|
Post by coffeeaddict on Apr 16, 2018 23:42:04 GMT
Things I'd change. Well, Danny Pink would never have had a scene, the character was terrible as was the whole relationship with Clara. Clara would have stayed dead and the whole Gallifrey resurrection crap would never have happened. I would have skipped Bill - I know many liked her, I found the character was terrible - unsure if it was just a badly written character, bad acting or both.
And this goes for the new series in general - less going back to earth so the companion can pretend they have a normal life. I think part of what made the show fun was taken away when the Doctor finally learned how to get the TARDIS to go where he wanted.
|
|
|
Post by MayoTango131 on Apr 17, 2018 0:40:13 GMT
Things I'd change. Well, Danny Pink would never have had a scene, the character was terrible as was the whole relationship with Clara. Clara would have stayed dead and the whole Gallifrey resurrection crap would never have happened. I would have skipped Bill - I know many liked her, I found the character was terrible - unsure if it was just a badly written character, bad acting or both. And this goes for the new series in general - less going back to earth so the companion can pretend they have a normal life. I think part of what made the show fun was taken away when the Doctor finally learned how to get the TARDIS to go where he wanted. Yeah right... tell that to Tegan " Heathrow Airport" Jovanka, Rose " a year later" Tyler, Amy " twelve years later" Pond,etc etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2018 9:44:30 GMT
Things I'd change. Well, Danny Pink would never have had a scene, the character was terrible as was the whole relationship with Clara. Clara would have stayed dead and the whole Gallifrey resurrection crap would never have happened. I would have skipped Bill - I know many liked her, I found the character was terrible - unsure if it was just a badly written character, bad acting or both. And this goes for the new series in general - less going back to earth so the companion can pretend they have a normal life. I think part of what made the show fun was taken away when the Doctor finally learned how to get the TARDIS to go where he wanted. You can't spin the wheel for ever, you've got to do something different. Have The Doctor gain some control of his ship was part of that, as well as other decisions (some I don't agree with), having The Doctor stranded on Earth, a TV serial set enterily on Galifery and revealing more about their society, making The Doctor more fallable and younger, delving more into The Doctor's past, having a Doctor who doesn't necessarily act like The Doctor, The Doctor confronting his inner darkness, the Time War, etc. Otherwise, Doctor Who would have been defined by one thing - and as cool as that one thing is, it's a much richer show for embracing change. And Who came back in a different television context: where people expected character-driven stories, so it made sense to expand on the companion, especially as the audience surrogate. Otherwise, we're left to expand on The Doctor and that defeats the whole purpose of the show.
|
|
|
Post by thethirddoctor on Apr 17, 2018 9:55:40 GMT
So companions to the Doctor should not have outside relationships? So Letts and Dicks never should have had Jo meet someone, fall in love and leave the Doctor? Leela never should have met someone, fallen in love and left the Doctor? Susan should have never met someone, fallen in love and left the Doctor? We’re all those examples of sexuality being overt and not subtle? A character who is a companion to the Doctor should never be shown going out on a date with someone else? Wow! You know fine well what I meant. At least those "love affairs" didn't last a series, or the duration of the companions journeys.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Apr 17, 2018 10:08:28 GMT
(I know this might be off topic and please call me out if it is, but, even though i don’t believe bill is an example of this, why do people have such a problem with positive discrimination? For instance only auditioning for a female doctor or having a LGBT character. It’s representing the society we live in how not everyones the same and, and imo celebrates that by featureing Bill or Captain Jack or Cassandra...i always found it odd that people took issue with it :/ but that’s me.) As for something more on topic, i’d say the only thing that didn’t do loads for me was the “Me” arc thing. Capaldis era has been one of my faveorites and so i really wouldn’t change a whole lot of it. I have a problem with "positive discrimination" - partly because it's an oxymoron, partly because it means you will deliberately ignore candidates for the very reason you are picking others (race, gender, etc), it is to me hypocrisy to say on one hand "Don't discriminate because of X" and then to slap the word "positive" on the front of it and say that that makes it OK. I have no problem with the aim of equality for all, but I'm not convinced that this should be achieved at all costs.
