Doctor Whom

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Doctor Who

Postby aleflamedyud » Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:50 am UTC

ameretrifle wrote:
aleflamedyud wrote:I figure that both A) Davies has really run out of ideas
That hadn't already been made apparent...?

(Agh, I'm sorry, I tried to stay away, but... either one of the Tinkerbell-Jesus scenes... much less the fact that there were more than one... He's been writing the Doctor like a walking Fall Out Boy song since Series 2, but I suppose that technically still counts as an idea. Just a sodding bad one.)

(And it amuses the hell out of me that so many people on youtube, including apparently the people from Doctor Who Confidential itself, have set tribute videos to "Thanks for the Memories", without either noticing or caring that the next line is "even though they weren't so great". Christ, maybe you get the Doctor you deserve.)

Well let me put it this way... if you check IMDB and that guy who does the voice for the modern Daleks is back on the show, RTD has officially and truly run out of ideas.

Edit: Someone please EXTERMINATE RTD. Please, EX-TERRR-MIN-ATE him.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Daojia
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:05 am UTC
Location: A vast, desolate and uninhabitable island north of Tasmania
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Daojia » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:20 pm UTC

And who better to replace him than the guy who brought us Blink?
Sapere aude.

User avatar
Phill
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Colchester, UK
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Phill » Fri Jun 26, 2009 7:50 am UTC

Daojia wrote:And who better to replace him than the guy who brought us Blink?


He also borought us "Girl in the Fireplace", which I didn't really like. (I seem to be in a minority on that one though). He also brought us the ending of "Silence in the Library / Forest of the Dead", which just kind of exacerbated the whole "no-one dies in nu-Who" theme. Admittedly "The Empty Child" and "Blink" were genius from start to finish.

I'm really hoping that the new series will be good - better than with RTD - but there's a nagging doubt in my mind that it won't be. But then I wouldn't be British if I didn't secretly worry that it would all be crap! :roll:

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: Doctor Who

Postby SlyReaper » Fri Jun 26, 2009 8:21 am UTC

When is the new series going to be out btw?
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Doctor Who

Postby charliepanayi » Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:03 pm UTC

The next specials are in November and at Christmas I think, with the new series next spring.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
Mother Superior
Better than tea
Posts: 2405
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:30 am UTC
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Mother Superior » Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:53 am UTC

Phill wrote:
Daojia wrote:And who better to replace him than the guy who brought us Blink?


He also borought us "Girl in the Fireplace", which I didn't really like. (I seem to be in a minority on that one though). He also brought us the ending of "Silence in the Library / Forest of the Dead", which just kind of exacerbated the whole "no-one dies in nu-Who" theme. Admittedly "The Empty Child" and "Blink" were genius from start to finish.

I'm really hoping that the new series will be good - better than with RTD - but there's a nagging doubt in my mind that it won't be. But then I wouldn't be British if I didn't secretly worry that it would all be crap! :roll:

Even if he wrote those eps, he was still working under RTD, so it may have been on his insistence that no-one died. Girl in the fireplace I'm torn on, tbh. Mostly because it included a god-awful line which characterizes one of the things I really hate about new Who: "I just snogged madame du pompadour!" -WHAT DO YOU CARE?! YOU'RE A 900 YEAR OLD TIMELORD, YOU'VE TRAVELLED THE LENGTH AND BREDTH OF TIME AND SPACE! STOP BEING IMPRESSED BY MEETING LARGELY IRRELEVANT HISTORICAL FIGURES (and London teenage girls, for that matter)!!!
My crappy creepy? Crabby? My crabby blog.
"She bore also the fruitless deep with his raging swell, Pontus, without sweet union of love."
- Hesiod, Theogony

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:57 pm UTC

Er, guys? People die a fair bit in New Who. Those Moffat episodes where nobody does have monologues pointing out that "everybody lives" because they're the exception. I imagine now that it's no longer novel he probably won't make a habit of it.

And I don't see why everyone's so mad about him being excited about that stuff. I always saw that as how the Doctor is--he's excited about all kinds of things. I mean, he may be a 900-year-old Time Lord, but he essentially spends his life roaming through space finding adventures/interesting things to do. So, "Hey, I'm having fun in history again!" seems consistent to me.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
ameretrifle
Vera
Posts: 814
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 6:32 am UTC
Location: Canada (the flat bit)

Postby ameretrifle » Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:25 am UTC

I'm not really who you're talking to, but I'm going to answer regardless.

Spoilered for I can go on about this shit forever and I do apologize.
Spoiler:
See, the thing is, there's something to be said for childlike wonder. But there's a line between that and childishness. To me, Tennant's Doctor crosses that line in a Mack truck. Did you ever hear that "Handlebars" song a while back? There's a video out there that puts it together with Doctor Who, which I found devastatingly accurate. And I do mean devastatingly. It breaks my heart. There's a line that he crosses between authority and arrogance. And it is so dangerous, to me. Most of all because no one sees anything wrong with it. There is no one who can or even will tell him "no". Even his enemies rarely seem to contradict him. Which would be okay, except he started out by fucking Earth's timeline all to hell and it went downhill from there. Family of Blood-- he consigns a bunch of assholes who are about to die anyway to what is pretty much eternal suffering, and no one will ever know or care. And Christ knows he doesn't have the self-control to stop himself. He just bounces around, never looks back, despite the thousand things that have happened in these four years alone that should have taught him to pay some fucking attention. Like, I don't know, nearly getting the Earth destroyed twice.

