Welcome to the Playpen, our space for ferrety banter and whimsical snippets of things that aren't quite long enough for articles (although they might be) but that caught your eye anyway.
I also disagree with the analogy to "The Doctor Dances" (one of the best episodes of New Who): there, the happy ending was narratively earned and not just a feel-good cheap shot. It reminded me more of the ending to the Richard Curtis episode, when Van Gogh was taken to the future to show him how popular his art became, which was a facile gesture and one of the worst moments of New Who.
I don't know what Moffat was thinking when he rolled back so much of what Davies had established ... and honestly, I don't much care, as I am just so completely on board with this change of direction.
First, because it gave the Doctor an accomplishment that feels real and palpable. In most of this big, blow-out ending specials, he's saving either the Earth, the universe, or (more lately) himself - and each case, big deal, he does all three every other week; and if he even once failed at any of them, there'd be no more show, so when he succeeds, it doesn't feel like that big of deal. On the other hand,
Additionally, I see the whole
Plus, I feel like there are so many interesting stories the new show could tell involving
So, regardless of what Moffat thought he was doing, I think there are several good reasons to handle things the way that he did which don't necessarily involve spiting Davies.
All that aside, I was really impressed by the tone Moffat struck: he appears to have made the choice that this was going to be a fun adventure with multiple Doctors and even though the premise of the episode is a pretty grim one (and that aspect is handled respectfully, as best I can see), he only injected some barely detectable traces of his patented melodrama. It's an impressive accomplishment, and all the more so, I would say, considering it's coming from Moffat of all people.
Speaking as someone who ate a moose heart on his birthday
...Not to derail or anything, but how was it?
Speaking as someone who ate a moose heart on his birthday, the Christmas Tinner looks absolutely revolting.
Don't know about anyone else, but I find it interesting how Bioshock 2 and Infinite seem to mirror one another. The major story arc of both games is about a father (the player) trying to recover his daughter from a malevolent "surrogate" parent. Both games also seem very uncomfortable in their relationship to the original Bioshock, and both spend a lot of their time wrestling with the fact that they're sequels to a self-contained game. B2 literally makes this anxiety its subtext: every character in the game is either a self-interested looter trying to salvage something from the ruins of Rapture or a squatter trying to start up their own utopian project with Rapture's technology, neither of whom give a damn about Ryan's objectivism. By contrast, BI seems to be trying to turn the original game into a myth, a timeless story that is repeated in countless times and places. (And to be less charitable, there are parts in both games when you can see one story draft clunk up against another.)
After all that's done, it'll be time to play You Are Empty, the Bioshock series' weird older Russian half-brother, which has its own spin on things.
Well, it looks like
you're supposed tosome poor sucker is supposed to eat it throughout the day, with the scrambled eggs being for breakfast. I guess that means leaving the can open all day?
Possibly, but then how'd you heat it? Besides, it's presented like tinned foods like spaghetti or baked beans or soup where you're meant to empty it out of the tin before heating, so wouldn't it all become one continuous mass once you've cooked it?
For that matter, what's scrambled egg and bacon got to do with Christmas dinner?
Well, it looks like
I have so many questions, but I don't really want to know the answers to any of them. :(
Don't worry Arthur, Captain Picard is here to save Christmas.
Also what sort of fucking barbarian eats their mince pies and Christmas pudding at the same time as their turkey? For that matter, what's scrambled egg and bacon got to do with Christmas dinner? Where's the pigs in blankets? 0/10, CHRISTMAS IS RUINED.
It's almost as though Moffat was out to cancel a whole bunch of RTD's decisions about the series purely so he and Peter Capaldi could have a clean slate. Which is an impulse I can understand if you are the showrunner for a show with 50 years of continuity, with the most recent 8-9 years of continuity weighing particularly heavily on your shoulders, but it also feels kind of disrespectful.
I mean, it's possible that this is exactly where RTD intended to take the series, but given the entire Master plot arc that's highly doubtful - not least because I'm 99% convinced that if this was RTD's plan, he'd have seen it out himself before he left as showrunner.
Firstly, the decline (or not) of British education.
Secondly, hard-wired differences (or not) between "male brains" and "female brains".
Plus, Who Said It: Steven Moffat or Fake Steven Moffat?
Particularly enjoyed this from Fake Steven Moffat on "Christopher Eccleston’s absence from the Doctor Who 50th anniversary special":
Sometimes, you just have to ask "why?" And "what?"
Basically it is about highlighting silly and/or awful things said by people on the Internet, usually with a hyperconservative fundamentalist/Biblical literalist spin. Think a Web 1.0 version of Shit Reddit Says. Used to have a nasty Smug Atheist streak but that's lessened now that they've started to occasionally throw in quotes from obnoxious atheists (though they could do more of that).