Companions past and present
This topic contains 969 replies, has 142 voices, and was last updated by 
nerys 3 months, 2 weeks ago.
-
AuthorPosts
-
10 June 2016 at 22:46 #52674
my favourite companion is drew between rose and donna theirs just something about both of them that is so watchable
11 June 2016 at 11:52 #52682Hello there and welcome *waves*
Rose is my favourite too. Also Donna and Clara were good value.
This new companion seems to be promising.Ttfn
Missy
11 June 2016 at 14:48 #52684thanks and I hope so the bizarre thing with Clara is I preferred her in her debut as the mad dalek than I did in her first proper appearance
16 June 2016 at 22:40 #52721Anonymous @
You know that is a really interesting comment, particularly as I just recently finally got to watch her first and second appearance, the second only just last night in fact, and I felt exactly the same way. I’m still confused, of course, about what this is all about because I haven’t yet seen what comes next–so, no spoilers please. (*grins*)
20 June 2016 at 17:35 #52812I was watching Tom Baker’s City of Death the other day, again (it was very good) and I couldn’t help feeling sad when they left Duggan behind in Paris, he would’ve made an excellent companion!
It got me thinking about other characters who would have made good companions, of the top of my head I think frank Skinner would’ve made a good partnership with Capaldi, the scientist from the episode Kinda would have been a better companion than Tegan or Nyssa for the fifth doctor, there’s the character from The Faceless Ones played by Pauline Collins who would have been great with Jamie and the Second Doctor!
20 June 2016 at 17:37 #52813I was watching Tom Baker’s City of Death the other day, again (it was very good) and I couldn’t help feeling sad when they left Duggan behind in Paris, he would’ve made an excellent companion!
It got me thinking about other characters who would have made good companions, of the top of my head I think frank Skinner would’ve made a good partnership with Capaldi, the scientist from the episode Kinda would have been a better companion than Tegan or Nyssa for the fifth doctor and there’s the character from The Faceless Ones played by Pauline Collins who would have been great with Jamie and the Second Doctor!
Anyone have any other suggestions for companions that could have been!
20 June 2016 at 21:52 #52816How about Amara Karan, who played Rita in The God Complex? Not necessarily better than Amy and Rory, but I think she would have made a good companion in her own right.
20 June 2016 at 22:19 #52817Ah yes Rita! It took me a while to think of who the character was but now I remember, I haven’t watched the god complex for a couple of years now but I do know who you’re talking about. I suppose they wouldn’t have really needed her as you said because of the strengths for chemistry between the main characters at the time but if she were to become a companion I think it could’ve worked. Good choice!
I also remembered Richard Mace from Peter Davison’s The Visitation, a brilliant character and actor. If he were to join I could imagine him being similar to Jamie but with added charm!
22 June 2016 at 20:16 #52838hmmmm….. @thedentistofdavros and @blenkinsopthebrave
For some reason this collection of companions makes me think of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
Maybe a spinoff show with a number of ex-Companions who team up and….
fight crimesolve mysteries?28 July 2016 at 23:12 #53456Hello!
Favorite companion… that takes some thought, but i think i would have to say Donna, followed closely second by Amy (speaking about the AG series, since i am not so familiar with the old ones). Least favorite so far it’s Clara for me, although i still don’t know exactly why.
I have been trying to figure out what makes a companion successful to me…
First of all, they have to be fully fleshed out, with complete background and distinct personality, that is a given, but for me they also have to have… lets call it an emotional counter balance to the Doctor. Something in their lives or their character that allows them not to become obsessed with the Doctor, so they can form an emotional bond with him as equals (note that this doesn’t exclude a romantic one, ie Rose). And then, of course, the Doctor has to be in a position to form such a bond – that’s why Martha Jones is not so “successful”, although she remains for me very likable.So why none of the above has clicked for me regarding Clara? I’ve been trying to figure out if it’s the script or just the way the actress delivers the lines. Is she just plot driven, or I just don’t like her character? She seems to be independent, she seems to be a complete character, but… I don’t know. To me, she gets really possessive, really fast, without having earned it. Her whole arc never even convinced me that she really loved Danny, I saw him like a surrogate loving interest since she couldn’t have… well 11, to be honest. Anyway, i still don’t know exactly why i don’t like her, but i’ve only been able to explain her importance to the Doctor by any other factor (his sense of duty and protection, the mystery of her echoes, his sense of debt to be repaid, his emotional state when he met her – as another “rebound” in other words, just different than Martha Jones).