The thing about him being so excited to meet Madam du Pompadour (besides the fact that real men aren't so apt to kiss and tell) is that it betrays a Terracentrism that pervades the show as a whole. There are always humans somewhere. It's almost always set on Earth, or New Earth, or Parallel Earth, or a Colony of Earth, or a Spaceship from Earth, or a planet descended from Earth, or on the rare occasion it isn't any of those places, you can bet a human will stumble in within five minutes. And okay, that can make sense, if it's framed that way. But the TARDIS is a machine that can travel through all of time and space. That's the journey they're supposed to be going on. And when 90% of he time, it all comes back to earth... you start seeing fences, there. You start seeing a whole lot of potential that'll never be used. I never found a citation for it, but I heard that Davies once said that humans just couldn't sympathize with aliens. It would explain everything. In the grand scheme of things, when you're talking about as grand a scheme as this, meeting Madame du Pompadur shouldn't be much more exciting per se than meeting a London shopgirl, thank you very much. Perspective. They have none.

Also, there's a line between "excited" and "horny teenage fanboy". "Ooh! I just snogged a famous chick! SCORE!" Yeah. That's a bitch move for any species. The 900 year old Time Lord thing just makes it worse. I sometimes wonder if that's one of the reasons I don't share the attraction the entirety of the internet seems to have for David Tennant-- I don't like kids that much, and I watch him for thirty seconds and think "three-year-old". With a severe case of ADHD. Do not want.

The other difficulty with that whole episode is, name me a character who a) is not evil or totally throwaway, and b) is not in love with him. Let's discount Sarah Jane, she's got some excuse. Mickey probably wasn't. Rose and Martha and Jack were. Don't have enough information to talk about Donna. All the girls on the specials have been. The Master turned himself into a fucking carbon copy, I think he was pretty smitten-- but again, you do have the history. But everyone seems to fall in love with him. It's not like you'd join him on the TARDIS for any other reason-- like you were bored, or curious, or lost. Until maybe Donna, it was always all about him. Frankly, it was pretty insulting. On a related note, one of these days I want to see a remake where a character stays asexual. It happens, you know. Not the end of the world, either. But no, shovel in some sex and call it an "update". Don't get any more multicultural, don't get less paternalistic, don't deepen the relationships, just chuck in some sex and maybe violence and you're in the new millenium just fine. (Yes, BSG is an exception.)

And yeah, I know I get way too pissy about these things. I guess I just feel betrayed. The first year suckered me in. I don't like to think about how much of it was purely because Christopher Eccleston is a much better actor. A lot of the same problems were probably there, but when Nine talked about his planet burning, you could tell he meant it. That it was something that was always with him, something he was trying desperately to forget. Ten talks about it only when he has to, runs away from it as fast and far as he can, is trying so hard to block it out of his mind and be happyhappyhappy that he blocks everything else out too. We go from a Doctor who can answer a villain's "difficult philosophical question" with a single word, because he's heard it all before, to one who stood transfixed in School Reunion by a temptation about as clever as an unsolicited e-mail from a desperate Nigerian banker. Nine enjoyed traveling, but wasn't in a state of unipolar mania. He knew that the bad things that were happening around him were real. He called humans "stupid apes" but cared what happened to them in spite, because of that. Ten will get outraged and emo and is a lot better at talking like he cares, but when it comes down to actions, I have never gotten the feeling that he gives a damn. He uses the Time War and Rose as crosses he can haul himself up onto whenever he wants to feel like a martyr... and despite the millions of people he's saved and hundreds of people he's befriended through time and space, somehow he always winds up utterly alone. "The Lonely God". To even listen while that phrase is applied to you, much less speak it yourself in an unironic manner, makes you an incredible fucking douchebag, I don't care what you say. And dangerous as hell.
tl;dr: To be honest, I just think he acts like an entitled, emo, perpetually manic teenage boy, and I can't connect with that, plain and simple. Not if it seems so unintentional. Not if the character in question is supposed to be an ancient "TIme Lord". Not if he never, ever grows out of it. And I suspect it's been working too well for them to change that now.

User avatar
Maseiken
The Candylawyer
Posts: 2827
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 11:13 am UTC

Re:

Postby Maseiken » Sun Jun 28, 2009 2:43 pm UTC

ameretrifle wrote:I'm not really who you're talking to, but I'm going to answer regardless.

Spoilered for I can go on about this shit forever and I do apologize.
Spoiler:
See, the thing is, there's something to be said for childlike wonder. But there's a line between that and childishness. To me, Tennant's Doctor crosses that line in a Mack truck. Did you ever hear that "Handlebars" song a while back? There's a video out there that puts it together with Doctor Who, which I found devastatingly accurate. And I do mean devastatingly. It breaks my heart. There's a line that he crosses between authority and arrogance. And it is so dangerous, to me. Most of all because no one sees anything wrong with it. There is no one who can or even will tell him "no". Even his enemies rarely seem to contradict him. Which would be okay, except he started out by fucking Earth's timeline all to hell and it went downhill from there. Family of Blood-- he consigns a bunch of assholes who are about to die anyway to what is pretty much eternal suffering, and no one will ever know or care. And Christ knows he doesn't have the self-control to stop himself. He just bounces around, never looks back, despite the thousand things that have happened in these four years alone that should have taught him to pay some fucking attention. Like, I don't know, nearly getting the Earth destroyed twice.

