you're listening to fusion patrol a listener supported podcast
each week we take a single episode of a science fiction tv series movie or
audio and overanalyze it to within an inch of its life welcome to the discussion
hello and welcome to another episode of fusion patrol i'm eugene and i'm simon
ah tonight we are looking at the doctor who 2024 christmas special joy to the world by
steven moffitt um just uh fyi my synopsis might be a little on the shy side tonight
I have not had the opportunity to watch this twice, and I didn't take synopsis notes down as I was watching it.
So I'm doing this from memory almost 24 hours after watching it.
So here we go.
Joy is a lonely woman who checks into a hotel for Christmas when she meets a Silurian with a briefcase and the doctor, both of whom barge into her room.
But wait, let's go back a bit.
The doctor, arriving at the Time Hotel to steal refreshments, notices a strange man with a briefcase trying to check in without a reservation.
This intrigues him, so he enlists the aid of hotel security to keep tabs on him while the doctor tries to figure out where he's hoping to go.
Because, you see, the Time Hotel transports guests back to various times and places in Earth's history.
The briefcase has a mind and purpose of its own and takes possession of people to reach its objective.
killing the people afterwards.
The doctor's security assistant is killed in this way
before passing on the briefcase to the Silurian manager.
Having followed the Silurian manager into Joy's room,
the case is passed to Joy and the Silurian dies.
Because the doctor was tampering, the case is going to explode,
but the doctor from the future arrives and gives himself the code
and then takes Joy and the case, leaving the doctor stranded.
Trapped in 2024, the doctor must wait till December 2025 to return to the Time Hotel.
He forms an attachment with Anita, seemingly the hotel's only employee.
Then he leaves her to continue the story, giving his past self the code that he previously got from himself and taking Joy and the case.
The case leads them to another room, and then, upon asking, the case hopefully explains that it is making a star and will destroy all life on Earth.
The seed of the star needs time to germinate, which is why they wanted to take it back in time.
The doctor points out that they haven't got enough time and would need something like an oddly specific 65 million years.
At which point, a Tyrannosaurus Rex eats the briefcase, ensuring that back in the future, the seed will be ready to germinate.
They track the case through another door in the past.
It's Bethlehem in the year one, and Joy sacrifices herself to become the star, along with all the other people the briefcase killed and her mom, who died of COVID on Christmas Day alone in hospital while Boris Johnson and his privileged scum cronies partied in defiance of their own lockdown rules.
The end.
All right.
Well, I haven't got much to say about nitpicks about the Time Hotel, but OK, what did you think of Joy to the World?
Well, I can see there might be some interesting... I was definitely looking forward to the kind of paleontological take on it, where I have nothing like your expertise around these things.
And I did wince at some of the time stuff, but I kind of thought that the, I don't know, some of it you get, some of it is the like Christmas rules are suspended and some of it is Moffat kind of just saying straight up, look, I'm not following those rules this time.
that you know they that's because they would get in the way of a jolly good story because from my
point of view i have to say this is i if i was being conservative this is the best christmas
special since the return of dr mysterioso but i'm pretty much ready at this point to go all out and
say i think it's the best christmas special since a christmas carol which i think is fantastic
i i have there been any christmas specials since uh dr mysterio uh well there's there's yes there
has um uh twice upon a time i guess must have been one after immediately which i did not great
and then we've had uh the revolution and resolution of the dialects that was new year's
I don't know Skyfall counted as a Christmas special. I'm not sure I was prepared to accept
that it was, but yeah, it's a few years since we have had a good Christmas special. And for me,
this was a good Christmas special. I enjoyed this. I enjoyed this. So I've only watched it once for
different reason from you which is that I only managed to watch it this morning I would quite
happily have watched it a second time pretty much straight away not only does this kind of rate
highly in the Christmas special stakes but I would say this is the first episode in the
Chuty Gatwa era that I have just straight up enjoyed the whole episode with no serious
reservations about it and also I kind of feel like this just I know it's probably not going
to be a typical episode it's not something that I can count on the show being like necessarily
going forward because it is a lot to do with the fact that it's Stephen Moffat writing it but it
just felt like they'd found what they needed to do with his doctor I think he's an interesting
performer i've criticized a lot of what he they did with the character in the first series that
he was in but this to me felt like it really kind of played to his strengths there wasn't that kind
of crazy over manic stuff there was a lot of high energy stuff but there was also just some really
kind of lovely moments exploring why he is the way he is and i know the kind of theme about the doctor
needing a companion has been a regularly visited motif since the show came back in
2005 but i i just thought this was done really really well and i i did the kind of speech about
what you will accept in the hotel room,
apart from the fact that it kind of struck home with me
when I look around at some of the hotel rooms
I've been prepared to stay in.
When Joy says, yeah, but you were prepared
to stay in that hotel room for a year,
and the doctor working in a hotel for a year
and forming that relationship with Anita,
who for my money actually turned out
to be the replacement companion in this episode
rather than Joy herself.
Well, I mean, I'll agree that there hasn't been a good Christmas special in years.
I absolutely go.
I'll absolutely echo that statement.
I'm not sure that I thought this one was.
I certainly know that my family got up and walked out on it.
I could not because I have an obligation, but I certainly would have just paused it of boredom and left if I could have come back to it.
I did not think much of the episode.
I thought that the section with Anita in the hotel room was the only thing
worth watching.
I'm glad you enjoyed that because I mean,
I really,
really particularly enjoyed that section.
Yeah.
And Joy was such a not companion considering how that the,
the buildup was Joy,
I need this.