I’ve been also thinking about the future companions. I suppose we can have very few companions like Martha – people with whom the Doctor does not connect. But on the other hand, how many can we have that he does connect with? Already there are questions like was Rose more important than River, or Clara more important than Amy and so on. Is there perhaps a limit (for the viewers I mean) to the different characters that any Doctor can have a real connection with? And is that limit perhaps less than the different incarnations of the Doctor?
For example, in my mind, the Ponds weren’t just companions. Mostly because of River, they were the closest the Doctor had to a family in… i suppose at least 500 years? So when i didn’t like the next companion as much, i became less invested in the series as a whole. To make a long story short, what i mean is that the viewers are expected (and they expect in return) to connect with the companions, and that this can be a double edged knife in the long run. It could collapse under its own weight so to speak.Just some thoughts 🙂 Time will tell! For the time being, i’m waiting to see what season 10 has to offer.
29 July 2016 at 11:49 #53469Good and interesting post.
My favourites (in order) were Rose, Donna and Clara. River wasn’t strictly speaking a companion. Martha, Amy and Rory were all right I suppose, but I didn’t care about them as I did about the other three, and there I feel is the trick.
A long time ago I remember reading that if you don’t care about the characters in a story or film, then it isn’t very good story or film. Wondering what happened to them or what WILL happen to them, matters.
That is how I felt about Rose, Donna and Clara.
Missy
I had/have geat affection for Vastra, Jenny and Strax – and of course Captain Jack.
31 July 2016 at 13:21 #53497God yes, Vastra, Jenny, Strax and Captain Jack – all wonderful characters and I’d love to see more episodes with the gang and see Captain Jack back (it would be really interesting to see his relationship with Capaldi, would Jack be flirtatious with him too?)
I’ve also been thinking about the wisdom of having the same companion with two different Doctors… It worked with Rose i think, not so much with Clara in my opinion, but i’m wondering about what is generally best: The same companion as before adds a continuity to things, makes you relate with the Doctor more easily… but then again a completely new companion can do that too, bring out new sides of our beloved Doctor from the start. Perhaps that’s why Eleventh Hour was more successful to me than Deep Breath. Of course, in the end, i suppose it all comes down to the Doctor in question, perhaps what worked for one incarnation won’t work for the other.
In any case, I’m really excited about the new companion, looking forward to see Capaldi in a different dynamic.
31 July 2016 at 21:20 #53502Orphans (or half orphans) make the best companions. Yes or not. Discuss 😉
31 July 2016 at 21:28 #53503Hey @trillianwho!
I confess that Clara was a hit-and-miss companion for me. I haven’t seen any of her episodes with Eleven, mind, but I’ve seen most of her work with Twelve. On the one hand, she did have an interesting character arc as she became something of a distaff counterpart to the Doctor, something few companions in the old or new series ever develop into (the only one I can think of offhand would be Romana). On the other hand, in Series 8 her negative traits seemed to dominate — her control freak tendencies and chronic dishonesty towards both of the men in her life just because she wants to have it all (the kind of lies the Doctor has to spin when he’s got a plan in mind are one thing…but lies solely for personal/emotional gain are another; maybe that’s just me) especially. She could also be really insensitive to both of them, particularly Twelve. Twelve gets picked on for his comments about her appearance, but his insensitivity comes off as blunt honesty and confusion gone awry; her comments about his appearance — “grey-haired stick insect”, etc. — seem a lot meaner. This wasn’t so much of an issue in Series 9, where she is more Doctor-esque for good and for ill, culminating in her tragic death (and then second “life”), and she and the show both benefited for it.
Jenna Coleman is a fine actress (if only because she was also Bonnie the Zygon!), but a Cracked article comparing companions in that site’s usual snarky manner may have had a point when the writer said Clara came off like a refugee from a Disney Channel tween sitcom (“That’s So Clara!”). Her line delivery, in particular, could be on the broad side. But this, again, wasn’t so much of an issue in Series 9 — and she had great chemistry with Peter Capaldi. In the end, I cared about her fate more because it was affecting the Doctor so, so badly than for her alone, but still.
I went to a sci-fi/fantasy/horror convention in Las Vegas this past March and there was a great panel discussion of “The Women of Doctor Who“. 45 minutes was not enough time for that topic! It focused on the prospect of a female Doctor and the awesomeness of Missy, Amy Pond, and River Song (the panelists were big fans of “The Husbands of River Song” especially) in turn, plus some fond remembrances of (IIRC) Sarah Jane Smith, Leela, Ace, Martha Jones, and especially Donna Noble.* Finally they opened the floor to questions and I brought up Clara (specifically, whether her bittersweetly happy ending in “Hell Bent” came at the expense of what might have been a more emotionally cathartic one for the Doctor). A panelist joked, “Are we gonna go from ‘Everyone loves Donna’ to ‘Everyone hates Clara’?” The resultant discussion wasn’t that negative, but I think that was telling! As were the groans when someone else brought up Ashildr…. So like you @trillianwho there are plenty of folks waiting to see what Twelve can do with a fresh companion.
