Yes, that, the one with TARDIS and sonic screwdriver are my favorites.
Some people have talent. *sigh*
Yes, that, the one with TARDIS and sonic screwdriver are my favorites.
Some people have talent. *sigh*
In the 2005 series, which moment was the most shocking one for you?
(Question for everybody.)
For the Eccleston series? Hmm. Definitely when
Spoiler:
Never be cruel and never be cowardly. And if you ever are, always make amends.
You are a walking talking Doctor Who encyclopedia to me. - Melike
Assuming we are talking about shock factor as well....Spoiler:
i saw this on the media page for City of Heroes...the zone is an alternate reality to Earth (hence the red color)...and yes it is a homage to this series.
Does whatever a spiderman does.
Agree with DD's shocking moment, I was a little taken aback by the farting slitheen!!!Originally Posted by Melike
I ask the same question for Tennant's time. What was the most shocking moment?
In Tennant's era...wow. There's a few...Spoiler:
Oh, that was definitely
Spoiler:
Never be cruel and never be cowardly. And if you ever are, always make amends.
You are a walking talking Doctor Who encyclopedia to me. - Melike
Yeah!!!Spoiler:I was like ''whoaa!''. Never saw that coming.
I guess this was not surprising for me;
Spoiler:
This makes me sad, because I would like to enjoy it the same way you did.
I think some shocks can lose their impact on a non-UK audience, at least if you're brand new to the show. Over here, the show is in the news a lot, with rumours flying all over the place about what old companions or enemies are going to come back, so even people who don't watch the show would be aware of what the daleks are, at the very least. Certain shocks are designed to play a little of the audience's knowledge, just a little. I thinkSpoiler:
So yeah, kind of a shame, but that's also kinda why i like the big shocks of the Moffat era a little more: they work on their own terms, being built up through Moffat's careful use of his own mythology from one or two years at most, rather than a background knowledge of nearly 50 years of Who. I think the cliffhanger at the end ofSpoiler:really proved that.
Never be cruel and never be cowardly. And if you ever are, always make amends.
You are a walking talking Doctor Who encyclopedia to me. - Melike
Apart from the BIG shocks mentioned above, I would say the Satan Pit was a pretty shocking episode, seeing the doctor stumped and afraid was something I was not used to. And although I dont think its ever actually stated - the fact that the doctor is arguing withSpoiler:
I was also a little shocked at how much I loved Blink, considering the doctor is not really in it (hated love and monsters for that very reason, I didnt think the episode was strong enough to carry through without the title character)
The other big shock was from the Forest of the deadSpoiler:
Well it depends on what it is about the title character you think works best: the Doctor or the Who? This actually reminds me of an analysis I've been wanting to write about for a while, and I think it's time I started, either tonight or tomorrow. Not sure if anyone will be interested, but it'll be a look at what appeals to us about the show as fans, and how it could possibly be divided into 2 general groups. Anyway, like I said, will post something later!
Never be cruel and never be cowardly. And if you ever are, always make amends.
You are a walking talking Doctor Who encyclopedia to me. - Melike
I think it's safe to say I'll be interested....And I have been in the mood for some potentially deep discussion, so that sounds like a great idea!
Awesome, Pond!Always in the mood for analysing or reviewing my favourite show, but also what interests me is how fandom starts, what's appealing to different people etc. Something that really got me thinking when everyone started ranking their favourite Doctors, and how yours and mine were pretty similar in some places, especially with ranking McCoy highly. I think how people in general rank their Doctors really comes down to how they see the Doctor as an overall character really. But like I said, that's something I really need to go into more detail later!
Never be cruel and never be cowardly. And if you ever are, always make amends.
You are a walking talking Doctor Who encyclopedia to me. - Melike
The "Doctor" or the "Who"?
