The Woman Who Lived

by **tony ingram** Sat Oct 24, 2015 7:17 pm

Discuss this episode here.

by **tony ingram** Sat Oct 24, 2015 9:12 pm

Lion-O! Invasion of the Thundercats!

That was fun. Not as intense as recent episodes, but fun.
I suspect we've not yet seen the last of Lady Me.

by Lucy Ingram Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:36 pm

Wasn't that, like, one of those people from Romana's last episode?

by **tony ingram** Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:56 pm

Lucy McGough wrote:Wasn't that, like, one of those people from Romana's last episode?

There was a certain resemblance, though the Tharils had better makeup.

by Lucy Ingram Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:12 pm

Yeah, but I bet they couldn't BREATHE FIRE.

by Mbast1 Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:01 pm

tony ingram wrote:I suspect we've not yet seen the last of Lady Me.

I hope not. She could turn out to be pretty interesting.

I enjoyed this one, too. Last season left me kind of flat, but this one is working for me.

by **tony ingram** Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:10 pm

I seem to be hearing that from a lot of people. I think it helps that Capaldi seems to have found his character now, while last year it seemed to be in a constant state of flux.

by Lucy Ingram Wed Oct 28, 2015 7:17 pm

tony ingram wrote:I seem to be hearing that from a lot of people. I think it helps that Capaldi seems to have found his character now, while last year it seemed to be in a constant state of flux.

No it wasn't! tongue

by Mbast1 Mon Nov 02, 2015 11:17 pm

tony ingram wrote:I think it helps that Capaldi seems to have found his character now, while last year it seemed to be in a constant state of flux.

That may be it. Last year was too much "I'm not that guy I was", which would have been fine in one episode, but after a while I just wanted him to get on with being who he was.

by **tony ingram** Tue Nov 03, 2015 6:39 am

I think it often takes some time for an actor to 'find' his Doctor. Peter Davison didn't really seem comfortable in the part until his third year.

by Lucy Ingram Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:21 pm

Mbast1 wrote:Last year was too much "I'm not that guy I was", which would have been fine in one episode, but after a while I just wanted him to get on with being who he was.

...Actually, you may have a point. It's like he KNEW that the fangirls wouldn't like him, and that was affecting his self-confidence.

Pity we couldn't just reach through the screen, shake him and say, "We don't care what colour your hair is!"

by Mbast1 Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:16 am

Lucy McGough wrote:...Actually, you may have a point. It's like he KNEW that the fangirls wouldn't like him, and that was affecting his self-confidence.

My then 17-year-old niece liked him a lot. Preferred Matt Smith, but he is HER Doctor.

I think I can lay this one at the feet of Moffat. He gave an interview where he said he didn't like the idea of The Doctor having any romantically interested, and that he preferred an older Doctor with a younger, female companion.
But, again, this season is so much better.

by **tony ingram** Thu Nov 05, 2015 7:02 am

Mbast1 wrote:
I think I can lay this one at the feet of Moffat. He gave an interview where he said he didn't like the idea of The Doctor having any romantically interested, and that he preferred an older Doctor with a younger, female companion.

Well, I can't argue with any of that, to be honest.

by Mbast1 Thu Nov 05, 2015 5:18 pm

tony ingram wrote:Well, I can't argue with any of that, to be honest.

In what way?

by **tony ingram** Thu Nov 05, 2015 5:31 pm

The Doctor as a romantic character is just something that should never happen. That was my main problem with the tenth Doctor.

by Mbast1 Thu Nov 05, 2015 8:59 pm

tony ingram wrote:The Doctor as a romantic character is just something that should never happen..

Well, I disagree, and can't see why not. I liked the Tenth Doctor for that very reason. I STILL think he and Rose should have been together.

by **tony ingram** Fri Nov 06, 2015 6:42 am

Mbast1 wrote:
tony ingram wrote:The Doctor as a romantic character is just something that should never happen..

Well, I disagree, and can't see why not. I liked the Tenth Doctor for that very reason. I STILL think he and Rose should have been together.

The Doctor is a Gallifreyan, a member of a fantastically advanced alien race, and at that stage had lived for about 1, 000 years. Rose was a 19 year old shop girl from Earth. Not only was there a totally insurmountable differences in terms of age, intelligence, and experience, she wasn't even the same species as him. It would be like me having a romantic relationship with a Yorkshire terrier. I'm sorry, but the whole notion struck me as ridiculous and rather unsavoury.

by Lucy Ingram Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:22 am

Mbast1 wrote:I liked the Tenth Doctor for that very reason. I STILL think he and Rose should have been together.

