Hello, dear listener, and welcome back to the 2nd great and
bountiful human Empire, the only Doctor Who flash cast that won't
be ending this episode by inadvertently creating a major world
religion with all the concomitant problems that that inevitably
entails.
I'm Nathan.
I'm Brendan.
I'm Todd.
And I'm Simon.
So it's mere days after the broadcast of Doctor Who's 2024
Christmas Special Joy to the World by Stephen Moffatt and directed
by Alex Pilli, and we are here to deliver our lukewarm takes on
the episode.
So I want to start by just asking the panel how they felt about
the episode generally, and let's start with Brendan.
Uh, generally, I enjoyed it.
I had a bit of a weird feeling at the end and I thought, I want to
watch this again. and I enjoyed it even more the 2nd time, so
that's my general impression.
Okay, Todd.
Ditto.
Hmm, I have to say that I'm fairly much the same.
I still have reservations about the end.
I wonder if it isn't too overwrought.
We'll definitely get there, but otherwise I had a pretty fun
time.
Simon.
I didn't have a very fun time.
I'm sorry to say, I think that there's lots of really interesting
and great ideas and things and funny lines and that, but I kind of
was never engaged by it.
It just sort of was stuff happening and and more stuff happening
and as I said, there were things which I think were really
interesting, but for some reason I wasn't interested by them.
So I'm, I'm kind of less than lukewarm on it, I'm afraid.
It is a bit of a funny one, isn't it?
Because it doesn't really read like a Doctor Who story.
It is more like like a short story by a Stephen Moffat in an
annual or something like that.
And he's taken that approach before, I think, and maybe it works
at Christmas, but certainly I felt myself wondering whether I'd
actually seen the last Doctor Who episode that involved men in
rubber suits invading the home counties, and I think perhaps I
have.
Well, let's talk about some of those ideas that interested but
also failed to interest Simon.
And in particular, I want to talk about the time hotel and the
various other sort of bits of moffetry that were happening, and
perhaps Simon, you might want to start.
There's lots of great Moffatry in at the Time Hotel was a
fantastic idea.
The fact that, you know, he has to feed himself the code to the
suitcase, the briefcase after spending a year in that in the other
hotel with that woman is an interesting idea and a great idea.
I think the fact that you integrate different time zones by having
you know, Edmund Hillary's rope being, you know, thrown off the
back of the Orange Express in order to pull the thing open in, you
know, ancient Samaria, wherever the hell it is.
That's all a great idea.
But for whatever reason, I just never cared about what was going
on in the way that I really did care, in other mofferty type
things, most particularly the Christmas carol, I think it's almost
like he was wanting to, he knows.
I mean, he's connected with Phantom.
He knows what fans have loved about his stuff.
And it's almost like he's decided to do all of that stuff.
And yet, it hasn't quite glued together right.
And so you're not really left with an episode.
I mean, it's interesting to anything that you mentioned, it's like
a short story that he's written for an annual.
I'd actually almost argued that it's like several short stories
that he's written for an annual that have kind of been schmooshed
together that slightly overlap a bit on the assumption that it's
all going to be terribly clever.
And at the end of the day, it's all just not as interesting as it
should be.
And I think it should be interesting.
So I can't pinpoint.
I been thinking about it since watching it.
I can't pinpoint where the failure point is, like what, where in
the, in the process has it all kind of slightly fallen to bits.
And I don't know the answer.
What do you think about the Time Hotel and all those tropes, Todd?
I loved the Time Hotel, but I, as much as I loved it, I did see
all the tropes, you know, from the beginning where you got all the
different time zones to the whole feeding himself the code to
everybody lives at the end.
So I can see all the cogs turning, you know?
But it didn't upset me like it normally does for some reason.
I just, I just went with it.
And what I really loved was the fact that we stuck with Anita in
that time zone, whereas normally I would feel like we'd go with
joy into, you know, quickly get out of jail free card and just
forget about all that.
So I actually really loved going and staying in the one place
where he didn't go and have adventures, he just was.
Let's talk about that in a minute.
I do want to talk about that next, but let's stay with the time
hotel for a little while.
What did you think, Brendan?
I thought it was super well realised.
Something I haven't seen discussed much online, and I only picked
up on it on the 2nd viewing, is that when the doctor is stalking
the hotel manager, he passes a door, which is clearly Bilbo and
Frodo's door from Hobberton.