And then even have her doing the intros.
it's like no no it was moffat lies nothing it was moffat lies again that whole thing yeah
and he gets an exec producer credit on this so you it it he's much more now you know as a former
showrunner coming back i think he's he's not just the kind of guest writer apart from the fact that
he's one of the few people who is writing now apart from the showrunner himself i think he has
much more kind of input and it wouldn't surprise me if that included hey let's market this by
bigging up joy as the companion and then totally you know doing a bacon switch on everyone
yeah it's it's possible um i i mean the only thing that i can say that i i don't it's not
that i hated it it just it was a big nothing burger as as we say here in the states sometimes
it was just nothing um it was um you know it was followed immediately by wallace and grommet's
vengeance most foul which was phenomenal so hang on no spoilers i haven't i'm not going to give you
any spoilers can i give you any spoilers save that it was good but do you expect anything else from
wallace and grommet well true okay well it's like although i'm not sure i've enjoyed a feature length
wallace and gromit so this may be a first from that point of view but um you know i and also
you know maybe my expectations were my uh my desire for something good was was really in need
of wallace and gromit after watching doctor i don't know um i you know it it it's unfortunately
it's the kind of story that because i didn't really feel that it had really any jeopardy any
interesting idea um you know the the star thing is just not an interesting idea and it doesn't hold
up but the star the star thing is the mcguffin and and i mean it's quite interesting i i find
the way in which because to me this this has all of the kind of things that make me feel like
I know I complain about RTD coming back on the basis that I don't think it's what the show needs
is people coming back I think what it always needs is to move forward because that's how
Doctor Who has always survived by regenerating into something different and I know I have kind
of felt like when I was watching the Moffat era because I enjoy his writing so much that I was
watching what I felt was the greatest period of Doctor Who in 40-something years and appreciating
the privilege of that. And now looking back on that, I'm bound to kind of think,
what compares to that? And then Moffat comes along and writes something like this,
which for my money is just, you know, he writes just as well as he ever did, but also he writes
all of the kind of things that I enjoy about Moffat's writing are there. There's not just
the fact that as any writer can they can take the kind of doctor who template is essentially a blank
canvas you can land the tardis literally anywhere and tell any story you like but he goes beyond
that and he uses the kind of timey-wimey premises to do kind of the mind-bending paradoxes and the
incredibly complex stuff and he lines up all these bits and pieces that his stories are very complex
but even though you're expecting that when you kind of get him rushing through the different
doors into you know a world war ii hotel room and into the orient express and into i not sure
was a hillary's um mission that that you know you know that everything in there is going to be used
in some way in the story and that it's going to get paid off at some point what you don't know is
of the big and small elements and the fact that the the kind of Sandringham hotel bit becomes this
rather prolonged sequence over the course of a year and the fact that Joy ends up being a rather
minor element I mean she's an important plot element but she's not an important character
in the narrative and so all of that is quite kind of surprising but however small the characters are
even the Silurian hotel manager, he creates a really engaging character there. The excitement
of this Silurian who's woken up and wandered out of a cave and managed to rise to the top of the
trans-temporal hospitality industry is fabulous. So there is something about Moffat that just really
appeals to me and this does all of it as far as i'm concerned i i i mean the the one thing that
i thought was particularly neat how about that is as you know i i don't like a um
shekov's gun when it's really obvious but the silurian manager was shekov's gun by showing
that the time portals went back past 65 million years.
I thought he'd, I would need to rewatch it.
I thought he'd woken up.
I thought he was a Silurian who had been in hibernation.
Well, I suppose it's possible.
He said he woke up in a cave.
Yeah, okay.
He was in a cave and he found his way in.
I guess I'd inferred that
because I'm so used to stories about Silurians
where, you know, just another bunch of them
come out of hibernation early
and decide to wipe out the humans on the surface
or whatever it is.
But of course, if the Time Hotel does go back 65 million years, there's no reason why they
couldn't be going.
No, quite right.
No, I think your interpretation does make sense.
And yeah, I do like that.
That's a very subtle Chekhov's gun, if it is.
It is.
And I think one of the things that Moffat does very well is he just leaves a kind of
Chekhov's entire armory lying around and he hides half the weapons as gags.
So a lot of the time you think that whatever he's introduced has served its purpose because it was there for a laugh.
But it's not.
It's there for some kind of plot purpose that doesn't get revealed until the actual payoff comes.
That's the entirety of the entire series coupling, or at least the character of Jeff is in that.
You know, everything he says is a gag.
But yet by the end of the episode, all those gags have compounded back on the story in a way where you go, well, that was just darn clever.
And I fully concede that Moffat can do that.
I just kind of.
I just wasn't engaged by any of this.
MacGuffin.
Yeah.
I'm just going to say, just in terms of those gags, even if it's not a plot development,
the fact that he can have the doctor kind of using French as an expletive in the middle of something crazy going on,
because he's set up a...
It's the kind of thing that I think RTD was trying to do with Mavity, except when Moffat does it, it's funny.
And Mavity got its appearance here.
Oh, I missed that.
He missed Mavity.
Very, very close.
There was when he asked the security guard if you have sensors and can you do measure radiation, air pressure, temperature, mavening.
I missed that.
Yeah, I made I didn't make a note of it because I wasn't taking any notes, but I made a mental note of it.
Shook my head, did a facepalm.
I thought we'd gotten rid of that nonsense.
The only thing I can hope is, you know, we're still in a parallel universe and it's all going to be undone someday.
But so, yeah, I don't understand even even the slightest glance of the Time Hotel.
I mean, OK, the Time Lords are dead.
So that explains why they don't stop this kind of nonsense in its tracks.
But how can it at its wildest, craziest?
How can it work?
But, you know, the idea that they put forth sounds like from the brochures and whatnot that the hotels in the Time Hotel are linked to hotel rooms in the past.
Does that make sense?
I mean, that's the feeling.
And the example they give, the first example they give is the old couple there enjoying the Blitz.
Like, OK, you're having fun enjoying the Blitz.
You haven't got your lights out.
And so hotel room to hotel room, but then they immediately cut to hotel room to the Orient Express.
And then I don't think hotel room to Edmund Hillary's tent on Everest.
I don't think that I don't think the people who he visits in those places are actually intended to be guests of the time hotel.
I think there's no who's to be right.
Absolutely.
Well, I think the I thought the old couple were, but I did not think.
obviously the other two were.
Oh, I thought they were all contemporary characters.
Okay, well then what's the point of that?
You can't even rent the room out.
Because if you send them through,
then there's going to be people there.
It's like, you want to go through to Edmund Hillary's?
Good luck explaining yourself
when you show up in his tent at base camp two.
Yeah, I mean, I can see there being some difficulty in that.
I mean, obviously we get a certain amount of information,
the connection or the window in which you can go and stay is very limited as it is in the Sandringham.
You know, it's for one night over Christmas or whatever it may be.
And then no one else is going to use that connection for a year.
But I think the kind of broader problem that immediately leapt into my mind
was if the doctor discovers that someone is messing with the web of time in order to give
people a kind of mini break experience, his usual thing would be, I'm going to shut this down
immediately in order to protect the universe from imploding. Instead of telling us how wonderful it
is. Yeah, yeah. And that was the kind of thing where I thought that Moffat sort of was giving
us a nod and a wink the whole breaking the fourth wall because it's the christmas special thing not
literally in this case but saying that um the the rules of this episode are okay this is all
fine and the fact that the the hotel has established i think there's some mention of it
later on that it's established these stable temporal gateways or corridors or whatever they
are that are paradox proof so there's there's some kind of responsible temple engineering that has
been going on and that's why and the and the again the kind of waving his arms around saying well i
well i couldn't use the tardis in this case but i can use the the hotel but in another episode
you know that if moffat felt that it was a better story to have him use the tardis he would just use
the TARDIS and say oh well I could use the TARDIS now because here's some here's some hand wavium
that explains it the TARDIS has a thing that's paradox proof but there you go yeah that's exactly
what he said about the hotel and you know I don't uh I don't appreciate that I don't appreciate that
that is uh um I don't like my universe shifting from one episode to the next that that is always
and and and i'll i'll go one further i'm sure i have said this at some point over the years
on the show there's nothing i hate worse well i'm sure there's things i hate worse
one of the things that is very close to the bottom of the list of things i hate most
when it comes to television shows at least when i was a kid was when they got to the christmas
episode that breaks all the rules of the universe that they lived in up to that point oh
wait you mean like there really is a santa claus no there isn't and it's like it can be a dream
it can be you know the product of a fever or a drug induced a hallucination but it cannot be
santa claus and i thought moffat did that pretty darn well in um whatever that was last last christmas
Last Christmas. There we go. Because going into that episode, I immediately go, I can't believe they're going to pull this nonsense with Santa Claus being real in the episode. And then by the end of it, Moffat demonstrated to me that he felt the same way I did as a kid, probably because he pulled it out.
And so, no, I don't appreciate when you could drop into a Christmas episode.
It's a Christmas episode.
We can just ignore everything.
No, I was going to say I agree with you, but actually I've realized I don't agree with you in the sense that I'm sure we've discussed this before.
And I've mentioned being an episode of the bill where they totally do that.
And to the point where the bill, which never has non-diegetic music, has it in this episode.
and there are things that are inexplicable within what we see within the episode.
So it definitely breaks all the rules and yet it is brilliant.
But where I would say I'm not entirely sure you're being fair to Doctor Who
is that it doesn't just do this at Christmas.
Like there are episodes where they break all the rules and it's not Christmas.
It's just they want to break the rules for some reason or other.
And I never like that.
But let me put something out there, though, that may make a difference.
I can't exactly speak for you, so I'm not trying to.
But I will say this.
Your Christmas experience on television is very, very different from our Christmas experience on television.
we don't really they don't they don't make a big hash of christmas day and go we're gonna have uh
that amazing gavin and stacy special and a doctor who special and a call the midwife special and a
wallace and grommets they don't do that but all of these shows like the six million dollar man
and knight rider and whatever uh they just you know we're gonna have one airing around the time
of Christmas so we'll make a Christmas episode and throw it in the sequence so it it's kind of
like an ordinary day except it's they just don't make that big of a deal you want a Christmas
special you watch Charlie Brown so Christmas Day is just like the schedule is just Wednesday
yep pretty much when I was a kid except that there would be you know if there was normally
a movie on Wednesday they'd sometimes preempt things for a Charlie Brown Christmas or Rudolph
Red Nosed Reindeer or something.
But by and walk the week of Christmas, the day after, the day before, pretty much standard programming with a few.
Some shows would get preempted, usually low rated shows.
Like, oh, there's not going to be a Logan's Run this week because we want to run the Jerry Lewis holiday special or whatever.
But no, they didn't.
They didn't like make a big deal of the Christmas episodes of TV shows.
They would concentrate on things that were non-standard.
And I don't think here it necessarily does mean breaking.
I mean, if you watch your Gavin and Stacey Christmas specials or whatever, they don't break all the rules.
They have no idea.
I have not watched any of those.
Well, I mean, fair enough.
But they're an episode where maybe something particularly dramatic or momentous happens.
But they're still part of the show in a recognizable way.
But I do think you put your finger on something in that you're saying that the kind of British TV schedule is completely different right around the Christmas period.
And it's always been like that since ever I can remember.
And you lose track of, like, you go, well, I know today's Christmas Eve or I know today's Christmas Day.
But it's quite hard to remember which day of the week it is.
And the television doesn't help you at all because it doesn't have the schedule for that day of the week.
It has a special schedule and it won't go back to normal until probably after New Year.
Yeah, we're at least in the 70s.
We're not like that.
I don't even know if they have television airing on broadcast anymore in the United States.
I haven't seen anything aired live in a decade, but at least so.
But like I said, to me, that week is always a bad week on television because in a show that's science fiction, in a show that's a comedy, in a show that's whatever, whatever situation.
Suddenly you're a week where Santa can be real.
Miracles can really happen.
You know, sometimes it's just heartwarming stories of people, you know, getting the Christmas spirit.
but also sometimes the most serious of show will just completely and utterly
break,
break their continuity.
And even shows that say specialize on there can't be anything supernatural
could have something supernatural in it in the week of Christmas.
I detest the week of Christmas.
Those are the episodes of TV shows.
I don't rewatch when I go through the,
go through my collections of old stuff.
You just hit that one.
up market is watched and go on never mind it's it's throw away and i don't feel like this episode
of doctor who is supposed to be throw away and that's the difference because it is to me except
10 minutes with anita yeah i mean well i don't i don't know that it's i would imagine you could
sit down and watch the last series and the next series back to back without this episode in
between and not really lose anything like it'll still make sense but i don't think it's meant to
be throw away but i also in some sense don't think that it breaks the rules more than other episodes
that are part of the regular run have done sometimes well so how for example let me this
is this is in the nitpicky category but you said this i couldn't quite make sense of it
so i'll i'll go there the doctor is in the room it's christmas i think it's christmas it might
be christmas eve i'm not sure i thought it was christmas um 2024 and that's apparently a
destination that you can go to from the time hotel would we agree that that must be the case
because they got there from the Time Hotel.
Would they have booked that for somebody
when Joy is in the room?
No, I think that he only got access to that
by using his sonic screwdriver or...
But the Silurian, well...
The Silurian had access to it
because he is the manager
and he has access to the rooms
that the guests did not have access to.
I mean, I think that was relatively explicit
in the plot at that point.
Why that room, man?
Well, I'm not...