One of the many wonderful things about fandom is how varied it can be, about how different people can have vastly different but equally emphatic views about the same story, whether it would be a book, a film or tv series. In Doctor Who’s case, it’ll be very difficult to find a wider range of fandom. So many debates over so many little things: which is better, classic series or new? Russell T Davies or Steven Moffat? Colour or black and white? All these tiny things us fans debate endlessly over, (so many in fact that Doctor Who Magazine has now made a regular feature out of it,) but none as popular as, of course, the really obvious: who’s the greatest Doctor?
However, having seen quite a few lists of how people rank their favourite Doctors, while many are varied, it’s interesting to note how similar a few of them are, for example the same group of 3 or 4 Doctors holding the higher ranks for one group of people, an altogether different set for another. And it got me thinking: how do we even define who our favourite Doctors are in the first place? Oh yes, there’s the first one, there’s your Doctor, but even then, he might not have been the first one you watched. The first Doctor I watched was Pertwee, and yet it was McGann a few years later who ultimately became my Doctor. That only explains how we ranks our number 1 – what about the rest? How do we decide which incarnations of our favourite Time Lord rank higher than others?
Well, what it really comes down to is what we want from our main character in the first place. And this lead me to think that maybe, just maybe, fandom can, rather broadly, be broken down into two groups, and it really depends on what part of the title they like more: the “Doctor” or the “Who”?
Let’s have examine both.
The “Doctor”
To this group of fans, he’s the title character, therefore he’s centre stage. He should always be the heroic figure, fighting against evil and saving the world. Oh, his companions can have their own stories and save the Doctor himself when things go wrong (as they often do), but ultimately, he’s the main character, no one else. As a result, he should be a fully rounded, three dimensional character. He should have quirks, vulnerabilities, emotions, an easy character for the audience to relate to on some level.
David’s Doctor was kind of the embodiment of this. He played the hero who clearly had relationships that mattered to him, a past that haunted him, a man who tried to act happy go lucky but was clearly living with a great deal of grief and turmoil underneath. It’s not really surprising that David’s Doctor was so popular: not only was he arguably one of the best actors that the series ever had, but his Doctor was one that was given extraordinary emotional range, something that he always excelled at. At his best, his Doctor was the alien hero that you could not only believe in but relate to. Even better: there were times when you’d take one look at his face and know exactly what he was thinking.
The Doctor, ever the hero and always ultimately centre stage. Which is, to one group of fans, how it should be. I mean, there’s a reason he’s the title character, right?
Well, if the show was called “The Doctor”, that’d be a fairly accurate summary of what the programme could be. But it’s not. It’s called “Doctor Who”. Which leads me to the other viewpoint.
The “Who”
The second word in the title, and just as important as the first in establishing an idea in some fans of whom the title character should ultimately be. This is the belief that the character doesn’t necessarily need to be someone you should ultimately be able to relate to, but rather he should be a mystery to the audience, an enigma that should always keep us guessing. To this side of the fanbase, he should be viewed as alien in every single way, a man who’s not only clearly not human, but has beliefs and morals that are ultimately different to ours, whose thoughts we cannot begin to ultimately guess at.
In this group of fandom’s extreme view, he shouldn’t even be thought of as a clear-cut hero: he should be someone who would not only make decisions we wouldn’t agree with, but leave us wondering why he’d make them in the first place. There are two excellent examples of this: the first is William Hartnell’s Doctor in the very beginning of the series, where arguably, he wasn’t the main character: it was the two schoolteachers he had kidnapped, Ian and Barbara. To both them and the audience, he wasn’t a man to be trusted, a man who would, as noted, kidnap two innocent people just to protect his granddaughter in his own twisted way. He wasn't the main character, but he was the main focus of attention for us, as we're ultimately left to guess and wonder who this ancient man really is.
The other example, of course, is the 7th Doctor. At first, he started out as something of a bumbling clown, but as time went on, he started becoming something of a manipulator, a man willing to play the grandest games of chess with the deadliest and greatest evil the universe had to offer, with even his companions being used as pawns. We got hints of this darker, more mysterious character in the final 2 years of the classic series, and it’s been greatly explored in the expanded universe, such as the novels and audios. From a personal point of view, this is one of my favourite incarnations of the Doctor, particularly in television and audio. Sylvester McCoy might not be the greatest actor to have played the role, but he always knew how to play the dark, mysterious role just right.
