May 5, 2025 • 34 mins
Prepare for a journey into the darker corners of the Doctor Who universe as "Lucky Day" delivers one of the angriest and most politically charged episodes in the show's history. When Ruby Sunday agrees to appear on a popular conspiracy theory podcast, she unwittingly becomes the centerpiece of host Conrad Clarke's mission to "expose" UNIT as frauds who manufacture alien threats to justify their existence.
This Ruby-focused installment brilliantly examines the psychological aftermath of traveling with the Doctor. We witness a companion struggling with what can only be described as TARDIS-induced PTSD – constantly on edge, expecting monsters around every corner. The series finally acknowledges a question long overlooked: what happens to ordinary humans after they've fought "goblins and the gods of death"? Can anyone truly readjust to normal life after seeing what lies beyond our reality?
The episode masterfully flips contemporary conspiracy culture on its head. While real-world conspiracy theorists claim governments hide alien evidence, Conrad's mission in the Doctor Who universe is to "prove" aliens don't exist – a delicious irony that serves as pointed commentary on our post-truth era of echo chambers and disinformation. References to subscription news services and social media bubbles provide a thinly-veiled critique of how modern media can weaponize falsehoods.
Kate Lethbridge-Stewart steals scenes with her fierce protection of her father's legacy and UNIT's mission, even going to morally questionable lengths to defend the truth. Meanwhile, the circular time-travel narrative reveals how the Doctor's seemingly random search for "Belinda" in earlier episodes was actually triggered by events we're witnessing now – classic timey-wimey brilliance that rewards attentive viewers.
Subscribe now to join our weekly discussion of this fascinating season as it builds toward what promises to be an explosive finale. Share your theories about the mysterious coordinates and what awaits our heroes in 2025!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
Spotlights fade, the curtains rise, new stories
waiting behind our eyes,charlotte and John with the
final say, breaking down thescreens in their own way.
(00:35):
This is the Final Cut, wherethe real reviews ignite.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Hi and welcome to another episode of the Final Cut
To talk about the fourthepisode and it's called Lucky
Day and the episode starts.
We are back now in 2007, andthe doctor and Belinda is coming
down towards what looks like aNew Year's Eve celebration and
(01:03):
they encounter little boy Conradwho is eagerly telling his
mother what he has seen.
However, she doesn't seem to bethat impressed.
And then we are moving on laterwhere he has taken up
podcasting, which is good, andhe is eager to expose the myth
(01:24):
of the unit and particularly hewants to introduce Ruby Sunday,
to expose in that way the methodunit.
But it was an okay episode, butit was a sort of Dr Light
episode and with me today I haveprofessor Cook.
What was your experience of theepisode?
Speaker 1 (01:49):
Hi, well, hi everybody, and welcome to
another one of our Doctor whoreview podcasts.
Yes, well, I enjoyed theepisode, but I would say it's
one of the darkest and angriestepisodes of Doctor who ever.
And it is an episode, as you'vesaid, charlotte, that is Doctor
(02:09):
Light and that you really haveto concentrate on in terms of
the political messages that it'strying to make.
So it's an interesting episodeand it is really part of a run
of episodes that are quiteoutstanding, that are that are
designed, I think, to bememorable.
(02:29):
Now, remember that Doctor who,the new iteration of it, as
co-produced by Disney Plus, onlyhas eight episodes per season.
So I think what we're startingto see is the idea that each
episode must be kind of eventtelevision, that it must be very
memorable, it must hit home andhit hard in order for people to
(02:50):
remember it.
Of course, one of thecountervailing problems that
Doctor who faces is perhaps notenough people are tuning in to
these episodes.
This current episode gotovernight ratings of 1.5 million
, which is actually a new lowfor for Doctor who.
Now that will be boosted bystreaming ratings that will be
(03:12):
announced in a few weeks time,but generally the the viewership
is not really terribly high, sothe event television is kind of
losing its momentum, butclearly, in intention wise,
that's what what they're tryingto do is to make every episode
memorable and impactful and, andit certainly was memorable, and
(03:32):
, and I think that the firstepisode reminded me of a bit
about this previous episode, 77yard.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
However, it does talk a lot about conspiracy culture.
So what, what do you think theywere trying to say here about
conspiracy culture?
And and can you see the link tothe 77 yard that I was kind of
spotting.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
Yes, absolutely.
Um, there's two, two relatedpoints there.
What we're beginning to seewith the new RTD2 second run of
Russell T Davis as showrunnerwith this Disney Plus deal, is
there's a little bit of aformula creeping in, because the
(04:19):
fourth episode of the secondseason mirrors in many ways the
fourth episode of the firstseason.
It's a Ruby Sunday focusedepisode.
It has a strong politicalsubtext to it as well.
So in the 73 Yards episode fromseason one you had this idea
(04:39):
that the companion is separatedfrom the doctor and then has to
live out her life.
Companion is separated from thedoctor and then has to live out
her life and um, and in sodoing essentially is, is, views
and witnesses the rise offascism with a, a future fascist
prime minister.
Here we've got the idea ofconspiracy culture and
conspiracy theory culture.
(05:00):
Uh, same point in the season aspreviously a ruby focused
episode that that makes pointsabout political conspiracy and
in fact at one point um it talksabout, even uses the word
fascism, but in this case it'sactually about um.
It's a lovely irony actually.
Is that the real conspiracytheories think that the
(05:22):
government's hiding aliens Inthe Doctor who episode?
In this sort of flippedalternative fictional world.
It's a conspiracy theory, thatthe government is not hiding
aliens, that in fact it's alljust false.
So lovely.
I mean lots of contemporaryresonances about the echo
(05:44):
chamber of social media and thedisinformation sphere, even a
mention of subscription toAlbion News, which sounds as if
it's a very nationalistic newschannel, perhaps echoing the
right of center news channels wehave in the UK and also of in
america with the likes of fox.
(06:04):
So it's it's very much hittingcontemporary buttons, but doing
it in that alternative world ofof the doctor who, who knew this
, as they like to call it thesedays yeah, moving on a bit.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
Uh, so you talked a bit about this, what the people
experience after they encounterthe doctor.
So it's this idea of like whatkind of memories, what kind of
trauma sometimes I guess theytake these antidotes so they
don't remember anything.
Of course, as a psychologistI'm interested in this kind of
you know that that.
What kind of effect does havehave met, having met, being in
(06:40):
the tardies, have on one's son'slife?
How did you find that in theepisode?
Speaker 1 (06:48):
Yes, well, again, there is a history of that in
Doctor who, looking at whathappened to the companions after
they left the Doctor, goingright back actually to the days
of the fourth Doctor with SarahJane Smith, who had a little
spin-off show.
It wasn't terribly successful,but in 1981, she had a little
(07:09):
spin-off show examining heradventures post the Doctor and
in fact she returned in theDavid Tennant era of the
rebooted Doctor who in 2006 witha sort of reunion episode.