If you go back and look at that.
But the thing is, there's a real world explanation for that.
You can say that it is the set that's still there in New Zealand
where you can go and visit.
But I also loved how, yes, it's playing with Moffat's usual ideas
but things like when the doctor breaks the link, it creates a
brick wall, just like we saw in Girl in the Fireplace.
Yeah.
And I believe that ship was from the 42nd century and we are in
the 43rd century, the beginning of the 43rd century because we've
just flipped the date around.
Yeah, yeah. 2024 to 4202.
I feel like this is a Christmas variety box of chocolates.
But also, you know, Moffatt is taking some ideas he's done before
like, you know, the doctor dropping in to see Amy and Rory for
Christmas dinner at the end of Doctor the Widow in the wardrobe
but instead he's going, okay, but we never actually saw him
sitting down for dinner with them that night.
So he's going to do that with the Anita plot line.
And the Anita plotline is beautiful. absolutely beautiful.
But the time hotel itself...
If we look back, say something like Orphan 55 that really feels
like we've gone to a building in a place that exists in our world
and dressed it up a bit.
And it, look, Orphan 55 looks great.
I'll leave it at that.
But this, I found myself watching this going, I don't think this
can be a real building they've adjusted, but it feels like a real
place.
And I think from a design point of view, that's great.
I was imagining those same scenes being shot in the temple of
peace as usual.
I was kind of delighted that they weren't.
I was just going to say that the Christmas box of chocolates thing
is a great analogy, actually, but for me, it's a Christmas box of
chocolates where the expiry date has happened on many of the
chocolates and someone's lost the catalogue.
So you're not quite sure which chocolate is which, and you're
always a bit disappointed when you actually open the chocolate
because the wrappings have all been mixed up.
So one of the things, like one of the things, despite the
familiarity of a lot of these tropes, it did strike me that Moffat
manages to do some new things with them.
One trope that we didn't mention is that what looks like us
starting the story in the middle with the doctor doing the room
service thing is actually in chronological order, those are the
earliest things to happen in the story.
And so that happened before the opening credits, the idea of the
door in the hotel that's always locked and giving an explanation
for that is classic Moffat.
And then let's lead into the discussion about Anita with the
chairs remark, which I just think, you know, this man has now
written 9 Doctor Who Christmas specials.
He's written more Doctor Who than anyone else in history, and he
still manages to find a new thing to say about the doctor.
So the doctor saying, you know, you live in a big spaceship with
no chairs and no one mentions that to you because no one ever
comes round to visit. that's why you're so lonely.
Like, we've we've nearly been there, you know, the big TARDIS
console room was so large back in the RTD era to emphasise how
lonely the doctor was.
He's managed to find a new thing to say about the doctor's
character in a new way, and then to address that with that year
with Anita, which I think is easily the best thing in the
episode.
You think that, do you?
Yeah.
Yeah, I really do.
Yeah, I wanted it to be.
I knew what they were trying to do and it just doesn't have, it
was all kind of like, yes, now we have like kind of the Easter
scene and we have the summer scene and we have the Halloween scene
and it kind of to mark all of the passing of the year.
And I was, as I was watching it, I was thinking, they're going to
want me to be upset at the end of this where he says when he says
goodbye to her so he can go to the other hotel and find his way
back to the time hotel.
And I just wasn't like, like, it just didn't, it just didn't
work.
It didn't, it didn't make that leap from stuff happening to, I
care about what's happening.
And I don't exactly know what it is.
I mean, all these things have been played with, he's played with
before and things like girl in the fireplaces, he've been saying
but there's, there's a much greater sense in that episode of, of
you're just so much more involved in, in, in, in, in the person
and and I just don't, I didn't really care about Anita.
I didn't care about why he was there and collecting TARDIS.
Do you know what I mean?
Like it's, it just was all stuff happening.
I think that it did work on me and I'm probably not the only
person here.
I did think that that properly worked and I did think him sneaking
out and that moment where he says goodbye to is sort of properly
good.
And I think one of the things about it is just the difference with
this doctor and sort of previous iterations of this, you know, he's
not bored, he's not desperate for adventures.
He's just doing a very, very ordinary thing.
And it was nice, I think, seeing the doctor do that.
It worked for me.
I could say I can see where Simon's coming from.