What makes the “mystery” element of the Doctor so radically different to the “hero” element is the simple fact that he doesn’t need to be the main character, or at least the main point of view, to be a key presence in the show. Look at Blink: he’s hardly in it, and yet fans love it, partly because of the weeping angels, but just as likely is that he’s more of a background presence, a mysterious man talking out of a tv set, and talking directly to you. In this case, he becomes less of a character and more of an idea, and it works equally well.
If we think about this conflict – about how radically different the hero and the mystery aspects of the central character are – then this can explain why there are such huge divides in fandom over many things, not just over who’s the best Doctor, but even down to the RTD/Moffat debate, as both can be taken as extreme examples of one aspect of the character versus the other. This can explain why some hate the RTD era for making the Doctor too human, while others hate the Moffat era for making the companions the main focus at times, particularly in series 6.
So which viewpoint does fandom ultimately seem to prefer? Well, when it comes right down to it, ideally a mixture of both. Most of us love watching a classic heroic figure who knows what right and wrong is, never gives up and fights for his friends. There’s so many dark antiheroes out there in fiction that we need a character like that. Yet equally, we enjoy a bit of mystery too, something to leave us wondering how much we know about this man and how he would see the universe. Even Tennant had his grand moments of mystery, with the greatest example of course being Family of Blood – when we see the Doctor returned to his old self after being human for so long, we’re once again reminded of just how inhuman this man really is. Yes, ultimately, each of us has a preference for one over the other – personally, as objective as I’ve tried to make this analysis, I think it’s obvious I have a preference for the "mysterious" Doctor – but ultimately, I think it works best as a mixture, one that can give us so many wonderful stories from a truly versatile series.
It is called “Doctor Who”, after all.
Never be cruel and never be cowardly. And if you ever are, always make amends.
You are a walking talking Doctor Who encyclopedia to me. - Melike
Very nicely written, my friend! Very good.
I agree specifically with your last paragraph, I think. As I was reading it, I kept seeing points and going "Oh, yeah, that's what I think too..." only to have it contradicted in the next section. Of course, I decided that I needed both to truly validate my fandom. The diversity, and even the almost lack of canon within the show allows it to be so widely reaching, and has given it its fanbase today.
That being said...I don't think it's any question as to which part I tend to gravitate towards, for very obvious reasons. I mean absolutely no offense to fans who think otherwise, but I think it's a completely integral part of the show to realize that the Doctor is not human, will never be human, and is allowed to act beyond the realm of human emotion, capacitation, and understanding. That's why he does what he does. He's a Time Lord; an ancient race, to which - in general - humans are practically nothing. It's just an oddity of our favorite non-hero (at times) to care for us more than he's really meant to. So can we really fault him for not being with us 100%.
To be completely honest, while I don't hate any of the incarnations, I was never a huge fan of David Tennant. During his tenure, he seemed so human. He just didn't pull of the alien aspect for me, which as been one of the few overriding ideas of the whole show, from the very beginning, as James mentioned, with the very first ep, to the last Doctor of the classic series - the 5th Doctor strayed into this realm a bit, I felt, but not this badly. My favorite performance of his - and yes, he is an amazing actor in general, but here, he blew me out of the water - was is Family of Blood, whenSpoiler:
I'll probably add more later, once other people join in. I'm surprised I typed that much, to be honest. Didn't think I was going to, being as tired as I am!
Cheers for the feedback, Jennifer. I agree with this point especially:
Just perfectly stated. Really best summarised my favourite thing about the character. Glad to see a really long post from at last on something like this, too. Always love discussion like this - it's just a whole 'nother way of enjoying my favourite show!
Never be cruel and never be cowardly. And if you ever are, always make amends.
