Vignettes from an Alien Invasion

Hello, dear listener, and welcome back to Flight for Entirety, the only Doctor Who podcast that was even here to welcome the First Man on the Moon. Or I was anyway. I'm Nathan. I'm Brendan. I'm James. And I'm Simon. Well, the monks are here for their 3rd episode in a row, and this week it's with their customary blend of hardcore exposition and theocratic fascism. We'll see how that works out as we discuss the lie of the land. So, I'm even more convinced by this episode that the monks are scary religious leaders. It's not an accident that they're called the monks, and it's not an accident that they first appear in an episode with the Catholic Church. We have Bill wearing a skirt at the beginning of this episode. Am I right? Did you notice that? I just saw all the 1984 style overall. Yes, yeah. Certainly the dark colours thing, like the muted colours thing. There are often religious restrictions about what kind of clothing you're allowed to wear and Christianity even has some stuff in the New Testament about not wearing flashy clothing or baubles or anything like that, not decorating yourself too much, and you think about things like, you know, the Amish and so on. And so what we have is a group of people who've arrived on earth in the middle of a catastrophe in which you're all going to be destroyed and they decide if you love and obey them. They are going to save you and look after you for the rest of time. And they do that by telling various lies about history and the way things actually happen in the past. And so it does seem very, very much like Moffatt has still not finished with his stuff about the Anglican Marines. And this is another version of that. It's another kind of thing about religion. Yes, though, I mean, the concept of the monks was actually devised by Harness for the middle episode and that it was expanded into a trilogy. Expanded in both directions. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So like he came up with the concept for what became Pyramid at the end of the world. I think it was originally called Alien Invasion number 122. Right. Not pyramid and made up a stand. And then Moffat went, oh, this is a good idea. Let's expand the concept and I think it works really well as a trilogy. Yeah I do too. I think it works. I think it's fine. Look, I had a bit of a todd experience here. I enjoyed it more than I did when it was 1st on and I haven't seen them since. I don't think they're brilliant. I think they're fine. They're interesting, they're cool. They've got some good bits. The monks are well realised. They're a bit gross, you know, it's not to like. what you want. That's what you want. what you want. And it's got a certain I can't remember when did the television series of Handmaid's Tales start because even though there's none of the handmade type bit in it, there is something about, as you were saying, like with the colours and everything being drab and sort of depressing, which is reminiscent of that series as well. Yeah, I think it's, you know, putting that kind of theocracy into the modern day world. So having people like us, but they're living under this sort of terrifying theocracy. And I think that the Handmaid's Tale obviously does that, and this does that as well. Handmaid's Tale premieres in April 2017. Okay. Before, I mean, just slightly before. Yeah, literally, literally, the production couple of months. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Production wise, it had started about a year before that. Yeah. I mean, it's in the air and Doctor Who has always slightly done that. Russell is sort of fairly suspicious of religion, but doesn't make a big thing of it. No, but I think in any science fiction fantasy type program. Religion's not going to sit well because as soon as you have races from all over the universe and all over time, the idea of a deity starts to become a bit inconsistent with all that. And I think that I think that religion can only ever be seen as a bit old-fashioned or silly or made up, basically. Yeah, I think the best treatment of any Doctor Who is in the rebus operation where, you know, you have Binro, the heretic and the doctor saying, no, you're kind of free thinking is all correct, and there are no gods, no eyes gods, no fire gods, in an episode that introduces the black and white guardians. That's true. Yes, yes, yes, yes. So it's always sort of a fun thing to do. But as far as the politics of religion are concerned. You know, Moffat, I think, is much more interested in that. Well, the politics of the religion. Yeah, yeah, certainly. I think one thing that Doctor Who does do in terms of religion is that it almost universally comes down on the side of faith, whether that be religious or something else. like even going back to Hartnell. Hartnell's doctor often talks about how he dreams the universe can be, and you know, our destiny is in the stars. And Binro is presented as having faith in science. And even Leila talks about, you know, science, science and rationality, having faith in it over religion. And here, the characters are attempting to have faith in what they know to be true compared to what they've been told is the truth. And especially under Moffat, as you say, Nathan. I think that's why the stories that deal with religion never come across as sort of attacking religion with a big stick, but it's more saying, let's talk about religion and let's talk about what appeals to humans with it, let's talk about how it can be used beneficially, and how it can be misused. And I just think that's a really interesting way to do it that provides a great backdrop to this and arguably extremists a couple of weeks ago as well. Yes, it's that it's better to believe in science, says Lena. But it's interesting, though, that religion, as there are sort of 2 ways one can sort of view religion and one is to be actually religious and sort of actually believe it all. The other is religion is culture. Religion is cultural backdrop, and I think that's where I actually think that's where religion can actually be most beneficial. It's the kind of the cultural trimmings that help add to the flavour of particular nations and particular societies. And I think that's what you do see in Doctor Who throughout the time is religion as a cultural phenomenon rather than an actual belief system per se. It's like that, yes, prime minister thing about, you know, we have to divide the bishops between those who believe in God and those who don't. You know, it's the bells and smells. And I think I think it's that thing that we all always witnesses when people do take the religion too seriously. That's when things go horribly wrong, whether it's in the United States or, you know, Iran or wherever. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And certainly that's what we have here, isn't it? We have a very definite theocracy. We have statues on every corner. We have people in robes. who say that they care for us who want to be loved. And of course, we have that opening sequence where we have that film, which is beautifully narrated. showing us how the monks have been there all throughout our history and we into cars. Yeah, we intercut with the memory police coming to that house and taking the mother away. But it's brilliant how the mother says, no, they've actually haven't been here for, they've only been here for a few months. Yeah, yeah. And I think that that's great. It's obviously, so some people are, the conditioning process doesn't always work. And I think it's really good because we don't quite know because I think we're blindsided at the end of the last episode. I don't think we expect the monks to win. At the end of Pyramid at the end of the world, the doctor really kind of defeats them, doesn't he? You know, he prevents their catastrophe from happening, and then it's just Bill suddenly at the last minute, prolongs it and turns it into a trilogy sort of unexpectedly in a way that we didn't expect. And so when we come back and we see this film, we don't quite know what the status quo is going to be or how far forward in time we've jumped or anything. And so having something that seems obviously weird and wrong in the film and then having us see someone who is in the fiction of the show denying it, I think actually works really well. I think the big problem with this episode is that it is absolutely full of exposition and starting it with a film explaining the story. so far. Like I think that that works, but it does become a feature of the episode in a way that I think makes it a little bit irritating. There's a much more interesting story there if the story was just this story. was just the lie of the land. And, you know, the doctor and maybe the doctor and Bill arrive back to earth having been somewhere and the monks are here. always been here. Everything's changed and we kind of then find out how it's all happened and it was told that way. This is a trilogy. This is not a three-part story. It is a trilogy. It is an episode followed by an episode followed by an episode which obviously they do all interrelate, but there is a gap of time between each one. They're in different settings, really. They're in different, completely different time spaces. Like there's months between the 2nd and 3rd one, for instance, I would have loved to have seen that more traditionally told version. Yeah, although. I have to say, and I think we said this last week as well, that this does serialisation pretty well. So you get the 3 parts, 3 little vignettes from an alien invasion so they're being the preparation. They arrival and then the final defeat. So like the Android invasion. Well, yes, yeah, exactly. Like episodes one to 3 of the Android Invasion. I said last week. Yeah, right, okay. The monks are borrowing from the kraal. Yes, exactly. taking the concept a little further. He also does that thing that Moffatt often does with multipart stories where the pickup from the week before. is a complete shift. Yes, it's a shift. Which is the right move, I think. You wouldn't want it just to be one continuous... It wouldn't work so well as an omnibus. No. Yeah, although that's not what you said. Oh, no, no, actually. Did I say that it should be an omnibus or did I say? No, no, you said you watched it as an omnibus. I watched it as an omnibus and watching it back to back. It helped together much more consistently. Okay, interesting. The point I was trying to make last week was as a trilogy. It holds together better watched in close proximity. Interesting. Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, week by week it works quite well. And I do think that not knowing going in how many episodes it is works very well too, for the surprise ending of the pyramid at the end of the world. What's missing for me to make it work properly is anything approaching an epic is to have a couple of characters that run through most of it. You've just got the regulars. And the monks, but the monks aren't characters. Well, in fact, that's a problem here. What we have is the woman, you know, the mother in that scene, the woman from the memory police, Richard, who's really hot on board the ship. On board the ship. And the papers. Yeah, and then another guy... Oh, Alan. Alan. And that's really all this doesn't have a big guest cast. And so it does feel like. You could fit all of their dialogue on one A for page. for the entire thing. That's okay because the rest of the dialogue is Capaldi. Exactly. I have 3 words on that topic. Where is Erica? Yes. Was she the woman in the 2nd episode? Yes, the scientist. Yes, yes. She fabulous. Yes, she was... Go pick her up. What are you doing after a week? Apparently being put under the fascist jackboot without the doctor. Okay. I had forgotten about that for the rest of time. What we have after that scene is we have the framing device, or not quite a framing device, but a kind of thematic thing, where Bill is talking to her mother. And so we have the scene of her in the flat and she makes the mother a cup of coffee and then she sits opposite her and then we see her and she's giving exposition. She's kind of filling her mother in on what's happened in the last 6 months. And I think all of that's fine. And then Nardal arrives, but she keeps doing it for the rest of the episode in a way that feels like they're not confident that they can tell the story because she's no, yeah, they're worried that it didn't quite make sense. It doesn't land. So she's not talking to her mother about how she feels or anything like that. She's talking to her mother