|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Jun 15, 2016 13:47:58 GMT
Bobod is 100% right - just because some of these suggestions aren't awful doesn't make them in any way intrinsically good. Would there be any value in creating an alien or non-21st century companion if they're not written well? And why just giving the Master a penis improves the show is beyond me. Name actors and actresses you'd prefer were in the role, fine, but just "She should be a man" is facile, head in the sand nonsense. The modern companions haven't been written well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2016 13:54:01 GMT
Bobod is 100% right - just because some of these suggestions aren't awful doesn't make them in any way intrinsically good. Would there be any value in creating an alien or non-21st century companion if they're not written well? And why just giving the Master a penis improves the show is beyond me. Name actors and actresses you'd prefer were in the role, fine, but just "She should be a man" is facile, head in the sand nonsense. The modern companions haven't been written well. *WHOOSH* That's the point....does giving them a bloody corset or a futuristic name solve ANYTHING to do with the writing? No. You'd still hate it anyway given it would be the same creatives making the show. Why would someone from another place and time be inherently better? Why would they be written and characterised in a way you'd prefer? Answer...they wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by muckypup on Jun 15, 2016 15:04:35 GMT
3 - no... we need a ordinary companion, and a man (but not Matt Lucas does he actully count as a man ) Yes, he does. Because he's a man. Not sure what you're driving at but I'll assume its badly phrased rather than something more sinister. I meant because he's Vicky pollard etc. what else would I mean?
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Jun 15, 2016 15:11:24 GMT
The modern companions haven't been written well. *WHOOSH* That's the point....does giving them a bloody corset or a futuristic name solve ANYTHING to do with the writing? No. You'd still hate it anyway given it would be the same creatives making the show. Why would someone from another place and time be inherently better? Why would they be written and characterised in a way you'd prefer? Answer...they wouldn't. Hopefully they would take time to write the character properly without the extra baggage they get.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2016 15:22:38 GMT
*WHOOSH* That's the point....does giving them a bloody corset or a futuristic name solve ANYTHING to do with the writing? No. You'd still hate it anyway given it would be the same creatives making the show. Why would someone from another place and time be inherently better? Why would they be written and characterised in a way you'd prefer? Answer...they wouldn't. Hopefully they would take time to write the character properly without the extra baggage they get. See? That's kinda the point. None of your points mean anything unless the scripts are written well. Just as - to be fair - nothing in the show the way you don't like it - Moffat-style - works unless it's written well either. But we can't all agree on what it is to write Doctor Who well. No amount of alien companions, transgender villains, deaths, removing sonic devices or anything that is fundamentally window dressing matters if the story and script aren't the best. If Moffat introduced an Elizabethan companion and an alien one with two heads...it's still Steven Moffat's vision. You're clearly not gonna be down with that and you're already in the Chibnall-doubter camp for the next few years too so that's all gonna be a write off since, no matter what small changes he makes...it's still Chris Chibnall's vision. Really the only way to "improve" Doctor Who is to: 1. Make better Doctor Who 2. Repeat Ad Infinitum But since we - you, me, fandom and the tv audience around the world will never agree on what makes it "better", it's a moot excercise.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Jun 15, 2016 16:59:00 GMT
Hopefully they would take time to write the character properly without the extra baggage they get. See? That's kinda the point. None of your points mean anything unless the scripts are written well. Just as - to be fair - nothing in the show the way you don't like it - Moffat-style - works unless it's written well either. But we can't all agree on what it is to write Doctor Who well. No amount of alien companions, transgender villains, deaths, removing sonic devices or anything that is fundamentally window dressing matters if the story and script aren't the best. If Moffat introduced an Elizabethan companion and an alien one with two heads...it's still Steven Moffat's vision. You're clearly not gonna be down with that and you're already in the Chibnall-doubter camp for the next few years too so that's all gonna be a write off since, no matter what small changes he makes...it's still Chris Chibnall's vision. Really the only way to "improve" Doctor Who is to: 1. Make better Doctor Who 2. Repeat Ad Infinitum But since we - you, me, fandom and the tv audience around the world will never agree on what makes it "better", it's a moot excercise. Would be such a shame if no one risked a change in companion type. A wasted opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Jun 15, 2016 17:32:33 GMT
