From what Ive read he agreed to be 9 because Davies would be a major presence on set but they found out it wouldnt be the case and he had a really crappy time as a result.
King Riptor on
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
From what Ive read he agreed to be 9 because Davies would be a major presence on set but they found out it wouldnt be the case and he had a really crappy time as a result.
The early filming was also apparently pretty hellish. Beyond the new show wrinkles, they had a newbie director who was a disaster.
My wife cried at the 'borrowed a quid' bit and most of the stuff involving Wilfred. Still can't forgive what they did to Donna, really. I've been operating under the assumption that part of the point of Doctor Who and his whole Peter Pan shtick is that it allows the companions to grow as people and unlock their own potential, but Donna sort of monkey-wrenches all that since she's robbed of all her character growth.
It's just as easy to say he has a destructive influence on anybody who travels with him. Davros even tries to accuse him as much, how rather than get his own hands dirty, he'll turn others into soldiers to do it. Pretty much exactly what happens to Martha. Rose may now have everything she ever wanted, but got shunted to a parallel universe in the process. Astrid ended up dead, and Adelaide basically spat in his face.
It's not all pie in the sky awesomeness, and what happened to Donna is a real overt example. And the Doctor is fully aware of this fact.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
My wife cried at the 'borrowed a quid' bit and most of the stuff involving Wilfred. Still can't forgive what they did to Donna, really. I've been operating under the assumption that part of the point of Doctor Who and his whole Peter Pan shtick is that it allows the companions to grow as people and unlock their own potential, but Donna sort of monkey-wrenches all that since she's robbed of all her character growth.
It's just as easy to say he has a destructive influence on anybody who travels with him. Davros even tries to accuse him as much, how rather than get his own hands dirty, he'll turn others into soldiers to do it. Pretty much exactly what happens to Martha. Rose may now have everything she ever wanted, but got shunted to a parallel universe in the process. Astrid ended up dead, and Adelaide basically spat in his face.
It's not all pie in the sky awesomeness, and what happened to Donna is a real overt example. And the Doctor is fully aware of this fact.
It's not like companions have a choice. They have to be tough or they'll end up dead.
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
My wife cried at the 'borrowed a quid' bit and most of the stuff involving Wilfred. Still can't forgive what they did to Donna, really. I've been operating under the assumption that part of the point of Doctor Who and his whole Peter Pan shtick is that it allows the companions to grow as people and unlock their own potential, but Donna sort of monkey-wrenches all that since she's robbed of all her character growth.
It's just as easy to say he has a destructive influence on anybody who travels with him. Davros even tries to accuse him as much, how rather than get his own hands dirty, he'll turn others into soldiers to do it. Pretty much exactly what happens to Martha. Rose may now have everything she ever wanted, but got shunted to a parallel universe in the process. Astrid ended up dead, and Adelaide basically spat in his face.
It's not all pie in the sky awesomeness, and what happened to Donna is a real overt example. And the Doctor is fully aware of this fact.
It's not like companions have a choice. They have to be tough or they'll end up dead.
It's a good point though. Should he really be waltzing in and grabbing these innocent people, then dragging them off to their eventual death or worse than death?
I like that moral question.
Adelaide shows why he goes after the innocent and curious types. She saw straight through him. He wasn't a magical man to her. She saw him for how wrong he really was. At his lowest point, she showed him that he was not riding high, but fundamentally broken.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Eh, he doesn't force anyone into anything. They all end screwed over because they don't see a Dalek, go FUCK THIS and scoot. All the people the Doctor comes across who don't throw themselves into danger like suicide junkies normally turn out OK. But they're all like Clara- they don't know when to quit because wonders etc.
Yeah, everyone ends up fucked over. But some of them would end up dead without him too. And there's no reason any of them couldn't have gotten 100% happy endings. Did any of the old companions make it out happy and in the proper dimension (though really for Rose it was an all around upgrade in the end so even in new Who suppose we have the exception that proves the rule.)?
Xeddicus on
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
edited October 2014
That issue is repeatedly brought up, and it's repeatedly illustrated that these people choose to go with the Doctor. He's not putting a gun to their head, their planets won't explode if they don't come along, they decide to go with the Doctor. It's not even a moral question, it's a question of how well an effective immortal can tolerate seeing the few people he connects with dying while he goes on forever.
If you had a chance to go with the Doctor to do awesome things and the price was almost certainly a fundamentally altered life and a solid chance of dying, who would blame it on the person offering the choice? They aren't killing you, they're giving you an unexpected opportunity. It's up to you to take the chance, doubly so when your first meeting with the person involves seeing them chance death repeatedly and thus immediately have the permanent hazard established.
As for Donna's ending, I liked it, but I liked it because it effectively chucked her out of the show forever and I couldn't stand her, not because I thought it was objectively good how they did it or anything. But to be honest, the show really shouldn't have relied on bringing back other companions so much *cough*Rose*cough*, so more permanent endings to most of the companions should've been the norm for sure.
I disagree with that last bit. Rose popping up tied the whole thing together for me. It established each doctor as the Doctor and gave the whole thing an more epic feeling. Lent the time travelling demi-god a history. Rose had the best connection to the Doctor; more than anyone else, even River. That made the highs higher and the lows lower. I don't think it was a coincidence she (kinda) came back for the 50th over everyone else.
Now I want Donna or Rory or someone to turn up!
Xeddicus on
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
There's been some stuff that wasn't bad for Rose to show up in, sure; having her for the special was great. But that was also something like her, what, fourth return? Kinda annoying to have a "gone" character keep coming back like that.
And I definitely would hate for Amy, Rory, or Donna to show up again, and not just because I don't like Donna. Permanent stuff should be permanent, even in Doctor Who. Otherwise, you get a fictional consistency like Marvel where people die and come back so much that it completely ruins any impact of anything "big".
