Comics Creators

Doctor Who Thread of Space and Time: Discussing New Year's Special "Resolution"


I just watched it and while the episode was good I didn’t feel perticularly entertained. That may make me sound a bit shallow but I watch Who for a bit of escapism and fun rather than anything else.



I know this was a “very special episode” but I really hated to see The Doctor behaving so meek and callow when confronted by racist assholes. Lady Doctor’s third episode and she’s hiding from redneck dipshits, of all things. The optics aren’t good.

Did provide a few good laughs when everyone thought Yaz was a Mexican, though.



This was the first time the show felt specifically aimed at children. It had some good ideas and I liked that they did another hero moment fake out but I’ll be happy to get back to the regular version of the show.

1 Like





This was a really interesting episode, and it lead to some discussions about Rosa with my daughter (13) and son (9). For this, I think it was a worthwhile episode, and even my wife who is by no means a Doctor Who fan was paying full attention to it!



That’s an interesting opinion, I think. I felt that especially in the scene where the cop was in the motel room with the Doctor and Graham that she was quite defiant, using very pointed phrases to undercut his authority. And then for most of the rest of the episode, she doesn’t really interact with anyone from 1953 except Parks. You could try and spin it as a metaphor for how one person can’t stand up individually against systematic oppression, but that then goes against the hagiography of Parks’ action which the episode still buys into , and Chibnall’s not a good enough writer to really grasp that and I’ve gone cross-eyed



I read it as the Doctor recognising that she and the Tardis crew had to lay low for fear of causing any kind of disruption that could knock history off-course.

Which made it uncomfortable viewing, but deliberately so I think - similar to the discomfort of them having to remain seated on the bus at the end to create the necessary situation.



Interestingly, Andrew Ellard’s notes (which he’s been doing for every episode so far) have a different take on the hagiography complaint.

The whole thread is worth reading, he’s had some good insights into what has and hasn’t worked in these first three episodes.



My problem isn’t necessarily how they depicted Parks herself, it’s that all the TARDIS crew spent ages fawning over her. It just made me think of this.

Which is the same thing they did with Dickens (which at least had some novelty for being the first time they did it), Queen Victoria, Shakespeare, Agatha Christie and Vincent Van Gogh.



All classic episodes.
Classics I say.



This is all very strange to me because my usual take is that I don’t care about the plot or execution of the story as much as I like spending time with the Doctor, but any time I do love a story I have always been firmly in the majority. Here I seem to be very much in the opposite.

I am a big Quantum Leap fan, I’m starting to feel that I maybe enjoyed it more because it channeled that so hard. Sam’s jaw dropped any time he met a celebrity and this was such an ‘evil leaper’ style episode. I thought it looked fantastic, I enjoyed the music, I felt empathy in how the Doctor acted in the cafe and after the slap - To me it said that even she is embarrassed and helpless to the sheer weight of how those people thought and acted. One racist gets punched, but what if everyone is a racist. It was Planet of the Racists.

Anyway, it feels strange to be in the minority. The woman I’m dating saw the last 15 mins, became glued to it and asked me lots of Who questions, like, “Was it about something serious every week?” I had to say no. She’s interested in watching the whole episode in any case and thinks her daughter will love it. I just feel it was a massive success for Doctor Who to have that effect and I genuinely loved it.



I haven’t seen much complaining or much use of the word ‘hagiography’.

I thought it did what it set out to, but wasn’t special apart from its subject.

Opportunities to screw it up were everywhere and it avoided them, but that’s as big a compliment (and as big a complaint) as I can make about it.

I wont watch it again anytime soon, but it’s not aimed at me.



The vast majority of the reaction to the episode that I’ve seen has been positive.



Yeah from the muggles :grin:. Us pure blood Whovians have different thought processes.



I think he raises some good points, but the reason I brought up the term hagiography is how the common image of Parks is that she’s a woman who just had enough one day, and the show leans into that by saying it absolutely needed to happen that day. But Parks was an activist, as the show noted, she wasn’t the first person to refuse to stand, as the show noted, and most importantly, she was planning to refuse to stand when the opportunity presented itself, which the show never talks about.

But if it was made clear that this was going to happen sooner rather than later, does the episode still work? I get the butterfly effect thing Krasko was going for, but it works better with the narrative that this was the day Parks said enough, rather then this was the day Parks said the bus is sufficiently full to make a scene



I read it a different way. It’s a twofold problem. First they’re trying to prevent the past from being changed so she can’t take any aggressive action because it might change the past and second she’s with two POC who are actively in a danger, any aggressive action she takes who only further endanger them.



Yeah, that’s a fair point.

The episode doesn’t ever really challenge the baddie’s idea that stopping Rosa would change the entire course of the civil rights movement (as that would rather defuse the threat), despite making clear that the movement was far bigger than just one person.



Some thing else new I’ve learnt from this episisode discussion -




  1. the writing of the lives of saints.
  • a biography that treats its subject with undue reverence.

plural noun: hagiographies

“a hagiography which is designed to serve a political agenda”

I was unaware of the word!



It’s the perfect name for my future autobiography.



I thought you were going to call it “Do Not Buy This Book!”