about what the plot things are. Yes, exactly. Right, right. And mother should be saying, I mean, I know a mother is imaginary at this point, but like, you know, it's like her mother should be saying, yes, yes, I know all this, dear. I've been living through it as well Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah exactly. As you know, blah, blah, blah, blah. Yeah, yeah. And and so all of the stuff about, you know, we've got this guy and his kid has been sentenced to hard labour and he's letting us on the boat and then we're going to go on the boat and then we're going to give our papers and all of that sort of thing, is all laboriously explained for us, even though we're watching it happen on television in front of us. And I think that that's a weakness, that that's something that should have been attended to. And they just about get away with it because, you know, we start with the mother, the resolution involves the mother, we need to be reminded of her perhaps all the way through, but I just think it's a problem. Possibly too. Remind me, was there narration towards the end as well? It keeps going. It keeps going. Well, no, I was wondering whether then maybe the narration's added in the middle section. Maybe it's because they were worried it wasn't going to make any sense, but maybe they were also worried that it'd be a bit weird to have narration here and then a gap and then no narration because if you if you fall out of the habit of listening to hearing the narration. It's a shock when it comes back. Oh, my God, that's right. were having this. I wonder from what you were saying, James and Brendan before about the fact that, you know, the monks are in the original middle episode and then it's they kind of expanded to create this trilogy. I wonder whether the grafting together of this just needed another couple of drafts to get it sorted. completely. I mean, it's fine, but it could be better, as you're saying. So, yeah, so we touched on this last week. This is at the time when Stephen Moffatt's mother is dying in hospital. And so he was often redrafting and rewriting episodes by her bedside. Yeah, and I mean, Widhouse is not bad, and he has written some good episodes, and certainly things like Vampires of Venice and stuff like that. Like he can do a thing. And he has run his own show at this point being human. So, you know, he's an accomplished writer, but I do think he is perhaps more limited than Moffat or Harness. So he is relying, I think, too heavily on the voiceover. And I always think the voiceover is the thing that you cut in the next draft, you know, like it's a very rightly thing and it's just like, this is TV. You could just show us this stuff. Yeah, they have voiceovers can be critiqued as lazy writing. By some. I don't necessarily agree with that because I think there are occasions where they work, but I think they just need to be done properly. And I think here it wreaks of how we're going to make this make sense. We'll just put in a voiceover. Yeah, I think that that's the problem because I think that you could be confident that from that opening, which is itself very exposition-y and is very the story so far, here's what's happened over the last 6 months. I think we'd get it. Like, I don't think we need a lot more explanation. And so I'm not sure what's added by the voiceover. There's a reluctance, I think, in genre fiction, sometimes to just trust your audience to make sense of things. And there are some members of the audience who get cross if it's not all spelled out for them. And I think that that's a problem here. I think the trick is there's a happy medium point, median point there. And that is, it's okay if not everyone's understanding what's going on, but those people have to be enjoying it on a different level because there's stuff happening. Oh, this is exciting or they really like that actual, that's a cool location. a fantastic effect. And so they're enjoying it anyway. It's like, oh, I'm quite, no, it's going on, but isn't it great? Yeah, not as pretty and there's a lot happening. Exactly. something like that. Before we move off the arriving on the ship. Was anyone having goodies vibes that the doctor was broadcasting from his pirate radio show outside the fire, outside the 5 mile limit? And now, a walk... Up to the mid of town... A walk, black, black forest. My favourite bit of those seasons is when they're coming back on the ship. Like full speed smashing into the wharf. And Capaldi is there at the at the prowl. Just laughing his head off with joy that he's, you know, he's coming back and he's going to defeat the earlier. It makes up for that smile, that horrific smile that leading into the opening credits at the end of the film where he... It's so cool. It's so good. Isn't there like Clara tells him... no, no, no, not the smile. I'll tell you when you can smile. Yeah, there's some line about how kind of horrifying Capaldi's smart. And we've seen a lot more genuine smiles from Capaldi since Bill came along, which, you know, of course, but that creepy smile at going into the credits is pretty wonderful. So the episode is also very straightforward. Like I just don't think it needs all of that scaffolding because it's basically, we've had 6 months. Nadol finds Bill. They have a plan, they go off to find the doctor on the boat, they meet the doctor, they join with him, and then they all go into the pyramid, and they defeat the monks. I mean, it is very, very linear and very straightforward and much less complicated than either of the 2 previous stories. I'm just not quite sure why we can't be trusted to work out what's going on for ourselves. I sort of missed in this whole trilogy, what's in it for the monks? What are they getting out of controlling the oath? is it just, is it just the power? Is it just the control? I think there's something missing there? to explain why they do what they do. You know, is it because they get some sort of sustenance from the worship? Yeah, that's missing. I mean, they're not mining the core of the planet or anything. So, you know, it needs to be, yeah, the adulation or the adoration is obviously feeding them somehow, but I think that's a concept that might have been lost. That is kind of interesting, isn't it? Like watching it this time through, they