|
|
aztec
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,849
|
Post by aztec on Apr 17, 2018 11:16:00 GMT
Twelve and Bill and Nardole go on travelling together for at least two more seasons. You like Bill? Would you keep her ending? Being killed, turned to a Cyberman, and eventually becoming immortal? And, constantly reminding us she's a lesbian?https://www.reddit.com/r/gallifrey/comments/6nxbpc/a_look_at_the_sexuality_of_companions_and_whether/
|
|
aztec
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,849
|
Post by aztec on Apr 17, 2018 11:16:49 GMT
Make it longer.
|
|
|
Post by thethirddoctor on Apr 17, 2018 11:22:38 GMT
You like Bill? Would you keep her ending? Being killed, turned to a Cyberman, and eventually becoming immortal? And, constantly reminding us she's a lesbian?https://www.reddit.com/r/gallifrey/comments/6nxbpc/a_look_at_the_sexuality_of_companions_and_whether/ Perhaps, NuWho sexuality is overplayed?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2018 11:54:36 GMT
(I know this might be off topic and please call me out if it is, but, even though i don’t believe bill is an example of this, why do people have such a problem with positive discrimination? For instance only auditioning for a female doctor or having a LGBT character. It’s representing the society we live in how not everyones the same and, and imo celebrates that by featureing Bill or Captain Jack or Cassandra...i always found it odd that people took issue with it :/ but that’s me.) As for something more on topic, i’d say the only thing that didn’t do loads for me was the “Me” arc thing. Capaldis era has been one of my faveorites and so i really wouldn’t change a whole lot of it. I have a problem with "positive discrimination" - partly because it's an oxymoron, partly because it means you will deliberately ignore candidates for the very reason you are picking others (race, gender, etc), it is to me hypocrisy to say on one hand "Don't discriminate because of X" and then to slap the word "positive" on the front of it and say that that makes it OK. I have no problem with the aim of equality for all, but I'm not convinced that this should be achieved at all costs. I do see your point. It is partly unfair to go to the other end of the spectrum just because of discrimation in the past. I just feel it’s necessary to an extent. For instance, i don't think its bad Chibnall picturing the 13th doctor as a women - is is an intersting dynamic to play with and theres been 13 other male doctors so why not. Yet the amount of people who take offense at this does perplex me... i do realise i am in the minority in this opinion though.
|
|
|
Post by coffeeaddict on Apr 17, 2018 11:58:47 GMT
Things I'd change. Well, Danny Pink would never have had a scene, the character was terrible as was the whole relationship with Clara. Clara would have stayed dead and the whole Gallifrey resurrection crap would never have happened. I would have skipped Bill - I know many liked her, I found the character was terrible - unsure if it was just a badly written character, bad acting or both. And this goes for the new series in general - less going back to earth so the companion can pretend they have a normal life. I think part of what made the show fun was taken away when the Doctor finally learned how to get the TARDIS to go where he wanted. You can't spin the wheel for ever, you've got to do something different. Have The Doctor gain some control of his ship was part of that, as well as other decisions (some I don't agree with), having The Doctor stranded on Earth, a TV serial set enterily on Galifery and revealing more about their society, making The Doctor more fallable and younger, delving more into The Doctor's past, having a Doctor who doesn't necessarily act like The Doctor, The Doctor confronting his inner darkness, the Time War, etc. Otherwise, Doctor Who would have been defined by one thing - and as cool as that one thing is, it's a much richer show for embracing change. And Who came back in a different television context: where people expected character-driven stories, so it made sense to expand on the companion, especially as the audience surrogate. Otherwise, we're left to expand on The Doctor and that defeats the whole purpose of the show. While I grant that there are some who enjoy the constant returning home for dinner with family, there also seems to be a fair number who honestly can't stand that nonsense.