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
Heyo.
Just began watching this-here new Peter Capaldi Dr. Who.
I largely haven't watched any of the more recent Doctors, because of reasons, mainly being a bit too in love with the ugly strangeness of the early Doctor Who series that, once upon a time, filled a large chunk of a fledgling Sci-Fi channel.
But this.
I quite like this.
Three episodes in right now.
The complete and utter absence of world-building going on is downright refreshing.
That issue is repeatedly brought up, and it's repeatedly illustrated that these people choose to go with the Doctor. He's not putting a gun to their head, their planets won't explode if they don't come along, they decide to go with the Doctor. It's not even a moral question, it's a question of how well an effective immortal can tolerate seeing the few people he connects with dying while he goes on forever.
Except he never tells them how dangerous it is in the beginning and once they do know they're hooked.
If you had a chance to go with the Doctor to do awesome things and the price was almost certainly a fundamentally altered life and a solid chance of dying, who would blame it on the person offering the choice? They aren't killing you, they're giving you an unexpected opportunity. It's up to you to take the chance, doubly so when your first meeting with the person involves seeing them chance death repeatedly and thus immediately have the permanent hazard established.
He gave them that choice of his free will, why isn't he held responsible for what happens? He's not a mindless animal. He knows how dangerous it can be and does it anyway. That's why Eleven felt guilty about his companions. He's putting them in situations they're not trained for, it's a miracle how many of his companions haven't died horrifically - then again, that'd make the series tone less campy and more tragic. He knows the risks better than they do when first meet him and he has the adequate knowledge, skills and resources to fight back rather than being someone who are the victims in slasher movies. In some cases being a companion is worse than dying, thanks to meeting the Doctor Amy and Rory are stuck in World War II with no hope of being rescued ever, that's their "reward" for being companions*. Besides half the reason he has companions is for someone to be his moral anchor to be a fail safe from him going Time Lord Victorious on the universe, which is selfish on his part.
He's completely against having companions that have necessary skills and experience, minimum, from not dying on his adventures like soldiers, spies and warriors. There are exceptions, like Strax, but that's all they are. Pink had to prove himself while Rory never did and never got any gruff from the Doctor when he became a warrior on his own. When you're a Time Lord whose daily activities consist of saving the universe who would you rather have your back, a school teacher or a soldier?
A reason those companions face death on a daily basis is by following him. He knows where it is and ends up at its center and he knows it.
* Do I need to mention what happened to their baby?
As for Donna's ending, I liked it, but I liked it because it effectively chucked her out of the show forever and I couldn't stand her, not because I thought it was objectively good how they did it or anything. But to be honest, the show really shouldn't have relied on bringing back other companions so much *cough*Rose*cough*, so more permanent endings to most of the companions should've been the norm for sure.
I liked how Jack Harkness and Martha were bought back in Davies tenure. Also, it gave us the brilliant "School Reunion."
The longest-running character and greatest friend of the Doctor was Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart. The Doctor was an official member of UNIT, very much a military organisation at that time, for years when he was stuck on Earth.
So him not liking soldiers suddenly is very odd, and I think Moffatt and Capaldi are more than familiar enough with the history to know that.
I'm guessing it will come up as an issue more and more, and perhaps be resolved. It's not a general trait of the Doctor's.
I guess, but that was, relatively speaking, 1300 years in the past for him, and he's seen a lot of war since. It seems little overcooked in Capaldi's Doctor to me as well, but I think he's always been entirely impatient with the military frame of mind.
Rewatched Logopolis for the first time in, oh, thirty years. I guess I didn't notice before, but half the universe gets destroyed near the end. Whoops.
Also the ending is kind of terrible and makes no sense. Kind of an underwhelming way for Baker to go out, and then Davison sits up, and then credits. Terrible. At least let him say a line.
That issue is repeatedly brought up, and it's repeatedly illustrated that these people choose to go with the Doctor. He's not putting a gun to their head, their planets won't explode if they don't come along, they decide to go with the Doctor. It's not even a moral question, it's a question of how well an effective immortal can tolerate seeing the few people he connects with dying while he goes on forever.
Except he never tells them how dangerous it is in the beginning and once they do know they're hooked.
If you had a chance to go with the Doctor to do awesome things and the price was almost certainly a fundamentally altered life and a solid chance of dying, who would blame it on the person offering the choice? They aren't killing you, they're giving you an unexpected opportunity. It's up to you to take the chance, doubly so when your first meeting with the person involves seeing them chance death repeatedly and thus immediately have the permanent hazard established.
He gave them that choice of his free will, why isn't he held responsible for what happens? He's not a mindless animal. He knows how dangerous it can be and does it anyway. That's why Eleven felt guilty about his companions. He's putting them in situations they're not trained for, it's a miracle how many of his companions haven't died horrifically - then again, that'd make the series tone less campy and more tragic. He knows the risks better than they do when first meet him and he has the adequate knowledge, skills and resources to fight back rather than being someone who are the victims in slasher movies. In some cases being a companion is worse than dying, thanks to meeting the Doctor Amy and Rory are stuck in World War II with no hope of being rescued ever, that's their "reward" for being companions*. Besides half the reason he has companions is for someone to be his moral anchor to be a fail safe from him going Time Lord Victorious on the universe, which is selfish on his part.
Rose's first encounter had her watching the Doctor defeat plastic people that killed at least one person she knew and were engaged in a takeover of the world that involved killing lots of people. Martha had people getting killed around her and actually had to rescuscitate the Doctor herself. Donna definitely saw the Doctor in full-on "lots of people getting killed in a disaster" mode. Amy's first full experience with the Doc was the world about to get blown up as collateral damage to keep one alien from getting away. Rory's first experience is a father losing his daughter to space vampires, almost dying repeatedly, and almost getting to see Venice devastated. Clara's first experience (that sticks) is her getting kidnapped-downloaded along with a bunch of other people who basically get eaten.
