Doctor Who

Admittedly its been a few years since I've seen the episode but I can't remember the point of the divorce plotline. It appears at the beginning of the episode (actually, a few short before hand?) and then wraps up just as quickly. Why is it even there?

Draaaaaama.

Oh, man, yeah, I'd completely forgotten about the divorce plotline. That's probably the reason Asylum isn't highly thought of, now that I've reminded of that.

So I just realized that I don't remember when that New Years episode airs.

In fact, I'm not sure if it's New Years Eve (which is still is for me as of this writing) or New Years Day (36 minutes away as of this writing).

I'm gonna be annoyed if I miss the episode.

New Year's Day. If it aired on New Year's Eve, we'd all be talking about it right now.

I just thought of something. Since we didn't get a Christmas special last year/ for 2018, do you guys think we'll get one for this year or do you think with the exception of the 2019 New Years special this era will get rid of specials tied to specific dates?

its tough to be absolutely sure, but going off what we know already I'd say this will probably be the last episode we get before 2020.

I really enjoyed that.

So it seems in the end it wasn't aliens that killed UNIT. It was Brexit and Austerity.

So I just watched the season finale! Er, sorry to drag the discussion back to it just after the New Years special aired, I hope to watch it soon — I'd just been busy and missed Doctor Who as it aired. Unfortunately for you lot, while I didn't really have too much of a problem with the episode, it did pick at one of my pet peeves in fictions.

Now broadly speaking, for what it's worth, I don't really have a problem with the Doctor being unwilling to kill, or being anti-revenge, or our companions being similarly unable to pull a trigger or anything when push comes to shove. In fact, I think it's a very interesting element of Doctor Who, and the Doctor themself! I've always been fond of a Doctor who looks for other solutions if at all possible, and it's a trait I admire about the whole thing.

It's just weird that the non-lethal fate on offer here is 'yeah lol we're gonna put you into stasis for all eternity we're the best'. I thought for a moment when they mentioned what they did to Shaw the Doctor would be a little disappointed, but no, she is just really proud of them. And of course the antagonist's an obvious unrepentant bastard so the question of how to appropriately contain or punish him, death or no, especially without compromising our morals is an interesting argument to have. Can we just call the space police? I wonder if blowing up planets gets you a death penalty. (Actually I think something similar to that played part of the dilemma in 'Boom Town'?)

So I suppose if it was played as a bit dark and questionable I wouldn't really mind so much? And narratively it's ironic. But for my money I don't know how much functional and moral difference there is between putting someone in stasis forever and killing them. If he's at all conscious, as might be implied, that could be an even worse fate, cruel and perverse.

Sorry, I think it is one of my pet peeves — where murder is off the table, but apparently everything else is totally fine and goes on the book as mercy. I find it I suppose a crass approach to questions of mercy and kindness. Obviously if I missed a line where they said 'yeah we'll fetch him out and put him in prison later' I'll take all this back, but I don't think there was such a thing? They definitely taunt him that he'll be there forever.

Edited by Lavaeolus on Jan 1st 2019 at 9:56:10 AM

Mhm. Kind of reminded me of Arachnids in the UK, were apparently trapping the spiders in a tiny area and leaving them to starve to death was apparently a more humane solution than just shooting them.

Natural life imprisonment isn't much more humane than death, really. Most people who have been in person for a significantly long period of time would much rather die than go back for the rest of their days.

As far as Stenza stasis, previous discussions about it don't really mention if the person inside is conscious or not. 'On the cusp between life and death' is the phrase used.

The Doctor mentioned then that she found it obscene, but The Doctor has often been one willing to use other people's cruel methods against them.

She also mentions in the season finale that her rules change all the time, which is probably the biggest thing to take away.

Yes, that was another moment I felt uncomfortable about.

Now, of course, it's very obvious that the businessman guy is not acting out of mercy — he's fearful over the spiders, and he wants to feel powerful and doesn't really give a hoot about the spider's situation. When he shoots the bigger spider at the end, it is mainly out of cruelty.

But it's also true that the spiders being trapped and at best suffocated, while on its face less violent is also supported as a 'humane death' solely by the fact that the Doctor and spider-doctor have said 'oh yeah it's humane totes'.