Personally I think we will have no idea how good Who currently is, until the current crop of children grew up, and we can see then how high a regard they hold it in. For sure there are elements in Who these days I would wish were gone or at least done less, and for me one of those areas is definitely the companion, I am not so bothered that they are all from present day earth, but for me Doctor is not about the companion, and if all the baggage that comes along with families and jobs and boyfriends were just dumped it would make room for better Who, it would create opportunity, not guarantee it, but at the moment that opportunity is totally lost companion centric Who is what we get.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Jun 15, 2016 18:15:42 GMT
Personally I think we will have no idea how good Who currently is, until the current crop of children grew up, and we can see then how high a regard they hold it in. For sure there are elements in Who these days I would wish were gone or at least done less, and for me one of those areas is definitely the companion, I am not so bothered that they are all from present day earth, but for me Doctor is not about the companion, and if all the baggage that comes along with families and jobs and boyfriends were just dumped it would make room for better Who, it would create opportunity, not guarantee it, but at the moment that opportunity is totally lost companion centric Who is what we get. So, you can't tell me if you thought series 9 was better than series 8?
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Jun 15, 2016 18:19:40 GMT
My personal opinion is unlikely to reflect how the show is viewed in 10 to 20 years time by those that are children today.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jun 15, 2016 21:26:58 GMT
Personally I think we will have no idea how good Who currently is, until the current crop of children grew up, and we can see then how high a regard they hold it in. For sure there are elements in Who these days I would wish were gone or at least done less, and for me one of those areas is definitely the companion, I am not so bothered that they are all from present day earth, but for me Doctor is not about the companion, and if all the baggage that comes along with families and jobs and boyfriends were just dumped it would make room for better Who, it would create opportunity, not guarantee it, but at the moment that opportunity is totally lost companion centric Who is what we get. So, you can't tell me if you thought series 9 was better than series 8? The point Jason was making was we ultimately can't judge New Who on its own merits as much as we think we can, given we all have the 50 plus years worth of continuity and other baggage to constantly compare it to and have our own very set visions of Who is and isn't. While I have my axe to grind with Moffat, clearly he and Davies before him have tapped into something that people want and clearly the outcry isn't strong enough for it to warrant drastic ship righting. I may not agree with all the decisions, but those are the facts of the case and we have to bear in mind it's not just us who watch Who.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jun 15, 2016 21:33:40 GMT
Thing is, i agree with many of Paul's points, just not the less than pleasant way they were delivered. However, I wouldn't want the Rani to come back as a half baked apology for Missy. I want the Rani to come back in a well told and exciting story, and would rather it be handled by someone who likes her rather than by a creative team who don't want to and force it. Same goes Mortimer or Anzor or the War Chief or Omega. Having Rassilon in Hell Bent sure didn't fix that story's multitude of faults, and it was a waste of Donal Sumpter's talents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2016 7:36:58 GMT