Like, you do feel that it's a bit, at times, I did think it was a
bit forced, but I bought into it, and I liked the fact that he
wasn't going out and having big adventures, it was just with this
with Anita, and reflecting on his life, and he didn't need to do
what he's, you know, he stayed in places before, like, you know
with river or with the perch we era, but he still met aliens and
done all that, and that wasn't here, and, and I just enjoyed it
because it was, I just felt it was a bit different from that.
And I did by the ending and she said when he was leaving that
present, you know.
Also, I mean, perhaps it's the way shooty plays things.
I think he's very intense and at times he's very...
I mean, he's very assured of what he's doing.
And in the moment, he can either be full on or he's not.
I think that's one of the things I found in the episode that he's
either full on or he's not the in-betweens.
Perhaps weren't quite there and that sort of took me out of things
at times, but I totally bought the Anita thing and I really loved
it.
Yeah.
I really loved it as well.
But if I, if I could posit a theory, Simon, I think something
Stephen Moffatt does in his writing is he'll, he'll have a
character say something and the character says, everyone does this
and one of the best examples I can think of because it didn't
quite jibe with me is no one says save, do you say, safe in
silence in the library.
And now that kind of thing.
It's one line in the episode.
So I can go, that's a bit of a stretch.
But yeah, then when you have a 15 minute scene and if the central
concept of that scene from the start, doesn't really land for you
I can totally see how you get to the end of that and go, you know
that was just stuff happening competently.
And I think that is a thing with Stephen Moffat's writing because
loads of people love series 6 and I don't.
Loads of people love series 7 and I don't.
There, you know, there are people who are like, um, Capaldi's
character should never have softened where I'm, whereas I'm like
hurry up and get to series 10. you know?
And I, I think that, that's the thing with, with Stephen Moffatt
is that he's like, this is what I'm writing.
If you're not on board, come along next week, kind of thing, which
can be a bit of a problem in a Christmas special.
And I also think that's why Dr. Widow and the Wardrobe, which I
love, isn't highly regarded in general because I think a lot of
people just aren't on board with the concept set up from the
start.
And I don't, I'm not saying that in a pejorative sense.
I think Stephen Robert's just the kind of person where if you're
not on board with the concept from the beginning, it's going to be
very hard for it to be satisfying.
No, I can agree with that.
I mean, doctor, it's interesting that you say you like the doctor
the widow, and the wardrobe, because that's probably my least
favourite Christmas special.
So it makes sense then that I'm not sort of a fan of this one.
I guess it comes back to that thing of what sort of Todd suggested
or someone suggested about seeing the workings.
Like, I can kind of see, it's like, it's like doing Dr. Christmas
special coloured by my numbers and that's, that's kind of all it
is.
One of the things about that bit, though, is that it does take
about 10 minutes, and originally, I think, um, uh, it was going to
be a more expensive scene where the doctor travelled around the
world and stuff, but they said, no, let's just stay in the hotel
with Anita.
But what it does do is it moves Nicola Cochlan's guest character
sort of off stage for that period of time.
How did people respond to the character of joy?
I really liked her.
I've been aware of Nicola Cochlan's name for a long time and I
know that she's in Derry Girls and I know that she's in Bridgerton
and big in those.
I haven't seen either of those.
So I kind of came in thinking, I don't know what her performance
is going to be like, but I know that she's incredibly popular and
obviously very talented.
And I adored her.
I adored her in all the modes, the hypnotised mode, the forced
jollity mode, the absolute white hot fury, and where her character
goes at the end as well.
Absolute tour de force.
And it's like the same thing as Catherine Tatan, the runaway bride
but totally different.
Like she's not a slapstick character who then has to come back and
go, I'm going to do the weekly version of this now.
It's a subtle and nuanced performance, but just barnstorming the
way that Catherine was.
What did you think, Tom?
I liked her.
And I can see where Brendan's coming from.
She had a lot to do and she did it very competently.
At times, I felt, and maybe that was with the scenes with Rashudy
that everything was very quick.
You know, by taking 10 minutes away from that character, you
suddenly had to go from A to B to Z very, very quickly.
So I perhaps struggled a bit with that, but I thought she did a
good job.
I just think the character wasn't perhaps as defined as I needed
it to be at times, is my one criticism there.
But what she did I thought she did well.
I'd agree with Todd.
I think that I think she was perfectly good, but I don't think
that what's going on is too much of a mishmash for me to I sort of
wanted to see more.
