Doctor Who - Discussion Thread II

Yes, it has, but this is the first time it's been 'confirmed' (well, strongly hinted at) since the 2005 reboot. There have been rumours of them doing it again for a few years but nothing this concrete.



More Who = good! But I too resent having to pay for it. I can't imagine they will do anything to mess with the plot of the main series, they know that would annoy the fans too much. When they did peculiar things in the old film it didn't matter quite as much since there wasn't a series running at the time.

The thing that worries me most is that they might do something like the last series of Torchwood - when the money comes from America, then it gets made into an American version of the show. Doctor Who would not work as an American show, it is quintessentially British and to change that would be a great disservice to the programme, in my eyes.

It wouldn't be picked up in America, at least I doubt it - the McGann movie bombed there, despite being a bit of a pilot to launching over there, hence why we ended up waiting another 6 years for Who (if you discount the children in need thing - curse of fatal death).

Unless there's been a massive change of heart in the past decade towards the idea, then I'd doubt the Americans would go for it.

I dunno, post-2005 Who has been a massive hit across the pond (hah!) so it might be different if they did it again...

I enjoyed it, but not for the right reasons.

The ending was ridiculous, but typical doctor who sentimentality so to be expected. We all know by now that Moffat doesn't write stories, but puzzles, and the ending seems strange because the puzzle came first and then a way of desperately trying to justify all the complicated mess was found as an afterthought, but that's alright, to be expected from Moffat at this stage.

I enjoy apathetic doctor, if only because it was a change from narcissistic mad professor/God. The staircase into the clouds was lovely, so was the new Tardis interior. The sontaran and lizard woman/assistant felt a bit shoved into the story and out of place, and they said some pretty corny stuff ('bargains with the universe'?) but whatever, it was well done.

God, the sexual tension between Clara/doctor annoyed me, why? Why must there always be a love interest and flirting for god's sake?

Clara herself is very annoying. I mean at least she's not a carbon copy of Amy, but she's still one dimensional. I can't stand the whole act of "I'm really clever and not afraid of following the strange man and I just stand there when confronted by an aggressive alien worm and threats of memory wipes, I'm just going to stand there and perpetually make witty quips and flirt with people all the time", for god's sake can we have someone normal? A normal person with more than a couple personality traits so that I may identify with them. Because isn't that the whole point of a companion? To have someone you can relate to and imagine being in their shoes, ripped out of your normal life, going off with a brilliant, fascinating man to see the universe. Rose had some of that going for her, Amy didn't really, she was never fleshed out enough and just stood around pouting and having brilliant insights. I want a companion who's not witty, talks like a real person, reacts like a real person, gets muddled up and would never come up with a plan or witty quip in such stressful situations, does not like the idea of having a sexual relationship with an alien God, and, I don't know, has some genuine emotion rather than just sentimentality and some approximations of realistic emotions. I want someone real.

I felt a bit annoyed at the new Moffat puzzle though, I mean what is the point? Why not try to tell a good story to keep me hooked, and not 8294582495 open questions with no possible hints? I mean there's no way to figure anything out because there's literally no information. It's like someone shaking a bit of tinsel at you, "look at the shiny shiny!", in an attempt to get me interested in future stories, rather than the stories themselves being interesting, they're just a vehicle for Moffat's puzzle.

In all fairness, how many 'normal' people would get into a box which is scientifically wrong, with a bowtie-wearing stranger who professes to be able to travel anywhere in time and space?

Quite a few, I'd imagine, and all of them would be fully fleshed out real people, rather than being one dimensional. Normal, everyday people are capable of being adventurous and interesting too, if put in the right situations, or they once daydreamed about seeing the world, or they're not adventurous or curious at all but when thrust into situations where they're forced to they're infinitely more interesting to read about or watch.

For example, Bilbo Baggins from the Hobbit. Middle aged, the most 'normal', average, unadventurous person, not extraordinary or remarkable in any way, not particularly witty or handsome or interesting, decides to go off on an adventure with a wizard and some dwarves to see and experience things very few hobbits ever had

Another example, to go with the Martin Freeman theme, Arthur Dent from Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, more of an unwilling adventurer, but still a very ordinary, not a very intelligent, witty or interesting person, isn't the 'curious about the world and wants more than the normal life' type, but a million times better to read about than some beautiful genius who always wanted to travel and see the world, always knows what to say and isn't phased at all by a strange man threatening to wipe her memory with an alien worm. Why? Because his reactions to strange and world-changing events are realistic and relatable, the emotions are real, and it's a fleshed out and well written character

With a few exceptions, Moffat has ruined Doctor Who.

Yes, it has, but this is the first time it's been 'confirmed' (well, strongly hinted at) since the 2005 reboot. There have been rumours of them doing it again for a few years but nothing this concrete.



More Who = good! But I too resent having to pay for it. I can't imagine they will do anything to mess with the plot of the main series, they know that would annoy the fans too much. When they did peculiar things in the old film it didn't matter quite as much since there wasn't a series running at the time.

The thing that worries me most is that they might do something like the last series of Torchwood - when the money comes from America, then it gets made into an American version of the show. Doctor Who would not work as an American show, it is quintessentially British and to change that would be a great disservice to the programme, in my eyes.