The thing about him being so excited to meet Madam du Pompadour (besides the fact that real men aren't so apt to kiss and tell) is that it betrays a Terracentrism that pervades the show as a whole. There are always humans somewhere. It's almost always set on Earth, or New Earth, or Parallel Earth, or a Colony of Earth, or a Spaceship from Earth, or a planet descended from Earth, or on the rare occasion it isn't any of those places, you can bet a human will stumble in within five minutes. And okay, that can make sense, if it's framed that way. But the TARDIS is a machine that can travel through all of time and space. That's the journey they're supposed to be going on. And when 90% of he time, it all comes back to earth... you start seeing fences, there. You start seeing a whole lot of potential that'll never be used. I never found a citation for it, but I heard that Davies once said that humans just couldn't sympathize with aliens. It would explain everything. In the grand scheme of things, when you're talking about as grand a scheme as this, meeting Madame du Pompadur shouldn't be much more exciting per se than meeting a London shopgirl, thank you very much. Perspective. They have none.

Also, there's a line between "excited" and "horny teenage fanboy". "Ooh! I just snogged a famous chick! SCORE!" Yeah. That's a bitch move for any species. The 900 year old Time Lord thing just makes it worse. I sometimes wonder if that's one of the reasons I don't share the attraction the entirety of the internet seems to have for David Tennant-- I don't like kids that much, and I watch him for thirty seconds and think "three-year-old". With a severe case of ADHD. Do not want.

The other difficulty with that whole episode is, name me a character who a) is not evil or totally throwaway, and b) is not in love with him. Let's discount Sarah Jane, she's got some excuse. Mickey probably wasn't. Rose and Martha and Jack were. Don't have enough information to talk about Donna. All the girls on the specials have been. The Master turned himself into a fucking carbon copy, I think he was pretty smitten-- but again, you do have the history. But everyone seems to fall in love with him. It's not like you'd join him on the TARDIS for any other reason-- like you were bored, or curious, or lost. Until maybe Donna, it was always all about him. Frankly, it was pretty insulting. On a related note, one of these days I want to see a remake where a character stays asexual. It happens, you know. Not the end of the world, either. But no, shovel in some sex and call it an "update". Don't get any more multicultural, don't get less paternalistic, don't deepen the relationships, just chuck in some sex and maybe violence and you're in the new millenium just fine. (Yes, BSG is an exception.)

And yeah, I know I get way too pissy about these things. I guess I just feel betrayed. The first year suckered me in. I don't like to think about how much of it was purely because Christopher Eccleston is a much better actor. A lot of the same problems were probably there, but when Nine talked about his planet burning, you could tell he meant it. That it was something that was always with him, something he was trying desperately to forget. Ten talks about it only when he has to, runs away from it as fast and far as he can, is trying so hard to block it out of his mind and be happyhappyhappy that he blocks everything else out too. We go from a Doctor who can answer a villain's "difficult philosophical question" with a single word, because he's heard it all before, to one who stood transfixed in School Reunion by a temptation about as clever as an unsolicited e-mail from a desperate Nigerian banker. Nine enjoyed traveling, but wasn't in a state of unipolar mania. He knew that the bad things that were happening around him were real. He called humans "stupid apes" but cared what happened to them in spite, because of that. Ten will get outraged and emo and is a lot better at talking like he cares, but when it comes down to actions, I have never gotten the feeling that he gives a damn. He uses the Time War and Rose as crosses he can haul himself up onto whenever he wants to feel like a martyr... and despite the millions of people he's saved and hundreds of people he's befriended through time and space, somehow he always winds up utterly alone. "The Lonely God". To even listen while that phrase is applied to you, much less speak it yourself in an unironic manner, makes you an incredible fucking douchebag, I don't care what you say. And dangerous as hell.
tl;dr: To be honest, I just think he acts like an entitled, emo, perpetually manic teenage boy, and I can't connect with that, plain and simple. Not if it seems so unintentional. Not if the character in question is supposed to be an ancient "TIme Lord". Not if he never, ever grows out of it. And I suspect it's been working too well for them to change that now.

He HAS grown out of it, several times. In fact, the first Doctor was a fairly Cynical old man. Regenerations are not the same Doctor in a totally new body. He has all his old memories, and a roughly similar thought process, but he is actually a completly different person.

If you take his 900 year age to indicate that he's incapable of being surprised anymore, then you have a very limited view of the size of the universe when viewed in four dimensions. Even if he didn't travel through time, he'd have a lot left to see.

And if occasionally being miserable because his entire species was wiped off the face of the cosmos (not only destroyed, but removed entirely from the timestream, as if it had never existed) counts as "Emo" (Sidenote: it doesn't), then just about any show of any emotion ever must also count.

The Doctor, in most of his forms, has expressed a particular fondness for the Human race. I'm perfectly willing to accept that this is not narratively important, but there'd be little point in having a show with a Time Machine and taking it to a bunch of places and times no-one's ever heard of or even conceived.