So we've had that kind ofbefore.
um, but what has not maybe beenexplored because you know,
doctor, who tends to be a fairlylight fiction, uh, historically
(07:34):
at least, they they've notreally explored this idea of
ptsd that actually being with adoctor is extremely bad for your
mental health because, asmentioned in this current
episode, if you've experiencedsort of monsters at every turn
goblins attacking you andfighting the gods of death then
you're inevitably going to be abit jumpy, and so in that sense
(07:58):
it's in a way giving a kind ofpsychological realism to a show
that's not really been versed inpsychological realism much in
the past.
So in that sense it's welcomeand it does show, you know,
albeit within the constraints ofa generic 45-minute episode, it
does show that Ruby Sunday hasbeen marked, to a certain extent
(08:21):
damaged, by her journeys withthe Doctor, although again
typically for Doctor who whatappears to be just her having
unnecessary jump scares.
In the pub episode where amonster appears, it actually
turns out to be the case thatthere is a monster outside,
albeit in another twist, itturns out that that monster has
(08:44):
actually been faked byconspiracy theorists.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Yeah, I mean I always thought maybe I don't really
want to go down there, butthinking of him, maybe what kind
of sort of pastoral care canthe doctor afford his companion?
Also, that of him as a bit ofI'm not saying a narcissist, but
he's kind of a bit sort of, hecan be a bit jumpy in his I
(09:08):
think particularly David Tennantin his characterization of the
doctor, is that he's he's not asthis emotionally intelligent in
a sense.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
Sometimes I feel to yes, well, that's picked up with
Shitii Gatwa, who also has thatkind of jumpy tendency and in
that sense, you know, theyounger iterations of the Doctor
, the younger incarnations, tendto be quite childlike in some
ways, and I think we'vementioned that before.
But the problem with that is itdoes tend to make it for a very
(09:41):
jittery atmosphere.
So it was a nice way in thisparticular episode of exploring
how that jitteriness wouldcommunicate itself eventually
onto the companion who mightstruggle to to reintegrate into
real life, quote unquote, if wecan call it that.
So, um, the episode was was anice one in that respect, albeit
it can only gesture at thesethings and in some ways it took
(10:05):
a lot of psychological shortcutsbecause you know you've only
got 45 minutes, the plot has toadvance on.
But it was a nice way ofshowing that, how a companion
has to cope with life after thedoctor.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Yeah, yeah, and I mean in a long time.
You can also think about maybea very intensive I don't know,
maybe after a very intensiverelationship or something like
that, the same kind of trauma orpsd behavior.
Maybe that is maybe reading toomuch into the script.
(10:40):
Another thing I was thinking ofwhat, what do you, what
commentary do think like theyoffer on the influence of
podcasting and media and thatsort of thing?
I mean particularly in terms ofshaping the truth.
I mean, having done podcastingfor a while, of course there's
something I'm kind of interestedin in terms of that you watch
(11:02):
maybe, what you sort of confirmyour views.
How do you find that?
Speaker 1 (11:10):
Yeah, the filter bubble of social media and
confirmation bias and all thatsort of thing.
Yeah, it's explicitly mentionedand referenced in the episode
itself the idea of thedisinformation echo chamber of
social media and contemporaryfragmented media where
essentially anyone can setthemselves up online to have a
(11:32):
presence.
We're kind of doing ourselvesactually in a meta way, albeit
hopefully we're not sort ofpromulgating conspiracy theories
.
So the episode that's very muchwhat the focus of the episode
is, and it is that idea which Ithink is done rather well in the
episode is that in so doing youcan perpetrate the exact
(11:56):
opposite of the truth and youcan get hundreds, if not
thousands, of people tosubscribe to that.
Almost at the flip of a coinpeople will believe the exact
opposite of what actually is thecase.
So in the premise of the show,in that episode, it's the idea
that UNIT is in fact justsucking up taxpayer pounds UK
(12:20):
pounds rather than taxpayerdollars and is actually just
putting out fake aliens toextort the populace.
Now it's interesting if we thinkabout when this episode was
written.
It's clear if you watch some ofthe background material that
the Doctor who produces, notleast the Doctor who Unleashed
(12:41):
behind the scenes show that'sshown, certainly in the UK,
every week that a new episode istransmitted.
It's clear that this episodecould not have been written any
later than late 2023, 2023,because it was shot in November
2023.
So what that means is that thiswas actually written and
(13:04):
conceived before Donald Trumpcame to office in the United
States.
But you can see that in theidea of online content being
harmful, that already thosediscourses circulating, at least
since the first term of DonaldTrump and in Britain as well,
with concerns about figures suchas Tommy Robinson and Andrew.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
Brexit.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Yeah, and I actually think, you know, although it's
disguised, I think the characterof Conrad Clarke is not
dissimilar to I think it's a digat Nigel Farage, actually and
the idea that you know someonecan upend the whole
(13:51):
establishment and the wholesystem.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
And to clarify that Nigel Farage, for a viewer, is a
leader of an ultra-right-wingparty in the UK.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
The Reform Party, which has actually done very
well recently in UK localcouncil elections.
But it's that idea that youknow one angry man, if you like,
can upend the whole status quoand, as Kate Lethbridge-Stewart,
head of units, says, you know,upend everything that she and
(14:24):
her father indeed worked for alltheir lives.
So you can see that as a sortof resonance with Brexit, the
idea that suddenly, you know, agroundswell of opinion allows a
whole settled constitutionalorder to be upended.
Interestingly, does this meanthat Doctor who in this
particular episode is more onthe side of the establishment
(14:47):
than the outsider?
Traditionally, doctor who'salways been a show about
outsiders.
The Doctor is the ultimateoutsider and the Doctor's always
had a problematic relationshipwith UNIT, which is in fact in
the fiction of the United.
Nations Task Force funded by theUN, but here the Doctor isn't
there, and so in that sense theshow kind of comes out in favour
(15:09):
of the establishment in thisparticular episode.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
So when we move on to Conrad Clark, how did you, what
did you make of Conrad Clark?
Is he a villain or a victim?
When he starts, when he's young, he appears more like a victim,
and I almost thought that healmost would be like a companion
if he was going to go on a tripwith the Doctor and Belinda.
But that is not what'shappening, and instead he's sort
(15:32):
of as Gwendolyn.
He's turning into more and morea villain.
How did you find his character?
Speaker 1 (15:39):
Well, his character is actually very lightly
sketched in the episode.
Again, it's only 45 minuteslong.
We don't have the backstory asto why he's become as evil as
he's become.
Um, the only sort of realpsychological motivation that is
put up is that that he failedan interview with unit and uh,
eight years earlier and istherefore working out his
(16:00):
frustrations and grudges.
So again, you could mayberelate that to certain populist
politicians who maybe couldn'tbe part of the mainstream and
who therefore try and take outtheir revenge.