speak more often than I remember them speaking. So we do hear from them, but we don't hear from them very often. Like, maybe that's okay. Like maybe, maybe not having them talk about their plans for victory and stuff. We've had plenty of back. We can go back and watch... No, no, but no, but you don't need the monks to say that you just need that moment as they're, you know, running through corridors. You have, you know, but why are the monks even here, says Bill. He says, it's because they're feeding on blah, blah, blah. You know, it says they need us for such and this. And it only needs to be like 15 seconds. Yeah. Or Nardol says it or something, you know. Yeah, I think there's a point to me, mate, that there's a line towards the end of the episode and they actually make it more prominent in editing. Originally they were, like when they go to invade the pyramid to defeat the monks, they were monks on guard who were going to be snipered by, I want to say Richard. No, or Alan. One of the one with the hot one. And they filmed that shot. And then they cut it in editing and included some dialogue from Nardol saying, you know, the whole the whole bit where... The Tavarian neck pinch bit. Well, no, no, we're not all looks at the pyramid and there's some sort of perception filter that makes him see... See, there's lots and guarded. And then the doctor's like, no, no, look again. And then there's there's no months because they are tricking us even to that point that there are many fewer months. Yeah, yeah, yeah. on the planet. The invasion force was quite small. But it is actually a great meta reference to Doctor Who generally you know, isn't the place a bit large for just 6 of you. You know, yeah, yeah. It's that thing of like there's only ever 4 costumes. And there's that, that these, this is a like a dying race or a race that there aren't that many of them. And so the reason why they have to use all this subterfusion deception and mind control is because there's only 12 of them on the planet. Maybe that's missed a bit. Like, why couldn't they explain that a bit better? But, yeah, like you have a throwaway line that, oh, there aren't that many of them. This is why they're doing this. And then it's basically over. I mean, I kind of think that it's okay to leave the space open for us to have that conversation, though. I think, like, I think there is something undercooked about the monks generally, and I think in some respects, I think it's because they fail to properly commit to the idea that they're just weird maniac religious leaders and who knows why they do what they do. But it is a problem. And because we hear from them so infrequently, we don't get much sense of them. They're certainly not the silence or the weeping angels, aren't they? And that seems to be the kind of what we're going for with them. So, many years ago, in the year of broadcast, in fact, I wrote 3 essays for each of these 3 episodes for the fanzine celestial toy room. And I was reading over my live, the land entry, because this is the one I was the most critical of at the time. And what I've written about the monks' motivations is the monks influence the world using telepathic suggestion. How many Doctor Who villains have used this type of method? Well, there's the master, Rassalon, the master, every 2nd monster of the Hinchcliffe era, the master, the Sicorax, the Daleks, the Silence, and, in case you've forgotten, the master. So I kind of come away going, not only do we not know what they really want, their methods are just something we've seen time and time again before. And it's like, why even have this dystopian 1984 world that you know is going to lead to resistance because you've conquered so many planets? Why not go? I'm going to give everyone flying cars and a puppy. It's like, what I love about the point that you've just made there is that integral to this plot is that the master tells them how to defeat how to defeat the aliens. We'll get onto the master in a second, but I do want to say that I think that the idea that they're creating an alternative history where they're responsible for all of human progress, where they've shepherded us and all of that sort of thing, like is a feature of religion to this day. Do you know what I mean? Like, there's a way of looking at human progress where essentially it's been telling religious people to just shut up for a minute while we get on with making our lives better. But the alternative narrative, which is that, you know, religion is the source of kind of every human virtue and that it's a result of religion that we are able to live such full, rich and happy lives now. And I do think that those competing versions of history are kind of a unique feature of the monks, I think. Like that's why they're controlling us in order to sell that version of history. The actual inspiration for this story was the 2016 presidential election and all of the banging. Fake New Central. Yes, fake essential. clearly a clear reference over the top. This is a reaction against that. It's documented in DWM and maybe in the complete history as well reacted to all of the... Brennan's just holding up his copy of the complete history volume... 88? And grinning like Peter Capaldi on a ship about to crash into a wharf and kill those 2 blokes because they can't run that fast. And, you know, I think the sort of clumsy sort of statement at the end does that a disservice. Like there's something to say there about denial of reality and denial of facts. So it would have been better if we didn't focus a little more on that, rather. Yeah. And we touched on this last week. Originally, those 3 military leaders were supposed to be the actual leaders of the country. And one of them was a Trump analogue, but for BBC, poo-pooh, that idea, because it was probably a little too political. Yeah, yeah. So I think perhaps we've talked about the weaknesses of the episode, but I do think that there is a scene which is actively unpleasant to watch, which I think was a bad miscalculation, and that is the scene where the doctor and Bill finally meet on board the ship, and where he provokes her into shooting him, and even does a bit of a regeneration, just for the sake of last week's next Time trailer, something that she can't possibly have