|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Apr 25, 2017 23:39:22 GMT
Conflict is the source of drama and character. How many remotely interesting characters, protagonists or otherwise, can you think of who are singularly goody good? Desire, remorse, regret, doubt, fear all give a character dimension, a flaw, and allow for the viewer to empathise and be intrigued. It's as true of Hartnell then as Capaldi today. The conflict therefore comes from the moral upstandingness of the Doctor versus the world in which he finds himself. Father Brown doesn't have a dark side. Santa doesn't have a dark side. James Kirk doesn't have a dark side. remorse isn't a dark side. It's a consequence of a moral position held that's been violated in some way. desire isn't a dark side. It's a wanting for something. doubtbisnt a dark side. It's a unwillingness to accept something as an absolute. a dark side is "I myrdered a billion children to win a war". a dark side is a Dalek telling you it gets turned on by your hatred. a dark side is brooding over your failures. Thr Doctor doesn't need any of that. does he need remorse? "There should have been another way..." that refrain isn't born of an inner darkness, but of his innate optimism being brutally stomped upon. does he need doubt? "Do I have the right?" that isn't born of a fear of unleashing his inner monster, but asking if he has the moral right to commit genocide. does he need regret? Does he need desire? Does he need to weep? Yes yes YES. But he doesn't need to mope to Davros about how he's not a good man, but sometimes he pretends to be one. He doesn't need to have a mission to absolve himself of mass infanticide. Lets look at (comics) Hellboy. He has a darkness to his inception, he was sent to Earth to literally bring about the extinction of humanity. But he doesn't really have a darkness to his character. He lives in a dark world where, well let's be honest, humanity is literally doomed. But he is not a dark character, his innate goodness is the source of the drama because of the darkness of the world. Even "The Wild Hunt" which revolves around (in part) Hellboy confronting what he sees as his dark side is actually (to slip into Pratchettisms) the rising angel being brought down by the falling devil, it's not an inner darkness, but rather the conflict between his origins and his character. The Doctor doesn't need to be a dark character, or even have darkness to his character, to be part of a tense dramatic story. In fact, the absence of that would mean you can craft stories where that innate lack of darkness comes under threat by the darkness of the universe and the prevailing of that "lightness of character" is where the drama is derived (again to mention Hellboy, it's him telling Rasputin and his mission to "get stuffed" which is the dramatic pay off).
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Apr 26, 2017 8:38:57 GMT
Conflict is the source of drama and character. How many remotely interesting characters, protagonists or otherwise, can you think of who are singularly goody good? Desire, remorse, regret, doubt, fear all give a character dimension, a flaw, and allow for the viewer to empathise and be intrigued. It's as true of Hartnell then as Capaldi today. The conflict therefore comes from the moral upstandingness of the Doctor versus the world in which he finds himself. Father Brown doesn't have a dark side. Santa doesn't have a dark side. James Kirk doesn't have a dark side. remorse isn't a dark side. It's a consequence of a moral position held that's been violated in some way. desire isn't a dark side. It's a wanting for something. doubtbisnt a dark side. It's a unwillingness to accept something as an absolute. a dark side is "I myrdered a billion children to win a war". a dark side is a Dalek telling you it gets turned on by your hatred. a dark side is brooding over your failures. Thr Doctor doesn't need any of that. does he need remorse? "There should have been another way..." that refrain isn't born of an inner darkness, but of his innate optimism being brutally stomped upon. does he need doubt? "Do I have the right?" that isn't born of a fear of unleashing his inner monster, but asking if he has the moral right to commit genocide. does he need regret? Does he need desire? Does he need to weep? Yes yes YES. But he doesn't need to mope to Davros about how he's not a good man, but sometimes he pretends to be one. He doesn't need to have a mission to absolve himself of mass infanticide. Lets look at (comics) Hellboy. He has a darkness to his inception, he was sent to Earth to literally bring about the extinction of humanity. But he doesn't really have a darkness to his character. He lives in a dark world where, well let's be honest, humanity is literally doomed. But he is not a dark character, his innate goodness is the source of the drama because of the darkness of the world. Even "The Wild Hunt" which revolves around (in part) Hellboy confronting what he sees as his dark side is actually (to slip into Pratchettisms) the rising angel being brought down by the falling devil, it's not an inner darkness, but rather the conflict between his origins and his character. The Doctor doesn't need to be a dark character, or even have darkness to his character, to be part of a tense dramatic story. In fact, the absence of that would mean you can craft stories where that innate lack of darkness comes under threat by the darkness of the universe and the prevailing of that "lightness of character" is where the drama is derived (again to mention Hellboy, it's him telling Rasputin and his mission to "get stuffed" which is the dramatic pay off). You've created an very thorough rebuttal. My only contention is if remorse and desire cannot be considered as dark, moreso the former than the latter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 9:36:51 GMT