I dunno, post-2005 Who has been a massive hit across the pond (hah!) so it might be different if they did it again...

I never got anything out of the Hitchhiker's Guide nor the Hobbit so maybe those kinds of characters don't appeal to everyone. I don't think it's so wrong to have a very fictional personality in a TV show/film which is essentially fiction. At the end of the day, the Doctor himself is a genius so I think it's a nice change to have someone who is more than a match for him. It makes for an interesting relationship between the two. Clara is just a different kind of companion.

Besides, I would argue that most of Doctor Who's recent companions have been fairly 'normal' people. Look at Rory for example - he can hardly be described as normal, average, unadventurous and whatever else you're looking for. The same with Donna and to an extent with Rose. All of those characters, whilst having strong personalities right from the very beginning, I think aren't far detached from an ordinary person you could find on the street.

Sure, but you should at least have a fictional personality that has more than two personality traits and is believably human, when writing fantasy/sci-fi it's always advised that you write real people, even though they're fictional

No, not at all. Rory wasn't really a character, wasn't very well written, didn't have believable emotions, said ridiculous things, generally one dimensional. Donna as well was no where near a believable human being. Rose I agree had some of this, as I said before. Strong personalities? Hmm, maybe strong personality traits that make up their entire character, which is why they seem strong.

What do you mean a nice change? Clara isn't the first one who's been portrayed as very intelligent, Amy, Donna, Martha, they've all had their clever insights/plans. You know what, I wouldn't mind a beautiful genius companion, as long as they were believable, had more to them and didn't make annoying remarks all the time. There are plenty of genius characters that have been well written over the years, it's a stretch to call Clara a character to be honest.

You're being a little bit harsh on Clara's supposed "2 personality traits" - she hasn't really had a chance to get going yet!

And in response to those people who "suggest" using real personalities in a sci-fi scenario, maybe so... But regardless of whether Clara is a "real" person or someone make believe, I think the writers of Doctor Who must be doing something right given its huge success for the past 50 years.

I have to say, I think you're in the minority.

She's had one episode for character development, two if you count the dalek asylum, it's enough to establish a proper character.

By those people, that includes Moffat and any other film and television sci-fi/fantasy writer, writing believable, fleshed out characters is the basis of good writing, anyone would tell you that. They can be make believe and also 'real' in the sense of being a well thought out character and not some weird nonsensical approximation. The current writers of doctor who haven't been writing doctor who for 50 years. I think some of them aren't that good, and Moffat should stick to writing single or two-part episodes, that is when he's at his best (and he's written some very good episodes in the past, he's just not suited as show runner).

Sure, but you should at least have a fictional personality that has more than two personality traits and is believably human, when writing fantasy/sci-fi it's always advised that you write real people, even though they're fictional

No, not at all. Rory wasn't really a character, wasn't very well written, didn't have believable emotions, said ridiculous things, generally one dimensional. Donna as well was no where near a believable human being. Rose I agree had some of this, as I said before. Strong personalities? Hmm, maybe strong personality traits that make up their entire character, which is why they seem strong.

What do you mean a nice change? Clara isn't the first one who's been portrayed as very intelligent, Amy, Donna, Martha, they've all had their clever insights/plans. You know what, I wouldn't mind a beautiful genius companion, as long as they were believable, had more to them and didn't make annoying remarks all the time. There are plenty of genius characters that have been well written over the years, it's a stretch to call Clara a character to be honest.

...And I think she's established herself as someone who's quirky, brave, intelligent and funny. Isn't that deep enough for you? I'm sure other character traits will reveal themselves throughout the rest of the series, as we find out more about her. You have to remember that the idea is that we don't know much about her - that's where the mystery of who she is comes from.

I know the current writers haven't been writing for 50 years, but Doctor Who is more successful than ever now... And I think that says something.

It's not about deep, it's about realistic. 'quirky', as in eccentric? Not very well done and comes off as smartass-ish and forced ('souffles' and witty remarks), 'brave', I didn't get that, I only got 'curious to the point of being annoying', I like brave, but again it wasn't well done (that's not how bravery usually manifests in people) and didn't come off as genuine bravery, just idiocy. 'Intelligent', fine let's have another really clever companion, as if we haven't had enough covert clever people (Amy, Donna, Martha, Rose), while the doctor looks down his nose on people who can't figure things out (e.g. when Martha and misc. doctor are discussing how much air there'll be left, Doctor looks at 'unintelligent' person in disgust and says they'll drag them behind), well that kind of annoys me, there are different kinds of intelligence that don't involve noticing things and coming up with plans, and I'm tired of the whole 'I'm seemingly normal but I have very good insights into things and I'm actually really clever' act. It's also not done very well, can they not portray intelligence honestly? Funny...well, I don't find her one liners funny, just obnoxious, but this is personal preference of course. Where's the meat? Where's the heart of her? People are more than just a list of personality traits, they don't come together into a unified whole to create a character. Clara is a cardboard cutout of a character, and not a real one.

I doubt she'll blossom into anything more. She'll probably be as developed as Amy and Rory, and that's not very much at all.

You know what, twilight is very successful, doesn't mean it's any good.

Your point is? Those are all also terrible shows. Dexter is perhaps the only exception on that list.