*Talking with a pair of friendly ladies after the panel, they were amazed that Rose wasn’t brought up at all!
31 July 2016 at 23:30 #53506I don’t know. I don’t know whether I should say anything here. But this:
“her negative traits seemed to dominate — her control freak tendencies and chronic dishonesty towards both of the men in her life just because she wants to have it all…. She could also be really insensitive to both of them, particularly Twelve. Twelve gets picked on for his comments about her appearance, but his insensitivity comes off as blunt honesty and confusion gone awry; her comments about his appearance — “grey-haired stick insect”, etc. — seem a lot meaner…”
Interesting.
I see this stuff on other channels. And, believe me, please know I’m not some trolling nasty here but having a son who has been watching and commenting on a horrendously put together American case of a female con (who stabbed and cut the throat of the object of her affections) makes me wonder.
What are we saying when we address Clara like this: “she’s meaner whereas the Doctor’s allowed to be” -type of thing (again, this is strictly my opinion). Is she? Really? Do we not balance out her goodness and her Impossible Girl acts? Who, other than perhaps River, would willingly jump into someone’s timestream to die for the Doctor? Have we forgotten this immense sacrifice; the fear, the terror, the excitement and the confusion and loss?
I can’t honestly dislike Clara and apply one set of standards to Clara and one to the Doctor simply because he is the Doctor. I’m not saying your discussion was going in that direction but I’m just throwing up a “halloo” hand here! 🙂
I think Clara’s fast talking shtick was more annoying (at least to me) when she first met Eleven rather than her two series with Capaldi. As for wanting to have it all. Why on earth not?
I do. I want to be the flying sprite and the witty academic. I can’t but I want to. And I should for it’s in the wanting that we learn to know our true selves. 🙂 (oh boy, that’s a fridge magnet, but still!)
Kindest, PuroSolo
31 July 2016 at 23:33 #53507People groaned because of Ashildr?
Do we understand that he gave her immortality. But she never wanted it, or asked for it.
I’d go homicidal too. 🙂
31 July 2016 at 23:52 #53508pardon me, I by-passed your question. Mmm. I don’t know who the orphans are in the show but Clara would be …not an orphan (I had to think twice -of course, her mother died when she was young).
Rose wasn’t and neither Martha nor Donna. Was Amy an orphan? She had Aunt Sharon as her parents had disappeared into the crack of Time (a terrific story, Season 5) but a case for being a ‘sort of orphan’ could be made.
So, to the orphans I do know: personally, it would be Mr Puro. I would think he’d make an excellent companion: few ties and the ability to let go completely and surrender to the simple joys of travel.
Knowing his personality helps. After he left the London Met. police at age 23 he hopped on his motor cycle and travelled the world. For two years! He never returned to London to live -and was glad that he’d had the courage to pack a small gear sack and fill up the bike with petrol.
He had family but due to the hardships post war, his family couldn’t find a home and so the children were deposited in an orphanage indefinitely.
Ah, Danny! Now, had he wanted to travel with the Doctor (cough cough, the “Officer class”) I believe it would have been wonderful for him but he didn’t want to pursue that. He saw magic enough on earth, I guess. I respected him for that.
Kindest,
Puro and Son
1 August 2016 at 07:29 #53513@puroandson I think Clara’s fast talking shtick was more annoying (at least to me) when she first met Eleven rather than her two series with Capaldi. As for wanting to have it all. Why on earth not?
I do. I want to be the flying sprite and the witty academic. I can’t but I want to. And I should for it’s in the wanting that we learn to know our true selves. 🙂Cheers, Puro Solo! Exactly. I love Clara for her restless and demanding nature, her boldness in trying (however wrong-headedly at times) to make things happen, to make choices (including her own mistakes), and to matter in her own right. I appreciate that she insists on being not just a sidekick and wanting to be *more* than that — as well as insisting, sometimes, that the Doctor be more and better than he (sometimes) is (especially in S8, where he barely knows himself).