It would be thoroughly pointless for the Doctor to say "hey, this is dangerous" when their first meetings always involved horribly-dangerous things. Saying the Doctor is responsible for companions choosing to come along would be like saying the Army is responsible for the choice people make to join up and get shot at, which is completely silly; the statement of danger is so explicit it may as well be tattooed on the inside of their eyelids in glowing letters. They also get countless chances to walk away at many, many points after they've repeatedly seen the danger and choose to stay anyway.
People aren't mindless animals either, and even the dumbest of the companions knew mortal danger when they saw the Doctor standing right beside it.
Of course the Doctor feels guilty, he keeps living and all of his Companions die. All of them, regardless of when they leave him; he's an immortal time-traveler, after all. Survivors feel guilty for surviving, why would he be any different?
And so what
if Amy and Rory got stuck in the past? They got to have great lives with the Doctor, got to see their kid become amazing, then still had good, full lives together when sent back in time. How the heck is it tragic to have a great life starting in the 1940s instead of a regular life in your own time?
He's completely against having companions that have necessary skills and experience, minimum, from not dying on his adventures like soldiers, spies and warriors. There are exceptions, like Strax, but that's all they are. Pink had to prove himself while Rory never did and never got any gruff from the Doctor when he became a warrior on his own. When you're a Time Lord whose daily activities consist of saving the universe who would you rather have your back, a school teacher or a soldier?
And the "necessary skills" dooooon't really seem to be anything remotely soldier-ish, because 99.9999% of the stuff the Doctor have solutions where martial prowess matters absolutely zippo and mental prowess means everything. The scale of the dangers the Doctor faces very nearly always make soldier-skills totally pointless, whereas things like human feelings have solved a number of problems and saved a lot of lives.
* Do I need to mention what happened to their baby?
You mean the baby that grew up to have an incredible and amazing life to perform feats of fantastic cunning and bravery that any parents would be proud of? And that
they actually got to grow up with their own kid and see that she didn't have a terrible childhood like they were worried about for a while?
On top of that, nobody knows what's going to happen when they have a kid anyway, and people regularly have to put up with terrible things happening to their kids over which they have absolutely no say whatsoever, so it's not even an issue of freewill there. In the normal course of events, the kid could just as easily have been born and died of cancer at age 3, instead of getting an incredible life.
As for Donna's ending, I liked it, but I liked it because it effectively chucked her out of the show forever and I couldn't stand her, not because I thought it was objectively good how they did it or anything. But to be honest, the show really shouldn't have relied on bringing back other companions so much *cough*Rose*cough*, so more permanent endings to most of the companions should've been the norm for sure.
I liked how Jack Harkness and Martha were bought back in Davies tenure. Also, it gave us the brilliant "School Reunion."
I'm not saying all the callbacks are bad, it just gets annoying when it gets overused and tosses out big-time things that were supposed to be pretty weighty. Harkness and Martha were fine because one was immortal and the other left on her own anyway; having them come back was totally reasonable.
It just shouldn't be a regular thing, specifically so it is good and non-repetitive when it happens.
if Amy and Rory got stuck in the past? They got to have great lives with the Doctor, got to see their kid become amazing, then still had good, full lives together when sent back in time. How the heck is it tragic to have a great life starting in the 1940s instead of a regular life in your own time?
World War Two would be, putting it mildly, a bit of a downer to live through, especially knowing what's going to happen but having no real options to stop it.
Sure you could get rich with some investments if you knew what you were doing, but I sure as hell wouldn't. I'd be broke, identity-less, and with no modern amenities. It would suck the big one, even if I could make it work after a fashion.
And I definitely would hate for Amy, Rory, or Donna to show up again, and not just because I don't like Donna. Permanent stuff should be permanent, even in Doctor Who. Otherwise, you get a fictional consistency like Marvel where people die and come back so much that it completely ruins any impact of anything "big".
I'd like it if he came across Donna or Martha or someone, and just decided to leave them be. They don't recognise him, and he's not currently doing anything distinctly Doctor-esque.
Just pass them in the street, do a double-take, then shrug and keep walking.
And I definitely would hate for Amy, Rory, or Donna to show up again, and not just because I don't like Donna. Permanent stuff should be permanent, even in Doctor Who. Otherwise, you get a fictional consistency like Marvel where people die and come back so much that it completely ruins any impact of anything "big".
I'd like it if he came across Donna or Martha or someone, and just decided to leave them be. They don't recognise him, and he's not currently doing anything distinctly Doctor-esque.
Just pass them in the street, do a double-take, then shrug and keep walking.
I'd be okay with this, one of those character building scenes you can stick in nearly any episode.
Just began watching this-here new Peter Capaldi Dr. Who.
I largely haven't watched any of the more recent Doctors, because of reasons, mainly being a bit too in love with the ugly strangeness of the early Doctor Who series that, once upon a time, filled a large chunk of a fledgling Sci-Fi channel.
But this.
I quite like this.
Three episodes in right now.
The complete and utter absence of world-building going on is downright refreshing.
Welcome.
I'd like you to elaborate on what you define as world building. The 'missy' scenes are obviously some kind of story overarc and the new who tend to have one of these each season. it's not usually very heavy until the last few episodes but most of us like the idea of it being there.
Go back, watch the new who from the beginning. just be aware not all episodes are created equal. There are a few real stinkers amoung the gems.
The longest-running character and greatest friend of the Doctor was Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart. The Doctor was an official member of UNIT, very much a military organisation at that time, for years when he was stuck on Earth.