understood. Exactly. She doesn't know what a regeneration is at this point. Although Nardol seems to know. But I think, you know, part of the problem with doing this now is that the acting styles have changed so much. And so when the doctor destroys Ace's faith in him in Curse of Fenrig, not for a moment does Sophie Aldred's performance make you think that someone is really suffering a great deal of anguish. Maybe that's Sophie Altra. That's not kind. She speaks very highly of you. But now, you know, like part of the thing, I think part of the problem, for instance, in case of Andrazan is that the performance that Nicola gives is too realistic. So, you know, her reaction. There's one moment where Pete puts his hand on her to reassure her but she's so freaked out and so kind of physically invaded by Sharon's check, that she reacts in what is just kind of a little bit too realistic. Well, I mean, we'll have to agree to differ on whether that's a problem or not. But yes, I think it's a bad idea, probably for the companion to shoot the doctor, probably. But I don't know, that's maybe I have no moral centre because I don't really think that that is a huge issue. I just hated it. the drama, Nathan. Yes, the drama. But I just found it really actively unpleasant to watch. Like her distress over a long... Yeah, look, it's not the 1st time. It's not the 1st time in 60 years that the doctor has appeared to have changed sides. I mean, you use cursor Fenrik as an example there. A recent thing I was watching was the war games. You know, there are all sorts of instances where the doctor looked... Invasion of time. time, for example. And no one for a millisecond believes, no one believes that he's actually turned. And maybe it would have worked better if it had hung more on faith her faith in him, him having to break her faith to try and break any condition that she might have from the monks. You know what I mean? Like, because it just seems like he's being cruel to her, to try and provoke her, to shoot him. And if it had been more closer to what they did in cursor Fenrick. I mean, the dialogue says that he is trying to make sure that she isn't conditioned. that everyone's conditioned. He's got to make sure that she isn't conditioned. And like, like whatever. Do you know what I mean? Like, that's fine. But you could have made that decision. Like the scriptwriters could have made that decision a bit earlier. Like her shooting, the doctor is just absolute fake drama. Although extra points for David, who's forgotten to exchange his ammunition for blanks. But look, much as I don't like the end of series three, the universe where the world, the alternate world where Martha is, you know, spends 12 months going around and the whole place is terrible. I would have believed that more if the doctor had been a turncoat in that context. That would have built for me a situation where she could have shot the doctor in that environment. I'm not feeling enough dystopia to have created a situation where the companion kills a doctor, where it shoots the doctor. That's probably what I would observe. Exactly. Exactly. There you go. Thank you. It not earned enough. So conceptually, I don't have a problem with it. But I think it's like wow, where did that come from? It would have been better if, you know, we'd have had some other characters or something that was with her and they had been the one to shoot the doctor. Or if the whole previous episode had been this dystopian future maybe that was a cliffhanger into this final part. Whatever. I mean, again, that's my desire, goes back to my desire for it to be a genuine three-part as opposed to a trilogy. And I think we've agreed that those are 2 completely different. Things. Yeah, yeah. My big problem with this bit. I actually think that the doctor's speech about humanity needing guidance and having done a terrible job on its own, I believe that's really compelling. It's true to the character, especially because this is the doctor who has been thrust into being the president of earth against his will. And then every time he's made president of Earth and makes a decision, all the humans go, you can't do that. He's like, why did you ask me? Why did, you know? But for me, the whole problem is the shooting, it's the fact that the doctor planned for her to pull a gun and shoot him with the blanks. Yeah. It's the fact that instead of being angry with him, she's angry with Nadol for some reason. Like, it's not... how she nearly says a rude word. Yeah, yeah. Yeah absolutely. But I just find myself most of the way through that scene. I feel like it's kind of cribbing the end of Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory with Gene Wilder's rant about, you know, the children having stolen and Charlie is the worst of all because, you know, he wasn't even honest about what he did, da da. And I kind of feel this scene actually would have been better if Bill had then surrendered and just said, yeah, take me away, but I'm going to keep fighting you. And then that's the test that even without the doctor, she can stick up 1st off. Because here's the thing. shooting the doctor would not change anything. The monks aren't ruling more effectively because of the doctor because they haven't had the doctor on the 100s of other planets. It is, as you say, complete trailer fodder, and for years, it's actually totally blinded me to the good qualities of this episode. It's also truer to the character and to the way that the modern series conceptualises companions as being as travelling with a doctor and seeing the universe makes them better people, more rounded, more empathetic. Like that, I think, is a better solution, Brendan. She does say that if you're on their side, they will win. And that fits into the way the show works as well. I think that part of the problem is that once the situation is diffused, everyone laughs at her. Like she's suddenly surrounded by men laughing at her. And I think that that is pretty unpleasant as well. And she doesn't know how to react to that. And I think that's yucky. I just think the whole thing, like the tone of it is wrong, I think, for Doctor Who. And while it is the sort of thing we've seen before, Look at how distressed Sylvester McCoy is at Sophie's distress afterwards and how he apologises