The Doctor likes Humans. he likes early humans, when they lived on earth. So he picks up companions from earth around this time, partially because he knows he can't function healthily on his own. And then when he picks them up, although it's all very well to go around to amazing, far-off planets at arbitrary points in the universal timeline. But he's carrying humans in a Time machine, and he likes Human history. It's as if someone asks you about a collection or hobby you hold dear to your heart. Sure, you can show them the entirety of the collection, going from what you consider the best or most enjoyable. But if you have a point of reference with the person you're showing it to, you'll want them to get involved too.

Even if this weren't the case, he doesn't hop from companion to companion with no break in between. I believe it is generally allowed that in between any two given episodes that are not demonstrably in sequence, any amount of time could have passed, limited only by the aging of the Doctor's companion, and in between companions, he could be doing almost literally anything. What you're really complaining about is that most of what we see is on earth, which there's really no reply to.

There's an argument to suggest that the vastness of the universe could make the doctor MORE excited to meet historical figures. As mentioned, he holds a particular fondness for human history, and in the greater context of the universe, coming across figures from such history is so astronomically unlikely that seeking them out could well be very exhilarating. Again, it's like humans are his hobby, and coming across one that is mentioned prominently in Human history means you've found one specimen that stands out from the others in some way. You can have particular interests without losing perspective.

If you're speaking Canonically, then LOTS OF PEOPLE have seen something wrong with the Doctor's lack of disciplinary figure. Torchwood, mainly, but there are other instances.

He acts entitled because he IS entitled, by the way. He's more or less the most intelligent being ever to exist, as far as I can tell. (The other Timelords not counting because, as previously mentioned, they never existed)

I was fairly certain that the whole point of the family of Blood was that they were immortal, thus necessitating the eternal imprisonment. I'd be thoroughly surprised at anyone mortal surviving being imprisoned in A BLACK HOLE, but maybe I need to re-watch that. In any case, I'm sceptical on this point.

Saying that he almost got the earth destroyed twice strikes me as rather surprising, could I get the specific cases?

I'm not sure what to say about him being dangerous. Other than that it's the most completely frigging obvious thing you could possibly say.
If you want the doctor to act normal, then I'm not sure what to say to you, since such a desire is patently absurd.

Is that a "Real men" as in, "Men in reality", or "Real men" as in, "REAL MANLY MEN"? In either case, saying they aren't so apt to kiss and tell is pretty stupid. Seeing as that is where the phrase "To kiss and tell" comes from. I seriously don't see what is so wrong with experiencing a remarkable occurence and informing your friends about it. It's a little rude when it comes to romance, but hardly inexcusable.

Additionally, there was never, to the best of my knowledge, a particular taboo about the Doctor's sexuality. I don't believe he was ever really Asexual, unless you count anyone not currently in a relationship as Asexual.

I think YOU'RE feeling pretty entitled to a doctor that YOU want, which I suppose is fair enough, but not very realistic.

So, do you just want to watch a show about a Dour, supremely intelligent, perfectly unflappable superior being? Because, I'll be honest with you, that sounds really dull.
"GRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOWR!!!!"
(Translation: "Objection!")

Maseiken had the ball at the top of the key...

User avatar
Yuri2356
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:00 pm UTC

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Yuri2356 » Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:03 pm UTC

And if occasionally being miserable because his entire species was wiped off the face of the cosmos (not only destroyed, but removed entirely from the timestream, as if it had never existed) counts as "Emo" (Sidenote: it doesn't), then just about any show of any emotion ever must also count.

And annihilating your main character's people in order to make him more marketable to lonely fangirls is a good dramatic choice (Sidenote: it's not), then just about any piece of hack writing is.

If you're speaking Canonically, then LOTS OF PEOPLE have seen something wrong with the Doctor's lack of disciplinary figure. Torchwood, mainly, but there are other instances.

And we're generally supposed to see them as wrong and bad for daring to disagree with the eternal wisdom of the mighty sparkle-Jesus. (You shot slave-trading pirates so that they could never yours or any other world again? Death to your career and the age of prosperity it would bring to this land!)
I was fairly certain that the whole point of the family of Blood was that they were immortal, thus necessitating the eternal imprisonment.


Wrong.

Their motivation was to seize immortality because they had a lifespan you could measure in months, so the Doctor punished them by giving them each some twisted form of 'immortality'. That was the whole reason the doctor chose to hide and wait them out instead of confronting them immediately - they were on a tight schedule, he wasn't.

I'd be thoroughly surprised at anyone mortal surviving being imprisoned in A BLACK HOLE,


She wasn't placed 'in' the hole, she was set adrift in space where she would eventually fall into it. Presumably such that she'd still be there in her time-dilated plunge for a very long time. "Living Forever" by experiencing a few minutes suffocating in a cold soundless void. But shoot a man who's been maintaining an eternal race-war that's consumed generations? He'd never.

I'm not sure what to say about him being dangerous. Other than that it's the most completely frigging obvious thing you could possibly say.
If you want the doctor Edward Cullen to act normal, then I'm not sure what to say to you, since such a desire is patently absurd.


So, do you just want to watch a show about a Dour, supremely intelligent, perfectly unflappable superior being? Because, I'll be honest with you, that sounds really dull.