So him not liking soldiers suddenly is very odd, and I think Moffatt and Capaldi are more than familiar enough with the history to know that.
I'm guessing it will come up as an issue more and more, and perhaps be resolved. It's not a general trait of the Doctor's.
Rewatch some of those old stories. You'll notice the Doctor has no problem with soldiers up until they do something soldiery.
+2
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
Aaaa you just reminded me of Miracle Day AAAAAA
I'd set up some psychic barriers to prevent exactly this, BRB exploding
The longest-running character and greatest friend of the Doctor was Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart. The Doctor was an official member of UNIT, very much a military organisation at that time, for years when he was stuck on Earth.
So him not liking soldiers suddenly is very odd, and I think Moffatt and Capaldi are more than familiar enough with the history to know that.
I'm guessing it will come up as an issue more and more, and perhaps be resolved. It's not a general trait of the Doctor's.
Rewatch some of those old stories. You'll notice the Doctor has no problem with soldiers up until they do something soldiery.
Sure, but that's very different from hating and belittling soldiers. I'm sure he was friends with The Brig because of his bravery, heart, and intelligence, rather than his military prowess. But friends they were - and one of the few 'friend' relationships the Doctor has had on the show, rather than the 'assistant/companion' relationship we usually see.
poshniallo on
I figure I could take a bear.
+3
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
Just began watching this-here new Peter Capaldi Dr. Who.
I largely haven't watched any of the more recent Doctors, because of reasons, mainly being a bit too in love with the ugly strangeness of the early Doctor Who series that, once upon a time, filled a large chunk of a fledgling Sci-Fi channel.
But this.
I quite like this.
Three episodes in right now.
The complete and utter absence of world-building going on is downright refreshing.
Welcome.
I'd like you to elaborate on what you define as world building. The 'missy' scenes are obviously some kind of story overarc and the new who tend to have one of these each season. it's not usually very heavy until the last few episodes but most of us like the idea of it being there.
Go back, watch the new who from the beginning. just be aware not all episodes are created equal. There are a few real stinkers amoung the gems.
Ok, here goes. Mind you, I haven't started the fourth episode yet, but... World building is usually, in my opinion, heavy-handed exposition where a character has to explain to some schmuck about, say, the political realities of this group or that person. "That's that guy. He doesn't like these things. He's trying to do this, and if he ever does, we think it'll mean these things will happen, and that could be bad." And then those circumstances become this trough that the plot is filtered through until it runs out the other side and the episode is over.
Episode 1. Hey, look, there's a dinosaur stuck in the Thames. And then that becomes largely irrelevant to the story and more of an excuse to the get things started.
Episode 2. Space hospital. You know what a hospital is, you know what space is. That's enough, right? It doesn't matter who these militarized health professionals are, who they represent, what they want. Maybe they're dicks. They kind of are. Again, whoops, they're the least relevant part of the story.
Episode 3. Everyone likes Robin Hood, right? Let's just fucking go there.
I mean, I can tell some threads are being sewn, with this 'Promised Land' stuff and so on, but. This show doesn't seem too care much about explaining or justifying the things it wants to do, and I am entirely okay so far with how well they get away with it.
Agreed. The biggest problem with Miracle Day (though not the only one) was its 10-episode order. Chop it to five episodes and make Mekhi Phifer's character less insufferable, and I probably would have thought it was fine.
+3
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
Miracle Day has a really cool premise, let down by the mechanics behind it, which are crazy poorly written even by silly sci fi standards.
The planet crack, hooooly shit. That was one of those all time best "wait, this just raises FURTHER QUESTIONS!" moments.
The core concept is great, and had plenty of potential for ethics questions, but it just flubbed so hard.
Oh brilliant
+4
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited October 2014
Uh, the moral question isn't which person to blame.
The moral question is two fold. Like all good questions, it's grey.
In terms of power differences the Doctor inviting along a normal human being is not at all a question of two equal choices. It's more like an adult inviting a child to go hiking to a dangerous place.
But on the other hand, it's clear that the Doctor needs his companions. He literally does not win without them on many occasions. So it gets balanced.
There's no easy answer to this question.
That is why I like it.
If your first response is to try and firmly wave aside the question you missed the point.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
What? Only if the Doctor has some kind of authority over them and outside of saving their lives which (so far) he does anyway, he doesn't. It's as simple as going "Hey, Doctor? Thanks, but no thanks." and then you get more forceful from there. He's not going to force you into the Tardis at sonic screwdriver point and any claim of some kind of persona overpowering you is a weak willed excuse for your own poor decisions if you end up trapped in WWII.
Edit to your edit: The writers are trying to drum up Drama with the entire thing, but it's just not very effective at it. He feels guilty, OK. But that's as far as you can go with how the companions and Doctor are written. If they what to play that angle they need to have him actually trick someone into it or something which I can't even begin to think of how to make it not stupid. The earlier army example was perfect.
Xeddicus on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited October 2014
I wasn't talking about authority. I was talking about ability to make good decisions. The doctor is intoxicating, he's charismatic to the extreme. He influences you. It's not malicious manipulation, that's far too simplistic. It's about responsibility. He has an inherent responsibility, an inherent burden, such that he does and should feel guilty about the risks he's taking with these humans. He's above human beings. And yet he's also not. Multiple times these basic human beings have provided solutions that soldiers and warriors and the Doctor himself could not come up with. They ground him.
It's a juxaposition, a long running tension, that runs through the entire character.
You guys are running around with a very idealised notion of free choice as being this all encompassing thing people can just magically do at any point if they so choose to and if they do not it is entirely their fault.
Not only does it not work here it doesn't even work with normal people. Human law recognises external influences on people's choices.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
We're talking more about common sense than anything else. DEATH = Run. It's actually dumb any of them stick around, as all the ones presented could make decent lives without him. But TV.