Admittedly the sample size we are both citing is small as it is largely from this forum, though I'm sure that out in the real world everyone here knows people who support either of the positions we've raised.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Apr 17, 2018 12:36:26 GMT
You can't spin the wheel for ever, you've got to do something different. Have The Doctor gain some control of his ship was part of that, as well as other decisions (some I don't agree with), having The Doctor stranded on Earth, a TV serial set enterily on Galifery and revealing more about their society, making The Doctor more fallable and younger, delving more into The Doctor's past, having a Doctor who doesn't necessarily act like The Doctor, The Doctor confronting his inner darkness, the Time War, etc. Otherwise, Doctor Who would have been defined by one thing - and as cool as that one thing is, it's a much richer show for embracing change. And Who came back in a different television context: where people expected character-driven stories, so it made sense to expand on the companion, especially as the audience surrogate. Otherwise, we're left to expand on The Doctor and that defeats the whole purpose of the show. While I grant that there are some who enjoy the constant returning home for dinner with family, there also seems to be a fair number who honestly can't stand that nonsense.
Admittedly the sample size we are both citing is small as it is largely from this forum, though I'm sure that out in the real world everyone here knows people who support either of the positions we've raised.
Popping home for tea, for me, devalues the Tardis experience, it reduces the jeopardy to that of Mr Benn. Now Mr Benn is a great show, one I've always loved, but it's safe, it feels safe, for me, I don't think travelling with The Doctor should feel like that. The other thing as well, is, well frankly I couldn't give a wet tissue about the lives of the companions, not really, Ace's character as a troubled child/home life was enough, it told me who the character is, informs Ace's actions and reactions, but what I never want or need to see, is Ace dealing with that at home with her parents etc Seriously, if I was interested in that sort of stuff I'd watch Eastenders.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2018 12:58:39 GMT
You can't spin the wheel for ever, you've got to do something different. Have The Doctor gain some control of his ship was part of that, as well as other decisions (some I don't agree with), having The Doctor stranded on Earth, a TV serial set enterily on Galifery and revealing more about their society, making The Doctor more fallable and younger, delving more into The Doctor's past, having a Doctor who doesn't necessarily act like The Doctor, The Doctor confronting his inner darkness, the Time War, etc. Otherwise, Doctor Who would have been defined by one thing - and as cool as that one thing is, it's a much richer show for embracing change. And Who came back in a different television context: where people expected character-driven stories, so it made sense to expand on the companion, especially as the audience surrogate. Otherwise, we're left to expand on The Doctor and that defeats the whole purpose of the show. While I grant that there are some who enjoy the constant returning home for dinner with family, there also seems to be a fair number who honestly can't stand that nonsense.
Admittedly the sample size we are both citing is small as it is largely from this forum, though I'm sure that out in the real world everyone here knows people who support either of the positions we've raised.
Eh, I wouldn't call it 'nonsense' I love the expansion of the companion and to me it enriches the journey into the unknown and raises the stake. Television had moved on and the original Doctor/companion dynamic wouldn't be accepted on television nowadays, anyway for many reasons. And given how tarnished Who's reputation had unfairly become, it NEEDED to be relatable to a modern audience. British science fiction television wasn't a thing. If it's just about a madman from space who travels in time, it's fairly nieche and not Doctor Who at all. Doctor Who wasn't just another sci-fi series, it was an institution. It was part of people's childhoods and having the ordinary person involved was a HUGE part of that, for getting kids and the grownups into time and space. The Doctor's great, we love him, but it's the companion that makes the series work: that establishes it's stakes, it's edge, it's danger, the lure of the unknown. Without that, Doctor Who isn't Doctor Who, it's just another sci-fi series. But the approach had to be different for a modern audience. Having a very clever man rule over the companion wouldn't play well, especially given the history of the series and the existing dynamic would be seen as archaric and ready bad press. The companion had to be important, to be crucial to the narrative, have equal dramatic weight to The Doctor and be someone the audience could get invested in and they needed a life around them. To have an existence to showcase what happens when the TARDIS doors open. To make the painted aliens and pepper pots paltable to the wider audience. And it's not really all that different to Sydney Newman and Verity Lambert's initial approach to lure in viewers, either.
|
|
|
Post by coffeeaddict on Apr 17, 2018 13:50:29 GMT
While I grant that there are some who enjoy the constant returning home for dinner with family, there also seems to be a fair number who honestly can't stand that nonsense.
Admittedly the sample size we are both citing is small as it is largely from this forum, though I'm sure that out in the real world everyone here knows people who support either of the positions we've raised.
Eh, I wouldn't call it 'nonsense' I love the expansion of the companion and to me it enriches the journey into the unknown and raises the stake. Television had moved on and the original Doctor/companion dynamic wouldn't be accepted on television nowadays, anyway for many reasons. And given how tarnished Who's reputation had unfairly become, it NEEDED to be relatable to a modern audience. British science fiction television wasn't a thing. If it's just about a madman from space who travels in time, it's fairly nieche and not Doctor Who at all. Doctor Who wasn't just another sci-fi series, it was an institution. It was part of people's childhoods and having the ordinary person involved was a HUGE part of that, for getting kids and the grownups into time and space. The Doctor's great, we love him, but it's the companion that makes the series work: that establishes it's stakes, it's edge, it's danger, the lure of the unknown. Without that, Doctor Who isn't Doctor Who, it's just another sci-fi series. But the approach had to be different for a modern audience. Having a very clever man rule over the companion wouldn't play well, especially given the history of the series and the existing dynamic would be seen as archaric and ready bad press. The companion had to be important, to be crucial to the narrative, have equal dramatic weight to The Doctor and be someone the audience could get invested in and they needed a life around them. To have an existence to showcase what happens when the TARDIS doors open. To make the painted aliens and pepper pots paltable to the wider audience. And it's not really all that different to Sydney Newman and Verity Lambert's initial approach to lure in viewers, either. I would disagree that the show would not be relatable to modern viewers without the constant returning to earth.
I may be misunderstanding your argument, but it seems that you are saying that the companion was not important in the original series. Look at the role the companion played in helping the Doctor to become more "human", some of them were very dynamic characters showing development than in other shows during the same period.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Apr 17, 2018 15:51:10 GMT
While I grant that there are some who enjoy the constant returning home for dinner with family, there also seems to be a fair number who honestly can't stand that nonsense.
Admittedly the sample size we are both citing is small as it is largely from this forum, though I'm sure that out in the real world everyone here knows people who support either of the positions we've raised.
Popping home for tea, for me, devalues the Tardis experience, it reduces the jeopardy to that of Mr Benn. Now Mr Benn is a great show, one I've always loved, but it's safe, it feels safe, for me, I don't think travelling with The Doctor should feel like that. The other thing as well, is, well frankly I couldn't give a wet tissue about the lives of the companions, not really, Ace's character as a troubled child/home life was enough, it told me who the character is, informs Ace's actions and reactions, but what I never want or need to see, is Ace dealing with that at home with her parents etc Seriously, if I was interested in that sort of stuff I'd watch Eastenders. Yup.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2018 19:38:25 GMT
Sorry for the tension everybody Regards mark687 Look, you came on very strong. I was citing evidence from the show, unbiased from opinion and you kept citing things which never happened in the show (like Danny being depressed all the time or The Doctor and Danny being at each other throats in the second half of series eight, which never happened). We can disagree on Danny Pink, but you need to have evidence why, hence a rewatch. I'm unblocking you, but just keep this in mind forr future posts, okay? What the hell? Hilarious. Are you a mod? Why start to lay down the law here? But I guess people should feel privileged that you have unblocked them? PS - ignore him mark687 you didn't come on strong at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2018 20:00:28 GMT
Oh, wait - thought of one. I'd change the theme arrangement. Love Murray, love his work right up to date...but the Capaldi theme has never won me over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2018 20:21:18 GMT
I would change the title sequence so it would've been in time with the music for a change.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2018 0:07:51 GMT
Honestly? With the stars aligning and space-time at its zenith, I'd say... starting at Series 10 and continuing on hence. The Doctor, his companions, the stories they were trying to tell, it all clicked there. All the strengths of the past two series with few of their weaknesses. I'd only say the Monk trilogy really hurts it, they suffer from being just bland ciphers. Made all the worse by the fact that the threat they pose requires the show to forget all about UNIT or any other international organisation (Interpol, for instance) in order to make it credible.
TL;DR (much picture, very big)
But if we're looking more at improving the preexisting framework... Let's start with Series 8. First off, we don't need Eleven telling Clara to come back, she should make that decision on her own. Ignoring the fact that it completely dismisses The Name of the Doctor, t doesn't matter if he's not Eleven anymore. He's still a person, after a very traumatic change, who needs a friend. Junk all that "not your boyfriend" stuff as well, which comes out of nowhere. Odd that. The nature of their conflict shouldn't be that she had the hots for him, but that her friend has for all intents and purposes just been killed before her eyes. In fact, let's do an arc about Clara learning to trust again, make that a part of her character. Her flippancy and standoffishness should be addressed as a character trait, one we can actually play with. To quote another really good show: Which leads me to Danny Pink. Pink is deeply problematic. His PTSD gets dropped into the show as an integral part of his character, but it's handled in a really alienating fashion (this continues from a similar problem with The Day of the Doctor). It's a gimmick and it really shouldn't be. It turns a real-life medical condition into a gag. Bring Danny onboard the TARDIS and forget contemporary Earth entirely. Have it be part of the Doctor finding Gallifrey, putting us face-to-face with traumas that can't be magicked away. Tie that into the whole idea of the Doctor "fixing" Gallifrey (which should raise some eyebrows). Now this whole set-up -- the inarticulate Doctor, distrusting Clara and healing Danny -- reeks of meaningful conflict that will attend to itself. Their scars are part of who they are and something they can draw strength from, not something they should suppress. Good lessons for the kids.
After a season without Earth's Moon being an egg and everything which was In the Forest of the Night, we hit Dark Water. Danny, who's hit a breakthrough thanks to the Doctor, is killed by a mindless accident of all things. Things proceed as normal (minus the Cyber-Brig) and the Doctor takes Missy to imprison her aboard the TARDIS en route to Gallifrey. They're going to have a long chat about what to do from hereinafter. Particularly after the lie. Of course, she escapes, the Doctor tries to track her down and we get The Magician's Apprentice. Clara's still on Earth, taking a breather, returning to day-to-day life and not coping. Series 9 rolls in pretty much as writ until The Zygon Invasion. Everything Clara's trying to do to cope isn't working and she falls in with Truth or Consequences. There's no duplicate Bonnie here, it's just Clara -- our Clara, who we've grown to care about over the past year-and-a-half -- and the Doctor trying to save her from herself. Aside from being a complex story involving the World Health Organisation and riffing on genuine UNICEF efforts, it also shows how disaffected people get suckered into these kinds of causes. Even those with the best of intentions, especially those hurting as badly as Clara, can make this mistake. In the grief cycle, maybe she's still at anger. The world will feel how I feel, etc. The Doctor demonstrates that he knows how she feels. His sudden bout of softness (Doctor Disco, etc.) was his way of showing that this whole thing hit him just as hard in a different way.
But then, Face the Raven occurs and Clara dies. The Doctor is trapped in the confession dial, he escapes and that's the end of the season. No Hell Bent. We don't need to see all of Gallifrey (a Skaro-like nightmare here). We only know the Doctor's arrived and that change is on the horizon. Next time we see him, he's absconded to Mendorax Dellora with something on his mind. Maybe he was offered a way back in -- a seat on the High Council or something -- and declined because someone needed to keep an eye out in the normal universe. He's very edgy when Gallifrey is mentioned. Things are happening at home and he's not liking it.
Then Series 10. Boom. Time returns to its original course, barring one thing. The Doctor Falls is his last hurrah. If he's been dying throughout all this story, have the First Doctor appear in a cameo towards the end. He's been chatting with his past selves in a delirium, each coming through in turn like the end of I, Claudius. We don't see them, but they've all been saying their bit and leaving him unimpressed. His first incarnation turns up and reminds him why he's out here in the first place. It's the adventure and the discovery. Discovering the "Why?" of the cosmos. Has he found it? No. Then, another must take his place. And so, on to Jodie Whitaker.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Apr 18, 2018 0:37:38 GMT
Things I'd change. Well, Danny Pink would never have had a scene, the character was terrible as was the whole relationship with Clara. Clara would have stayed dead and the whole Gallifrey resurrection crap would never have happened. I would have skipped Bill - I know many liked her, I found the character was terrible - unsure if it was just a badly written character, bad acting or both. And this goes for the new series in general - less going back to earth so the companion can pretend they have a normal life. I think part of what made the show fun was taken away when the Doctor finally learned how to get the TARDIS to go where he wanted. Yeah right... tell that to Tegan " Heathrow Airport" Jovanka, Rose " a year later" Tyler, Amy " twelve years later" Pond,etc etc. Well, ok, at least some of the time. Though bear in mind that with Amy, he had just regenerated and so had his TARDIS (effectively). I was going to say with regard to rose: we don't know how long it had been since War turned into 9, but then, I only consume full cast audio and TV (apart from a few Tennant BBC audiobooks that I bought before finding BF). Whereas, back in Tegan's time he still regularly screwed it up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2018 1:33:02 GMT
Eh, I wouldn't call it 'nonsense' I love the expansion of the companion and to me it enriches the journey into the unknown and raises the stake. Television had moved on and the original Doctor/companion dynamic wouldn't be accepted on television nowadays, anyway for many reasons. And given how tarnished Who's reputation had unfairly become, it NEEDED to be relatable to a modern audience. British science fiction television wasn't a thing. If it's just about a madman from space who travels in time, it's fairly nieche and not Doctor Who at all. Doctor Who wasn't just another sci-fi series, it was an institution. It was part of people's childhoods and having the ordinary person involved was a HUGE part of that, for getting kids and the grownups into time and space. The Doctor's great, we love him, but it's the companion that makes the series work: that establishes it's stakes, it's edge, it's danger, the lure of the unknown. Without that, Doctor Who isn't Doctor Who, it's just another sci-fi series. But the approach had to be different for a modern audience. Having a very clever man rule over the companion wouldn't play well, especially given the history of the series and the existing dynamic would be seen as archaric and ready bad press. The companion had to be important, to be crucial to the narrative, have equal dramatic weight to The Doctor and be someone the audience could get invested in and they needed a life around them. To have an existence to showcase what happens when the TARDIS doors open. To make the painted aliens and pepper pots paltable to the wider audience. And it's not really all that different to Sydney Newman and Verity Lambert's initial approach to lure in viewers, either. I would disagree that the show would not be relatable to modern viewers without the constant returning to earth.
I may be misunderstanding your argument, but it seems that you are saying that the companion was not important in the original series. Look at the role the companion played in helping the Doctor to become more "human", some of them were very dynamic characters showing development than in other shows during the same period.
I'm not denying we got some great characters, but love it or leave it: post Second Doctor, they all feel kind of subsidiary to The Doctor. But, by then, Doctor Who had been established an institution, strange journeys into space and time, the unknown reaching out. But it was Ian and Barabara who helped establish what the show was, it's more their show then The Doctor's in the early days. They were crucial in establishing the fundmentals of the show as we know them, of the companion being the audience surrogate, of the unknown reaching out to the audience, hiding behind the sofa, etc. And RTD had to return to that, to that connection with the everyday, to restablish the show as it was. And in today's context, that mean expanding on the character of the companion to fit modern audience's expectations: people expect more character stuff - a life - around the characters, not just an unwitting adventure, but a person with actual life. And I'd argue that you need to maintain a modern wider audience - not just us - you need to maintain that connection to the everyday, hence the companion's return home, otherwise it becomes too distant. And parts of The Doctor/companion dynamic wouldn't play well today, you need to have a sense of equal weight between Doctor and companion, particularly given the series history, regardless of giving The Doctor a Northen accent and more down to earth look, you need to make The Doctor's respect more apparent for his companion (which was there in the original series, but perceptions of the original series the companions were screamers for instance) to play to the wider audience in terms of gender and class.
|
|