Well... they are, now.

by **tony ingram** Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:38 am

I often wonder if the champions of the Doctor/Rose relationship really understand that this is the same character formerly played by William Hartnell. Fix that image in your mind for a moment: Billy and Billie, snogging in the TARDIS. Isn't that a lovely thought? Razz

"Hmm. I think, my girl, that you deserve a jolly good smacked bottom, eh?" Twisted Evil

by Lucy Ingram Fri Nov 06, 2015 8:35 am

by Mbast1 Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:15 pm

Lucy McGough wrote:Well... they are, now.

If you mean how they dealt with Rose, no, that's NOT him. It's a clone, sure, but it's not him. Otherwise I am unsure what you mean.

by Mbast1 Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:18 pm

tony ingram wrote: I'm sorry, but the whole notion struck me as ridiculous and rather unsavoury.

Does Spock bother you? Or Superman and Lois? Inter-species romances are fairly common in science fiction. I see this as no different. And the age-difference is merely a science fiction trope, too. There are human relationships with wide age differences, and I'd see this as a fictional analog to that.
Was Rose aware of who he was? (to the extent that anyone ever is of another) Was she an adult? Then I see nothing wrong with it, and I thought they were good together. If she'd seen him transform from 9 to 10, then she got it.
Don't get me wrong, I LIKE that he married River, a lot. But, Rose should have been handled differently.

(I have seen this discussion devolve into anger quickly, so if this bothers anyone I'll drop it).

by **tony ingram** Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:56 pm

Superman is rather different: he was raised on Earth and he's about the same age as Lois. I'm not well enough versed in Star Trek lore to comment on Spock's situation, but surely Vulcans don't live 900 years or more, do they?

by Lucy Ingram Mon Nov 09, 2015 7:19 pm

Mbast1 wrote:If you mean how they dealt with Rose, no, that's NOT him. It's a clone, sure, but it's not him.

Awwww

I thought he had all of the other guy's memories and thoughts and stuff.

by Mbast1 Mon Nov 09, 2015 8:26 pm

Lucy McGough wrote:I thought he had all of the other guy's memories and thoughts and stuff.

True, but I'm not of the opinion that a clone IS someone. I know it's a S-F trope, but it makes no sense to me. More like a twin than anything.

by Mbast1 Mon Nov 09, 2015 8:33 pm

tony ingram wrote:but surely Vulcans don't live 900 years or more, do they?

I just don't see the age difference as that meaningful, in story terms. No way to know if it would matter in real life, of course, but as fiction it is just another thing for people to struggle through. I don't know that you can apply total realism here when this is an alien god.

by Lucy Ingram Mon Nov 09, 2015 9:40 pm

Mbast1 wrote:True, but I'm not of the opinion that a clone IS someone. I know it's a S-F trope, but it makes no sense to me. More like a twin than anything.

Okay. It's probably a personal thing. In Mass yesterday, when I should've had my mind on higher things, I was thinking that if I met a duplicate of myself, down to the atomic level, I would consider her to be just as much 'me' as I am.

by **tony ingram** Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:36 am

Mbast1 wrote:
tony ingram wrote:but surely Vulcans don't live 900 years or more, do they?

I just don't see the age difference as that meaningful, in story terms. No way to know if it would matter in real life, of course, but as fiction it is just another thing for people to struggle through. I don't know that you can apply total realism here when this is an alien god.

I think what it comes down to for me is, by the time of the 2005 revamp I had been heavily immersed in the worlds of Doctor Who for thirty years already, personally, and in not only all those years but all forty-two years that the series had been around, on TV, in books, in audios and elsewhere, probably a few hundred writers had tackled the Doctor and all of them had presented his various incarnations exactly the same way: as an ancient, essentially asexual alien who simply did not have emotional attachments, and who was not like us. The whole Rose thing, and the tenth Doctor's entire personality, was totally at odds with all of that. To me, he was not the same character, and not a character I was willing to accept. Davies fundamentally changed a long established character in order to make him appeal more to a new audience who he believed would not be able to relate to him as he had previously been presented. And to me, as a longtime fan of the original series and character, that basically defeated the point of bringing him back to TV at all, he might as well have simply created a new character and show.

by **tony ingram** Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:38 am

Lucy McGough wrote:
Mbast1 wrote:True, but I'm not of the opinion that a clone IS someone. I know it's a S-F trope, but it makes no sense to me. More like a twin than anything.
Okay. It's probably a personal thing. In Mass yesterday, when I should've had my mind on higher things, I was thinking that if I met a duplicate of myself, down to the atomic level, I would consider her to be just as much 'me' as I am.