to her and explains why he had to do this thing which we don't get here at all. And I think that's kind of yucky. Because, like, Billy is so likeable. I mean, we're going to have this in a few weeks time where Beale undergoes something that's just horrifically terrible and it's the usual Moffat thing of just absolutely torturing the hell out of the companions, which we've talked about before, even as far back as the Hingecliff era. So yeah, like I do think that that is an unpleasant scene and it's a bit meretricious as well. Like you said, Brendan, it's trailer fodder. So, Missy is back, and it's been, what, 2 episodes? We didn't see her last week, did we? But we did see her the week before. We did. And of course, she is absolutely superb as ever. and one of the best things in the new series. don't know. She could read the telephone directory in a variety of comedy accents. Exactly, and I would be fine. What I love, though, is the sequence where basically she is being the doctor. Again, it's creating that comparison that they are the same race. They're friends for millennia practically. And the way that she's helping the doctor work it out in exactly the way that the doctor will do that with a companion. I just thought that was a beautiful scene. It's really, really good, isn't it? But then, and then her thing, you know, like, uh, she had defeated the monks before, which is exactly the sort of thing that you might expect the doctor to say. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And how did she deal with it last time? It's like, well, it was just a wee gown, all that. volcano, you know, like it's so fun. It's so wonderful. And having Bill confront Missy, I thought, was particularly good. I loved Bill's reaction. It's like you just have a woman in a vault. Like, have you got a ball? Which is really great. But then when it becomes clear that, you know, the way of getting rid of them is to kill or, you know, horribly injure Bill is pretty good, I think. It's kind of like data and law. In that they are both these. As you say, you know, we're not even talking about, you know, when I my plan to use the monks to do blah. No, it's when I defeated the monks. It's like Missy's been going about doing exactly what the doctor's doing, but just without some kind of moral compass, without sign of guide. She doesn't understand. There's that there's that bit of herd that's missing to understand the difference between good and evil. But fundamentally they're doing exactly the same sort of things. That's the wonderful thing about this conception of the character the master by Moffat is that she's not necessarily evil. She is differently morale. Exactly. She just, yeah, yeah. So much more interesting. Yeah, so much more. And Delgado has that a bit as well. Yes. So she says, I do go on adventures myself. It's not all about you. Yes, yes. I think she is evil and is learning not to be. Like, the thing that happened 2 weeks ago where she sort of decides that she wants to be good. I'll do anything, you know, like, and that's just her trying to talk away out of it. But I'm not sure that it is, and we'll get to the end of the episode where I think there's some very genuine, proper remorse at the end of the episode, which does lead into the way the season plays out. But she is still differently moraled, James, in the way that you say because she says, I'm good. But your version of good is sentimental and kind of unpleasant. The idea is that you won't sacrifice Bill for the sake of an entire planet. Yes. And, you know, we've said before, the doctor and Doctor Who generally as a program doesn't do utilitarianism, that's not its conception of right and wrong, but it's a conception of right or right. The trolly problem thing. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So you're saying Missy is a utilitarian doctor. Maybe. Maybe, but she doesn't really care. Maybe she doesn't care about either the planet or the single person. That's the difference. Except that we do see at the end of the episode that she does, that she is actually weeping because she killed so all of those people. It's just that thing. It like believing that the doctor has turned evil. Can you actually believe that the master has turned good? Even at the time and even now and the whole thing, I'll do anything, I'll be good. It's just her thinking this is my way to get out of this. I just have to put on a very long act. And I know that we're not, it is, and I think you would have to say it's a bit ambiguous as to whether she's genuinely changing before her past self comes back and effectively writes that error. Well, I mean, what happens is her past self comes back and there's a contrast between them. And then there is the moment in the finale. where she gets to do that. Virtue is only virtue and extremists. She gets to be virtuous without reward without witnesses. Yes. You know, so I, this, in retrospect, is her turning good, I think. But yes, you're right. We don't quite believe it. Well, I mean, I think I think that Michelle is certainly performing it. Yes, you know, with some level of honesty. I think that's the true tragedy of this season is that I think she at least is trying to be good. Okay. And then she is killed by her past self. who won't let that happen. Yeah, who won't let that happen. And I think that's the tragedy of she was going to help her friend. She finally decided to help her friend again at the end of the season and then she's killed. He never knows that she makes. Yes. Yes. I'm looking forward to coming back to those episodes again now. It's interesting to talk about, you know, whether we, as fans believe the master can turn good, when you have Michelle Gomez, who said in interviews that she has looked at bits of the performances of Roger Delgado and Anthony Ainley. But I don't think she's ever said, you know, I sat down and watched the sea devils kind of thing. The way the way that some of the doctor actors have, you know, so her view of the character is almost entirely her own. Yes, James. It's funny that you mentioned the sea devils, because there was actually a scene in this episode, which was cut where the doctor and Missy reminisce about their sword fight. But you always got a couple of those sequences in the classic series where the