Oh and yeah, in this case, it is all their fault.
Xeddicus on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
We're talking more about common sense than anything else. DEATH = Run. It's actually dumb any of them stick around, as all the ones presented could make decent lives without him. But TV.
Oh and yeah, in this case, it is all their fault.
Common sense doesn't exist. It's a pop psych catchphrase for "how I would have reacted and so you should too". We don't have this common fucking world view that all people share. That's egocentric to the extreme.
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
+2
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
No, recognizing a deadly situation and having the desire to get away from it really really is a common-sense thing. It's basically a universal trait for all living things on the planet. Even when people override it, their body goes haywire because everyone is biologically wired to avoid things that you know can kill you.
The tendency is as intrinsically common as it gets, and if you're overriding it to go on totally excellent adventures, that's you overriding common sense which is your own call.
It's not pop psych crap when it really is a commonly sensible thing, and there absolutely are such things.
Rose's first encounter had her watching the Doctor defeat plastic people that killed at least one person she knew and were engaged in a takeover of the world that involved killing lots of people. Martha had people getting killed around her and actually had to rescuscitate the Doctor herself. Donna definitely saw the Doctor in full-on "lots of people getting killed in a disaster" mode. Amy's first full experience with the Doc was the world about to get blown up as collateral damage to keep one alien from getting away.
Every encounter ended with him asking them on board, not warning them that it comes with heavy costs. He puts them in a situation where he's the one they have to please, not the reverse. Amy's first exposure was as a child where he had a nice meeting at her house then he made her feel abandoned, twice. The event effected her that much that she went to therapists and became the town weirdo who obsessed over an imaginary person. Every encounter after that he never told her it was a bad idea, what the risks were - it was smiles and laughs. The second event hooked her and then he made her wait for two years, letting her feel abandoned again and drove her further into wanting to be with him from his absence.
Rory's first experience is a father losing his daughter to space vampires, almost dying repeatedly, and almost getting to see Venice devastated.
He was bought there by Amy, and he wanted to leave as soon as possible. It wasn't until later he became a full companion. Without Amy he'd have never been there.
Clara's first experience (that sticks) is her getting kidnapped-downloaded along with a bunch of other people who basically get eaten.
Funny who the Doctor never tells her this is a regular danger afterward. He hasn't told that to any companion I've seen when they meet. Never tells her how her past incarnations both died when they met him either.
It would be thoroughly pointless for the Doctor to say "hey, this is dangerous" when their first meetings always involved horribly-dangerous things. Saying the Doctor is responsible for companions choosing to come along would be like saying the Army is responsible for the choice people make to join up and get shot at, which is completely silly; the statement of danger is so explicit it may as well be tattooed on the inside of their eyelids in glowing letters. They also get countless chances to walk away at many, many points after they've repeatedly seen the danger and choose to stay anyway.
It isn't pointless, it's to make sure they know what they're getting into. People know what the military does and learn what they do, they can't with the Doctor. Militaries do have a history of lying to recruits to get them to join. The Doctor is the adult in this relationship, he's the person with the power over what they do and where they go. He's threatened to take them back to their own lives if they don't do what he says, I think he did to Amy in the second episode. The Doctor isn't a bystander to what they do, he's the instigator. Without him the companions would be traveling the universe, that's a massive incentive to hook companions with, especially if they've saved a planet with him. They don't get chances to walk away because they quickly become enthralled by who the Doctor is and what it's like to be a companion, at that point it's difficult to get away. Amy and Rory didn't leave the first time, the Doctor pushed them out the TARDIS and they came back the first chance they got.
He tried to get that black girl student from Clara's school to be his companion when he thought Clara was leaving. Every scene he's with her he's joking, being a mentor and when he does take her in the TARDIS it's in deep space to look at the view, not throwing her into a stampede of Daleks. The girl has no clue what she's getting into with him.
People aren't mindless animals either, and even the dumbest of the companions knew mortal danger when they saw the Doctor standing right beside it.
But you're putting all the responsibility on them and none on the person dragging them to those places. He's very charismatic, has a TARDIS and is the person showing them the universe. He changes their lives forever, that's how big an influence he is on his companions.
Of course the Doctor feels guilty, he keeps living and all of his Companions die. All of them, regardless of when they leave him; he's an immortal time-traveler, after all. Survivors feel guilty for surviving, why would he be any different?
He's not an ordinary survivor, he's more dangerous than very companion combined. His companions, like Vastra, have told him that. He should feel guilty for putting those humans in that position. Without him they'd never be in that danger to begin with. Death isn't just out-living them, he's putting them at the center of catastrophic events deliberately. Companions are constantly under threat from being murdered, turned into Cybermen, eaten etc. every episode.
And so what
if Amy and Rory got stuck in the past? They got to have great lives with the Doctor, got to see their kid become amazing, then still had good, full lives together when sent back in time. How the heck is it tragic to have a great life starting in the 1940s instead of a regular life in your own time?
Living in World War II isn't what I'd call a nice retirement. Go down thread for about what being companions did for their child and marriage.
And the "necessary skills" dooooon't really seem to be anything remotely soldier-ish, because 99.9999% of the stuff the Doctor have solutions where martial prowess matters absolutely zippo and mental prowess means everything. The scale of the dangers the Doctor faces very nearly always make soldier-skills totally pointless, whereas things like human feelings have solved a number of problems and saved a lot of lives.