Thing is, i agree with many of Paul's points, just not the less than pleasant way they were delivered. However, I wouldn't want the Rani to come back as a half baked apology for Missy. I want the Rani to come back in a well told and exciting story, and would rather it be handled by someone who likes her rather than by a creative team who don't want to and force it. Same goes Mortimer or Anzor or the War Chief or Omega. Having Rassilon in Hell Bent sure didn't fix that story's multitude of faults, and it was a waste of Donal Sumpter's talents. Honestly, it would have made more sense if it had just been a nameless President who was placed in charge while Rassilon was elsewhere. That way you could have a de-fanged and ineffectual leader without demeaning the rather powerful character of Rassilon. As I've said elsewhere, give us dramatic consequences for your story and you fix everything. Kill your cast and keep them dead, show us why we should care about these characters, give us threatening villains who mean what they say and will do what they claim without hesitation. Adding to that, I'd also say that it might be time to start looking back at what last year on the modern series missed with classic Who -- a genuinely memorable and textured supporting cast. The Caves of Androzani, The Tombs of the Cybermen, Revelation of the Daleks, The Talons of Weng-Chiang, The Aztecs, The Power of the Daleks, Inferno, all of these great stories wouldn't be half as good as they were if the guest starring characters were just unimaginative cardboard cutouts. It doesn't have to be grim or dark, but you do have to make the characters' actions -- all their virtues, triumphs, cruelties, and mistakes -- matter. It is so important that you do not cheapen that life or death stake (since that's primarily what Who relies upon for tension) and that you show us why we're out here exploring this universe. The Doctor is not a soldier or a hero as his core personality, assuming that misses the point of his character. An alien who does not conform to our values and customs, who does not snog virtually every girl (not every guy I've noticed) he comes across as a way of saying hello. His heroism while welcome is beside the point. That is not the Doctor. The Doctor is is at hearts, a scientist and an explorer who is trying to learn more about himself as he learns about others. That is why (for me at least), the programme has been falling apart. It's about adventures to distant climes and long forgotten times, seeing worlds, situations and cultures beyond our own sphere.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 16, 2016 8:15:25 GMT
Yes. You need an audience identification figure and a companion from the past would be too different from a contemporary one to provide that.
(Although a companion from the not-so-distant past like the 80s could work)
Yes. See question two.
No. But the companion being some sort of mystery adds an element of intrigue to the show.
No. But equally is it so bad for the Master to be female now? I don't think it is. Michelle Gomez plays the part brilliantly.
They do that anyway.
Already been done - Amy and Rory.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Jun 16, 2016 8:23:10 GMT
6 - Is is so bad an idea, that when a companion leaves or dies - They don't come back?Already been done - Amy and Rory. We don't know that yet. At one time Rose was locked in an alternate universe never to return, until she did.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 16, 2016 8:26:32 GMT
6 - Is is so bad an idea, that when a companion leaves or dies - They don't come back?Already been done - Amy and Rory. We don't know that yet. At one time Rose was locked in an alternate universe never to return, until she did. Amy & Rory can't come back. They died aged 82 and 87.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Jun 16, 2016 8:37:18 GMT
And Rose one presumes died at some point, and most definitely couldn't come back, The Doctor apparently harnessing the energy from a supanova just to send her a holographic messages before never being able to do so again. All very emotional, all very final. Oh... until it wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Jun 16, 2016 9:44:10 GMT
We don't know that yet. At one time Rose was locked in an alternate universe never to return, until she did. Amy & Rory can't come back. They died aged 82 and 87. She still came back in Smiths last story.
|
|
bobod
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,759
|
Post by bobod on Jun 16, 2016 10:50:47 GMT
Amy & Rory can't come back. They died aged 82 and 87. She still came back in Smiths last story. To be fair, she didn't.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Jun 16, 2016 10:59:26 GMT
She still came back in Smiths last story. To be fair, she didn't. To be fair, she did! And, even if you don't count this, its a time travel programme, dead isn't dead!
|
|
|
Post by constonks on Jun 16, 2016 12:18:47 GMT
To be fair, she did! And, even if you don't count this, its a time travel programme, dead isn't dead! By that logic, Nyssa, Adric, Tegan and Turlough all "came back" in Androzani. I'm always fine with hallucination cameos in regeneration stories as that story (and Logopolis) both introduced it as one of the many ways to say goodbye to a Doctor. As for your points in the original post, no, none of those things would be bad. However, I will say that I don't want Michelle Gomez gone just yet. Our Masters have been expiring too soon lately (seriously in three stories with the Master - TV movie, Utopia trilogy & The End of Time - we had three different Masters) and I'd like to see her stick around for a little while, especially if there's a lady Doc around the corner.
|
|