Not a fan of Tom Baker, then?

cathrl
Posts: 427
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:58 am UTC

Re: Re:

Postby cathrl » Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:14 pm UTC

Maseiken wrote:He HAS grown out of it, several times. In fact, the first Doctor was a fairly Cynical old man. Regenerations are not the same Doctor in a totally new body. He has all his old memories, and a roughly similar thought process, but he is actually a completly different person.



I think one of us missed the point. Wasn't ameretrifle commenting specifically on Tennant's incarnation of the Doctor? Sure, the characteristics you refer to have been shown by several of the previous Doctors. But Tennant's version is annoying because he appears to lack all of them.

Incidentally, the Doctor Who Confidentials have been just plain embarrassing for a very long time. All hail the Great God RTD, oh here's how we did this week's SFX.

I'd have to say that the Doctor Who version I enjoy the most at the moment is, by some way, the Sarah Jane Chronicles. It's a very watchable kids show set in the DW universe and featuring a certain former companion. I could live without the annoying talking computer, but apart from that it's great fun. Storytelling without everything having to have an undercurrent of romantic angst.

User avatar
Maseiken
The Candylawyer
Posts: 2827
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 11:13 am UTC

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Maseiken » Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:22 am UTC

*Sigh* This is what I didn't want to happen, but that was very silly of me, wasn't it?

I think "Annihlate" is a bit of a strong term, and insisting on the Doctor being a lonely figure is entirely fair enough in my opinion, since that has been a fairly central theme for awhile now.

Note the term "Canonically", I won't deny that most of the people that try to wrangle the doctor are painted as "Bad Guys", in the T.V sense of the word, but that doesn't make the morally reprehensible in all cases. For the most part they're just ignorant, which is absolutely fair enough, and maybe egotistical, which, again, is fair enough. Sure, they present the "EVIL PLOTLINE", but it's usually because they're trying to do something good, and have been skewed or simply had the wrong idea from the start. Even on the non-"EVIL" side, there's UNIT, although they don't seek to reign in the doctor, they do keep an eye on him. Their saving grace over other such organisations seems to be that they accept that some of the things they deal with are more complex than they understand, and defer to the doctor's expertise, which he most definitely has.

Ok, so the punishment for the FoB was unnecessary. Perhaps because the Doctor has a Dark Side, and maybe, just maybe, it's wrong that such an unstable character should be running rampant and slightly manic. Even accepting all this, it doesn't make a bad show, or even a bad character. Even if the Doctor were completely devoid of responsibility, I'd still find him to be a compelling character, and apparently that's just a matter of taste.

Hmm, you've got a point on Tom Baker I suppose. I guess I retract that statement then, but I feel the rest of my argument stands. And, once again, I feel we are coming down to the true core of any debate on the internet, the core being individual preference. There's absolutely no way, not-a-chance in the most distant and horrible of hells that either of you could possibly convince me to dislike David Tennant or his depiction of the Doctor in any way. You could call me a Fanboy if you like, but, again, it's not really going to do anything more than if you called me a "Dum Rtard" or a "Pole Vaulter" (I really like Pole Vaulter as an insult. It's so... subtly expressive), or a "n00b" for that matter.

And I don't think my wails and general QQ'ing will convince anyone that is already set against him that he is, in fact, the greatest thing ever.

So I'm going to try not to respond to anymore David Tennant debate on here, although I will undoubtedly find it difficult.
"GRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOWR!!!!"
(Translation: "Objection!")

Maseiken had the ball at the top of the key...

User avatar
ameretrifle
Vera
Posts: 814
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 6:32 am UTC
Location: Canada (the flat bit)

Re: Doctor Who

Postby ameretrifle » Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:46 am UTC

Um... I apologize for not feeling the same way? And I won't try to explain why I don't again?

Someone asked why people took issue with the Doctor getting excited about things; I gave my personal answer, spoilered and prefaced with an apology. I do try not to harass this thread too much, but when someone asks, I just can't help myself. You know the feeling. You obviously have it yourself, just on the opposite side of the issue. But to answer your posts:

-Yes, I know he's different every time.
-No, I do not expect him not to be surprised by anything and I don't believe I ever said that. The closest I came was my assertion that the offer in School Reunion wasn't especially credible. I will explain why if you like.
-Of course he has the right to be sad. I do not feel he portrays it in a realistic way. We evidently disagree.
-I realize there are all sorts of adventures that we never see. I merely question why all the ones we do see are on Earth. But you make several good points and I apologize.
Maseiken wrote:If you're speaking Canonically, then LOTS OF PEOPLE have seen something wrong with the Doctor's lack of disciplinary figure. Torchwood, mainly, but there are other instances.
Yeah, and they were borderline evil. When the Doctor hears Jack is involved with them, his reaction is one of great dismay. But fine, I'm no expert.
-On entitlement, we must obviously agree to violently disagree.
Saying that he almost got the earth destroyed twice strikes me as rather surprising, could I get the specific cases?
I was thinking of The Parting of the Ways, where Earth gets destroyed by the Daleks near the end (I personally wouldn't blame him for that, but the show, ironically, did), and the end of Series Three, where the Master took over the world. Technically the entire planet didn't blow up, but there was sufficiently massive loss of life for me to use the term... *shrug*
-Since you ask, I used 'real man' as synonomus with "mature adult". Which is, I suppose, a subjective term.