Oh, we've gotten into the deeply complex moral question of whether action or intent is more important. There's loads of differentiation here, you will rarely find two sides that agree. James Kirk doesn't have a dark side. Just as a point of order there, Kirk beat the crap out of Chekov while under the influence of an alien intelligence because he was about to rape and kill a Klingon prisoner. Spock was the one who stopped him from beating the man to death. Similarly, he said rather unrepentantly to Spock after Praxis exploded that the Klingons should be allowed to die out as a species. His whole racism towards the Klingons was a very important aspect of that film in general actually, one that he admits got in the way of his better nature. In "The Cloud Minders", he drags Plasus down into the mines and forces him to scrabble in the dirt at gunpoint like the Trogs he subjugates and eventually attacks him when he refuses. Kirk even spends one episode going on an obsessive crusade that has him punishing an ensign beneath him for the actions he himself took when he was younger and it takes McCoy to point it out. James T. Kirk definitely has a dark side. Every character does. The Fourth Doctor, as moral as he was during his time with Leela, was a man who gassed Solon to death with cyanide to try and prevent Morbius's rebirth. The Cyberleader likewise is shot to death by the Fifth Doctor of all people in self-defence. Both are horrible ways to die, the Cyberleader himself perishes screaming, but they were both necessary to the situation in order to protect the lives of his companions. Had the Doctor not acted in the latter case, Tegan would have been gunned down and then him and then finally Nyssa with the Cybermen left in control of the TARDIS. Regeneration or no regeneration, I don't think he would have been able to live with himself. The Doctor doesn't need to be a dark character, or even have darkness to his character, to be part of a tense dramatic story. In fact, the absence of that would mean you can craft stories where that innate lack of darkness comes under threat by the darkness of the universe and the prevailing of that "lightness of character" is where the drama is derived (again to mention Hellboy, it's him telling Rasputin and his mission to "get stuffed" which is the dramatic pay off). What I'm getting here is that the Doctor doesn't need to be a dour character in order to be effective and that's certainly true. A dark side is just that, one aspect of a character. There always has to be a progression with the darkness of characters otherwise it becomes untenable. It's why the Eighth Doctor was characterised how he was, he was a superb counterpoint to his predecessor, even if his ending is ultimately far grimmer than dying from complications in a hospital (ymmv; dying scared, powerless and alone vs. suicide into someone he knows he'd hate to be). With the NA's Seventh Doctor it made sense because there was no television series. Doctor Who was over. Finished. For all intents and purposes this could have been the end of his life and naturally, people get maudlin about their mortality. At the end, certain things that seemed so important previously aren't anymore or are challenged on their continuing value, yet by the range's end, there has been a catharsis of sorts. The Seventh Doctor comes to terms with his own existence and Eighth Man Bound, the possibility that he may not have a future. He learns to live with his own darkness. However that grim subject matter doesn't mean he's Ronald Craven from Edge of Darkness. He did not have to see his daughter blown away with a shotgun on a rainy night and live with the grief and despair that comes after. I think the idea with demonstrating darkness in a character is to show that prolonged heroics hurt. There are consequences, it wears a person down. However, it shouldn't be the only characteristic he has. Even the NA!Doctor despite his insecurities and reservations had fun, he threw Benny's cross-temporal wedding for god's sake.
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Apr 26, 2017 12:30:07 GMT
I tend to start composing and revising a reply as I'm reading a post and when you made the distinction in the first quoted paragraph, I had already mentally added "Do you consider the difference between 'immoral' and 'evil' a difference of scale or a difference in kind?" and you had the poor form to address it in the second paragraph before I could even ask it! That's definitely one of my faults as a poster, here and on political forums. I'll intend to keep it short and sweet, but then I'll think of various additions/stylistic changes to make. By the time I'm done editing, there is generally one or more posts that respond to earlier versions of mine up. Whoops... No worries! Your posts are always thoughtful and well-written and I enjoy reading them.