Or employees, or employees, yeah, now to what extent he's a
(16:20):
victim?
I mean, I suppose you couldread the episode as saying well,
actually, a bit like Rubyherself, they're all victims of
the doctor.
It's as soon as they encounterthe doctor that their lives are
transformed, often for ill.
But on the other hand, thischaracter is shown to be a
little bit of a villain right atthe very start because in the
(16:44):
cold opening for the episode,the little boy is already shown
as being a liar.
So when he goes to his motherin the New Year celebrations in
2007 and says Mum, mum, I'vejust seen somebody called the
Doctor and Belinda, the mumgives him a slap and says Stop
being a liar, so in that sensehe's seen as a wrong-on all the
(17:06):
way through and okay.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
So he grew up then and becomes the sort of
podcaster trying to investigatethe truth, but in the end of the
episode the doctor chooses toconfront him.
Why do you think that was?
What part did that have in theepisode?
Why do you think he did that?
Why did he confront him?
Speaker 1 (17:32):
Yeah, I mean, for me perhaps the episode became a
little bit too, attacking onefigure again and again and again
.
In that sense that's why I saidearlier at the start, you know
it's quite an angry episodebecause that anger, the
characters articulate theiranger to this kind of conspiracy
(17:55):
theorist and then, lo andbehold, the Doctor reinforces it
when he materialises, histardis around Conrad and gives
him a good talking to.
So within the show it's theidea that the Doctor is angry
because his friend has beenbetrayed, ruby has been betrayed
(18:16):
by Conrad.
So that's the motivation for it.
But it starts to look a littlebit like reverse bullying.
You know, you had the scenariowith Kate Lethbridge-Stewart
allowing a monster to attackthis man simply because she
hates him so much, and it'smentioned in the script.
(18:37):
Well, maybe you went a bit toofar.
And then you have the doctorsort of reinforcing it and full
of contempt.
So in that sense it almostbecomes like a reverse form of
bullying.
But I guess the show wants tomake its points very bluntly and
very explicitly and the pointis that, you know, forget the
monsters of the week.
The real darkness and the realvillainy that has to be
(18:59):
confronted is in our fellowhuman beings.
So that's definitely a strandof it.
Yeah, because then, moving onto Aruba's reaction to Connor's
manipulation human beings, sothat's definitely a strand of it
.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
Yeah, because then we went on to this Rube's reaction
to Connor's manipulation andthat she is being exploited in a
way, and I feel as if manyepisodes are about women being
exploited or that type of.
They seem to be sort of runninga theme, but I don't know if
(19:29):
she's.
Do you think it's like alearning for her or is it like
you know, it's just that she'sso naive and maybe she hasn't
been in so many relationships soshe's so taken in by him, or
well, how did you find that?
Speaker 1 (19:42):
Well, within the episode, she's clearly damaged
goods because she's had thislife with the Doctor and
therefore she's quite vulnerableand therefore is able to be
taken in by this character,conrad, who of course also takes
in us, the audience.
I don't think, unless you hadread spoilers, I don't think any
of us spotted that this was theway things were going to turn.
(20:04):
Half the way through I actuallythought, on first viewing the
episode, that, well, conrad'sactually going to be an alien or
something and a monster.
But it wasn't.
The real monster was actuallyrooted in very human concerns
around disinformation.
So in that sense, ruby isgroomed, if you like, and the
(20:26):
audience, by extension, isgroomed by this figure.
You're right to say I mean itis picking up a strand that this
is very much Doctor who for theso-called quote-unquote woke
era, and so the only real humanvillains, it seems, that are
permissible nowadays are whitemales.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Yeah, I was a bit surprised over that because it's
coming in and a lot of it isthe same.
I mean, we have come back onthis as if to be a lot about
male aggression, male.
But then I thought maybe in theend there, when uh condor get
bullying and that turns, thewoman was turned into the
bullying, turns into the bull,the bully victims turn into the
(21:08):
bullying in the sense that maybethey're trying to say that
actually, uh, it's, it's a whitemale.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
It's going to be like it becomes the reverse, but I
don't know, um, yes, no, no I, Iwouldn't say I think that's our
kind of counter reading againstit, but no, I think it's the
idea that, um, uh, that that youknow, if we think about it in
representational terms, thewoman hit back against the white
(21:37):
male, that's Kate, lethbridge,stewart and Ruby herself, and
then the black character,obviously Shudy Gat were playing
.
The doctor responds to thewhite male.
So it's not a good time to be awhite male in Doctor.
Speaker 2 (21:51):
Who?
Yeah, but that's what I goodtime to be a white male in
Doctor who.
Yeah, that's what I wondered ifit was a specific thread that
you wanted there.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
I don't know.
It's to do with the fact thatthis is very much you know
Russell T Davis as second era ofshowrunner.
Very much you know in sympathywith woke movements.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
This is what's causing the backlash a little
bit among certain male fans.
I agree with that in the sensethat a lot of women are being
manipulated, and I think thereare new dramas about fake etc.
Talking about female malemanipulation, I was just
surprised that all of themseemed to go on a similar thread
, but maybe I was running intomore than was intended.
(22:38):
But I want to come back, though, to the real monster, which is
supposed to be the shriek.
What was your view of theshriek?
Speaker 1 (22:48):
Yeah well, you know, as I said, the real monster is
the human beings.
Yeah well, you know, as I said,the real monster is the human
beings.
And you know particularly thedemonology of traditional white
male culture.
So Conrad Clark very muchechoes the incel character in
episode one, who also slightlygroomed the Belinda character
(23:09):
when she was.
She was younger and then, uh,you know, we see his true colors
in that episode.
So, um.
So the shriek in that sense isis simply um, the you know, the
monster of the week.
Um, it was done quite well.
Um, what was quite interestingwas the way in which, um, the
special effects team then had todo a fake shriek yeah, I like
(23:34):
that.
Yeah, if you actually watch thebehind-the-scenes making of the
programme, you can see that theytook a bit of care on that.
They made the actual shriek asconvincing as they could and
then they sort of then asked anartist to remember what that was
and then to reconstruct arubber suit from memory.
(23:57):
So in that respect it wasdesigned to be what humans might
try to do to fake a realmonster, and that worked quite
effectively.
So the shriek is just, you know, just, your monster of the week
.
There is perhaps an element ofrepetition, maybe creeping in,
of kind of unseen monsters thatcreep up behind your back,
(24:18):
Because of course we had thatlast week with the well.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
Weird because there's different writers.
I mean, it's not the samewriter, are they?
Speaker 1 (24:25):
Different writers, same showrunner, however Russell
T Davis.
Yes, we should mention thatthis isn't a Russell T Davis
script.
In this week's episode it'swritten by Pete McTighe.
But Pete McTighe works veryclosely with Russell T Davis.