Martial prowess have came in handy for the Doctor's situations. He wouldn't be caught so much if he wasn't physically defenseless, for instance. In his first trip Rory almost died when he decided to a duel with a vampire - who had a sword and he had a stick. If Rory had the skills after he tuned into a Roman for that encounter he wouldn't have barely escaped with his life and rescued Amy quicker. After he became a Roman Rory became a much stronger companion, those skills were very useful on various occasions. Martial prowess aren't everything, but they aren't useless to have. Strax, Jenny and Madame Vastra have proven to incredibly helpful to the Doctor because of those skills. Being a warrior doesn't mean violence is what they turn to for decisions, its a skill set that makes them slightly more on equal terms with a Time Lord. The Doctor's been saved by UNIT repeatedly on the show. The Doctor wasn't complaining when Rory, Vastra, Jenny, Strax and his army bought weapons to Demon's Run, which saved their lives from the Headless Monks later.
You mean the baby that grew up to have an incredible and amazing life to perform feats of fantastic cunning and bravery that any parents would be proud of? And that
they actually got to grow up with their own kid and see that she didn't have a terrible childhood like they were worried about for a while?
On top of that, nobody knows what's going to happen when they have a kid anyway, and people regularly have to put up with terrible things happening to their kids over which they have absolutely no say whatsoever, so it's not even an issue of freewill there. In the normal course of events, the kid could just as easily have been born and died of cancer at age 3, instead of getting an incredible life.
You're over looking the hardship Rory and Amy went through with that sacrifice. Amy lost her baby more than once
with the Flesh doppelganger trick
, they never raised their child, their child tried to murder them,
their baby was destined to kill the Doctor,
they divorced from the emotional weight, Amy lost her ability to conceive. They paid a heavy price for having a child being his companions.
As for Donna's ending, I liked it, but I liked it because it effectively chucked her out of the show forever and I couldn't stand her, not because I thought it was objectively good how they did it or anything. But to be honest, the show really shouldn't have relied on bringing back other companions so much *cough*Rose*cough*, so more permanent endings to most of the companions should've been the norm for sure.
I liked how Jack Harkness and Martha were bought back in Davies tenure. Also, it gave us the brilliant "School Reunion." [/quote]
I'm not saying all the callbacks are bad, it just gets annoying when it gets overused and tosses out big-time things that were supposed to be pretty weighty. Harkness and Martha were fine because one was immortal and the other left on her own anyway; having them come back was totally reasonable.
It just shouldn't be a regular thing, specifically so it is good and non-repetitive when it happens.
I don't know if Anthony Ainley ever entered or exited a scene without laughing malevolently at least once.
There was a story going around that during the filming of Planet of Fire, Ainley was putting in some subtle performances, only to be told that he needed to be more moustache-twirling. Which is a pity, because when he did get the opportunity to not laugh malevolently at the end of every sentence*, I really enjoyed his performance.
* I'm thinking specifically of Survival because that is literally the only example I can think of.
Edit: Though he wasn't super moustache-twirling in Trial, I guess, just hilariously exploitative of the situation.
Actually, Nine tells Rose it's dangerous. When he asks her to come with him after defeating the Nestene Consciousness, she asks if it's always that dangerous and he says yeah.
Origin for Dragon Age: Inquisition Shenanigans: Inksplat776
Posts
The early filming was also apparently pretty hellish. Beyond the new show wrinkles, they had a newbie director who was a disaster.
It's just as easy to say he has a destructive influence on anybody who travels with him. Davros even tries to accuse him as much, how rather than get his own hands dirty, he'll turn others into soldiers to do it. Pretty much exactly what happens to Martha. Rose may now have everything she ever wanted, but got shunted to a parallel universe in the process. Astrid ended up dead, and Adelaide basically spat in his face.
It's not all pie in the sky awesomeness, and what happened to Donna is a real overt example. And the Doctor is fully aware of this fact.
It's not like companions have a choice. They have to be tough or they'll end up dead.
It's a good point though. Should he really be waltzing in and grabbing these innocent people, then dragging them off to their eventual death or worse than death?
I like that moral question.
Adelaide shows why he goes after the innocent and curious types. She saw straight through him. He wasn't a magical man to her. She saw him for how wrong he really was. At his lowest point, she showed him that he was not riding high, but fundamentally broken.
Yeah, everyone ends up fucked over. But some of them would end up dead without him too. And there's no reason any of them couldn't have gotten 100% happy endings. Did any of the old companions make it out happy and in the proper dimension (though really for Rose it was an all around upgrade in the end so even in new Who suppose we have the exception that proves the rule.)?
If you had a chance to go with the Doctor to do awesome things and the price was almost certainly a fundamentally altered life and a solid chance of dying, who would blame it on the person offering the choice? They aren't killing you, they're giving you an unexpected opportunity. It's up to you to take the chance, doubly so when your first meeting with the person involves seeing them chance death repeatedly and thus immediately have the permanent hazard established.
As for Donna's ending, I liked it, but I liked it because it effectively chucked her out of the show forever and I couldn't stand her, not because I thought it was objectively good how they did it or anything. But to be honest, the show really shouldn't have relied on bringing back other companions so much *cough*Rose*cough*, so more permanent endings to most of the companions should've been the norm for sure.
Now I want Donna or Rory or someone to turn up!
And I definitely would hate for Amy, Rory, or Donna to show up again, and not just because I don't like Donna. Permanent stuff should be permanent, even in Doctor Who. Otherwise, you get a fictional consistency like Marvel where people die and come back so much that it completely ruins any impact of anything "big".
Just began watching this-here new Peter Capaldi Dr. Who.
I largely haven't watched any of the more recent Doctors, because of reasons, mainly being a bit too in love with the ugly strangeness of the early Doctor Who series that, once upon a time, filled a large chunk of a fledgling Sci-Fi channel.
But this.
I quite like this.
Three episodes in right now.
The complete and utter absence of world-building going on is downright refreshing.
Except he never tells them how dangerous it is in the beginning and once they do know they're hooked.