But she would be a separate entity. You would not be thinking the same thoughts at the same time or have had the exact same experiences, so how could she be you?

by Lucy Ingram Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:58 am

tony ingram wrote:Davies fundamentally changed a long established character in order to make him appeal more to a new audience who he believed would not be able to relate to him as he had previously been presented. And to me, as a longtime fan of the original series and character, that basically defeated the point of bringing him back to TV at all, he might as well have simply created a new character and show.

Maybe, but it all worked out in the end, and now we have Peter Capaldi Smile

tony ingram wrote:But she would be a separate entity. You would not be thinking the same thoughts at the same time or have had the exact same experiences, so how could she be you?

If she was replicated at an atomic level, her brain would be exactly the same, so she would have all my memories. From her point of view, she would have had all my experiences. I wouldn't see any grounds for denying her 'me-ness'.

Of course, to make things less confusing for our friends and family, we would both have to choose different names that weren't Lucy.

I think that this is why I found The Rebel Flesh unconvincing as a story. If I met my ganger (or, to put it another way, if my original met me) I wouldn't have any problem with her existence.

by **tony ingram** Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:01 am

Lucy McGough wrote:
tony ingram wrote:Davies fundamentally changed a long established character in order to make him appeal more to a new audience who he believed would not be able to relate to him as he had previously been presented. And to me, as a longtime fan of the original series and character, that basically defeated the point of bringing him back to TV at all, he might as well have simply created a new character and show.

Maybe, but it all worked out in the end, and now we have Peter Capaldi

tony ingram wrote:But she would be a separate entity. You would not be thinking the same thoughts at the same time or have had the exact same experiences, so how could she be you?

If she was replicated at an atomic level, her brain would be exactly the same, so she would have all my memories. From her point of view, she would have had all my experiences. I wouldn't see any grounds for denying her 'me-ness'.

But from the second she and you diverged, you would no longer be having the same experiences or have the exact same memories, so you could not both be the same person.

by Lucy Ingram Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:04 am

tony ingram wrote:But from the second she and you diverged, you would no longer be having the same experiences or have the exact same memories, so you could not both be the same person.

No, but we would both have been 100% Lucy. From the moment we diverged, we would be... I dunno, Zoë and Amy. I like those names.

by Mbast1 Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:22 pm

Please understand that I do not mean this to be hurtful, rude or insensitive. I do not. If you find it so, I truly apologize and we can drop it. I'm not trying to start an argument and will happily move on to another topic. And feel free to respond to what I write as you want. So, I'm putting this in spoiler quotes, and ask that if this is something you don't want to discuss, please ignore and we'll stop talking about it.

Spoiler:

by Mbast1 Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:23 pm

Lucy McGough wrote:I was thinking that if I met a duplicate of myself, down to the atomic level, I would consider her to be just as much 'me' as I am.

And there are plenty of others who would agree with you. I wouldn't, though, as that would (IMO) be a separate person. Similar, more so than even with identical twins, but different.

by Mbast1 Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:25 pm

tony ingram wrote:You would not be thinking the same thoughts at the same time or have had the exact same experiences, so how could she be you?

Even if you were thinking the same thoughts and had the same experiences, you'd still not be the same person. I think.

by **tony ingram** Wed Nov 11, 2015 7:31 am

Mbast1 wrote:Please understand that I do not mean this to be hurtful, rude or insensitive. I do not. If you find it so, I truly apologize and we can drop it. I'm not trying to start an argument and will happily move on to another topic. And feel free to respond to what I write as you want. So, I'm putting this in spoiler quotes, and ask that if this is something you don't want to discuss, please ignore and we'll stop talking about it.

Spoiler:

Fine. I totally disagree with everything you've just said, I frankly feel incredibly disappointed (and oddly and illogically somewhat hurt and betrayed) that you hold that view, and in the interests of keeping the peace, I'm not going to discuss this subject any further. All I will say is that as far as I and many lifelong fans of Doctor Who are concerned-particularly those for whom, thanks to the many novels, audios and video spin-offs produced during the 16 year hiatus, Doctor Who never really went away when it was off TV-this is the same series that began in 1963 and it should always remember that. Steven Moffat seems to agree, and that, to me, is as it should be.

And BTW, it never was cancelled. Not officially. It simply didn't come back for some years. Even the Doctor Who production office remained open, with John Nathan-Turner retained on-staff as Producer, into the 90s, he just wasn't producing anything. And with that, I'm out.

Oh, one last thing: regarding more people being into the new series? Average (UK) viewing figures in the 70s were generally a lot higher than they are nowadays, often around the nine million mark.

by **tony ingram** Wed Nov 11, 2015 7:32 am

Mbast1 wrote:
tony ingram wrote:You would not be thinking the same thoughts at the same time or have had the exact same experiences, so how could she be you?

Even if you were thinking the same thoughts and had the same experiences, you'd still not be the same person. I think.

On that, we agree.

by Lucy Ingram Wed Nov 11, 2015 4:39 pm

Well, the ganger and the original both say that we're Lucy, so there Razz

by Mbast1 Wed Nov 11, 2015 5:01 pm

tony ingram wrote: (and oddly and illogically somewhat hurt and betrayed)

And this was why I was so hesitant to respond. I don't mind disagreeing with anyone about anything, you simply aren't going to agree on everything, but I was actually afraid this was going to be the result. I had a similar reaction over BG with someone I worked with, but was hoping it wouldn't happen here.
You do have my sincerest apologies.

by Mbast1 Wed Nov 11, 2015 5:02 pm

Lucy McGough wrote:Well, the ganger and the original both say that we're Lucy, so there

Right, and I can see that. But only one of you would be the original. And even if you didn't know which you would be two different people. FAR less different than others, but you'd still not have the same body for starters.

by **tony ingram** Wed Nov 11, 2015 6:01 pm

Mbast1 wrote:
tony ingram wrote: (and oddly and illogically somewhat hurt and betrayed)

And this was why I was so hesitant to respond. I don't mind disagreeing with anyone about anything, you simply aren't going to agree on everything, but I was actually afraid this was going to be the result. I had a similar reaction over BG with someone I worked with, but was hoping it wouldn't happen here.
You do have my sincerest apologies.

It's fine. I realise I probably come across as scarily fanatical, but believe me, there are others more extreme. I think you possibly don't quite understand the level of emotional investment that middle aged fans of the classic series have. It's hard to explain. It's kind of a way of life.The return of Doctor Who to TV in 2005, after a decade and a half of new stories in other mediums aimed pretty much exclusively at fans actually came as a huge disappointment to me, because the populist, largely continuity free version RTD gave us was simply not the Doctor Who that I, and others, had waited sixteen years for. And that's a long time to wait, in order to feel let down.

One thing, also, that I forgot to mention earlier. You say the BBC are making a show which sells, not going back to producing one that won't, and that's a business decision, which makes it OK. But the BBC is not supposed to be making shows based on business decisions. They are not only not a commercial broadcaster, they are actually specifically prohibited from behaving like one. Besides, classic Who lasted for 26 years-they must have been doing something right!

by **tony ingram** Wed Nov 11, 2015 6:02 pm

Mbast1 wrote:
Lucy McGough wrote:Well, the ganger and the original both say that we're Lucy, so there

Right, and I can see that. But only one of you would be the original. And even if you didn't know which you would be two different people. FAR less different than others, but you'd still not have the same body for starters.

And you would have no way of knowing whether or not your thoughts still mirrored those of your duplicate.

by Lucy Ingram Wed Nov 11, 2015 6:05 pm

No no no... we would both have BEEN Lucy. NOW we would be two different people: Amy and Zoë, or Bethany and Yvaine, or Clara and Xena...

If it wasn't for RTD I'd never have gone on Gallifrey Base and we'd never have met, so there Razz

by Mbast1 Wed Nov 11, 2015 8:34 pm

tony ingram wrote: I realise I probably come across as scarily fanatical,

No, I've been involved in comics and Star Trek fandom for decades. You are NOTHING in terms of fanatical compared to some people. I used to go to every ST movie on opening day, and people would come dressed in uniforms. In public... Before nerds/geeks were "cool". And that was the least of it. I was once involved in a "discussion" of the new ST on the DC boards, and there was one fan who went off on everyone who liked it, and tried to say that if you didn't know the material some outfit was made of on a particular season of the original show, you had no say because you weren't a "true fan"...

tony ingram wrote:I think you possibly don't quite understand the level of emotional investment that middle aged fans of the classic series have.

I think I do, in that I've seen it online and in real life (as I said, one of my friends has been a lifelong DW fan). Again, that's why I hesitated.

tony ingram wrote:and that's a business decision, which makes it OK

I never said it was ok. I know it's not, but it IS how businesses operate.
I simply refuse to allow myself to get too heavily invested emotionally (which is hard, given that that's how fiction works) because I know companies simply don't care.
Crisis on Infinite Earths made me bitter for a long time, because the characters I'd grown up loving and buying were discarded because other people thought they were confusing. Well, after years of that (along with fans online ranting about how good it was the multiverse was gone, and how stupid old fans were, and...)
and seeing that DC would do it again when it wanted (Zero Hour) and other things would change to fit new buyers, I just stopped letting it become part of my identity the way some people do. Because if you build your identity on something over which you have no control you will be disappointed. Because businesses don't care. Even though they count on that caring from you to get you to buy they honestly don't care if they can get money elsewhere. IMO.

by Mbast1 Wed Nov 11, 2015 8:36 pm

Lucy McGough wrote:No no no... we would both have BEEN Lucy.

But you wouldn't have. Sure the clone (or ganger) would have your memories, but NOT the actual, lived experiences.
Given that this is science fiction you could posit a situation where you had someone split into two using a time duplicate or something similar, and THEN they would both be the same (Riker on ST:TNG, for instance) but a clone is not.

by Lucy Ingram Wed Nov 11, 2015 9:07 pm

Okay, I suppose you're right (she said, sulkily).

by Mbast1 Wed Nov 11, 2015 9:34 pm

Lucy McGough wrote:Okay, I suppose you're right (she said, sulkily).

Not necessarily. This IS fiction, so you can think what you like. Sure, the canon of some particular show/book/movie might contradict you, but others won't. You can go with what you like.
I, for instance, still believe that the Earth-2 Superman, Lois Lane-Kent, Alexander Luthor and Superboy-Prime who were in Infinite Crisis were somehow duplicated from the real ones, and THEY are still in Superhero heaven, untouched by modern hands.

by **tony ingram** Thu Nov 12, 2015 7:08 am

Mbast1 wrote:
tony ingram wrote:and that's a business decision, which makes it OK

I never said it was ok. I know it's not, but it IS how businesses operate.

But that was my point: the BBC is not a business, and not supposed to operate as one, so the commercial viability of any given property should not be a major consideration. It's aconsideration for BBC Worldwide, which is the Corporation's commercial arm, because that exists in order to make money from licensing and marketing BBC properties (although all its profits have to be ploughed back into the parent corporation) but BBC Worldwide and its various subsidiaries (like BBC America and UKTV in Australia) are not actually the BBC and should technically have no say in decisions about what does or doesn't get made. That would breach the BBC charter. Ultimately, the only consideration that matters is "does this show inform, educate and/or entertain the British public, and do they still want it", because that's supposed to be the BBC's sole purpose.

by Mbast1 Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:29 pm

tony ingram wrote:Ultimately, the only consideration that matters is "does this show inform, educate and/or entertain the British public, and do they still want it", because that's supposed to be the BBC's sole purpose.

Which is actually interesting, in that we have Public Broadcast stations here but they seem to be moving more commercial all the time.
But, how does the BBC know if "they still want it"? Ratings, from what I've seen. Which seems to put the same pressure on them as ratings do here, even if it's for different reasons. (Here it's about profit). So, same situation, in that as a corporate entity your investment is only meaningful to them as long as it serves them. Which is why I don't give "brand loyalty" to anyone. If I like something, I buy it, if I don't I won't. Anything more is letting them decide too much. And I know any fiction not fully creator owned can/will be changed. A lot. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it definitely means I don't invest too heavily in any one version of something.

by **tony ingram** Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:48 pm

Mbast1 wrote:
tony ingram wrote:Ultimately, the only consideration that matters is "does this show inform, educate and/or entertain the British public, and do they still want it", because that's supposed to be the BBC's sole purpose.

Which is actually interesting, in that we have Public Broadcast stations here but they seem to be moving more commercial all the time.
But, how does the BBC know if "they still want it"? Ratings, from what I've seen. Which seems to put the same pressure on them as ratings do here, even if it's for different reasons. (Here it's about profit). So, same situation, in that as a corporate entity your investment is only meaningful to them as long as it serves them. Which is why I don't give "brand loyalty" to anyone. If I like something, I buy it, if I don't I won't. Anything more is letting them decide too much. And I know any fiction not fully creator owned can/will be changed. A lot. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it definitely means I don't invest too heavily in any one version of something.

The difference is, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) your PBS stations are reliant on donations, giving them an additional incentive to provide the programming demanded by those actually funding them; the BBC is a state owned broadcaster funded by a tax, the TV licence fee (£145 per year), which has to be paid by any and every household in the country that owns equipment capable of receiving television transmissions, regardless of whether or not they watch any BBC channels. They are not answerable to anyone or anything except the Royal charter which they have to abide by, and the board of governors, the BBC Trust, and the Director General appointed by that Trust. And they aren't actually supposed to care about ratings. Their job is to provide something for everyone, including niche interests.

by Sponsored content

Rate this episode