This is a matter of taste. I know that. I'm not going to insult you for disagreeing with me, for christ's sake. You enjoy Tennant's performance; I really, really don't. Do you honestly believe I'm going to have a problem with that? I have an internet connection; I reconciled myself to the fact that people like David Tennant a long, long time ago.

User avatar
Nath
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Nath » Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:27 am UTC

You know, many of those complaints are perfectly valid. Tennant's Doctor is dangerous: he is rash and impulsive; he has no sense of perspective; people follow him too easily. In short, he's an over-excitable super-intelligent man-child with a god complex; he just usually happens to have good intentions. These are the things that make the character interesting. I've often thought he'd be more interesting as a villain.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: Doctor Who

Postby SlyReaper » Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:53 am UTC

It's perfectly possible. As has been mentioned before, when the Doctor regenerates, it is ONLY the memories which get passed on to the new incarnation. The new one is a completely different person who just happens to have 900 years worth of memories plugged into their skull. So one day, we might get one who decides to use all that experience and wisdom for evil.

Which has just given me a fantastic idea for a Doctor Who story. The Doctor meets a far future version of himself, but future self is an evil mudering bastard. Young Doctor has to kill Old Doctor, and then has to carry with him the knowledge that one day he too will become an evil murdering bastard who gets killed by his younger self.

He will knock 4 times...
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:13 pm UTC

I'm pretty sure they've already done that.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: Doctor Who

Postby SlyReaper » Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:14 pm UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:I'm pretty sure they've already done that.


What? :(

Was that old-Who? Cos I've not watched any of them.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:19 pm UTC

Neither have I, but look up "the Valeyard".
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Phill
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Colchester, UK
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Phill » Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:56 pm UTC

Mother Superior wrote:Even if he wrote those eps, he was still working under RTD, so it may have been on his insistence that no-one died. Girl in the fireplace I'm torn on, tbh. Mostly because it included a god-awful line which characterizes one of the things I really hate about new Who: "I just snogged madame du pompadour!" -WHAT DO YOU CARE?! YOU'RE A 900 YEAR OLD TIMELORD, YOU'VE TRAVELLED THE LENGTH AND BREDTH OF TIME AND SPACE! STOP BEING IMPRESSED BY MEETING LARGELY IRRELEVANT HISTORICAL FIGURES (and London teenage girls, for that matter)!!!


I heard that it was actually Stephen Moffat who asked for River Song not to die in that episode. Don't know why, I suppose he has plans for the storyline.

ameretrifle, I largely agree with your criticism of David Tennant's doctor. Although I still like him! :D

Torchwood, don't get me started.... I think a quote from Behind the Sofa gets it just about right. It was from a review of a series 2 episode, where a man returns from the void after having been taken as a teenager. He screams for 20 hours a day... it was because he was being shown re-runs of Torchwood series 1 :twisted:

User avatar
MiB24601
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:13 pm UTC
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Doctor Who

Postby MiB24601 » Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:13 pm UTC

Mother Superior wrote:Even if he wrote those eps, he was still working under RTD, so it may have been on his insistence that no-one died. Girl in the fireplace I'm torn on, tbh. Mostly because it included a god-awful line which characterizes one of the things I really hate about new Who: "I just snogged madame du pompadour!" -WHAT DO YOU CARE?! YOU'RE A 900 YEAR OLD TIMELORD, YOU'VE TRAVELLED THE LENGTH AND BREDTH OF TIME AND SPACE! STOP BEING IMPRESSED BY MEETING LARGELY IRRELEVANT HISTORICAL FIGURES (and London teenage girls, for that matter)!!!

Phill wrote:I heard that it was actually Stephen Moffat who asked for River Song not to die in that episode. Don't know why, I suppose he has plans for the storyline.


That was Jenny. Stephen Moffat asked for Jenny, from the Doctor's Daughter to not be killed. This was mentioned in the episode podcast.


SlyReaper wrote:Abridged Version -> The Doctor as a Villian

Sir_Elderberry wrote:I'm pretty sure they've already done that.

SlyReaper wrote:What? :(

Was that old-Who? Cos I've not watched any of them.

Sir_Elderberry wrote:Neither have I, but look up "the Valeyard".


Yeah, but Trial of a Timelord was pretty terrible. Actually, most of 1980's Doctor Who was pretty terrible. The 1970's Doctor Who was great though.
"There's no point being grown-up if you can't be childish sometimes." - The Fourth Doctor, Doctor Who

User avatar
Nath
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Nath » Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:42 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:It's perfectly possible. As has been mentioned before, when the Doctor regenerates, it is ONLY the memories which get passed on to the new incarnation. The new one is a completely different person who just happens to have 900 years worth of memories plugged into their skull. So one day, we might get one who decides to use all that experience and wisdom for evil.

Well, I meant Tennant's Doctor specifically. I think he'd have made a good villain as is, without regenerating into an overtly evil bad guy.