He's done a lot of work forDoctor who DVDs and indeed Tales
from the TARDIS, which was a60th anniversary series of
(24:48):
mini-sodes in bringing back oldcompanions, and in fact he's
co-writing with Russell T DavisBeneath the Land and the Sea,
which is a Doctor who spin-offwhich is going to be aired next
year.
Speaker 2 (25:05):
Can we just move on then to talk about Kate?
How did you find her leadershipand what was her role in the
whole story?
In some ways she's the leader,obviously, of the unit, but how
did you find her leadership andwhat was her role in the whole
story?
In some ways she's the leader,obviously, of the unit, but how
did you think her narrative, herepisode of ARC, whatever, went
through?
Speaker 1 (25:22):
Well, if this were the real world, I suspect she
would be sacked by now becauseshe allowed a monster loose in
unit headquarters to attack acivilian, albeit an armed
civilian and quite a nasty pieceof work.
So in real life she would besacked.
But in the fictional universeof Doctor who, this was Kate
(25:44):
showing her dark side, her meanside albeit there's a strong
moral justification.
And in some ways as well, theDoctor shows his darker, mean
side at the very end when hegives the Conrad Clark character
a good talking to in the TARDIS.
But in terms of Kate, this washer coming to the fore and
(26:05):
showing extremely strong,determined leadership.
The fact is that she goesagainst the advice of her
colleagues and allows themonster to be let loose in order
to teach this Conrad Clarkfigure a lesson.
It could be construed as a formof reverse bullying, of reverse
torture, but I think within thefiction you're supposed to
(26:28):
sympathise with Cade, largelybecause Conrad is such a nasty
piece of work and also becausehe attacks her father, the
eminent, famous brigadier,brigadier Lethbridge Stewart,
who was a key icon in Doctor whohistory in the classic era.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
How did you think the way they talk is talking
flashbacks.
How did you find that?
Did it enhance the story?
Was that a good technique?
I mean, I'm quite a big fan ofthe flashbacks.
I like when they go back intime.
But how did you find that?
Speaker 1 (27:03):
Well, of course, doctor who is the ultimate, you
know, to use the euphemism timeywimey show.
In this case, of course, youknow, the series arc is that
Belinda and the doctor aretrying to get back to may, the
24th 2025, and they can't.
So they use this thing called avindicator I think it's called
where they try and um,coordinate their, you know, get
(27:24):
their coordinates, and in thiscase they go back to 2007, to
new year's eve, 2007, and that'swhere they encounter a young
Conrad Clark.
So, in effect, the wholeepisode is actually set before
our present day.
So that's why, at the very end,when the Doctor confronts
(27:44):
Conrad and Conrad mentions thename of Belinda the Doctor
hasn't heard of Belinda yetbecause he hasn't met her yet.
So the whole thing is set inthe past, not just in 2007, but
in a more recent past, and so inmany ways it's Conrad who then
provides the name that thedoctor then goes in search of.
(28:06):
When we meet him in episode one, he's looking for Belinda
Chandra within the hospital.
So the whole thing ties it allup, you know, in that
timey-wimey way, when we meethim in episode one, he's looking
for Belinda Chandra within thehospital.
So the whole thing ties it allup, you know in that timey-wimey
way.
Speaker 2 (28:24):
Yeah, and my final question is a bit more
philosophical though how muchdoes this likely be seen as a
critique of parasocialrelationship like that formed by
fans?
Because when I saw it initiallyI thought, oh, it's a podcast.
It's a podcast, you know.
Is it like about therelationship like it's almost
like a critique of this fanfollower episode relationship?
(28:48):
How did you find that?
Speaker 1 (28:50):
Well, of course it may start with a podcast.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:55):
And podcasts are often a way, you know, we are
just using our podcast to, youknow, chat about the media, film
and TV, perfectly innocent.
But others do use podcasts tospread disinformation and you
know, extremist politics.
So, um, of course, the premiseis that initially, um ruby
(29:17):
accepts to go on this podcastbecause it's a podcast about,
you know, aliens and apparently,you know, um conrad is
interested in aliens.
But of course, as it transpires, the whole thing flips and and
in fact it it's just a front forhim to pursue his political
campaign, interestingly calledThink Tank.
So, you know, it's the idea ofpolitics as ideology, you know,
(29:42):
think Tank, and weaponizingideology, as you know, a tank.
So in that sense it's the okay,the.
There is some nudging, I think,to the world of Doctor who
fandom, but I don't think it'sabout fandom.
So much in this episode.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
I was just wondering if it was like they didn't like
fans podcast or fans views,whatever.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
But I might, yeah, as you say the only thing is that
you could see it as maybe therevenge against those who put
out podcasts saying that Doctorwho's you know, rip Doctor who,
which was actually.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
That's what I thought .
Maybe it was like like it kindof peaked with or doing their
own episode or show or something.
I don't know.
Maybe I'm, as I say, more.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
I think it's more about that is one end of the
spectrum, but it's more aboutthe extremist politics and
that's what the show's aboutthis week.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
Okay.
My final question, then, isdoes this view, does this
episode strengthen or dilute themythology of the Doctor as
mythic or messianic figures?
Because I think that'sinteresting, whether he is a
good or is a bad, I mean it'slike, is he, how does?
What kind of impact does thishave on the myth of the Doctor?
Speaker 1 (31:09):
Well, within the mythology of Doctor who, he's a
very good character.
He's a pure good character.
But he's a good character thatcan sometimes have unintended
consequences and that his verypresence in landing and playing
around with people's perceptionsof time and reality and the
norms of their environmentaffect them.
(31:29):
And we've had that touched onin the past and in in previous
episodes.
And and sometimes villainschallenge the doctor by um,
taunting him in this, saying youknow how much he's, he's
damaged um, those who, who,who've come into contact with
him.
There's a nice sequence withinthe giggle, uh, one of the david
tennant 60th anniversaryspecials, where the character of
(31:53):
the toy maker simply goes backinto the Doctor's recent past
with companions and discoversthat half of them are dead as a
result of having met the Doctor.
So he's a good character andyou know so.
This isn't to try to do acounter reading that the Doctor
is some sort of dark personage.
I don't think that's.
(32:14):
The production team are goingthat far, but they are exploring
the wider mythos of Doctor whowith this episode.
So instead of just, you know,monster of the Week, doctor and
the Companion trying to getthemselves out of trouble, we
look at the wider Doctor whofamily, if we like, and we look
at Unit and we look at pastcompanions Doctor who family, if
we like, and we look at UNITand we look at past companions
(32:35):
and how past companions interactwith UNIT.
And this again is kind ofsetting us up for the spin-off
series, the War Between the Landand the Sea that's coming next
year, which is entirely focusedon UNIT and how they fight an
alien threat from the sea.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
Yeah, I thought it was a good episode, but do you
have anything else you want toadd to our listeners?
Speaker 1 (32:59):
Nothing except to say that I think this is a very
good, strong run of Doctor who.
Each episode with maybe theexception of the robot
revolution which was kind oflight and airy each episode I
think has been very strong.
Now the question is, of course,will this continue in
subsequent weeks?
We've had four more episodesleft within this season.
(33:22):
Next week's one is apparently,if we believe the trailers, set
in Africa, in Lagos, althoughthere seems to be an outer space
element to it as well.
So one is certainly seeing abuildup of tension and actually
I would say, quality from weekto week.
(33:44):
The question is whether thesenext lot of episodes of Doctor
who will be able to sustain thator not, as the case may be.
But we'll be back talking aboutthat, I'm sure, sure.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
Well, thank you very much for following us here and
remember also, you can always,if you are on a podcast, you
could text us or you canobviously comment on if you
follow us on YouTube, and wewill obviously be back next week
.
But thanks again and see younext time.
Spotlights fade, the curtains rise, new stories
waiting behind our eyes,charlotte and John with the
final say, breaking down thescreens in their own way.
(00:35):
This is the Final Cut, wherethe real reviews ignite.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Hi and welcome to another episode of the Final Cut
To talk about the fourthepisode and it's called Lucky
Day and the episode starts.
We are back now in 2007, andthe doctor and Belinda is coming
down towards what looks like aNew Year's Eve celebration and
(01:03):
they encounter little boy Conradwho is eagerly telling his
mother what he has seen.
However, she doesn't seem to bethat impressed.
And then we are moving on laterwhere he has taken up
podcasting, which is good, andhe is eager to expose the myth
(01:24):
of the unit and particularly hewants to introduce Ruby Sunday,
to expose in that way the methodunit.
But it was an okay episode, butit was a sort of Dr Light
episode and with me today I haveprofessor Cook.
What was your experience of theepisode?
Speaker 1 (01:49):
Hi, well, hi everybody, and welcome to
another one of our Doctor whoreview podcasts.
Yes, well, I enjoyed theepisode, but I would say it's
one of the darkest and angriestepisodes of Doctor who ever.
And it is an episode, as you'vesaid, charlotte, that is Doctor
(02:09):
Light and that you really haveto concentrate on in terms of
the political messages that it'strying to make.
So it's an interesting episodeand it is really part of a run
of episodes that are quiteoutstanding, that are that are
designed, I think, to bememorable.
(02:29):
Now, remember that Doctor who,the new iteration of it, as
co-produced by Disney Plus, onlyhas eight episodes per season.
So I think what we're startingto see is the idea that each
episode must be kind of eventtelevision, that it must be very
memorable, it must hit home andhit hard in order for people to
(02:50):
remember it.
Of course, one of thecountervailing problems that
Doctor who faces is perhaps notenough people are tuning in to
these episodes.
This current episode gotovernight ratings of 1.5 million
, which is actually a new lowfor for Doctor who.
Now that will be boosted bystreaming ratings that will be
(03:12):
announced in a few weeks time,but generally the the viewership
is not really terribly high, sothe event television is kind of
losing its momentum, butclearly, in intention wise,
that's what what they're tryingto do is to make every episode
memorable and impactful and, andit certainly was memorable, and
(03:32):
, and I think that the firstepisode reminded me of a bit
about this previous episode, 77yard.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
However, it does talk a lot about conspiracy culture.
So what, what do you think theywere trying to say here about
conspiracy culture?
And and can you see the link tothe 77 yard that I was kind of
spotting.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
Yes, absolutely.
Um, there's two, two relatedpoints there.
What we're beginning to seewith the new RTD2 second run of
Russell T Davis as showrunnerwith this Disney Plus deal, is
there's a little bit of aformula creeping in, because the
(04:19):
fourth episode of the secondseason mirrors in many ways the
fourth episode of the firstseason.
It's a Ruby Sunday focusedepisode.
It has a strong politicalsubtext to it as well.
So in the 73 Yards episode fromseason one you had this idea
(04:39):
that the companion is separatedfrom the doctor and then has to
live out her life.
Companion is separated from thedoctor and then has to live out
her life and um, and in sodoing essentially is, is, views
and witnesses the rise offascism with a, a future fascist
prime minister.
Here we've got the idea ofconspiracy culture and
conspiracy theory culture.
(05:00):
Uh, same point in the season aspreviously a ruby focused
episode that that makes pointsabout political conspiracy and
in fact at one point um it talksabout, even uses the word
fascism, but in this case it'sactually about um.
It's a lovely irony actually.
Is that the real conspiracytheories think that the
(05:22):
government's hiding aliens Inthe Doctor who episode?
In this sort of flippedalternative fictional world.
It's a conspiracy theory, thatthe government is not hiding
aliens, that in fact it's alljust false.
So lovely.
I mean lots of contemporaryresonances about the echo
(05:44):
chamber of social media and thedisinformation sphere, even a
mention of subscription toAlbion News, which sounds as if
it's a very nationalistic newschannel, perhaps echoing the
right of center news channels wehave in the UK and also of in
america with the likes of fox.
(06:04):
So it's it's very much hittingcontemporary buttons, but doing
it in that alternative world ofof the doctor who, who knew this
, as they like to call it thesedays yeah, moving on a bit.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
Uh, so you talked a bit about this, what the people
experience after they encounterthe doctor.
So it's this idea of like whatkind of memories, what kind of
trauma sometimes I guess theytake these antidotes so they
don't remember anything.
Of course, as a psychologistI'm interested in this kind of
you know that that.
What kind of effect does havehave met, having met, being in
(06:40):
the tardies, have on one's son'slife?
How did you find that in theepisode?
Speaker 1 (06:48):
Yes, well, again, there is a history of that in
Doctor who, looking at whathappened to the companions after
they left the Doctor, goingright back actually to the days
of the fourth Doctor with SarahJane Smith, who had a little
spin-off show.
It wasn't terribly successful,but in 1981, she had a little
(07:09):
spin-off show examining heradventures post the Doctor and
in fact she returned in theDavid Tennant era of the
rebooted Doctor who in 2006 witha sort of reunion episode.
So we've had that kind ofbefore.
um, but what has not maybe beenexplored because you know,
doctor, who tends to be a fairlylight fiction, uh, historically
(07:34):
at least, they they've notreally explored this idea of
ptsd that actually being with adoctor is extremely bad for your
mental health because, asmentioned in this current
episode, if you've experiencedsort of monsters at every turn
goblins attacking you andfighting the gods of death then
you're inevitably going to be abit jumpy, and so in that sense
(07:58):
it's in a way giving a kind ofpsychological realism to a show
that's not really been versed inpsychological realism much in
the past.
So in that sense it's welcomeand it does show, you know,
albeit within the constraints ofa generic 45-minute episode, it
does show that Ruby Sunday hasbeen marked, to a certain extent
(08:21):
damaged, by her journeys withthe Doctor, although again
typically for Doctor who whatappears to be just her having
unnecessary jump scares.
In the pub episode where amonster appears, it actually
turns out to be the case thatthere is a monster outside,
albeit in another twist, itturns out that that monster has
(08:44):
actually been faked byconspiracy theorists.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Yeah, I mean I always thought maybe I don't really
want to go down there, butthinking of him, maybe what kind
of sort of pastoral care canthe doctor afford his companion?
Also, that of him as a bit ofI'm not saying a narcissist, but
he's kind of a bit sort of, hecan be a bit jumpy in his I
(09:08):
think particularly David Tennantin his characterization of the
doctor, is that he's he's not asthis emotionally intelligent in
a sense.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
Sometimes I feel to yes, well, that's picked up with
Shitii Gatwa, who also has thatkind of jumpy tendency and in
that sense, you know, theyounger iterations of the Doctor
, the younger incarnations, tendto be quite childlike in some
ways, and I think we'vementioned that before.
But the problem with that is itdoes tend to make it for a very
(09:41):
jittery atmosphere.
So it was a nice way in thisparticular episode of exploring
how that jitteriness wouldcommunicate itself eventually
onto the companion who mightstruggle to to reintegrate into
real life, quote unquote, if wecan call it that.
So, um, the episode was was anice one in that respect, albeit
it can only gesture at thesethings and in some ways it took
(10:05):
a lot of psychological shortcutsbecause you know you've only
got 45 minutes, the plot has toadvance on.
But it was a nice way ofshowing that, how a companion
has to cope with life after thedoctor.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Yeah, yeah, and I mean in a long time.
You can also think about maybea very intensive I don't know,
maybe after a very intensiverelationship or something like
that, the same kind of trauma orpsd behavior.
Maybe that is maybe reading toomuch into the script.
(10:40):
Another thing I was thinking ofwhat, what do you, what
commentary do think like theyoffer on the influence of
podcasting and media and thatsort of thing?
I mean particularly in terms ofshaping the truth.
I mean, having done podcastingfor a while, of course there's
something I'm kind of interestedin in terms of that you watch
(11:02):
maybe, what you sort of confirmyour views.
How do you find that?
Speaker 1 (11:10):
Yeah, the filter bubble of social media and
confirmation bias and all thatsort of thing.
Yeah, it's explicitly mentionedand referenced in the episode
itself the idea of thedisinformation echo chamber of
social media and contemporaryfragmented media where
essentially anyone can setthemselves up online to have a
(11:32):
presence.
We're kind of doing ourselvesactually in a meta way, albeit
hopefully we're not sort ofpromulgating conspiracy theories
.
So the episode that's very muchwhat the focus of the episode
is, and it is that idea which Ithink is done rather well in the
episode is that in so doing youcan perpetrate the exact
(11:56):
opposite of the truth and youcan get hundreds, if not
thousands, of people tosubscribe to that.
Almost at the flip of a coinpeople will believe the exact
opposite of what actually is thecase.
So in the premise of the show,in that episode, it's the idea
that UNIT is in fact justsucking up taxpayer pounds UK
(12:20):
pounds rather than taxpayerdollars and is actually just
putting out fake aliens toextort the populace.
Now it's interesting if we thinkabout when this episode was
written.
It's clear if you watch some ofthe background material that
the Doctor who produces, notleast the Doctor who Unleashed
(12:41):
behind the scenes show that'sshown, certainly in the UK,
every week that a new episode istransmitted.
It's clear that this episodecould not have been written any
later than late 2023, 2023,because it was shot in November
2023.
So what that means is that thiswas actually written and
(13:04):
conceived before Donald Trumpcame to office in the United
States.
But you can see that in theidea of online content being
harmful, that already thosediscourses circulating, at least
since the first term of DonaldTrump and in Britain as well,
with concerns about figures suchas Tommy Robinson and Andrew.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
Brexit.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Yeah, and I actually think, you know, although it's
disguised, I think the characterof Conrad Clarke is not
dissimilar to I think it's a digat Nigel Farage, actually and
the idea that you know someonecan upend the whole
(13:51):
establishment and the wholesystem.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
And to clarify that Nigel Farage, for a viewer, is a
leader of an ultra-right-wingparty in the UK.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
The Reform Party, which has actually done very
well recently in UK localcouncil elections.
But it's that idea that youknow one angry man, if you like,
can upend the whole status quoand, as Kate Lethbridge-Stewart,
head of units, says, you know,upend everything that she and
(14:24):
her father indeed worked for alltheir lives.
So you can see that as a sortof resonance with Brexit, the
idea that suddenly, you know, agroundswell of opinion allows a
whole settled constitutionalorder to be upended.
Interestingly, does this meanthat Doctor who in this
particular episode is more onthe side of the establishment
(14:47):
than the outsider?
Traditionally, doctor who'salways been a show about
outsiders.
The Doctor is the ultimateoutsider and the Doctor's always
had a problematic relationshipwith UNIT, which is in fact in
the fiction of the United.
Nations Task Force funded by theUN, but here the Doctor isn't
there, and so in that sense theshow kind of comes out in favour
(15:09):
of the establishment in thisparticular episode.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
So when we move on to Conrad Clark, how did you, what
did you make of Conrad Clark?
Is he a villain or a victim?
When he starts, when he's young, he appears more like a victim,
and I almost thought that healmost would be like a companion
if he was going to go on a tripwith the Doctor and Belinda.
But that is not what'shappening, and instead he's sort
(15:32):
of as Gwendolyn.
He's turning into more and morea villain.
How did you find his character?
Speaker 1 (15:39):
Well, his character is actually very lightly
sketched in the episode.
Again, it's only 45 minuteslong.
We don't have the backstory asto why he's become as evil as
he's become.
Um, the only sort of realpsychological motivation that is
put up is that that he failedan interview with unit and uh,
eight years earlier and istherefore working out his
(16:00):
frustrations and grudges.
So again, you could mayberelate that to certain populist
politicians who maybe couldn'tbe part of the mainstream and
who therefore try and take outtheir revenge.
Or employees, or employees, yeah, now to what extent he's a
(16:20):
victim?
I mean, I suppose you couldread the episode as saying well,
actually, a bit like Rubyherself, they're all victims of
the doctor.
It's as soon as they encounterthe doctor that their lives are
transformed, often for ill.
But on the other hand, thischaracter is shown to be a
little bit of a villain right atthe very start because in the
(16:44):
cold opening for the episode,the little boy is already shown
as being a liar.
So when he goes to his motherin the New Year celebrations in
2007 and says Mum, mum, I'vejust seen somebody called the
Doctor and Belinda, the mumgives him a slap and says Stop
being a liar, so in that sensehe's seen as a wrong-on all the
(17:06):
way through and okay.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
So he grew up then and becomes the sort of
podcaster trying to investigatethe truth, but in the end of the
episode the doctor chooses toconfront him.
Why do you think that was?
What part did that have in theepisode?
Why do you think he did that?
Why did he confront him?
Speaker 1 (17:32):
Yeah, I mean, for me perhaps the episode became a
little bit too, attacking onefigure again and again and again
.
In that sense that's why I saidearlier at the start, you know
it's quite an angry episodebecause that anger, the
characters articulate theiranger to this kind of conspiracy
(17:55):
theorist and then, lo andbehold, the Doctor reinforces it
when he materialises, histardis around Conrad and gives
him a good talking to.
So within the show it's theidea that the Doctor is angry
because his friend has beenbetrayed, ruby has been betrayed
(18:16):
by Conrad.
So that's the motivation for it.
But it starts to look a littlebit like reverse bullying.
You know, you had the scenariowith Kate Lethbridge-Stewart
allowing a monster to attackthis man simply because she
hates him so much, and it'smentioned in the script.
(18:37):
Well, maybe you went a bit toofar.
And then you have the doctorsort of reinforcing it and full
of contempt.
So in that sense it almostbecomes like a reverse form of
bullying.
But I guess the show wants tomake its points very bluntly and
very explicitly and the pointis that, you know, forget the
monsters of the week.
The real darkness and the realvillainy that has to be
(18:59):
confronted is in our fellowhuman beings.
So that's definitely a strandof it.
Yeah, because then, moving onto Aruba's reaction to Connor's
manipulation human beings, sothat's definitely a strand of it
.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
Yeah, because then we went on to this Rube's reaction
to Connor's manipulation andthat she is being exploited in a
way, and I feel as if manyepisodes are about women being
exploited or that type of.
They seem to be sort of runninga theme, but I don't know if
(19:29):
she's.
Do you think it's like alearning for her or is it like
you know, it's just that she'sso naive and maybe she hasn't
been in so many relationships soshe's so taken in by him, or
well, how did you find that?
Speaker 1 (19:42):
Well, within the episode, she's clearly damaged
goods because she's had thislife with the Doctor and
therefore she's quite vulnerableand therefore is able to be
taken in by this character,conrad, who of course also takes
in us, the audience.
I don't think, unless you hadread spoilers, I don't think any
of us spotted that this was theway things were going to turn.
(20:04):
Half the way through I actuallythought, on first viewing the
episode, that, well, conrad'sactually going to be an alien or
something and a monster.
But it wasn't.
The real monster was actuallyrooted in very human concerns
around disinformation.
So in that sense, ruby isgroomed, if you like, and the
(20:26):
audience, by extension, isgroomed by this figure.
You're right to say I mean itis picking up a strand that this
is very much Doctor who for theso-called quote-unquote woke
era, and so the only real humanvillains, it seems, that are
permissible nowadays are whitemales.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Yeah, I was a bit surprised over that because it's
coming in and a lot of it isthe same.
I mean, we have come back onthis as if to be a lot about
male aggression, male.
But then I thought maybe in theend there, when uh condor get
bullying and that turns, thewoman was turned into the
bullying, turns into the bull,the bully victims turn into the
(21:08):
bullying in the sense that maybethey're trying to say that
actually, uh, it's, it's a whitemale.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
It's going to be like it becomes the reverse, but I
don't know, um, yes, no, no I, Iwouldn't say I think that's our
kind of counter reading againstit, but no, I think it's the
idea that, um, uh, that that youknow, if we think about it in
representational terms, thewoman hit back against the white
(21:37):
male, that's Kate, lethbridge,stewart and Ruby herself, and
then the black character,obviously Shudy Gat were playing
.
The doctor responds to thewhite male.
So it's not a good time to be awhite male in Doctor.
Speaker 2 (21:51):
Who?
Yeah, but that's what I goodtime to be a white male in
Doctor who.
Yeah, that's what I wondered ifit was a specific thread that
you wanted there.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
I don't know.
It's to do with the fact thatthis is very much you know
Russell T Davis as second era ofshowrunner.
Very much you know in sympathywith woke movements.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
This is what's causing the backlash a little
bit among certain male fans.
I agree with that in the sensethat a lot of women are being
manipulated, and I think thereare new dramas about fake etc.
Talking about female malemanipulation, I was just
surprised that all of themseemed to go on a similar thread
, but maybe I was running intomore than was intended.
(22:38):
But I want to come back, though, to the real monster, which is
supposed to be the shriek.
What was your view of theshriek?
Speaker 1 (22:48):
Yeah well, you know, as I said, the real monster is
the human beings.
Yeah well, you know, as I said,the real monster is the human
beings.
And you know particularly thedemonology of traditional white
male culture.
So Conrad Clark very muchechoes the incel character in
episode one, who also slightlygroomed the Belinda character
(23:09):
when she was.
She was younger and then, uh,you know, we see his true colors
in that episode.
So, um.
So the shriek in that sense isis simply um, the you know, the
monster of the week.
Um, it was done quite well.
Um, what was quite interestingwas the way in which, um, the
special effects team then had todo a fake shriek yeah, I like
(23:34):
that.
Yeah, if you actually watch thebehind-the-scenes making of the
programme, you can see that theytook a bit of care on that.
They made the actual shriek asconvincing as they could and
then they sort of then asked anartist to remember what that was
and then to reconstruct arubber suit from memory.
(23:57):
So in that respect it wasdesigned to be what humans might
try to do to fake a realmonster, and that worked quite
effectively.
So the shriek is just, you know, just, your monster of the week
.
There is perhaps an element ofrepetition, maybe creeping in,
of kind of unseen monsters thatcreep up behind your back,
(24:18):
Because of course we had thatlast week with the well.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
Weird because there's different writers.
I mean, it's not the samewriter, are they?
Speaker 1 (24:25):
Different writers, same showrunner, however Russell
T Davis.
Yes, we should mention thatthis isn't a Russell T Davis
script.
In this week's episode it'swritten by Pete McTighe.
But Pete McTighe works veryclosely with Russell T Davis.
He's done a lot of work forDoctor who DVDs and indeed Tales
from the TARDIS, which was a60th anniversary series of
(24:48):
mini-sodes in bringing back oldcompanions, and in fact he's
co-writing with Russell T DavisBeneath the Land and the Sea,
which is a Doctor who spin-offwhich is going to be aired next
year.
Speaker 2 (25:05):
Can we just move on then to talk about Kate?
How did you find her leadershipand what was her role in the
whole story?
In some ways she's the leader,obviously, of the unit, but how
did you find her leadership andwhat was her role in the whole
story?
In some ways she's the leader,obviously, of the unit, but how
did you think her narrative, herepisode of ARC, whatever, went
through?
Speaker 1 (25:22):
Well, if this were the real world, I suspect she
would be sacked by now becauseshe allowed a monster loose in
unit headquarters to attack acivilian, albeit an armed
civilian and quite a nasty pieceof work.
So in real life she would besacked.
But in the fictional universeof Doctor who, this was Kate
(25:44):
showing her dark side, her meanside albeit there's a strong
moral justification.
And in some ways as well, theDoctor shows his darker, mean
side at the very end when hegives the Conrad Clark character
a good talking to in the TARDIS.
But in terms of Kate, this washer coming to the fore and
(26:05):
showing extremely strong,determined leadership.
The fact is that she goesagainst the advice of her
colleagues and allows themonster to be let loose in order
to teach this Conrad Clarkfigure a lesson.
It could be construed as a formof reverse bullying, of reverse
torture, but I think within thefiction you're supposed to
(26:28):
sympathise with Cade, largelybecause Conrad is such a nasty
piece of work and also becausehe attacks her father, the
eminent, famous brigadier,brigadier Lethbridge Stewart,
who was a key icon in Doctor whohistory in the classic era.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
How did you think the way they talk is talking
flashbacks.
How did you find that?
Did it enhance the story?
Was that a good technique?
I mean, I'm quite a big fan ofthe flashbacks.
I like when they go back intime.
But how did you find that?
Speaker 1 (27:03):
Well, of course, doctor who is the ultimate, you
know, to use the euphemism timeywimey show.
In this case, of course, youknow, the series arc is that
Belinda and the doctor aretrying to get back to may, the
24th 2025, and they can't.
So they use this thing called avindicator I think it's called
where they try and um,coordinate their, you know, get
(27:24):
their coordinates, and in thiscase they go back to 2007, to
new year's eve, 2007, and that'swhere they encounter a young
Conrad Clark.
So, in effect, the wholeepisode is actually set before
our present day.
So that's why, at the very end,when the Doctor confronts
(27:44):
Conrad and Conrad mentions thename of Belinda the Doctor
hasn't heard of Belinda yetbecause he hasn't met her yet.
So the whole thing is set inthe past, not just in 2007, but
in a more recent past, and so inmany ways it's Conrad who then
provides the name that thedoctor then goes in search of.
(28:06):
When we meet him in episode one, he's looking for Belinda
Chandra within the hospital.
So the whole thing ties it allup, you know, in that
timey-wimey way, when we meethim in episode one, he's looking
for Belinda Chandra within thehospital.
So the whole thing ties it allup, you know in that timey-wimey
way.
Speaker 2 (28:24):
Yeah, and my final question is a bit more
philosophical though how muchdoes this likely be seen as a
critique of parasocialrelationship like that formed by
fans?
Because when I saw it initiallyI thought, oh, it's a podcast.
It's a podcast, you know.
Is it like about therelationship like it's almost
like a critique of this fanfollower episode relationship?
(28:48):
How did you find that?
Speaker 1 (28:50):
Well, of course it may start with a podcast.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:55):
And podcasts are often a way, you know, we are
just using our podcast to, youknow, chat about the media, film
and TV, perfectly innocent.
But others do use podcasts tospread disinformation and you
know, extremist politics.
So, um, of course, the premiseis that initially, um ruby
(29:17):
accepts to go on this podcastbecause it's a podcast about,
you know, aliens and apparently,you know, um conrad is
interested in aliens.
But of course, as it transpires, the whole thing flips and and
in fact it it's just a front forhim to pursue his political
campaign, interestingly calledThink Tank.
So, you know, it's the idea ofpolitics as ideology, you know,
(29:42):
think Tank, and weaponizingideology, as you know, a tank.
So in that sense it's the okay,the.
There is some nudging, I think,to the world of Doctor who
fandom, but I don't think it'sabout fandom.
So much in this episode.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
I was just wondering if it was like they didn't like
fans podcast or fans views,whatever.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
But I might, yeah, as you say the only thing is that
you could see it as maybe therevenge against those who put
out podcasts saying that Doctorwho's you know, rip Doctor who,
which was actually.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
That's what I thought .
Maybe it was like like it kindof peaked with or doing their
own episode or show or something.
I don't know.
Maybe I'm, as I say, more.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
I think it's more about that is one end of the
spectrum, but it's more aboutthe extremist politics and
that's what the show's aboutthis week.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
Okay.
My final question, then, isdoes this view, does this
episode strengthen or dilute themythology of the Doctor as
mythic or messianic figures?
Because I think that'sinteresting, whether he is a
good or is a bad, I mean it'slike, is he, how does?
What kind of impact does thishave on the myth of the Doctor?
Speaker 1 (31:09):
Well, within the mythology of Doctor who, he's a
very good character.
He's a pure good character.
But he's a good character thatcan sometimes have unintended
consequences and that his verypresence in landing and playing
around with people's perceptionsof time and reality and the
norms of their environmentaffect them.
(31:29):
And we've had that touched onin the past and in in previous
episodes.
And and sometimes villainschallenge the doctor by um,
taunting him in this, saying youknow how much he's, he's
damaged um, those who, who,who've come into contact with
him.
There's a nice sequence withinthe giggle, uh, one of the david
tennant 60th anniversaryspecials, where the character of
(31:53):
the toy maker simply goes backinto the Doctor's recent past
with companions and discoversthat half of them are dead as a
result of having met the Doctor.
So he's a good character andyou know so.
This isn't to try to do acounter reading that the Doctor
is some sort of dark personage.
I don't think that's.
(32:14):
The production team are goingthat far, but they are exploring
the wider mythos of Doctor whowith this episode.
So instead of just, you know,monster of the Week, doctor and
the Companion trying to getthemselves out of trouble, we
look at the wider Doctor whofamily, if we like, and we look
at Unit and we look at pastcompanions Doctor who family, if
we like, and we look at UNITand we look at past companions
(32:35):
and how past companions interactwith UNIT.
And this again is kind ofsetting us up for the spin-off
series, the War Between the Landand the Sea that's coming next
year, which is entirely focusedon UNIT and how they fight an
alien threat from the sea.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
Yeah, I thought it was a good episode, but do you
have anything else you want toadd to our listeners?
Speaker 1 (32:59):
Nothing except to say that I think this is a very
good, strong run of Doctor who.
Each episode with maybe theexception of the robot
revolution which was kind oflight and airy each episode I
think has been very strong.
Now the question is, of course,will this continue in
subsequent weeks?
We've had four more episodesleft within this season.
(33:22):
Next week's one is apparently,if we believe the trailers, set
in Africa, in Lagos, althoughthere seems to be an outer space
element to it as well.
So one is certainly seeing abuildup of tension and actually
I would say, quality from weekto week.
(33:44):
The question is whether thesenext lot of episodes of Doctor
who will be able to sustain thator not, as the case may be.
But we'll be back talking aboutthat, I'm sure, sure.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
Well, thank you very much for following us here and
remember also, you can always,if you are on a podcast, you
could text us or you canobviously comment on if you
follow us on YouTube, and wewill obviously be back next week
.
But thanks again and see younext time.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.