. Not overcomplecated easy to follow and with some good characters. Finaly the most contentous point of all. Why was it suddenly revealed that the Ice Warrior was actually a suit of battle armour ? That instantly destroyed the mythos of the race for me. IMO it was a direct steal from the aliens from Independence Day and came as a total surprise. OK I could almost accept that all the previous Ice Warrioirs we have seen were in fact suits of armouir but for one thing When you look at "classic" Ice Warrioirs they all have hair protuding from their joints. Even the model kit produced back in the 80's by Sevans, had pieces of hair to stick in place. So my question is this, which is correct ? Were the "classic" warriors's armour just badly put together with gaps for hair to stick out of or is it only the modern General's who wear body armour and the rest of the species are as we have always seen them to be. Either way this seems to be a major shift away from the Ice Warriors that we have been used to.
Liked the ending in that mercy was shown to the crew and the punchline about getting a lift to the South Pole was a funny line to finish on. All in all a great improvement.
Same could be said for appearing on the plane in Bells of St John, probably an even smaller space.
The TARDIS probably cheats and either shrinks a bit (it's done it before) or doesn't materialize all of the outer shell.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - Not convinced. When they loaded it into Concorde in Timeflight they had to lie it ion its side, if the above is the case why did Doc 5 not just materialise a bit of its outer shell. Slipshod writing IMO
I think the drowning scene was hugely significant. What is the one thing we know about Clara? She dies but comes back.
Almost certainly she drowned and died in that scene. The later Clara wearing a jacket (akin to the Doctor's vanishing and appearing jacket in Flesh and Stone) is a new Clara which would explain some of her odd behaviour. She is having to learn how to 'be Clara' anew.
It looked as if there was a scene that was cut - likely we will see the full version of events later, some explanation of how dead Clara was replaced with new jacketed Clara.
I am also guessing that the HADS is not a throwaway reference to classic Who, but that the Doctor was lying as he knew there was a *third party piloting the TARDIS*! Whether it is another copy of Clara, or another Doctor, or River Song or Rose, etc., etc. remains to be seen but I strongly doubt it was the HADS.
Def the former
But that notion was only seized on by people who were ignoring that the Flesh and Stone scene was a very clearly seperate scene of its own with dialogue etc quite deliberately shouting out to the world "I am a mysterious scene, with a Doctor entering stage right who is quite clearly not in the same timeline as the one that just departed stage left."
The fact that they had just cleverly made the Doctor lose his jacket in a prominent and unmissable scene was another huge signpost shouting "This scene is not an editing mistake".
I think you're reading way too much into it. When Clara dies she stays dead. She gets buried or vapourized or whatever. She only comes back in a different time period not the same one.
I just took the scene for what it was. She lost consciousness underwater, was revived and someone put a jacket round her to warm her up.
Pretty simple and fits with the dreamlike drowning sequence and choppy editing.
Extra thought: Maybe she 'downloads' into a new body like the Cylons in the reimagined BSG.
I'm sorry, but that isn't remotely simple :eek:
It seems incredibly convoluted and highly unlikely, in my opinion.
Still, far be it from me to stifle imagination...
I don't think she dies in the scene but it could certainly be a teasing metaphor for what happens when she dies. As little Clara says in the prequel, when she loses her mojo she goes to a quiet room to find it again.
Some points to note about the scene:
Zuchov asks what is this ? of the Sonic. Timelord tech falling into the wrong hands, at which point the Tardis scarpers.
Clara dives to reach the Sonic, which is at just the right angle, and with its switch upward like a fin, to make a visual comparison with the stricken sub.
Clara blacks out. When she fades back in her face is lit deep blue with white lights adjacent; an unusual choice given the usual red & yellow lighting used for the sub.
Sometimes sub-text is sub-text.
And sometimes there isn't any subtext. There's no force in the universe making the sonic screwdriver fall a particular way up and absolutely no reason for it to mimic the look of a submarine. If that was going to be relevant we would have seen its relevance revealed in the episode since it's relevance doesn't extend beyond it.
The HADS is an established feature of the TARDIS from classic Doctor Who. It was invoked because the writer is a fan of classic Doctor Who and he wanted a way to heighten the sense of danger by removing the easy escape route.
HADS activates when the TARDIS is in danger (i.e. when stuck on a sinking nuclear submarine). It's not going to activate because some random russian may or may not get his hands on the sonic screwdriver.
Plus what possible significance would the lighting have? If Clara was invoking some special lighting effect wouldn't everyone else have noticed something odd?
I don't want to be rude but, to me, this all sounds like convoluted nonsense. I'm ready to be proven wrong but I don't believe there's any special clues at all in this episode. It all played out perfectly straight forwardly to me.
Is that the same bloke who goes around putting misleading dates on security passes?
The force in the universe is called the director. The director and writer are making these visuals. For example, it's not Clara invoking a lighting effect, it's the director making a choice to light her face blue, on screen with white lights, to compare Clara, or the room, with the Tardis.
The director and writer are wanting us to read between the visual lines. It adds depth to the episode and the transmission of ideas.
I'm reminded of Nosferatu - the ship bringing the vampire to the city floats into dock and blocks out the sillhouette of the church in the background. It meant something. And was artistically clever. But the plot was plain for all to see. A blooming great bloodthirsty vampire had just arrived! The artistry of the director etc helped make the film interesting and atmospheric beyond a simple monster story. But the plot was in plain sight.
Not to me, it doesn't. It makes a nonsense of the rules of the universe. What's shown on screen should follow the laws of probability and physics not be malleable to a director's whimsy. The lights are whatever colour the lights should be on a submarine are and that's the end of it. Unless there's an in-show reason for something happening it shouldn't be happening and I don't see any need to read anything into it at all.
But they don't need to be plot points to be clues. Think of the start of AotD.
A woman who looks like a companion (even wants the Doc to find her daughter), stands inside a Dalek statue, intriguing and luring the Doctor in...and then turns out not to be human but a Dalek !
Just one of those rules of good writing; Let the inciting incident mirror the solution.
DotM...Amy and Rory get shot at the edge of things but are still alive in bodybags.
River falls into the Tardis pool. - she ended up in Lake Silencio as the astronaut.
...and people say we had no clues.