I wanted to see what else was happening with that character.
She was there for a plot point rather than anything else, I
think.
I mean, part of the problem, I think, is that a lot of her
character stuff is just delivered in that speech by Shooty, where
he describes her.
And you kind of go, oh, yeah, she is really like that.
That's what the performance is, but we are kind of told, really
more than we get the opportunity to see it.
And because when she's introduced and she's supposed to be this
sort of terrible, sad, sack, you know, the hotel room isn't quite
dingy and awful enough, you know, because we're making a lovely
hotel room.
It's sort of ordinary.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I've stayed in much worse places, Willy.
Exactly.
And because there's so much business going on in that scene where
she's introduced, and you know, there's a lizard man and there's
Anita and Anita's reaction is funny and there's the Zectron 2000
high security briefcase and all of that sort of thing are all
there.
And she's possessed for sort of quite a lot of it.
So it is hard to kind of read her, but it is a great performance.
I guess the thing is, there was deadly danger at the beginning
with the briefcase and everybody's dying, right?
And I really love that.
And then it went to her and I went, well, very early on and I
thought, well, she's not going to die.
So how are they going to get out of this?
And he's going to have to do certain things.
And I started going, well, he's going to make her angry.
And so I started to sort of predict what he was going to do, like
that whole sequence.
So that sort of took me out of that bit a bit if there's, if
that's a bit of a criticism that I can throw at it.
But that's what I found.
One thing that has been slightly controversial is the COVID
thing.
Um, and I have to say that that was something that I thought
perhaps needed to be done, that all of that stuff happened 4 years
ago now, but at Christmas, Britain is full of families who said
goodbye to their mother or grandmother or grandfather on an iPad
and making that real and acknowledging it and having the doctor
angry about it.
I think was, well, I personally found it cathartic.
Um, and I think probably, um, it's the sort of engagement with the
real world that you're a bit tentative about, I think, Simon, but
that I'm really here for, I think.
I can be tentative about it, depending on what the subject matter
is.
I think allegory is much a much better way of telling it, but I
have only watched this once, I confess.
And my recollection of that whole thing is less about the
injustice of the fact that the rules were put in place in such a
way that people weren't able to, in Australia, for instance, cross
state boundaries to be able to, to see loved ones dying or
otherwise, that in, you know, and in hospital, there are all these
restrictions as well.
I didn't read anything in that about the fact that that was
probably a bad idea and a little bit excessive.
It was just purely for me.
All I saw them about was like the people in charge, you know
taking the piss and having party gates and all that sort of stuff
which is obviously party gates a very big deal in Britain.
You know, we cannot overstate how big a deal party gate is for the
British.
Having said that, I don't think it was saying what I think you
were wanting it to say, which is that the doctor was outraged
about the fact that people weren't able to connect with each other
in these moments.
Don't you think?
Well, no, I'm not sure that he did say that.
I do think that, and certainly it has been read that way, and
there are a lot of people out there who are sort of a bit cross
that the doctor appears to be anti-lockdown at that point.
Um, you know, uh, but I think it was the issue where politics and
things where, where rules were made for people and people
obediently did the right thing and the people who made those rules
didn't do that.
Oh, yeah.
I think that's what I'm saying.
I think that's what they were So talking about, rather than I
think, the point that is more relevant, which is the fact that
everyone went a little bit overboard with what was the
requirements at the time, especially because especially in
somewhere like Britain, where you had cases everywhere anyway, it
all was kind of a bit stupid, frankly.
I think it's probably impossible to, you know, it was impossible
for anyone to really properly know and people were lying blind and
having difficulty calibrating what to do and stuff like that and
maybe in retrospect.
People went overboard.
Maybe they didn't, you know, about 180,000 people died during the
pandemic of COVID in Great Britain.
So it was a sort of big deal.
And so I don't think that that was what was being litigated
there.
But I do think that what it was, was the anger around what people
had to suffer and that the people who were making the rules
weren't participating in that.
In quite the same way.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
I mean, that's a tale as old as time, you know.
Worth getting angry about.
Something I think it brings up is that Stephen Moffatt, it's kind
of weird, right?
We look at Moffatt's past Doctor Who, and it seems to take place
in a more fantastical world reality divorced from our own than
Russell's does.
But at the same time, Russell creates analogues for political
leaders, right?
He does he does kill Tony Blair and makes direct reference to Iraq
in the 1st series, but after that, we have Harriet Jones and then
we have Harold Saxon.
And then we have Arthur Coleman Winters. you know, we don't have
George W.
Bush.
Then Stephen Moffatt comes along and we get direct references to
Donald Trump.
You know, we get direct references to real political figures and
real political scandals in the Moffat era.
And I found myself thinking, you know, Where does Chris Gibnall
fall on this?
And of course, Chris Gibnall doesn't reference the real world very
much.
And for once, I actually think Chris Chibnall not telling a story
that directly references lockdown was a good thing, because I
think at the time, people didn't want stories about lockdown.
And I remember...
Yeah.
I remember reading a tweet at the time of someone saying, in 5 or
6 years, we're going to have lots of stories about 2020, but we
are not ready for them right now and right now we need something
more fantastical.
So when that came up in the episode.
And I did have the moment of the doctor saying, hold on, is the
doctor anti, what is the doctor anti-lockdown?
That's part of the reason I watched it again.
It's like, no, he's making her angry and he's making her angry in
the most unfair way possible in order to save her life and he even
apologises for it twice.
You know, it's rule one, the doctor lies.
Not everything the doctor says is him saying this is my view of
the universe.
But yeah, I think it is an important moment. in Joe. Yeah, I think
I think you're right.
I mean, it's interesting and I think, because Nathan, you had a
little social media spray yesterday, I think, about this, which
was the fact that it's almost like we've all forgotten about the
fact that this happened.
And we have, oddly enough.
I don't know whether we'll ever be quite ready for a lockdown
thing because it's kind of like, well, it's all a bit tedious or
not a little bit tedious, but there were various personal
tragedies, but it's almost like everyone sort of remembers their
own personal tragedies relating to it, but then at the same time
it's kind of all been forgotten.
And I don't think it's about what I was talking about, well, like
the lockdown thing.
I wasn't trying to suggest that they shouldn't have been any.
I'm just trying to suggest that there was this kind of influ- this
this, this, which we certainly experience in Australia, this
bizarre inflexibility about it.
And I think that's a thing.
And I think that would have been doing it as kind of just a
fragment of an episode is kind of a bit like you're wasting a
story there because there's a whole story about how, you know, this
kind of thing happens and the way there's this kind of group think
in the community, along with the virtue signal, goes with it about
who's doing this and who's doing that.
And there's a whole thing there and it has just kind of been
frittered away in a moment. don't know.
I just feel that it was good to address it.
And they did it in a way that everybody has their own personal
take and you will, and it makes you think about that time and
reflect.
And I didn't want it to be too deep per se, and I just thought
that it was, it was good to have it referenced.
Mm, I agree.
All right, let's talk about the ending.
So someone, someone on social media, and I think it was a big
Finnish writer.
I can't remember who exactly, said that the moment that there was
a star growing in the briefcase, he knew that it was going to be
the star of Bethlehem by the end of the episode.
I believe that was a friend of the podcast, James Curray Smith.
There we go.
Oh I didn't.
I didn't see that coming.
No, I didn't either.
As soon as they were standing on a cliff top with the night sky in
the background, I had that tenant moment of no.
No, no, no, no, no.
Oh, camels.
Yeah.
What did you think, Todd?
I was fine with it, you know?
She said she was going to look after the star and it certainly
then thought it.
Or fell into villain guard's plans, you know, to be the religion
and or whatever of the future.
You know, they, they've created their own history.
And I was fine with it actually.
I just, I just, I just bought a little wiry smile to my face going
some people are going to be so outraged by this, but it's not
going to be me this time.
I still can't get over Russell killing Tylie at Christmas, you
know, like I just love...
That's far more of a sin, sure.
Well, yeah.
But this, like, I just find this hard to read.
Like, I know that she ascends into the sky.
All of those people who are miserable in the opening credits are
now happy.
Even Millie Gibson's happy now.
You know, there's sort of happiness and joy everywhere.
But I'm still with the doctor, you know, you're going to burn up.
You're a star. you can burn.
You know, so it was hard for me to read that as the triumph that
the episode clearly wanted.
And then the music was suggesting it was.
Yeah, well, exactly.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
And it was clearly meant to be that.
