The Dr Who thread

[mightyzim]

IronGiant wrote:
I'm also wondering how much the thing is supposed to weigh - for example, in The Robots of Death it materialises inside the scoop and is lifted out of there to another location. However, in Parting of the Ways we have the instance where Rose tries to yank the console open with a tow-truck and the Tardis doesn't bunch a millimetre. Or maybe the Tardis 'decides' if it's immobile or not?

The outside weighs as much as a police box. The inside weighs a few tons

The difference between moving your front door and moving your house

[DutchLlama]

Yes, that was a real eye-opener! I don't know if you've seen it in Holland, but over here there was a series on Channel 4 here called "No Angels" in which she played a nurse who was a really, really nasty piece of work. Amazing the difference bunches and a complete personality transplant can make.

No, we can't get Channel 4 and ITV over here.

At present I can't get BBC1 and 2 as well since I have digital TV from KPN and the BBC doesn't want to sell them the rights as they're a new player.

Oh well there are only 2 BBC shows which I enjoy presently, Doctor Who and Top Gear and I can get them both on Mininova.org.

[Firefox]

The DVD with those episodes on it only turned out to be seven quid, so I tacked it onto the Amazon order I did this morning. I'll try to see her with a fresh eye instead of getting flashbacks to her No Angels character.

[KlaxonCow]

What I don't get is that there was no need to lose the TARDIS anyway.

Tennant's Doctor has done the "heroic" thing many times, including on the Christmas Invasion episode to establish that Tennant's version of the Doctor has a "I'm taking no shit and I'm gonna kick your arse" streak, under the "uebergeek" personality.

Human beings are in serious, serious peril and shit here. Scooti's already been killed.

Satan is rising from the pit.

I mean, if this is the real Satan: Where would you run to get away from him?

It doesn't just spell bad news for this particular planet and bunch of human beings, it spells bad news for the whole multiverse, if indeed "the beast and his armies shall rise from the pit, to make war against God", as has been suggested.

You don't need to knock the TARDIS out of commission.

The Doctor wouldn't abandon people to being killed horribly by Satan. He wouldn't back down from the ultimate fight with the Big Bad himself, breaking over in order to "veni, vidi, vici" the whole fucking universe.


It's a shame they didn't play on that because you could imagine a scene where Rose is totally shitting herself and she wants to leg it in the TARDIS but then the Doctor stresses that this is one bad guy that he can't run from. Both literally and metaphorically.

Someone else mentioned they'd backed themselves into a corner over the Rose / Doctor thing but you could use something like that to bring it back under control: A few major disagreements, conflict and tension. Trouble in the relationship. Stuff that, would they be a real couple, would be equivalent to the "I don't really know you anymore", "maybe we should have a break" major lovers' tiff. Except they aren't a couple and, due to the situation, Rose has to go with the Doctor - no choice in the matter - lest be stuck forever in some weird time and place because there's only the one TARDIS and they've got to "share".

There's a whole interesting dynamic there to explore. Couples have their "off days", things were - yeah - it ain't all "giggles and fun". Things where there is a major disagreement and it plants a big fat wedge between them.

If I was the writer then I'd have taken that kind of route - well, obviously, you start it in this story but deal with it more over a bunch of stories because while Satan is around, avoiding burning eternally in hellfire tends to somewhat take the priority (but, at the same time, who better to throw a wedge between our heroes than for Satan - Prince of Lies - to plant seeds of doubt and conflict?) - because it would "tame" the whole Mulder and Scully thing: What if Rose has doubts and isn't sure she likes this particular side of the Doctor? Where he didn't prioritise her safety - pushed her to one side - because something a whole lot bigger and more important had to be dealt with?

To take the sci-fi out of it with an analogy: The Doctor is a soldier. He does have to go and fight sometimes. Rose is his girl but can she take that conflict that when he gets "the call of duty", he will always respond and, no, he will not ignore it and stay with her. Can she take sharing him with the universe he will always go and protect?

You know, the girlfriend of a soldier who has to go to war. The girlfriend of an important businessman with a major deal on the table who has to go to work. The conflict in that soldier himself that he fights to protect those he loves but this, paradoxically, means that he's sometimes forced to leave those he loves to do that. The conflict of the self-employed businessman who has to do their job - it provides the money that the family needs to survive and he has to maintain its health for making it worth being inherited by his children (to give them an inheritance, instead of a mountain of impossible and crippling debts) - and that inherent conflict of doing it for the family but having to leave the family and ignore them in order to do it.