Surely he'd know
that that's not far enough back and then the doctor has to stay around till not christmas
new year's a year later with new york yeah yeah so it's not even the same room yeah i so it's
possible that the rooms are only you like a room is only used once at one time somebody somebody
said not not me hearing it directly from moffat or rtd or somebody but somebody i heard in the
run-up to this said that what they thought they heard and i'm actually they said what i heard
but i can't remember that was moffat or rtd but i think it was moffat was that the germ of the idea
was the time hotel was the ability to use any empty hotel room in history all those vacant rooms
throughout time all you need to do is to know which that does sound very moffat and obviously
that may have colored my perception going into this episode because that is not what we saw
and also also the kind of moffat thing of of the being clockwork droids under the bed or the being
uh,
you know,
a prisoner coming through the crack in your bedroom wall,
there'd be always being a locked door in the hotel room.
And,
you know,
suggesting that on the other side of it is the time hotel.
That's a very Moffat thing.
I think.
Yeah.
I,
I would agree.
Um,
I would agree.
And,
and that would also fit with that whole idea of being able to have hotel room.
Now,
why would you use that?
I don't know.
Maybe it's just like this hotel always has openings.
we have we are the greatest hotel in in the entire history of time because we always have
rooms available for everybody because we can always find one somewhere for you but um you know
this room opens onto a tomb who would want to go to that tomb it's like why would you i think that's
the that's the experience thing isn't it you want to yeah i mean a locked stone tomb look the the
The only way the doctor managed to get out of there was to tie a rope to the Orient Express.
And so.
No, he wanted to get into the tomb.
Which turned out not to be into the tomb.
It turned out to be how to get out of the tomb.
Oh, I see what you mean.
If you want to get onto the hilltop.
Yeah.
Fair point.
Yeah.
I mean, you just seem to be trapped in a, basically a cave.
But yeah.
I don't know.
I just it just isn't the idea of the time hotel.
I guess if they're sending you for excursions in the past, which definitely seems like the kind of thing the doctor would absolutely have to shut down.
But let's face it.
OK, now, wait a minute.
There's a theme here.
Hadn't noticed it till this very moment.
What how does that?
I did mention it in my recap.
The doctor shows up in the hotel to steal drinks.
That's the only way to say it.
He's got the TARDIS program to show up to get him stolen coffee or tea or whatever it was.
And fresh milk, I think.
Yeah, he had two cups.
Yeah.
But the point is.
Yeah, one of those was for Ruby.
Right.
Flaunting, basically, the rules.
He then, he doesn't shut down the Time Hotel, which is clearly flaunting the rules of time.
And he also tells in a scene that I thought was the most offensive thing I've seen in a long time.
He tells Joy she should ignore the rules.
She should have gone and seen her mother.
Well, I've got that.
Yes, I've got that to discuss.
I did not appreciate that idea.
I mean, I get why he's saying it, right?
You're supposed to go, oh, you know, he's the iconoclast and doesn't follow the rules and the thing.
And that's why he's the doctor.
But sometimes rules should be followed.
No, I don't think that is why he's saying it.
I think what he's saying is he is tapping into her guilt around that stuff.
And so he is trying to make her feel bad because that's how he gets her to or gets the briefcase to let go of her.
So he's not necessarily articulating his own thoughts about this.
He's articulating what he thinks are her thoughts about it that she's trying to suppress because she feels guilty about it.
But I could totally see that being this doctor's modus operandi.
Well, I see the interesting thing about what I think is going on there.
There is a sense in which the doctor, you know, there's a problematic dimension where there's a kind of individualistic streak.
the doctor won't do what he's told just because that's what he's told to do. He has to work out
for himself whether it's the best thing to do. So he's never bound by any kind of form of
collectivism. And there's an entire kind of political dimension to that. But also, I think
quite interestingly within this episode, this is being brought into the context of what happened
during the lockdowns when the pandemic started and I think from my recollection this is the first
time that has been explicitly acknowledged on tv doctor who and so that in a sense is quite
interesting and the take seems to be what is becoming a kind of fairly mainstream opinion
which is that either the rules themselves were foolish they were they were unnecessary or
wrongheaded rules or that we were foolish to follow the rules which is kind of connected with
again a kind of political idea around we were made to look like fools by the head of our government
who was making the rules completely vouching those rules so you're you alluded to this stuff
in your recap and i think that may be where that may be where this is coming from like this is
following the rules seemed to be the right thing to do at the time because what we were trying to
do was what was best for everyone but it turned out that we were you know being taken for a ride
by the people who were meant to be leading us meant to be protecting us but either way it's
kind of problematic that you don't explore what this narrative means because you could just be
allowing what Boris Johnson and his government did to make it as it inevitably will be to make
it more difficult to put in place these kind of public control measures in the future because
people will remember this time and however much more responsible the government may be then
people will still get go well this is what happened last time people acted out of a kind
sense of collective responsibility. And yet, look what happened. And I think if you're going to
raise this, the responsible thing to do is to actually say, look, there is actually a value
in collective responsibility. There is a reason why we try to do this, even when it doesn't work.
Yeah, I found that whole, I completely agree with the sentiment that that was a terrible thing to do.
not not following the rules but what your leadership did was an absolutely inexcusably
horrible thing to do so i can totally go along with moffett on pointing it out to try to remind
people how scummy they were but the way he did it was problematic and the missing bit is that joy
should not feel guilty about the way i did what was right yeah that she did what she did to protect
other people you know not just trying to protect her mother who she did not know was about to die
at that moment anyway but also to protect all the other people on the ward that her mum was with and
who might come into contact with the nurses and hospital staff who she might meet or who might
contract it if she went and visited physically and in person and so there's that there's that
entire other dimension to what joy did where in retrospect all she can see is what actually
happened and feel the guilt from the consequences of that and i felt that that in you know in the
context if you're going to look at the the lockdowns and all of that era that that part of
it really did need to be explored a bit more i got i got why it was done because there's a kind
of emotional purpose to it, but it troubled me. I will agree. One of the things that I thought,
and Moffat has said, and I did see a quote from him that he knows lots of people who have these
stories about losing relatives and not being able to see them because of the lockdown rules and the
anger that people express about Johnson and his cronies flouting the rules that they created
But if I were structuring this story and, you know, putting the writer's hat on for a minute, maybe her mom should have died at home on Christmas Day, tripping down the stairs or something.
We would have been together.
Things would have been different.
She would not have died.
Would it have really hurt for me to drive across town to her house?
As opposed to in a hospital where, let's face it, there's a lot of sick people.
There's a lot of compromised people.
And, you know, that's not only is that the worst place to take a disease into, it's also a terrible place where you might get the disease.
But it's also the place that should have the most protocols in place to allow you to manage to do so.
So I get it because we hear lots of stories about people having to say goodbye to people over their iPad.
But I'm not sure that's the right place her mother should have died or not died as the case, maybe because she became part of the Star of Bethlehem.
Anyway, so happy ending.
okay so let's let's talk about the star of bethlehem which you know i would say about the
first time they said we're creating a star uh my head during the episode not during the previous
in a christmas show yeah it's like oh really they're not they're not they're not gonna do that
yeah apparently they are yeah i was pretty sure they were uh i yeah so how and this does fall
into that category of how does this make any sense how is it that everybody saw the star in all the
time zones because the star did they see it in any in any bc time zones well we i don't we didn't
show us they showed us a needer they showed us uh the star the star appears in 1 ad doesn't it
so we assume that it's only it's only there in subsequent time zones not in previous time zones
So you're saying that the star of Bethlehem appeared in 1 AD and it's still in our night sky right now.
Isn't, isn't because the star was Halley's Comet?
Well, I, I don't know.
I think there's lots of, oh, there was a supernova.
Oh, there was this.
Oh, there was that.
I mean, I've heard lots of people trying to justify the complete nonsense of the star of Bethlehem.
But this is just another one.
But I guess the point in my mind from a story standpoint, right, is that when the doctor realized where he was, he, like the audience, went, oh, of course.
Oh, this is the event that people saw as the star of Bethlehem.
And that means that already was a thing.
And so it did happen in the past.
And this is how that happens.
So the doctor is watching what happened that was a historical event.
But if that were the case, then it shouldn't be visible now going forward.
It should have been a transitory event.
It just was like, don't go there.
But if it's like Halley's Comet, it's a periodic event.
But once again, it would have been seen two years ago when her mother died.
and people would have known about it.
Yeah.
I mean, and obviously it's not a comet.
It's a star.
Which, just for the sake of argument,
how is that a useful system?
I mean, how does Valengard
actually make any money at this?
I don't know, but I do have a,
since you bring up Valengard,
I do have a question.
Is this the same,
I didn't have time to check,
Is this the same arms manufacturer as in Moffat's other episode about the stepping on a mine?
Not only is it the same one stepping in a mine, I think it's the same one in the Doctor Dances when he talks about the banana.
I think it is.
Good Lord.
I haven't gone back to chance that.
Wow.
Check that.
So he was preparing for this Christmas special all the way back there.
Yeah, that's what it is.
I think it is.
I would have to check.
But but but think about it. You have a technology that can create a star for a customer and you have to go back and see that thing 65 million years before they want it because it's got to germinate.
And to do that, you decide to go to the time hotel on Earth and destroy the time hotel on Earth because your star will destroy Earth and therefore the time hotel won't exist.
Well, A, it won't have existed for you to have used it to create the star in the first place.
Ignoring that paradox, because the hotel has a stabilizer, except, of course, it doesn't because it's been destroyed.
But ignoring that paradox.
But then how many other places are you going to be able to sell a star to a customer?
It's like, yeah, we do need another place that's got a time travel technology, which we clearly don't have.
Or we wouldn't need to use the time hotel.
So this is a one and none.
This is,
this is the one and only time that they can do this product.
And,
uh,
it,
it doesn't.
Yeah.
It doesn't make any sense.
If you have time travel,
why do you need,
why do you need the star?
You've got a far more deadly weapon that you could use.
I don't know.
It just,
all of it just didn't,
it just didn't work for me.
I just was like, I'm not invested in this story either.
I mean, I was more interested knowing I'd seen a T-Rex on the on on a commercial.
I'm like, I'm more interested in that.
And and honestly, I was hoping and they didn't do it.
But I was hoping that at some point the doctor would say something like, by my calculations, you'd need some you'd need to go back at least 71 million years.
because I dislike the idea that,
and it's true because the public is in general ignorance of these things.
But if you want to tell people you're talking about dinosaurs,
you say we go back 65 million years.
But the fact is, if you go back 65 million years,
your dinosaurs are dead already, basically.
You know, that's, I mean, yes, a million years is a very long span of time
from 64 to 66 million years is a very, very long span of time,
unimaginable span of time to the human mind.
But by picking 65, you're immediately on,
oh, this is the event that kills the dinosaurs like Adric.
Oh, he's gone back 65 million years.
Oh, get it.
That's the event.
But it isn't.
It isn't.
It's just shorthand to say we're gone back to the dinosaur times.
And I would have picked something a little further back.
T-Rexes were around for millions of years.
I would just be on the safe side, because if you traveled back in time 65 million years to see the dinosaurs and then you turn up and they've already died, you'd feel like that was quite a lot of effort wasted.
Yes, I agree.
That would be quite a lot of effort.
I would definitely go back further.
And of course, there's, you know, Triassic and the Jurassic and the Cretaceous.
There's several eras that you could go back to.
And they're millions and millions of years apart.
And who built the treehouse?
Well, I assume that was hotel property.
So they actually are, in some places, going back in time and building things.
Well, they've got to be, haven't they?
Well, no, they're using, not necessarily, again, the premise that it might be using all the time.
The Silurians.
Oh, yeah, good point.
Good point.
Oh, I like that.
Yeah, they should have had a little scylier and portraits on the wall or something.
Yes, they could have they could have done.
Well, that might have tipped it off a little sooner than than they wanted to.
And if I was building a hotel, if it's the time hotel, if it's the time hotel and you go, yeah, I want to go back to the time of the dinosaurs.
Let's build a completely exposed treehouse that is easily within the reach of a T-Rex that can bite and chew it up while, you know, while I'm sleeping.
No, no, at least build something that would withstand a T-Rex bite.
It, it just, I don't know.
It's like, it's cute, but it's, and I only watched it once.
If I watch it twice, I will absolutely, and, and took notes.
I would, I would probably pop an aneurysm.
And I think that's, you know, I can tell that from Christmas.
Yeah.
Now I, I can tell that just from the one watch when I wasn't even trying to pay huge attention, was just trying to enjoy it.
Uh, so I gotta, I'm kind of, I, I think I'm going to avoid it for, for years to come.
It's like years, years to come.
I think.
Yeah.
It's going to fall into the category of the doctor who, of, you know, the Christmas specials on all the other TV shows from my childhood is like, yep.
mark has watched let's go um it really will it really will and i and i i you already mentioned
it but i absolutely am sick to death this is me personally of you need to go find somebody doctor
go find somebody now doctor get on with it like it wasn't even joy that should have been telling
him that it was anita yes it should have been anita i agree with that at least anita has a
years worth of having a clue who the doctor is and seeing the the the the loneliness or the
the wistfulness that he experienced for you know because anita at least you know pegged on and like
oh see you got a boyfriend somewhere out there um so i mean she could see that the doctor is
missing something anita no she barely had any time with him at all joy you mean joy sorry yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I agree with that. I mean, I do think that the kind of sequence in the hotel was particularly good, that the relationship between the two of them worked really, really well, that it probably cemented for me.
that Gatwa's performance in this is I think what it's giving me when you get him in scenes
like that because like you say I think there is a kind of there's a certain wistfulness there's
there's a depth that sometimes the kind of screwy manic stuff can obscure and just a general kind of
I guess a more comfortableness with the character which may be to do you know as the
worry is to do with the way it's being written now it may be he's maturing into it much like
i felt that peter capaldi just got better and better as you know we went through into his
you know by by by the end of his series with pal bailey i just thought he was almost giving
a different performance than he was right at the start um and i'm my my knowledge of gatua
when we came into this was next to nothing. I'd hardly see, apart from seeing him in Barbie,
I hadn't seen him in anything else. I did have the good fortune to see him on stage in The
Importance of Being Earnest the other day. And I'm impressed with him as an actor. And I think
this shows what he can do as the Doctor. So I don't know where it'll go. I don't know that he
will rise up in my rankings of actors playing the doctor but if it's more more of this it will
definitely it will that he will definitely rise in my estimation okay so it crosses my mind
your your comments about capaldi you know that there appeared to be a deliberate effort to make
capaldi unlikable there appeared to be a deliberate effort to make colin baker colin baker yeah
a little i think we discussed those parallels right it's multiples of six and there was supposed
to be the first doctor was not the hero per se and he was a bit of a unlikable character now
which which is why they reshot the pilot i believe yeah so um but let's not not just
concentrating on the unlikable ones because of course we know that the first doctor evolved into
the kindly old man when we got to peter davison i don't really feel like he nailed it till he was
in his third year colin baker and everything got to a third year but he was definitely improving
in year two and he nailed it when he started working for a big finish well yeah well they've
given them years more to perfect it but in but yeah but this is my point sylvester mccoy three
years he was finally getting to a character uh i didn't necessarily like the stories but he was
finally getting to a character that it didn't necessarily hey chris he completely changed his
performance he did completely quite explicitly you know after the first season that he'd got
this role that he just he'd approached the character role and that he was changing everything
about it more or less yeah um we we saw capaldi evolve uh we we saw what i'm saying is that three
years is not long enough for a doctor because by the time you get it nailed down by the time they
get it nailed down they're leaving and i'll be fine with that if gatwa leaves at three but
the thing is i won't you know having having having seen him in something else and seen
the kind of how good he is i what you're saying is that he can actually act this is not him as an
obnoxious human being coming through this is not a performance this is not just him shining through
no well well i don't know because i think anyone playing the doctor it's a certain amount of their
personality you know i think that the the way in which there is there is some david tenant in
David Tennant's Doctor, for example, and I think there is Tom Baker's Doctor. Yeah,
well, yeah, although I think some actors, you know, some actors are, when you get a Tom Baker
or a David Tennant, I think other actors get influenced by that, perhaps. But I do agree
with you that three years is not enough. And I do agree with you, unless you've got someone in
a role who just is not a good actor and i don't think that applies to shooty gatwa we need longer
so i am thinking i want more shooty gatwa not sure i was thinking that before i'm not even sure it's
three years because three years of trouton is a whole lot more doctor who than three years of
davison and that's a whole lot more doctor who than three years of capaldi and that's a lot more
doctor who's in three years of gatua correct i mean like 50 percent hours on the screen
rather than the number of um calendar years that pass by well i think there may be a bit of both
because i think there may be the fact that you know when you're filming and you're working back
to week back week to week you don't have as much opportunity to develop the character as when you
come back after a break from doing it so i think there may be an element do for season one yeah
which yeah indeed indeed yeah yeah which will be interesting because i think that may be to the
show's detriment i definitely think that will be to the show's detriment i think it'll be just as
bad as last year i i'm gonna write read down my last note that doesn't mean this is i'm want to
end this discussion here but this is the last bullet point that i put down on my list and
it's a two-part thing a lot of people say they love this episode i've heard because of the
sparkling dialogue the problem is for me i don't like the people talking this episode this episode
yes and i also still find gatwa the most unlikable doctor ever i would not like to be in a room with
this man he just rubs me the wrong way every time he opens his mouth i'm with every time i would
rather i'd rather be with sylvester mccoy like definitely that he just you know and it's just
I think that is the thing.
It's even down to the fact that he's just stealing milk.
Yeah, I think it's about the way that he's written
is that it's not essentially compromising
what's been established about this character,
including some of those kind of high-handed elements
that I agree are not necessarily admirable character traits,
but it's a degree of self-awareness about some of them,
like when he talks about when the doctor's in the room
at being mansplaining central that I think makes it feel like there is something a lot more bearable
about the character as as written and portrayed in this episode than in some of his previous stories
that we've had and so and particularly because I think the year in Sandringham kind of rub
knocks some of those edges off that it seems to it seems to have helped him understand himself a
bit better almost to the point where you see the scene in the hotel room where there's two of him
twice and you see the same lines being spoken and they almost have a completely different meaning
because you feel there's a different there's a degree of personal development that has taken
in place between you seeing him speak them for the first time and seeing him speak them for the
second time but will the production order the way that they've produced this show and the way they
did two years basically at once will that bit of character development actually show up in series
two no i think i think you're right i think i think there is a risk that that kind of gat was
character and the way it will be written going forward is still going to be difficult and
problematic if you don't like the character much, as I don't think you or I have done,
is now where we're diverging. And I think what I'm saying is I liked the episode because of
the sparkling dialogue, and I don't agree with you that I didn't like any of the people saying
it i felt like there was apart from any some warmth and depth that moffat managed to give
pretty much everyone in this story however kind of irritating high-handed thick or devious they
might actually have been so i yeah i i i'm much more sympathetic to the sparkling dialogue take
on it i have heard well i'm not saying that there wasn't necessarily some sparkling dialogue it's
that sparkling dialogue does not have a shine on it for me when the people are irritating me when
they're saying it and that's understood but i wasn't finding the people irritating this
so i have heard again heard don't know for a fact but definitely makes perfect sense to me
so i'll throw it out there have you seen anything of the uh episode that the scenes that were cut
from the the sutek fiasco or whatever that was called um okay there is a scene where the doctor
gets a whistle in the tardis that he uses kind of pulls it out of i think out of the memory
tardis out of pretty much nowhere above him somewhere that that is there he uses that whistle
to, I don't know, I don't remember, call the dog. I don't know. It was, it was all kind of
too dumb to remember. But there is a cut scene where we see where he actually gets that whistle.
He gets it from himself, who hands it to him through the roof of the memory TARDIS.
And then later in the episode, he, in the old, in the regular TARDIS, he, he opens a hole and he
hands himself the whistle he reminds himself to go back and hand himself the whistle so and those
both those scenes were cut completely from it and there is speculation that because it was an
important part of this story they removed it so that because it was a gag in that story
they removed it because it would have been two basically back to back doing the same doing a
bootstrap paradox yeah yeah but you know in this i just thought it's almost better to have it in
both because it gives you a kind of foreshadowing of what happens here that is one way to that is
one way to uh to look at it i could imagine i could imagine seeing it that way i think i would
go oh god not again i would definitely have done that in fact i did do that you did do that i was
gonna say you did do that even though it didn't happen before i i did well i had seen those clips
less bootstrap paradox that we've had in dr i had seen those clips though of of him just like
opening a hole and going hey hey here's a whistle and then oh thanks and just handing it to himself
and then leaving i had seen those clips before i went into this episode so when he did it i'm like
oh again that even though it hadn't actually happened it it it hit me as a like are we just
gonna is this the new psychic paper because it could be well it's been going on for a while i
remember you complaining about it in the lodger you know back in the 2010 season so it well okay
that's 14 years is far enough between those a day day of the daleks going back i thought in the day
of no wait a minute but in day of the daleks that was the point of it well yes but it's still a
bootstrap paradox well i don't mind the bootstrap paradox that that's not my complaint here my
complaint here is it is just a cheap stupid way to get out of a out of a tight bind in in in the
the Sutek fiasco.
It would have been a cheap,
stupid way to get out of it.
When all he needed to do is to have a flipping whistle on the table,
right?
He could have just reached over,
grabbed a whistle,
which is basically what he did.
He grabbed one out of the roof.
Is he great?
I needed a whistle.
This is a memory TARDIS.
I have a memory of a whistle.
Here's a whistle.
That's why you don't need it because there's all sorts of weird stuff in
that TARDIS.
You just grab the,
if you need a whistle,
you grab a whistle and you go.
But the fact that he handed himself the whistle is just sort of a stupid gag.
And it's a stupid gag.
That's the exact word for it.
In this episode, it works only because the whole point of it was not the stupid gag to get out of the problem.
The whole thing was a setup to take you to Anita, which was the only thing of consequence in the episode.
And that's why there was a four-digit code.
So why he put the boots around.
And yeah, it's Moffat.
and he could have done the same thing without sticking a paradox in,
the difference, I would argue, the reason that he gets away with it here
is because he actually, again, almost fourth wall breaking,
kind of sticks a line of dialogue in there,
explaining how you shouldn't think about it too hard,
because it's just, you know, one of those things.
And there is that great line, speaking of the sparkling dialogue,
where Joy says something along the lines of,
Does anyone ever find it helps when you explain anything, Doctor?
Which I found quite amusing.
Yeah, it was a fine line of dialogue.
I mean, Moffat writes good lines of dialogue.
I just had reached a point where I just didn't care.
Just didn't care.
All I can say about this episode is that by the end of it,
I cared less about it than when I went in.
And I really did walk out of it.
My first thoughts were, well, that was a nice bit with Anita, but we know that's not going to have any effect on him at all going forward.
He didn't that introspection didn't happen.
Will there be a chair in the TARDIS instead of a jukebox?
I mean, that would be it.
That would be a thing.
Put a chair in.
At least you would be acknowledging that he has even if it doesn't actually alter the way he behaves.
But I just have a feeling it won't.
I don't know that I have anything else on this episode.
Do you?
I have.
Yeah, I've got a few things.
There was one thing I wanted to mention.
This is kind of connected with the whole idea that the Time Hotel doesn't work because there are obviously insurmountable difficulties from the point of view of temporal physics around the idea of the Time Hotel.
On the other hand, the idea of the Time Hotel is easy to, you know, as a concept, think of it more in marketing terms than in physics terms. I think what Moffat is possibly inspired by here is the restaurant, the end of the universe.
And again, that's a great gag, a great idea, a concept that you can understand in the sense of why people would do it, even though it is completely impossible.
And even though Douglas Adams specifically says it's completely impossible and then builds that into the marketing.
Have you done six impossible things today?
Why not round it off with breakfast at Millyways, the restaurant at the end of the universe?
So I think the Time Hotel is like the restaurant at the end of the universe.
And so maybe that's another reason why I'm willing to give it a pass.
But this is not Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, an explicit wacky, zany comedy take.
It's fiction.
It's not, but it is a show that Douglas Adams has written a number of episodes of.
And more than that, I would say many of the writers of the show since then have been heavily influenced by Douglas Adams.
And I think more than one of his concepts has crept in.
And I'm going to go further on that and say I spotted another Douglas Adams reference in this.
Have you read The Long Dark Tea Time of the Soul?
There's a very long time ago.
There's a sequence in that where Dirk Gently, the lead character in it, is explaining his principle for navigation, which is basically to follow just some other car.
He just follows them wherever they're going.
And his idea for it is that he may not end up where he intended to be going, but he almost always ends up where he needed to be.
And when Anita says to the doctor, I thought you'd fix my sat nav, the doctor says he has fixed the sat nav, but it takes you where you need to be.
Oh, no, no, no, no.
And I'm sure that is a Long Diet Tea Time and Soul reference.
No, that's a Neil Gaiman reference.
The doctor's wife.
You never take me where I want to go, but I always take you where you needed to go.
Well, I'm going to go.
You think Neil Gaiman copped it?
Linking back to the comment I made before about writers on the show being influenced by Douglas Adams and referencing in support of this the fact that Neil Gaiman has written a biography of Douglas Adams, I'm going to suggest that he was also referencing Douglas Adams in that.
But, okay, all right, hold on, hold on.
I'm not saying that he certainly is unaware of that, and I'm not saying that he wasn't perhaps even riffing on it.
But in Long Dark Tea Time of the Soul, that's a joke.
And in The Doctor's Wife, that's a statement of fact.
It explains the TARDIS behavior for all those years.
It explains why the TARDIS always arrives at some place where the doctor has to fix things.
it's like it was a brilliant way of slotting in a line that suddenly makes sense out of
some of the the the wild coincidences that that occurred over the years so maybe he was
doing it but you know here it's a joke in this episode it's a joke but i felt it was self-referential
back to the doctor knows that's how the TARDIS works,
so he has now made her car work like the TARDIS.
I don't think, I mean, I agree that Adams is finding the funny in it
and that Gaiman uses it very appropriately.
And I like it in this as well,
but I don't think there's a huge distinction between what's going on there
because I think whether it's a funny or it's a more,
I mean, in a way, it is a more profound thing, which is why it's funny.
It's for Dirk Gently.
There's a kind of way in which he is letting the universe guide him.
It's a kind of the mysterious force of fate, which is essentially what the TARDIS is.
It's we don't understand how the TARDIS works.
it's some other mysterious force that has this kind of omniscient power to know where the doctor
should be and guide him there, which isn't really any different from the concept of fate.
I'm kind of. I mean, if you personify fate as a sentient entity, yeah. I don't know. And I'm
sure Moffat too has been inspired in his life by Douglas Adams. But I would say that that line in
its inclusion in this episode was a reference to the doctor's wife, not a explicit reference
to Douglas Adams. I don't think it's a reference. I think it's a neat line within the episode,
but I think he's quoting Douglas Adams. I don't think that line appears in this story if
Adams hadn't written it in the long time detail in the soul yeah but there is a there is a
a distinction between I repeat something that somebody else said even if I know that they
were quoting somebody else but I just feel like he's using it in both the context and the the
words to what Gaiman's TARDIS said to the doctor. That is the doctor's motivation in this episode.
That is Moffat's motivation. And remember, that episode was written during Moffat's terror.
Yeah, no, no. I agree they're the same thing. Well, no, I'm not sure if that's what you're
saying i think they are the same thing so i so i agree that it's it's it's doing what you think
it's doing in the doctor's wife i just don't think what it's doing in the long dark tea time of the
soul is in any meaningfully meaningful way a different thing the i the idea is one that
they're just they're just adapting because it fits well to the idea of the doctor and you know to be
fair that that's because the character of Dirk Gently is the doctor right I mean it's not that
there is not just that Gaiman and Moffat are stealing from Adams it's that Adams has created
Dirk Gently as the lead character to fit it the first Dirk Gently novel Dirk Gently's sadistic
detective agency isn't an original novel in the sense that he's basically taken the plot lines
that he wrote. Adams has taken the plot lines that he wrote for Sharda and, help me out here,
what's the story he wrote that was set in Paris? City of Death. City of Death, yeah, it's City of
Death and Sharda combined. And he needed, he obviously couldn't use the Doctor, he needed
a character to fill that role. And that's what Dirk Gently is. So when he's writing The Long
dark tea time of the soul he's got someone who's doing a tom baker doctorish kind of a thing in
you know you can imagine that's how tom baker's doctor would also navigate any others i have a
couple of other things that are just kind of personal connections with this story one is the
collection of tardis trinkets i think that the tardis teapot there is the same as a um a tardis
teapot that a good friend gave me so i was pleased to see that in there i'm not sure that we got an
explanation of why there were all of these police box trinkets but i liked it ah i i fell into the
kind of that was fourth wall i think it was fourth wall again because he says i don't know there's
just a bunch of them online you could buy yeah yeah okay that's just that's just and i appreciate
that i i did think he was breaking the fourth wall at the end i'm not sure if he was looking
to bethlehem or looking into the camera but i did think that might have been a feast of stephen
reference the other the other thing is the sandringham hotel i just i like that because
i've stayed there the sandringham hotel in london is a real place a real hotel but it's not really
in london it's in cardiff because doctor who is filmed in cardiff so they filmed using the
exterior of the Sandringham Hotel as the exterior of the Sandringham Hotel London and then just
obviously called it the Sandringham Hotel but said it's in London so I'll never be able to book a
room there now ever again well yeah because it'll be part of the Doctor Who experience what I would
say in response to your comment in the intro about there only appearing to be one member of staff
working in it i.e. Anita is that my experience staying there I've only ever come across one
member staff so that was pretty authentic okay was it anita sadly not oh well it it i it felt odd
because it was a year and it just seemed kind of um i don't know it just didn't quite fit that we
just never saw anybody else working there yeah and because i you know i thought anita was like
the night shift manager or no just you know saving money on cast people working yeah yeah
especially prior to the doctor getting a getting a job there um all right any others no that was it
all right well i saw from the trailer that uh that uh the new series will be coming in 2025
so that's narrowed it down a whole bunch so um it's online it's on youtube too now at this point
but yeah it was just coming 2025 like really you've got it it's done you made this ages ago
surely you know when this is coming out surely disney requires you to know when this is coming
out right it's not like they're just running it on the bbc now and they can just decide you know
whatever three weeks in advance disney's not going to accept that disney's got a project management
chart that's probably three years out they must know when it's going to air roughly speaking all
right uh in that case i who knows when they'll do the next doctor who it's 2025 probably maybe i can
raised some enthusiasm by then.
Simon, thank you for joining me.
It's a pleasure, as always.
Listeners, I do hope you'll join us all again next time on Fusion Patrol.
You've been listening to Fusion Patrol. Thanks for listening.
If you've enjoyed this episode, we hope you'll consider supporting us at
buymeacoffee.com slash Fusion Patrol or patreon.com slash Fusion Patrol.
For our monthly Patreon subscribers, we're currently running a special series on Babylon 5.
Come join the conversation and find other content at FusionPatrol.com.
And we're back on social media, where you can also follow us on Mastodon and the Fediverse.
Our address is at podcast at FusionPatrol.com.
Our music is Fight the Future by Amber Wolf.
This has been a Lone Locust production.