doctor and the master actually work together, like at the end of Legopolis, you know, the end of tear of the autons even, you know, where the master realises that he's done something terribly wrong and we need to fix it. And they do band together. But there's not that kind of, you know, proper introspection. Of course not. No, no, I'm not comparing it to that. I'm just noting the fact that the master is differently moraled. Yes. He just wants to, you know, have some fun. But it is the thing, which I always say that the master in the news series does, which is that because there are time lord, one of the things that a time lord can do is be the star of Doctor Who. Yes. And so Missy is there and she is always more fun than Capaldi. And in fact, perhaps more so than Tenant and Sim, who are both talky and obnoxious in the same way. Do you know what I mean? And, yeah, like, I think maybe maybe Dewan actually outshines Whittaker as well. But, you know, just it's just a joy. I'm so happy. And you know what? There was a particularly cruel line that was cut, but would still have been terribly funny, but I'm glad it was cut where when the doctor 1st walks into the vault, Missy's 1st sentence to him is hey, whatever happened to Clara? I'm so sorry. It cracks me up every time. I just read that and went, whoa. And I'm like, you know, that's a byproduct of Toby Withouse is writing his 1st draft, not having read anything that's come before in the season, not having read extremists because extremists was written after these 2 as a write-in to the other 2 episodes. So, you know, Toby Woodhouse had no way of knowing that the 1st time we see Missy this season, she apologises for river for river dying, you know, at its genuine and it's not a gag, you know. But even so it's Michelle Gomez and you would have just loved to hear her say that. I loved her the way she would fall. I just loved it. All right, so let's talk about the resolution. And Simon, is this our usual love conquers all resolution? I just, my note is that it just sort of ends very suddenly. I just feel like it's like, oh, these at the time, oh, that's the end. I don't, I don't, I kind of think actually, I mean, yes, I see what you're saying, but also, I kind of like that in that, you know, the monks are defeated through the power of love, of love but through the McGuffin, of, of the fake mum, um, and that not being a elder. Like, that's an interesting concept. But I just love how they're defeated and because there's only 12 of them, they're just sort of rocket their pyramid. Their pyramid off-squashed a slide slab of London. I only watched it again last night for this recording. And I can't actually entirely remember the conclusion. had that little impact on me. So it's very similar to silence in the library, uh, only not that great, which is where the doctor is knocked out and then Bill says no, I'm going to save you, you know, like, yeah, yeah. Yeah. And so she even ties the doctor up and then says goodbye and then goes to what she thinks is going to be her death or her brain death or whatever, which is what Missy said would solve the problem. And what happens is, how about this for an analogy? Her memory of her mother is fake, and it's the result of the photos that Capaldi gets for her in the pilot. And because it's a fake memory, it's not affected by the monks who are poising everyone's memory. Excellent. And so it's the recorder falling into the Tartar force field in the 3 doctors. That's an interesting analogy. I was going to use Clara falling into the doctor's time stream. I think that's excellent. And I think we found our next draft. And that's what I'm talking about. It's like, it's what I was kind of alluding to before, which is which is just the fact that like, it only takes a little bit more thought to have made it actually work better. In fact, you can see them really struggling because Capaldi has to give a long narration of what's going on during that scene. And he's explaining it at length and we're throwing literally everything at the wall and there's no real coherent explanation of what's going on. And it does seem to be kind of the opposite of word peril. It is just, here are some images. I'm going to talk you through until we're all convinced the episode's ending. Yeah, yeah. It's kind of the opposite. It's just as bad, but in a different way. There's no there's no there there. There's no like, why, it's that thing that I've sort of said often about the other areas of the show yet to come in this podcast. It makes me say, I don't care. I just, I don't care. Why am I caring? What's going on? And that's why I can't even remember the resolution clearly because it's like I wasn't emotionally involved. No. There is a fine line between exposition, though. Obviously, you don't want it to be expository and you don't want it to be just, here's a whole lot of images and his stuff happens and bang the end. But it doesn't do either of those things effectively. No, and I think I think part of the problem is, because exposition is over the next few seasons of the show, going to become an increasing problem. And it seems to me that you simplify the premise so that it doesn't need the exposition, I think. No, no, no. You just exposit better. Well, there's that. spotted in bits. You just show don't tell. There are ways that things can be written. It doesn't always work, but there are ways that things can be written, which does not require that kind of, we think about exposition when it's a negative, when it's like there's a character who is brought in to say, this is what's happened in the last 50 minutes or whatever. As you know, Bob, we were being doing this for that. That's bad exposition, but exposition is actually a natural part of any storytelling. Yes, exactly. But here, do you know what I mean? majority. You've got images. You can choose to make the images tell the story. Yes, exactly. Yeah. And here what happens is we get the images of the monks replaced by images of Bill's mother and, you know, the monks are hideous and ugly and Bill's mother is an attractive young smiling woman who, you know, Bill loves and there's some genuine love there as opposed to the love of the monks and stuff. And you've got Capaldi kind of droning on and on and on about what's