A conflict that throws doubt into Roses' mind: Can she really handle a guy who does that? It seemed cute and romantic that he was a "hero" at first but time to face reality: "Hero" isn't an easy job. "Hero" isn't a 9 to 5 and then hang up your boots at the end of the day job. "Hero" means sharing someone. "Hero" means not really knowing if they'll still be alive at the end of the day.

You know, women might like that "heroism" of the man in the fireman's uniform. The manly hero. But if you hook up with this guy then you've got to be prepared for a simple fact: Fire kills. It's one of the most dangerous jobs on the planet (not merely qualitatively but quantitatively: In a big city, being called out to a big fire - any of which could kill - happens more often than any of us would want it to).

Every time he walks out that door to go to work, there is always - perpetually, constantly, ceaslessly - the possibility that he's never coming home ever again.

As the saying goes, behind every great man there's an even greater woman.

RTD says he wanted to show that "space travel wasn't easy" with this episode (although, the "science" part of me feels he's done a poor job because he's not got anywhere near the reality of the harshness of space) but losing the TARDIS is actually a cop out.

The stuff about "settling down" plays even better, if you actually address the main point: The Doctor cannot "settle down" (that's touched on but not the reason why that's totally impossible for him). He cannot be her boyfriend. He cannot always put her first. He cannot retire from his job.

You get my point? If it had been played that way then it throws up a far better plotline than merely "tension". It throws up doubts and conflicts. It says "being a hero isn't easy" because being a hero is actually harsh and difficult.

But most importantly, because it has been rightly said that they've written the Doctor and Rose thing into a corner, it actually address that. It throws the stark and harsh reality in Rose's face that the giggles and adventure have their less pleasant side: He's never going to put her first. He cannot. If he did lose the TARDIS then he'd get himself a spaceship and carry on, just minus the "time travel" part.

He's the spacetime fireman. While you might like that whole "hero" thing superficially, time to face the reality:

The muscular fireman is a "hero", exactly because they thrust themselves regularly into dangerous situations where they may never be coming home ever again.

Your "brave soldier" might never come back from fighting that war, only a letter from the Ministry of Defence apologising for having inadvertly got him killed during the conflict.

The wake up call to the damsel in distress in the ivory tower that the "white knight in shining armour" is actually a soldier.

Heroes are "brave" exactly because they are sticking their necks out and that means they might never be coming back.

And even if they do come back, then you're sharing them with the rest of the world. The "call of duty" might rip them out of your arms over and over again.

The cold shower to throw everything into perspective and bring the reality of the "fairy tale" home. Plus, from a writer's point of view, there's rich ground in the irony that the very thing that attracts women to "the hero" is the very thing that can rip them apart and tear their "hero" away from them forever.

In a sense, the hero's bravery is nothing compared to the bravery of someone who knows this and genuinely understands what it means - the constant doubt that someone will ever come back, every single time they walk out the door - but accepts it anyway.

Not only did they not need to disable the TARDIS this episode but they shouldn't have disabled it because that provides forces the real issue here onto the agenda and brings some reality to Rose's giggles about what's really going on.

It's an extension of what's already been hinted at in "School Reunion": Yes, between you and his "call of duty", the Doctor will always choose his duty. He will leave people behind. Can you handle sharing him that way? Can you handle the fact that, push comes to shove, he won't prioritise you?

If you remember, he dumped SJS off for a literal "call of duty" from Gallifrey.

It backs them out of the corner. Explains why the Doctor is never going to be Rose's boyfriend and that she might indeed one day have to be SJS'd and dumped off somewhere and disgarded. It emphasises the "hero" in the Doctor but rightly makes clear what the word "hero" really means.

Ever seen that comedy T-shirt with a picture of Jesus' face and the words: "I never told you it'd be easy, only that it'd be worth it" written on it?

Same sentiment. Being the hero and doing the right thing ain't easy. It's very harsh and it's very difficult.

It's a brilliant storyline that almost no writers ever tackle - perhaps because of the dominance of men and male-orientated writing to never check out the "bravery" of the woman married to the soldier too, in addition to his "thrilling adventures" as the hero - because it also delivers one hell of a hammer blow of a messageto all these tales of "heroes" and their "adventures".

After all, why are we not all adventurers and heroes?

Because what would the wife and kids do, if you end up dead? Where is the money going to come from to support everyone, if you're off "having an adventure"? Et cetera.