You are a walking talking Doctor Who encyclopedia to me. - Melike
After reading both of your posts, I think I have to keep this short. I do not want to talk without the knowledge of past doctors. You know, for now, all I can do is to compare last three doctors. Even now, I can see how right is your analyse about Tennant and RTD.
I am curious, according to you, where does 11th doctor stand in ''Who'' and ''the Doctor'' world? (A question for both of you; DD and Alkanto.)
Anyway, I just remembered the episode, Midnight. It was so good.
Well, this is one reason why I enjoy Smith's Doctor: he's kind of a mixture of both. In plenty of eps, he's very much a heroic figure, particularly in series 5, although even in the Eleventh Hour, there was just a nice little touch of mystery to him.Spoiler:He's also been playing a much more alien Doctor too, someone who doesn't get on as well with humans, so already, we have more of a "Who" fitting Doctor, although "strange and eccentric" doesn't necessarily mean "mysterious". Gradually though, throughout series 6, the mystery has been gradually building in the character.Spoiler:
Overall, I'd say 11 has grown to become a character that could be labelled under the "Who" character, just about. Overall though, he's a nice mix of both, but I do appreciate that they're bringing the more mysterious and alien elements of the Doctor's character back to 11's incarnation.
Never be cruel and never be cowardly. And if you ever are, always make amends.
You are a walking talking Doctor Who encyclopedia to me. - Melike
Like in The Lodger...
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
ps: You are really good at analysing. I would like to see you use your power for Fringe too.
Yes! God yes! I absolutely love the Lodger, I think that was the episode that really showed off what Smith's Doctor could really do. It was kinda light on plot, but that was what sold it - if it had been a Tennant ep, it wouldn't have worked quite so well. I mentioned this to a mate, who's a massive Tennant fan, and his response was, "I think it would've worked better. You said yourself that Tennant was better at blending in with humans," to which my response was, "Exactly! None of the awkward comedy that kept the Lodger going would've worked nearly so well." Even he had to say, "Good point" to that one.
Oh, I know exactly what you mean. Stolen Earth/Journey's End was a hell of a rollicking ride, and it was fun seeing so many companions team up from different shows, but there were a few weak points in the second half that stop it from being a classic story of EPICNESS!Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Thank you, and I'd like to be able to, but I'm not sure that I could. If you want me to analyse the show's hidden mythologies and meanings, like Lost, then I'm thick as shit when it comes to that sort of stuff. Even for other things, like themes within the show and character development, tbh, there are very few tv shows that I've really enjoyed that I'm capable of giving that kind of analysis to. Really, only shows that have affected me on a deep, personal level are ones I feel capable of analysis. For example, I'm sure you've briefly glimpsed my long posts on Life on Mars. That is more than a show I've enjoyed watching: it's something I religiously watch and rewatch practically every year and find any excuse to do so. It is a show I always come back to and always find something new hidden within. There's no mythology to it, not really, just the ongoing development of Sam's journey, but it's such a complex one that I love seeing it over and over again. When Jean started watching it and started raving and analysing it, I thought xmas had come early!ps: You are really good at analysing. I would like to see you use your power for Fringe too.
As for Doctor Who, well...that's a show I've not only been watching since I was 8 years old, it's also a show I've grown up with: as a kid, i'd love it for the monsters and for the Doctor being a hero, as I grew up, I loved it even more for the characters and the complexity of the Doctor. (And for the monsters.) That's not even beginning to describe the way that the show is practically my life. (Although I think "One of the first things me and my girlfriend started chatting about" was one of them.
If I do stumble across something in Fringe though Melike that I think is worth such an analysis, I promise you, I'll let you know and work on it asap. I'm just saying that it's looking unlikely any time soon.
Never be cruel and never be cowardly. And if you ever are, always make amends.
You are a walking talking Doctor Who encyclopedia to me. - Melike
Does whatever a spiderman does.
Fucking brilliant!
Never be cruel and never be cowardly. And if you ever are, always make amends.
You are a walking talking Doctor Who encyclopedia to me. - Melike
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