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Apr 26, 2017 13:39:44 GMT
Santa does have a Darkside we call it the Krampus
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Apr 26, 2017 14:12:36 GMT
Tom Baker has said that he was brought up to believe in miracles and forgiveness and being kind, and that he saw the Doctor as a hero who was a nice fellow and a great source of benevolent silly things.
Pop culture is overrun with brilliant but cruel anti-hero protagonists in the mold of House or Sherlock, but heroes who are smart but kind are a comparative rarity. Cynics are fond of pointing out that being good does not necessarily mean being nice, which is true, but I’ll add that being nice is not the same as being weak.
I’m fond of an essay Greg Rucka wrote a few years ago, where he observes, “…for the contingent out there who sneer at heroes like Superman and Wonder Woman and Captain America, those icons who still, at their core, represent selfless sacrifice for the greater good, and who justify their contempt by saying, oh, it’s so unrealistic, no one would ever be so noble… grow up. Seriously. Cynicism is not maturity, do not mistake the one for the other.”
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Apr 26, 2017 16:34:45 GMT
Tom Baker has said that he was brought up to believe in miracles and forgiveness and being kind, and that he saw the Doctor as a hero who was a nice fellow and a great source of benevolent silly things. Pop culture is overrun with brilliant but cruel anti-hero protagonists in the mold of House or Sherlock, but heroes who are smart but kind are a comparative rarity. Cynics are fond of pointing out that being good does not necessarily mean being nice, which is true, but I’ll add that being nice is not the same as being weak. I’m fond of an essay Greg Rucka wrote a few years ago, where he observes, “…for the contingent out there who sneer at heroes like Superman and Wonder Woman and Captain America, those icons who still, at their core, represent selfless sacrifice for the greater good, and who justify their contempt by saying, oh, it’s so unrealistic, no one would ever be so noble… grow up. Seriously. Cynicism is not maturity, do not mistake the one for the other.” And Rucka makes a very legitimate point: cynical/dark does not automatically equate to something profound, and in that I do agree. That said, Superman and Wonder Woman still have flaws and can and have given into what can be considered less moral/ethical notions to get the job done. Perhaps dark is too extreme a term, but they and the Doctor need something to counterbalance their positive traits, otherwise there is no dimension or believability when they do face those 'greying' trials. Nice is not a weak trait in and of itself, but it can be weak for drama if not used correctly.
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Apr 26, 2017 16:46:58 GMT
And Rucka makes a very legitimate point: cynical/dark does not automatically equate to something profound, and in that I do agree. That said, Superman and Wonder Woman still have flaws and can and have given into what can be considered less moral/ethical notions to get the job done. Perhaps dark is too extreme a term, but they and the Doctor need something to counterbalance their positive traits, otherwise there is no dimension or believability when they do face those 'greying' trials. Nice is not a weak trait in and of itself, but it can be weak for drama if not used correctly. Oh, absolutely. I love Nyssa, but in the wrong hands she's so nice as to be a non-entity.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Apr 27, 2017 9:36:04 GMT
Santa does have a Darkside we call it the Krampus Nah, Krampus is Morarity to Santa.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Apr 27, 2017 9:38:53 GMT
And Rucka makes a very legitimate point: cynical/dark does not automatically equate to something profound, and in that I do agree. That said, Superman and Wonder Woman still have flaws and can and have given into what can be considered less moral/ethical notions to get the job done. Perhaps dark is too extreme a term, but they and the Doctor need something to counterbalance their positive traits, otherwise there is no dimension or believability when they do face those 'greying' trials. Nice is not a weak trait in and of itself, but it can be weak for drama if not used correctly. Oh, absolutely. I love Nyssa, but in the wrong hands she's so nice as to be a non-entity. Apropos Nyssa - a good mate of mine has a theory that Nyssa is a massive manipulator using the TARDIS to build a power base in the cosmos. basically, the only reason she leaves in Terminus is because Turlough is there (ie someone who is genuinely suspicious and has a powerful backer) and she gets her hands on biological weapons, the means to control people via those biological weapons and the only known source of a cure for sIdvbiological weapon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 10:14:02 GMT
Santa does have a Darkside we call it the Krampus Nah, Krampus is Morarity to Santa. Depending on the story, Holmes and Moriarty can actually be the same fellow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 3:48:01 GMT
I’m fond of an essay Greg Rucka wrote a few years ago, where he observes, “…for the contingent out there who sneer at heroes like Superman and Wonder Woman and Captain America, those icons who still, at their core, represent selfless sacrifice for the greater good, and who justify their contempt by saying, oh, it’s so unrealistic, no one would ever be so noble… grow up. Seriously. Cynicism is not maturity, do not mistake the one for the other.”
- This is so important.
|
|
|
Post by anothermanicmondas on May 1, 2017 9:34:14 GMT
James Kirk doesn't have a dark side. Have you seen the Star Trek Episode: "The Enemy Within" ?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on May 1, 2017 9:48:29 GMT
James Kirk doesn't have a dark side. Have you seen the Star Trek Episode: "The Enemy Within" ? Which was our old friend "teleported malfunction" creating a version of Kirk without his self control. Possessing self control does not mean you're hiding a dark side.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on May 1, 2017 9:50:34 GMT
Have you seen the Star Trek Episode: "The Enemy Within" ? Which was our old friend "teleported malfunction" creating a version of Kirk without his self control. Possessing self control does not mean you're hiding a dark side. Everybody has a dark side. If you try to deny it you're only denying yourself.
|
|
|
Post by anothermanicmondas on May 1, 2017 9:50:45 GMT
on the question it depends what constitutes a "dark side"
One thing I object to is the number of cynics who seem to regard "goodness" as a psychologocial disorder and feel that any good character must have a dark past or the victim of trauma to be good. This is not true in the real world and should not be true in fiction.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on May 1, 2017 9:52:33 GMT
Which was our old friend "teleported malfunction" creating a version of Kirk without his self control. Possessing self control does not mean you're hiding a dark side. Everybody has a dark side. If you try to deny it you're only denying yourself. Does it need to be the driver of drama? no. does every single bleeding conversation/scene about him need to revolve around how dark he really is blah blah blah? no.
|
|
|
Post by anothermanicmondas on May 1, 2017 9:54:18 GMT
Have you seen the Star Trek Episode: "The Enemy Within" ? Which was our old friend "teleported malfunction" creating a version of Kirk without his self control. Possessing self control does not mean you're hiding a dark side. it did more than that - it split Kirk into 2 beings each with different parts of his personality - one good-natured but weak willed while the other was strong-willed and aggressive - his "light" side and his "dark" side Loss of Self control was the episode "the Naked Time"
|
|
|
Post by omega on May 1, 2017 10:12:44 GMT
on the question it depends what constitutes a "dark side" One thing I object to is the number of cynics who seem to regard "goodness" as a psychologocial disorder and feel that any good character must have a dark past or the victim of trauma to be good. This is not true in the real world and should not be true in fiction. I believe everyone is capable of positive and negative things, their good side and their dark side. Each aspect of their personality has a dark side, where it's taken too far. A desire to protect and lead to over-protection, a yearning to lead can result in abuse of power. A strong will can be take to the extremes of being bullheaded. Confidence breeds overconfidence. Each incarnation of the Doctor has the same core values, but at different settings each time. Their dark sides depend on how many of their individual qualities are perceived as negative morally, like how Bill is upset at the Doctor's casual reaction to people dying in Thin Ice. In the audios Mary Shelley is shocked at how little the Doctor is affected by death, calling the Reaper his companion due to how much death follows him. An important factor to consider is what other aspect of the Doctor's personality is being called upon. The Doctor must sometimes let bad things happen because that's how the Web of Time has it (or Fixed Points in Time like Pompeii). We, the audience are aware of this and know that there are consequences when the Doctor shirks his temporal responsibility even when it's not apparent to his companion or other characters. The Fourth Doctor asked himself if he had the right to prevent the Daleks from developing, knowing several key points in his life involved them, in the end reasoning some good must come out of their evil. The Doctor is rarely intentional malicious for no good reason.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on May 1, 2017 10:21:19 GMT
Everybody has a dark side. If you try to deny it you're only denying yourself. Does it need to be the driver of drama? no. does every single bleeding conversation/scene about him need to revolve around how dark he really is blah blah blah? no. I think drama is mostly more interesting if the driving force is the character's dark side. Character flaws are what make these characters interesting, not their good aspects. Although I agree it doesn't have to be in every scene and I don't think the current era of Doctor Who does that anyway. I
|
|