Like, that was meant to be it, but it just, like, someone goes up
and becomes a star with a lizard and that nice guy Trev, like, it
just seemed very odd to me and perhaps a little bit overwrought.
I can see where you're coming from.
Totally.
I had long past caring by that point, but I certainly don't have
any issue with it being with her being the star of Bethlehem.
And, you know, I don't think it needs to say that need not say
anything.
It need not be an endorsement of the Christian religion.
It's just, you know, it just is.
And so it's Christmas, for God's sake.
Yeah exactly.
It's not lampooning the Christian religion.
It is presenting an image, a symbol from the faith in an affirming
way.
Exactly to that.
Yeah, in terms of the whole ascending into a starving, I kind of
read it like the ending of Star Trek, the motion picture.
Part of the point is, you don't know what happens to Decker and
Ilia.
We as humans cannot comprehend what becoming a star means, but I
will say that we have encountered a sentient star in the new
series of Doctor Who before.
So this is a prequel to 42.
Well there you go.
Okay.
Maybe she is the star in 42. been tired of waiting around so
long.
I'd also like to raise a point of physics.
If she goes away and if she goes away and becomes a star in the
year one, now presumably she is no closer than Alpha Centuri, ergo
the light from that star would not reach Earth until at least the
year five.
So has the doctor been standing around on that hilltop waiting to
see that star for 5 years at the end of the episode?
Maybe it's like the kitchen at some 30 minutes ahead in time or
something.
Now that was a clever idea.
That was a clever idea.
That was, it was going on.
No, I think it's just the fact that it's a mini star that's
somewhere around, you know, where the moon orbits for now and she
gets, as she gets bigger and brighter, she disappears off into
well, wherever the 42 star is.
You know what?
I'm, I'm, we're going to carry that.
I'm...
I actually think rather than a sort of image from the Christian
religion, it's really an image from Christmas cards and so it is
kind of more or less thoroughly secular.
And the episode has come down on the side of the universe
appearing out of nothing because you remember that the doctor gets
the code literally because he heard himself saying it as has
happened so often.
And he actually, this time explains, look, yes, it came from
nowhere, but so did the universe and no one complains about that.
So, um, you know, so, and, and it is, it's, um, it's foreshadowed
a bit, isn't it?
Because the doctor speculates at the time hotel is the reason that
there was no room in the inn.
Oh, right.
The inn was full of time hotel tourists. trying to spot the deep
Jesus, yes.
Hilarious.
All right.
Well, that's it for now.
We're obviously going to be back for season 2 next year.
And later in the week, I think on Wednesday, we will be releasing
our final episode of this leg of Flight through Entirety.
So that's on New Year's Day.
That's our Capoldi Moffat retrospective.
But don't fear, we will still be podcasting about Doctor Who next
year.
So make sure that you follow us on Flightthrough Entirety.com on
Blue Sky or on FTE podcast on Mastodon, and you'll hear all of the
news about the 2nd great and bountiful Human Empire, which you're
listening to now, and about 500 year diary, which will start in
the 1st half of next year.
Um, Brendan, do you have anything to plug?
Uh, we have just released our special Christmas episode of the
three-handed game on the very Christmassy, too many Christmas
trees, and you can find that at um, THG podcast on Blue Sky, or
for looking for three-handed game on Facebook.
And I want to mention 2 other podcasts, Maximum Power is back with
its coverage of series D and tomorrow, if you're listening to this
immediately after its release.
Tomorrow, we'll see the release of episode 2 of Series D, which is
the beloved Fan Favourite.
Power by Ben Steed.
And of course, Untitled Star Trek Project continues unabated.
Todd, did you want to plug?
Which I've listened to move along home, which is just glorious.
Glorious.
And I just got one other thing to say. 8 out of 10 for me.
Oh, we needed to hear that.
I can't believe that I did not.
For joy to the world or move along home?
Both.
Excellent.
On the scale of the doctor with the widow in the wardrobe up to a
Christmas carol, it is too close to the doctor, the widow in the
wardrobe for me, I'm afraid.
This is so much better than that.
The next doctor is right there.
I don't know. is right there.
Oh, yes, no, I wasn't sure which one to rank last.
Funnily enough, Simon.
I'd agree with you, but probably not in the direction you're
expecting.
All right, so all that remains is for me to say, until next time
New Year's resolution, get some chairs in.
Thank you very much for listening and good night.
Good night.
See you soon.
Night night.