User avatar
ameretrifle
Vera
Posts: 814
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 6:32 am UTC
Location: Canada (the flat bit)

Re: Doctor Who

Postby ameretrifle » Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:00 am UTC

Nath wrote:Well, I meant Tennant's Doctor specifically. I think he'd have made a good villain as is, without regenerating into an overtly evil bad guy.
Big shock, me too. :D Actually, I thought they wrote the Master pretty much exactly like they wrote the Doctor... there was a whole creepy-fanboy aspect to it. Not even subtextual; what was the line-- "If you can be young and strong again, I will too"? Something to that effect.

the argument could also be made that he already IS a villain. but i'm not going to make that argument right now. i will say that it'd make him a hell of a lot easier to take... the more i think about that idea, the more intriguing it gets...
Phill wrote:ameretrifle, I largely agree with your criticism of David Tennant's doctor. Although I still like him! :D

Torchwood, don't get me started.... I think a quote from Behind the Sofa gets it just about right. It was from a review of a series 2 episode, where a man returns from the void after having been taken as a teenager. He screams for 20 hours a day... it was because he was being shown re-runs of Torchwood series 1 :twisted:
:D I think I spent too much time around fangirls, who'd refuse to admit anything even remotely dodgy was going on... gave me a bit of a complex. I think if there was more of a sense in the show that he was supposed to be flawed, I could come to terms with it. But then they chuck in some more Jesus imagery and I beat my head against the wall again. :D Someday I'll get over it. Someday. The sad part is, I've made remarkable progress. :mrgreen:

And Torchwood... yeah, let's not talk about Torchwood. It interferes with the memory repression. :D Love that joke!

User avatar
Nath
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Nath » Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:53 am UTC

ameretrifle wrote:
Nath wrote:Well, I meant Tennant's Doctor specifically. I think he'd have made a good villain as is, without regenerating into an overtly evil bad guy.
Big shock, me too. :D Actually, I thought they wrote the Master pretty much exactly like they wrote the Doctor... there was a whole creepy-fanboy aspect to it. Not even subtextual; what was the line-- "If you can be young and strong again, I will too"? Something to that effect.

Similar, yes, but they made him a little too obviously villainous. I think it's more interesting when the villain sees himself as the good guy; I don't think the Master did.

ameretrifle wrote:the argument could also be made that he already IS a villain. but i'm not going to make that argument right now. i will say that it'd make him a hell of a lot easier to take... the more i think about that idea, the more intriguing it gets...

Well, he does commit the odd bit of genocide now and then...

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: Doctor Who

Postby SlyReaper » Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:49 am UTC

Yeah but only on species that really deserve it. :P
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
ArgonV
Posts: 1792
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:08 pm UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Doctor Who

Postby ArgonV » Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:46 am UTC

Yet he won't exterminate the Daleks

User avatar
ameretrifle
Vera
Posts: 814
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 6:32 am UTC
Location: Canada (the flat bit)

Re: Doctor Who

Postby ameretrifle » Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:09 am UTC

And the bloody Daleks won't exterminate him...

(The Daleks Take Manhattan was just a boatload of fun. There he is, jumping up and down, screaming at the Daleks to shoot him, and they don't bloody do it... :D)

Oh, and shooting down untrustworthy alien slavers? Stone cold dealbreaker. Actually... between the Doctor and the version of him that's a villain who believes he's doing the right thing... functionally, what would be the difference? (Snarky, yes, but also an honest question. Given my terrible and obvious biases, I can't think of much. But I imagine there'd be something...)

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: Doctor Who

Postby SlyReaper » Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:16 am UTC

Hmm, if you're talking about the incident I think you're talking about, it wasn't the Doctor who shot them down. It was Torchwood, and I seem to recall him getting quite livid about it.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
Yuri2356
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:00 pm UTC

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Yuri2356 » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:42 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:Hmm, if you're talking about the incident I think you're talking about, it wasn't the Doctor who shot them down. It was Torchwood, and I seem to recall him getting quite livid about it.

He was quite pissed at Torchwood for shooting down a vessel filled with slave-trading pirates who, even if they never returned to Earth, would just as well hit up some other planet anyway. This got the doc pissy enough that he was wiling to undo a historical event (Britain's golden age, led by Harriot Jones) which Doc #9 spoke of with the same awe and admiration that he'd use to talk about Charlemagne or Churchill.

What earth got instead of that age was the rise of the Master, and his year-long reign of genocidal terror.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: Doctor Who

Postby SlyReaper » Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:05 pm UTC

Oh yeah, I forgot that she was supposed to have a destiny and all...

Yeah, the Doc's a bit of a dick isn't he. :|
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:37 pm UTC

ameretrifle wrote: Actually... between the Doctor and the version of him that's a villain who believes he's doing the right thing... functionally, what would be the difference? (Snarky, yes, but also an honest question. Given my terrible and obvious biases, I can't think of much. But I imagine there'd be something...)

Oh, come on. He's not that bad. I think his actions in "Family of Blood", "The Christmas Invasion", and refusing to kill off the Daleks, but it's not villain-level. What he did in FoB wasn't evil. Over-vengeful, perhaps, but it's not like he did it just because he gets a kick out of watching people suffer. Solidly neutral, D&D-speaking. The Christmas Invasion I'll grant you. And note that the Daleks got taken out anyway, by 10.5. Then he gets mad. But I don't see what he did as any different from what he would have anyway--sticking 10.5 and Rose together in their own dimension ties up loose ends neatly enough that I didn't see it as a punishment. (Neither, I'm sure, do Rose or 10.5).