It does play exactly into that "settling down" conversation with Rose. The ironic conflict: She wants to bag a "hero" but, in contradiction to that, fancies "settling down". Which, sorry, is the polar opposite of "hero" and "adventures".

Plays well against Micky too. Because, basically, when she rushed off with the Doctor, wasn't she doing exactly the same to poor old "Ricky"?

It's all fertile ground for plotlines and dialogue.

[WiteWulf]

Klaxon Cow > it's just a tv show, mate, chill...

[kalmar]

wheeee...

[HGFB]

My brain stopped a couple of paragraphs in. Dude. Even I don't take it that seriously.

On lighter news. The new issue of SFX comes with a free poster of Billie Piper in her skivies.

[KlaxonCow]

Klaxon Cow > it's just a tv show, mate, chill...

First, why do you assume I'm not perfectly chilled, just because I write more than most other people?

Indeed, if you think about it, it takes more time to write a longer post.

Therefore, I'm actually taking my time to deliver a longer and more thought out post.

Suggests I'm infinitely more "chilled" than you are, my friend.


Second, I'm aware it's a TV show.

I'm discussing that TV show.

And whether you like ir or not, the level of discussion I'm entering into is exactly the level of thought a scriptwriter on a TV show has to engage in.

TV shows are actually, from the practical side of things, an incredibly big deal to put together. Hundreds of crew co-ordinate themselves, at a lot of expense, to professionally deliver you a simple story.

That professionalism means exactly going beyond the mere superficial that the audience sees. The costumes, the lighting, the make-up, the writing, the directing, the learning of lines, the consdieration of the character's feelings by the actor to work out how to deliver it, etc.

When you're creating this kind of thing then you necessarily must treat the subject matter with seriousness.

As I was discussing that creation process then I entered the level of discussion and thought that the writers and directors would be engaged in.


If anyone here cannot differentiate between fact and fiction then it is you because to have a long discussion of something does not in any way mean that I "think it's real". It does not in any way mean I'm taking it or myself too seriously.

Perhaps you personally have a problem with engaging in conversation in something without letting your passions guide you to the level of discussion required but don't project your personality faults onto me. Thank you.


I'm more aware that it's a "TV show" than you are because I'm more aware of the level of thought and effort and the professional standards to which it must be created than you are.

This is the Doctor Who thread here and I'm discussing an episode with regard to its writing on the level that the writing has to be engaged upon.

You are the one who is being inappropriately "off-topic" here. Not me.


I mean, if you're not interested in discussion on Doctor Who then why did you click on a thread entitled "the Dr Who Thread"?

Are you an idiot? Is that what it is?


You're certainly rude and arrogant.


If you don't like my posts then don't read them.

I'm perfectly happy with you doing that because, you see, if you think that way then there's nothing in them that would be of any use or enjoyment to you anyway.


Basically, you seem to think that your entertainment is my responsibility. Sorry, it isn't.

It seesm you've been molly-coddled by one too many TV shows and "customer service representatives" who are obliged to listen to you and bend over backwards wiping your arse for you.

That's not my job. I neglect that responsibility because it should be yours, not mine.

I will write what I think is appropriate to write. If this doesn't entertain you or you don't like it or whatever then this is a shame but that's not my problem. It's your problem.

So don't dump your problems on me. Thank you.

Deal with them yourself: If you don't like the post then don't read it. Just skip over it and ignore it.

That's it.

Not complicated, is it? It's not asking too much, is it?


Censorship of what you don't like is your responsbility, not mine.

I have done nothing wrong here. It is you who is in error.


And, I assure you, I'm perfectly chilled smoking a cigarette and drinking a nice cup of tea as I say that. I'm not angry nor upset nor behaving out of place in any way at all.

I'm merely factually addressing your behaviour because it is you who is bing inappropriate and out of order here.

The world does not revolve around you. If you don't want to read my posts then don't read them. But your personal tastes does not colour nor control the content of my posts nor alter the opinions I want to express in them.


Concisely: Don't even think of bullying me, sunshine, because - though I am loathe to do so, as it is wholly unacceptable conduct - I'm the far bigger bully, if pressed into it.

If you don't like it then don't read it. End of discussion.

[kalmar]

Are you an idiot? Is that what it is?

You're certainly rude and arrogant.

Dude, personal insults are not cool.

And, I assure you, I'm perfectly chilled smoking a cigarette and drinking a nice cup of tea as I say that.

Perhaps you need to cut down a bit

[Jimaroid]

Concisely

That made coffee come out of my nose.