If you are curious how I might rewrite it? The Doctor should have some distaste at the businessman's approach and suggestions. But trapping them there, for the almost-pacifistic Doctor this one has been, should probably be written more overtly to be sadder and a moral compromise. Yes, it is crueller — but, what, you're gonna go out there and shoot all the spiders?

I mean, isn't that kind of dumb? It's incredibly dangerous, you'll shoot a bunch but inevitably some spider will get the best of you, and it's possible Graham, Ryan, the Spider-Lady and even Yaz might not have handled a gun before.

Yeah, it's a little ambiguous exactly how the stasis works. But it's somewhat a matter of no answer really making it much better: 1) no consciousness, it's effectively death, 2) conscious, great, obvious Fate Worse than Death, 3) semi-conscious, the most likely answer and probably the best of the three, but still not great.

Like I said, if it was presented as darker and more questionable I'd probably be less concerned. But if it is obscene, if the Doctor is willing to bend like that, that's something we should maybe worry about, right? Fair enough to be flexible when it comes to grenades destroying doors, but it felt treated very much as a pat-on-your-back, 'you're the better man' thing.

Edited by Lavaeolus on Jan 1st 2019 at 10:20:41 AM

Like I said, its the sort of the thing the Doctor has done before, and no doubt will again.

I know, but I'm not really trying to just question the Doctor here. When the Doctor has done some similar things, I think it often has been treated as cause-for-concern. Like, there is an ambiguity in just the Doctor waltzing from place-to-place, interfering. It's been a big part of the new series that I find the Doctor veers between the idealistic hero and, due to the situations they find themselves in or due to personal failings, an Anti-Hero who's trying to be an ideal hero. And of course there's ambiguity there, the right answer isn't always clear, but here the show doesn't seem very aware that what the protagonists have done might have some questions to it.

I know maybe I'm coming off a little hard, and I don't need dark music to play whenever the Doctor performs a bit of trickery or turns the tables on the villains. But the episode ends with everyone walking off smiling how Graham and Ryan have avoided killing under a very technical definition, and if we're meant to walk away not unambiguously supporting the Doctor I feel I might have missed it?

Edited by Lavaeolus on Jan 1st 2019 at 10:42:02 AM

The audience was definitely meant to support how Tzim-Sha was dealt with, that's clear.

If you didn't, that's totally fine.

But I don't expect the show to spend any more time on it than they did on how The Doctor dealt with Solomon the Trader, or the Fisher King, or the Half-Face Man, or many, many others.

"The show" (as much as a collaborative effort between dozens of different people can be spoken about as if it were a single entity) is apparently fine with these inconsistencies.

Yeah, that's all true. Still, pet peeves gonna peeve.

Unit being killed by having their funding cut is quite a bitch. I'm shocked there's anyone short sighted enough to think they won't be invaded again.

There could be some Arbitrary Skepticism involved by the people involved in that decision.

Hence "arbitrary"

Edited by sgamer82 on Jan 1st 2019 at 7:23:30 AM

Surely there are records of previous invasions...well ok, stuff like the Battle of Canary Wharf The Christmas invasion and some other shit were erased by the time cracks from 11's first season, but there have been other incidents they could cite...aren't there?

Double post.

Since when do they have missiles?

Also, that Tank losing the quick draw competition is bullshit.

The idea that people are making terribly short-sighted decisions by undermining the funding of very important stuff in the British government was kind of the point of that sequence. It's probably the politically biting thing this show's said all season.

Edited by Gilphon on Jan 1st 2019 at 9:18:37 AM

Fair enough.

Edit: Just finished up.

Ryan's dad took to things pretty quickly considering how he jumped to help.

Maybe it runs in the family, considering how much his mother was enjoying her only adventure.

Edited by HandsomeRob on Jan 1st 2019 at 7:37:40 AM

Isn't Grace Ryan's grandmom? Like if Graham is his grandad through marriage that makes Grace his grandmom by default. Though that does bring up the question of what happened to him mom.

Edited by Chariot on Jan 1st 2019 at 9:48:44 AM

She died of a heart attack when Ryan was 13, if I recall right.