He gave them that choice of his free will, why isn't he held responsible for what happens? He's not a mindless animal. He knows how dangerous it can be and does it anyway. That's why Eleven felt guilty about his companions. He's putting them in situations they're not trained for, it's a miracle how many of his companions haven't died horrifically - then again, that'd make the series tone less campy and more tragic. He knows the risks better than they do when first meet him and he has the adequate knowledge, skills and resources to fight back rather than being someone who are the victims in slasher movies. In some cases being a companion is worse than dying, thanks to meeting the Doctor Amy and Rory are stuck in World War II with no hope of being rescued ever, that's their "reward" for being companions*. Besides half the reason he has companions is for someone to be his moral anchor to be a fail safe from him going Time Lord Victorious on the universe, which is selfish on his part.
He's completely against having companions that have necessary skills and experience, minimum, from not dying on his adventures like soldiers, spies and warriors. There are exceptions, like Strax, but that's all they are. Pink had to prove himself while Rory never did and never got any gruff from the Doctor when he became a warrior on his own. When you're a Time Lord whose daily activities consist of saving the universe who would you rather have your back, a school teacher or a soldier?
A reason those companions face death on a daily basis is by following him. He knows where it is and ends up at its center and he knows it.
* Do I need to mention what happened to their baby?
I liked how Jack Harkness and Martha were bought back in Davies tenure. Also, it gave us the brilliant "School Reunion."
So him not liking soldiers suddenly is very odd, and I think Moffatt and Capaldi are more than familiar enough with the history to know that.
I'm guessing it will come up as an issue more and more, and perhaps be resolved. It's not a general trait of the Doctor's.
Rewatched Logopolis for the first time in, oh, thirty years. I guess I didn't notice before, but half the universe gets destroyed near the end. Whoops.
Also the ending is kind of terrible and makes no sense. Kind of an underwhelming way for Baker to go out, and then Davison sits up, and then credits. Terrible. At least let him say a line.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
It would be thoroughly pointless for the Doctor to say "hey, this is dangerous" when their first meetings always involved horribly-dangerous things. Saying the Doctor is responsible for companions choosing to come along would be like saying the Army is responsible for the choice people make to join up and get shot at, which is completely silly; the statement of danger is so explicit it may as well be tattooed on the inside of their eyelids in glowing letters. They also get countless chances to walk away at many, many points after they've repeatedly seen the danger and choose to stay anyway.
People aren't mindless animals either, and even the dumbest of the companions knew mortal danger when they saw the Doctor standing right beside it.
Of course the Doctor feels guilty, he keeps living and all of his Companions die. All of them, regardless of when they leave him; he's an immortal time-traveler, after all. Survivors feel guilty for surviving, why would he be any different?
And so what
You mean the baby that grew up to have an incredible and amazing life to perform feats of fantastic cunning and bravery that any parents would be proud of? And that
It just shouldn't be a regular thing, specifically so it is good and non-repetitive when it happens.
Sure you could get rich with some investments if you knew what you were doing, but I sure as hell wouldn't. I'd be broke, identity-less, and with no modern amenities. It would suck the big one, even if I could make it work after a fashion.
I'd like it if he came across Donna or Martha or someone, and just decided to leave them be. They don't recognise him, and he's not currently doing anything distinctly Doctor-esque.
Just pass them in the street, do a double-take, then shrug and keep walking.
I'd be okay with this, one of those character building scenes you can stick in nearly any episode.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Welcome.
I'd like you to elaborate on what you define as world building. The 'missy' scenes are obviously some kind of story overarc and the new who tend to have one of these each season. it's not usually very heavy until the last few episodes but most of us like the idea of it being there.
Go back, watch the new who from the beginning. just be aware not all episodes are created equal. There are a few real stinkers amoung the gems.
No reference to Torchwood. Just Captain Jack showing up from time to time and being awesome.
Rewatch some of those old stories. You'll notice the Doctor has no problem with soldiers up until they do something soldiery.
I'd set up some psychic barriers to prevent exactly this, BRB exploding
Guns, explosions, plot that makes no sense.
I'll never figure out how they followed up one of the best things I've seen in a long time, Children of Earth, with that dreck.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
That is why it was good
He just makes everything around him amazing
Sure, but that's very different from hating and belittling soldiers. I'm sure he was friends with The Brig because of his bravery, heart, and intelligence, rather than his military prowess. But friends they were - and one of the few 'friend' relationships the Doctor has had on the show, rather than the 'assistant/companion' relationship we usually see.
Ok, here goes. Mind you, I haven't started the fourth episode yet, but... World building is usually, in my opinion, heavy-handed exposition where a character has to explain to some schmuck about, say, the political realities of this group or that person. "That's that guy. He doesn't like these things. He's trying to do this, and if he ever does, we think it'll mean these things will happen, and that could be bad." And then those circumstances become this trough that the plot is filtered through until it runs out the other side and the episode is over.
Episode 2. Space hospital. You know what a hospital is, you know what space is. That's enough, right? It doesn't matter who these militarized health professionals are, who they represent, what they want. Maybe they're dicks. They kind of are. Again, whoops, they're the least relevant part of the story.
Episode 3. Everyone likes Robin Hood, right? Let's just fucking go there.
I mean, I can tell some threads are being sewn, with this 'Promised Land' stuff and so on, but. This show doesn't seem too care much about explaining or justifying the things it wants to do, and I am entirely okay so far with how well they get away with it.
Easy:
"Hey you remember that special we did with 5 episodes that everybody loved? Imagine if we did it with 10!"
"Oops we don't have enough plot to cover all 10 episodes that we contracted for, let's just drag out the plot and hope nobody notices."
The core concept is great, and had plenty of potential for ethics questions, but it just flubbed so hard.
The moral question is two fold. Like all good questions, it's grey.
In terms of power differences the Doctor inviting along a normal human being is not at all a question of two equal choices. It's more like an adult inviting a child to go hiking to a dangerous place.
But on the other hand, it's clear that the Doctor needs his companions. He literally does not win without them on many occasions. So it gets balanced.
There's no easy answer to this question.
That is why I like it.
If your first response is to try and firmly wave aside the question you missed the point.
Edit to your edit: The writers are trying to drum up Drama with the entire thing, but it's just not very effective at it. He feels guilty, OK. But that's as far as you can go with how the companions and Doctor are written. If they what to play that angle they need to have him actually trick someone into it or something which I can't even begin to think of how to make it not stupid. The earlier army example was perfect.
It's a juxaposition, a long running tension, that runs through the entire character.
You guys are running around with a very idealised notion of free choice as being this all encompassing thing people can just magically do at any point if they so choose to and if they do not it is entirely their fault.
Not only does it not work here it doesn't even work with normal people. Human law recognises external influences on people's choices.
Oh and yeah, in this case, it is all their fault.
Common sense doesn't exist. It's a pop psych catchphrase for "how I would have reacted and so you should too". We don't have this common fucking world view that all people share. That's egocentric to the extreme.
The tendency is as intrinsically common as it gets, and if you're overriding it to go on totally excellent adventures, that's you overriding common sense which is your own call.
It's not pop psych crap when it really is a commonly sensible thing, and there absolutely are such things.
Every encounter ended with him asking them on board, not warning them that it comes with heavy costs. He puts them in a situation where he's the one they have to please, not the reverse. Amy's first exposure was as a child where he had a nice meeting at her house then he made her feel abandoned, twice. The event effected her that much that she went to therapists and became the town weirdo who obsessed over an imaginary person. Every encounter after that he never told her it was a bad idea, what the risks were - it was smiles and laughs. The second event hooked her and then he made her wait for two years, letting her feel abandoned again and drove her further into wanting to be with him from his absence.
He was bought there by Amy, and he wanted to leave as soon as possible. It wasn't until later he became a full companion. Without Amy he'd have never been there.
Funny who the Doctor never tells her this is a regular danger afterward. He hasn't told that to any companion I've seen when they meet. Never tells her how her past incarnations both died when they met him either.
It isn't pointless, it's to make sure they know what they're getting into. People know what the military does and learn what they do, they can't with the Doctor. Militaries do have a history of lying to recruits to get them to join. The Doctor is the adult in this relationship, he's the person with the power over what they do and where they go. He's threatened to take them back to their own lives if they don't do what he says, I think he did to Amy in the second episode. The Doctor isn't a bystander to what they do, he's the instigator. Without him the companions would be traveling the universe, that's a massive incentive to hook companions with, especially if they've saved a planet with him. They don't get chances to walk away because they quickly become enthralled by who the Doctor is and what it's like to be a companion, at that point it's difficult to get away. Amy and Rory didn't leave the first time, the Doctor pushed them out the TARDIS and they came back the first chance they got.
He tried to get that black girl student from Clara's school to be his companion when he thought Clara was leaving. Every scene he's with her he's joking, being a mentor and when he does take her in the TARDIS it's in deep space to look at the view, not throwing her into a stampede of Daleks. The girl has no clue what she's getting into with him.
But you're putting all the responsibility on them and none on the person dragging them to those places. He's very charismatic, has a TARDIS and is the person showing them the universe. He changes their lives forever, that's how big an influence he is on his companions.
He's not an ordinary survivor, he's more dangerous than very companion combined. His companions, like Vastra, have told him that. He should feel guilty for putting those humans in that position. Without him they'd never be in that danger to begin with. Death isn't just out-living them, he's putting them at the center of catastrophic events deliberately. Companions are constantly under threat from being murdered, turned into Cybermen, eaten etc. every episode.
Martial prowess have came in handy for the Doctor's situations. He wouldn't be caught so much if he wasn't physically defenseless, for instance. In his first trip Rory almost died when he decided to a duel with a vampire - who had a sword and he had a stick. If Rory had the skills after he tuned into a Roman for that encounter he wouldn't have barely escaped with his life and rescued Amy quicker. After he became a Roman Rory became a much stronger companion, those skills were very useful on various occasions. Martial prowess aren't everything, but they aren't useless to have. Strax, Jenny and Madame Vastra have proven to incredibly helpful to the Doctor because of those skills. Being a warrior doesn't mean violence is what they turn to for decisions, its a skill set that makes them slightly more on equal terms with a Time Lord. The Doctor's been saved by UNIT repeatedly on the show. The Doctor wasn't complaining when Rory, Vastra, Jenny, Strax and his army bought weapons to Demon's Run, which saved their lives from the Headless Monks later.
You're over looking the hardship Rory and Amy went through with that sacrifice. Amy lost her baby more than once
I liked how Jack Harkness and Martha were bought back in Davies tenure. Also, it gave us the brilliant "School Reunion." [/quote]
I'm not saying all the callbacks are bad, it just gets annoying when it gets overused and tosses out big-time things that were supposed to be pretty weighty. Harkness and Martha were fine because one was immortal and the other left on her own anyway; having them come back was totally reasonable.
Agreed.
There was a story going around that during the filming of Planet of Fire, Ainley was putting in some subtle performances, only to be told that he needed to be more moustache-twirling. Which is a pity, because when he did get the opportunity to not laugh malevolently at the end of every sentence*, I really enjoyed his performance.
* I'm thinking specifically of Survival because that is literally the only example I can think of.
Edit: Though he wasn't super moustache-twirling in Trial, I guess, just hilariously exploitative of the situation.
Which was also very enjoyable.