Anyway, the main difference between Good Doctor and Evil Doctor would be that, were he villain-with-good intentions he'd need some sort of powerful motive that actually drove him to do bad things. As is, he just bounces around the universe, accomplishing massive amounts of good and saving huge numbers of life weekly. And sometimes he screws up, and sometimes he doesn't think clearly.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Mother Superior
Better than tea
Posts: 2405
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:30 am UTC
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Mother Superior » Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:02 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:Oh yeah, I forgot that she was supposed to have a destiny and all...

Yeah, the Doc's a bit of a dick isn't he. :|

That is one of his most obvious dick-moves, yeah. "You defended yourselves! You killed those people who tried to wipe out one third of your entire population just a few hours ago! You decided to not completely depend on me being around, which I usually am but it's purely chance when I am! You bastards!"
My crappy creepy? Crabby? My crabby blog.
"She bore also the fruitless deep with his raging swell, Pontus, without sweet union of love."
- Hesiod, Theogony

User avatar
Yuri2356
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:00 pm UTC

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Yuri2356 » Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:53 pm UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:Anyway, the main difference between Good Doctor and Evil Doctor would be that, were he villain-with-good intentions he'd need some sort of powerful motive that actually drove him to do bad things. As is, he just bounces around the universe, accomplishing massive amounts of good and saving huge numbers of life weekly. And sometimes he screws up, and sometimes he doesn't think clearly.

Just dial down the doctor's level of mercy/pacifism a fair deal and there you go. Remove the big 'ol sparkly stigma against wielding the wrath of a Time Lord and replace it with pragmatism or outright apathy from time to time.

Family of blood could be converted to this form without changing most of the main plot points -

The family goes after the Doctor, he'd rather not waste the efforts on something that's going to die in a few months anyway, so he decides to wait them out and take a bit of a 'vacation' as John Smith. The Family won't take no for an answer, track him down, and engage in rather unpleasant antics on the world the Doctor sees as his home away from home. (even moreso since his real home was destroyed) Martha knows that the only way to deal with this is to wake up the Doctor, so the watch starts calling for its owner and drama is exchanged until the Family is informed that they should have kept the fuck off of the grass.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:16 am UTC

Well, yes. "If he was merciless and into violence, he'd be a villain!" isn't exactly far-fetched for any sufficiently powerful character.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
steewi
Posts: 873
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:38 am UTC
Location: Tropical Nowhere

Re: Doctor Who

Postby steewi » Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:18 am UTC

Tom Baker Doctor refused to eliminate the Daleks as well in Genesis of the Daleks.

The Doctor is definitely True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, when it comes down to it. He's a morality unto himself.

User avatar
Maseiken
The Candylawyer
Posts: 2827
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 11:13 am UTC

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Maseiken » Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:56 pm UTC

steewi wrote:Tom Baker Doctor refused to eliminate the Daleks as well in Genesis of the Daleks.

The Doctor is definitely True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, when it comes down to it. He's a morality unto himself.

I still think it depends mostly on the particular regeneration you look at, but yeah, he's certainly not an exclusively beneficial force.
"GRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOWR!!!!"
(Translation: "Objection!")

Maseiken had the ball at the top of the key...

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Doctor Who

Postby aleflamedyud » Mon Jul 06, 2009 4:10 am UTC

Maseiken wrote:
steewi wrote:Tom Baker Doctor refused to eliminate the Daleks as well in Genesis of the Daleks.

The Doctor is definitely True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, when it comes down to it. He's a morality unto himself.

I still think it depends mostly on the particular regeneration you look at, but yeah, he's certainly not an exclusively beneficial force.

Unless RTD is writing, in which case he's Crystal Time Lord Brilliant-Loverboy Jesus.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Yuri2356
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:00 pm UTC

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Yuri2356 » Mon Jul 06, 2009 2:28 pm UTC

steewi wrote:Tom Baker Doctor refused to eliminate the Daleks as well in Genesis of the Daleks.

At that time in the writing, the Daleks also weren't universe-destroying engines of hyperdeath who'd beaten the Time Lords in a total war. They were also allowed to be something other than invincible most of the time, the problem for our heroes being lack of weapons rather than lack of gods in the floorboards.

User avatar
Maseiken
The Candylawyer
Posts: 2827
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 11:13 am UTC

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Maseiken » Mon Jul 06, 2009 2:34 pm UTC

Yeah, the first generation Daleks were a very static threat in three dimensional terms.
"GRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOWR!!!!"
(Translation: "Objection!")

Maseiken had the ball at the top of the key...

Of Negligible Mass
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:31 pm UTC
Location: Merrie Olde Englande

Re: Doctor Who

Postby Of Negligible Mass » Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:46 am UTC

Anyone see last night's new Torchwood?

I thought it was rather good actually, looking forward to the next one...
Don't like it?

... Neither did I

User avatar
ArgonV
Posts: 1792
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:08 pm UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Doctor Who

Postby ArgonV » Tue Jul 07, 2009 7:23 pm UTC

I've always wondered what would happen is
Spoiler:
Jack got blown of or decapitated or something like that.
Looks like I'll find out tonight. In 40 minutes.


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests