Misquotes and Misunderstandings?

The recent news regarding Doctor Who are causing quite a fuss, mostly because there seem to be only a few people who know what is going on, but they are not too willing to share their news with us...

But before opening a new round of speculations about Doctor Who's future I just want to mention, that we should not believe everything out there, even if they claim to base their assumptions on reliable sources.
A textbook example for this is the latest BBC article dealing with this topic, however, the Whoniverse's very own Big Moff sees things a bit differently. His twitter statement reads:

"The scheduling of Dr Who has got NOTHING to with Sherlock. On the plus side THE BBC SPELLED MY NAME RIGHT!!!!"

So I don't know whom the BBC article does quote, but Steven Moffat seems to have different sources, and I have the feeling that he knows best what is going on ATM.

Another question fans are asking themselves is what has caused this fuss?
Yes, ratings could have been better this season, but I think the BBC knows better than butchering its cash-cow. Another option is that Moffat has a small problem with being in charge of Sherlock and Doctor Who at the same time. Or is it that Moffat wants to keep the current spring and autumn schedule for the forthcoming seasons, maybe not only for the sake of budget or ratings, but also because Doctor Who was originally meant to be aired in the cold months. Well, it would work for me. Or is it all of these points? Still, no matter how things will turn out to be, I'm willing to trust Moffat saying (or rather twittering):

"Dr Who: misquotes and misunderstandings. But I'm not being bounced into announcing the cool stuff before we're ready. Hush, and patience."

And somehow I rather take his word over the BBC's. So there is some 'cool stuff' on its way. We'll wait and see...

Demons Run...

... when a good Man goes to war.

Finales are special. And season mid finals are no exception. And there are two things all of them usually have in common: a, the Doctor loses someone in the end, and b, the plot is on the edge of being dull when watched as a single story and could be roughly summed up in less than 14o's twitter characters, well, almost: Demons run when a good man goes to war, but they are not fast enough. But, the afore mentioned good man and his allies still lose the main cause which they where fighting for, even though in the end this does not seem to matter that much. You see what I mean? Then again Moffat knows how to distract his audience form the main plot by what I like to refer to as the story's wrapping: We have Headless Monks, scenes which would have fitted into any Star Wars-ode and we find out about River's identity, for which we've been waiting for more than 2 season. However, let's not forget that there is just one part of that original question answered which the Doctor asked her in the Library. We are still waiting for the 'Who are you to me?'-bit.

And here we are, at the one of the many problems of the story: River Song's identity. There aren't many people who can't claim their brownies for something they predicted, said, wanted to say but thought it to be too obvious to say, or something along those lines. So, River is a Time Lord, well, Lady; she is Melody Pond; the Ponds are her parents. Did I forgot anything? To quote Dan Martin's not improvable words 'It feels as if every possible theory anyone has posited has turned out to be correct. That's either totally genius or horribly foolish.' This may be the reason for why watching it for the 2nd time does improve people's opinion on it: There are no expectations left.

The second problem about "A Good Man Goes to War" is the war bit. The Doctor simply does not go to war. Not after the Great Time War. Never again. He knows a war's side effects, and he doesn't want to be the one responsible for them. Yes, maybe he isn't counting on things going wrong (which they do), but my overall impression is still that Moffat should have considered the past Doctors' personalities a bit more when coming up with the plot. Yes, it's made clear that he hates doing it. But considering the Doctor's remarkable history on sorting unpleasant stuff out without using violence but his wits (and many, many words), I have the feeling that there should have been another solution. I mean, that's the most attractive thing about 'Who': it's not those with the biggest weapons who win a war, but those making the best use of their brains. Which is usually the Doctor. So, I'm simply not buying this stuff. It's not real 'Who', it's one which could maybe work in a parallel universe, but not in this one.

Still, as already mentioned, thanks to the Big Moff we are only too willing to ignore these disturbing aspects, for the story's wrapping is more than just breath-taking at certain points, not to mention the cracking dialogues. And the cherry on this cake is that although 'A Good Man Goes to War' will be famous as the episode in which River Song's identity was revealed, it also gives us a few hints at the Doctor's past. Because the man who can turn an army around at the mention of his name is right, 'Good men don't need rules'. And maybe one day if we are lucky, we'll indeed learn while he has so many. But before that, let's try and make the best of the upcoming involuntary summer-break.

Alex Kingston and Moffat's Anti-Teaser Policy...

... may or may not be in conflict. Just make up your own mind.

Today this blog has a premier, for as far as I know I've never posted an interview with Alex Kingston before. So this is an 'London Evening Standard' interview with the woman playing the Doctor's love-interest.

Somehow, she manages to drag that wild sweetness she seems to occupy on screen to that questioning, when talking about her family situation, her age 'troubles' and her wish of playing Shakespeare's Cleopatra. Although, strictly speaking she already did that, well it was not exactly Shakespeare's, rather Moffat's, but after all, the name was identical.

Of course she also mentions a few things Doctor Who, and mostly nice ones... Then again, most of us may not care too much about it being "the closest thing to theatre" on television. However, something we do care about is her way of 'explaining' the obvious age difference between her and Matt Smith, and the fact that they are still playing some sort of a ... couple, which is not the precise word, I know. She says, and this is a (longish) quote

'It plays with the notion of an older woman being in love with a younger man, who in his own funny, confused way loves her but doesn't quite know why, because it's a love in his future, in a different body. I'm not sure you'd get that kind of dynamic in America. At first I thought, my goodness, children aren't really going to understand or respond to River Song because of the age difference. But it seems they don't notice that.'

And in fact, they are not noticing it, because while Matt Smith may be younger than Mrs. Kingston, the character he is playing is not. And this is all the explanation fans and children need to cope with it. Sometimes I think it's remarkable how much adults forget what kind of explanations they were willing to believe when they were kids. As I already mentioned in an older post, Doctor Who makes much more sense when you forget about having grown up and try to watch it with the eyes of the child you are somewhere deep inside. Anyway, this is not what I planned to write about...

So, back to the quote. There is also something else pretty remarkable about it. Namely, I'm not sure whether she was supposed to give us a teaser regarding something we've been wondering about since the very first time she appeared on our screens, or not, even though latter one is much more likely; thus, the question of 'just who is her Doctor?' And when saying that 'it's a love in his [the Doctor's] future, in a different body' we kind of get the answer... Season 6 and 7 are according to this not the last ones she seems to be in. At least if looking at the canonical side of it. Knowing Moffat's love-hate relationship he has with spoilers, our Big Moff is maybe not amused by her spilling the beans, or should I say jelly-babies...