happening. And I think that that is a bit of a weakness. I don't think it's love conquers all. I actually don't object to love conquers all because I don't, per se. Because we win not because we've got bigger guns, do you know what I mean? Or that sort of thing. I always like to win because we're smarter than that. Yeah, yeah. But sometimes I think we win because we love and they hate. And I think that's okay too. The original conception for the ending was that the monks would start overwriting Bill's mum. Right, okay. And that Bill's outrage and grief would then pour over the human race and the human race would adapt that as loss. Oh my god, what have we lost? Yeah, okay. And that would bring everyone to their senses. And on the one hand, it's kind of like, you know, that is arguably more human. On the other hand, how much exposition would that need? And hasn't Bill been through enough in the last 45 minutes? I kind of thought about this ending the 1st time I watched it, but I've softened on it is it's like, okay, it's another Moffat era companion who is the most important person in creation trademark. But Bill is not the most important person in creation at this point. Her mum is. And I think that, to me, is what sells it because this is a woman she never met, you know, she doesn't know what her mum sounds like or what she was like at parties or how cranky she was on a Sunday morning if she didn't have a sleep in. She doesn't know any of those things, which is what makes it an incorruptible memory. And, you know, that's something in cognitive behavioural therapy the idea of thinking of something unfetteredly positive in your past and using as a totem, as a touchstone, to believe in as an anchor point. I do think Capaldi having to do all that exposition is a huge problem. With the benefit of hindsight and using the finale of Star Trek discovery as a touch point. I think it would have been lovely if somewhere in the memory palace, if you like, Bill and her mum could have had a scene together and that's what explains it. You know, so Bill gets to explain it. I think you're quite right there, Brendan, in terms of that, that would have maybe achieved something that we're talking about. Yeah, yeah. There is some dialogue about the link last week, so it doesn't come from nowhere and she's not the most important person in creation. She's just the silly person who invited the monks to stay. You know, she made a mistake. And we think that that link is going to mean that, you know, she has to be killed, uh, but it gives her power over the monks and that's kind of a standard Doctor Who kind of thing. So, like, I guess that's kind of okay. But I do think that the exposition kind of wrecks it a bit, to be honest. Yeah, yeah. There is that final scene at the end with the statue that's been broken down and the reason that I mention it is because I just love how the doctor calls out to that woman and just says, hey appalling hair. Yes, what's that? Like, what's that, please, doing there? Which I just think is magnificent. Oh, no, no, they thought they were filming or something. It's like, you know, the Zygon gamut and the Loch Ness monster. It's great, but that's the version of the Doctor Who earth that I prefer is that, yes, the earth is getting invaded from time to time. And we all forget. We all just forget because we think it was a student prank. Well, here we've been fiddling with memory for 6 months. do not mean. So it just works perfectly, I think. Well, that's all the time we have. Wait. We'll be back next week for a quick trip to the Red Planet during the reign of Queen Victoria in Empress of Mars. In the meantime, you can find us wherever you get your podcasts and you can keep up with us on our website, flightthroughentirety com, where you'll find our social media links, as well as links to all of our other podcasts, including our other Doctor Who podcasts 500-year diary, and the 2nd grace and bountiful Human Empire. Until next time, relax, do as you're told, your future is taken care of. Thank you very much for listening and good night. Ta-ta. Bye for now. Good night. That was Flight through Entirety, starring Nathan Bottomley Brendan Jones, Simon Moore and James Selwood. Theme arrangement by Cameron Lamb. This episode, vignettes from an alien invasion, was recorded on the 8th of September 2024 and released on the 3rd of November. Taking the opportunity tonight to give a shout out to all our listeners in the U.S. Good luck on Tuesday, and for God's sake don't vote for the monks. How do you think? I think we're done. That was great. That was good. I think it was really good, actually. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Again, I think actually the mediocre episodes actually often that I found are the best... because there's so many things to talk about which are good about them, but which could be better. And because when I think the really good episodes are actually the ones that I find the hardest to talk about. Oh, that was great. great when they did that. That was really cool. I just kind of like the way that even in an episode that like, even in episodes that no one rates, we're able to say, you know, what's good about them. Maybe no one sets out to do a crappy episode and none of the episodes in this era are like war crimes or anything like that, you know. I got the name. I got the working title last week's episode wrong. contact. I thought it was, well, untitled alien invasion project. James, you're right. Both of those were working titles for that script. So you're fine. Mine's better. Are you surely not worried about us having a factual area? Definitively inaccurate. All right. I think that's, I think that's probably our tag. So you come in and correct the thing. Oh, there you go. Yes. Yeah, yeah. See? That's our tag. All right. Okay. Bye-bye. Okay, thank you, Brendan, that was really fun. And I think the new laptop, this new set of... It's more comfortable. think it works, yes. Yeah. Yeah, it seems to work, so I think we're okay. We'll do that again. Brilliant. Okay, Uru. All right. See you soon. Bye. Send me the same file. No, you hang up. No, you hang up. No, you hang up. He's still here. Oh, yeah. He hung up. still here. There we go. Now, last time I forgot to turn off. The recording? the recording.