[SimonB]

I think part of the point of losing the Tardis this time around is actually to force the Doctor to stay - not because he might ignore the peril of others to save Rose (as promised to Jackie) but because this could be the one bad guy he himself would turn and run from, no matter what he has faced down in the past.

Note how he tried to run in Dalek last year? Somethings do scare him and he will try to get away rather than stop the bad guy.

Simon B

Have you signed up to the Llamasoftie summer burn?
http://www.yakyak.org/viewtopic.php?t=53726&start=0

[KlaxonCow]

Dude, personal insults are not cool.

I entirely agree.

But they are no more acceptable when veiled than when they are stated explicitly.

"Dude, it's a TV show" is no less a personal insult than "you're an idiot if you can't tell the difference between fact and fiction", just because it employs a more veiled and colloquial tone.

He indirectly called me the idiot first.

[KlaxonCow]

Concisely

That made coffee come out of my nose.

Why?

I wrote it verbosely at first and then provided a concise version at the end for the "literacy challenged" who have a problem with long words.

If you don't comprehend basic punctuation then there are a number of books available - such as the popular "eats, shoots and leaves" title - which would explain what the use of a comma after "concisely" in that sentence actually implied.

I was not saying that the post above it was concise. I was, indeed, saying the opposite. I was implying that the sentence following the comma was the concise version of the verbose rant above it.


The structure was thus:

1. Long verbose rant.

2. "Concisely," followed by a shortened to-the-point version of the long verbose rant I'd just made.


I was exactly acknowledging that the earlier rant was verbose and not concise, which is why I introduced a shortened version of it as "concisely" in comparison to how I'd stated it previously.

[kalmar]

Dude, personal insults are not cool.

"Dude, it's a TV show" is no less a personal insult than "you're an idiot if you can't tell the difference between fact and fiction", just because it employs a more veiled and colloquial tone.

It's not "veiled" anything, it's a mild form of sarcasm. It doesn't literally imply that you don't know it's just a show, and it's pretty boring of you to take it as such.

He indirectly called me the idiot first.

Sigh. How old are you exactly? I know 8 year olds who wouldn't employ that line of argument.

Come on, let's not got off the deep end.

[Harlequin]

1) I like Tennant's Doctor.

Not as good as that other bloke though

Hmmm... I sort of agree with KlaxonCow's view: Eccleston is a method actor type, in the vein of Sean Connery or Michael Caine, tending to play himself feeling his own version of a character's emotions; Tennant is a character actor, like Johnny Depp or previous Doctors (with an ability somewhere between the two), altering himself to fit the character. The two techniques aren't exclusive, most actors use bits of both, but each has its own strengths and weaknesses. I therefore declare Eccleston, IMO, to be the better Doctor in terms of deep emotion and Tennant to be the better Doctor in terms of character (followed closely by McCoy and Tom Baker)

[...] Since Davies revived the series there have been, IIRC, TWO (that's 2, like one and another one, count them) such stories, at about ten stories per year. Perhaps they shouldn't have been so close to each other, though.

Ah, but you're not counting Girl in the Fireplace, where the Doc was trapped with no Tardis, and amounts to the same thing... As I said, too much. Just doesn't hold the impact that it should now. Think back to last series and the look on Captain Jacks face when he realises he's lost the Tardis for good...

True. I hadn't thought of that. I'm not sure that the reason for this is to provide an 'excuse' for the Doctor to stay, though, except possibly in the case of the alternate Earth. Perhaps facing a lack of TARDIS is a Bad-Wolfish theme for this season

Absolutely. And I liked all of his episodes from last series.

I think that Davies's main strength as a writer is in getting to the emotional core of human (and non-human) relationships. This attitude has, I feel, made the revived series more relevant to modern viewers despite moans about 'soapiness'. His stories use Sci-Fi/fantasy threats as a background against which to play out character drama (much as in Josh Whedon's series) but this can contrast starkly against the more plot-driven stories of other writers.

He indirectly called me the idiot first.

As a joke, as indicated by his smiley

I was exactly acknowledging that the earlier rant was verbose and not concise, which is why I introduced a shortened version of it as "concisely" in comparison to how I'd stated it previously.

I missed the 'concisely' until Jimaroid pointed it out. You see, I also find myself skipping over posts when I'm faced with a browserful of text from one person I know that I can go on a bit myself but you might find that you'd reach more people with fewer words.

H.
_________________
How To Write Good
5. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.