Many fans seem to hate her for exactly those qualities. This tells me much more about them (and the lie that feminism is no longer needed) than it does about her. Moffat took her way beyond what seem to be commonly acceptable limits for female adventurers (“spunky”, “feisty”, “kick-ass”, blah blah blah) and into what I read as a convincingly conflicted, ambitious, and self-assertive person not willing to settle for coasting the social wave on the strength of her uncommon prettiness and brightness of mind. Was she annoying? Sometimes. So what? I respected her audacity and admired her ambition, and still do. I think both her failures and her outstanding qualities reflect changes in Steven Moffat’s own awareness of the ongoing wrangle over how women “should” be and behave and think and aspire. That’s a hell of a fight, and it’s *so* not over.
On the orphan question from @mersey — there’s that standing joke about YA fantasy and adventure fiction, “How do you get the parents out of the way so the kids can *have* adventures?” Given the choice between the unattached figure who can accept rides in blue boxes without a backward glance, and the one constantly fretting about getting back to loved ones left back home, I think I’d take the “orphaned” adventurer — who can always discover a hitherto unknown family connection to play with/against in the course of star-faring (see occasional eps of Star Trek, etc.). The “I just wanna go HOME” plaint gets on my nerves after a while (Farscape, Voyager, others).
Of course, it worked for Odysseus, but he was a grown man with a mature attitude toward conflict (avoid if possible, or use tricks), and we had the ongoing story at home to make his dogged longing to get back there ring true.
1 August 2016 at 12:54 #53516@puroandson and @ichabod, you both make excellent points. While Clara made mistakes on a personal level, like the Doctor she learned from them, and when it came to adventuring she was never anything less than brave and intelligent — though she could be foolhardy at times, just like the Doctor. 😉 I agree that she got a harder time from much of the fanbase than she should have, and that it reflects larger problems in popular culture when it comes to how female characters are depicted. I just tend to identify with the Doctor more than the companions, so he tends to draw away my attention. 😉
(Also, I didn’t mean to imply that the Doctor’s insensitive remarks were okay — just that they didn’t necessarily come from a mocking/mean place. But like a child who bluntly says out loud that the person ahead of his family in the checkout line is fat, he certainly needed to (re)learn to filter the pathway from his brain to his mouth. At the very least, he did deserve that smack upside the head from Clara when he was spooking out poor Rupert Pink!) 😀
1 August 2016 at 13:08 #53517Also, if I’m to say that Clara wants to have it all, it’s only fair to say the Doctor tries to have it all too — he’s so restless, jumping from place to place, when sometimes he and others would be served better by slowing down and seeing through the aftermath of his heroics. 😉
One of the best stories so far in the Titan Comics’ Twelfth Doctor title was the four-parter “Clara Oswald and the School of Death”, which is sort of a finale for her in the comic (after a one-off story in the next issue that also featured her, the comic moved on to post-Series 9 stories for Twelve). It’s set sometime between “The Zygon Inversion” and “Face the Raven” (it takes place at a school called Ravenscaur, even) and she is effectively the lead; she takes up the adventure of her own initiative, and as in “Flatline” she even gets temporary companions. Twelve is mostly comedy relief until midway through Part Three, and even then his role for the remainder of the story is more giving Clara and the others an extra boost of help than to save the day himself. I thought it was a great way to see the character off in the comic, by paying tribute to how much of a heroine she’d become in a story that has an unambiguously happy ending, albeit with a bit of after-the-fact foreshadowing for her televised fate.
3 August 2016 at 06:04 #53545I completely agree about “Why shouldn’t Clara have it all?” As for lying, yes she did but so did/does the Doctor.
Danny didn’t as far as I know, but had an enourmous chip on his shoulder.
To me the actress was so natural in the way she spoke her lines, and the chemistry between her and PC was magical.
This new companion, seems to be of a similar cut.
Missy
3 August 2016 at 23:14 #53553@missrori Thanks for the comments on the Titan comics. Gotta go look for that, sounds interesting.
@missy The Clara/CapDoc chemistry is what got me, too — I think it was so strong that they could play a great number of variations on it and it *worked* because of being grounded in that natural and solid connection. There are people you feel immediately comfortable with and trusting of; it can be “acted” of course, more or less well (and often is, I imagine — that’s part of what professionalism is for people whose job is to pretend), but I think this was something special.
My only complaint, if you can think of it as such, about the two of them was that sometimes they gave their lines so quickly that I had trouble catching everything. Other than that — great work. Hoping for that level of conviction from this new pairing in S10.
4 August 2016 at 03:10 #53554@ichabod
“sometimes they gave their lines so quickly that I had trouble catching everything.”And you’ve got plenty of company on that one. I had the same problem and I’ve read exactly the same feedback on two other forums that I visit regularly.
I also read a review on that online, where a speech language specialist was asked about whether it was Capaldi’s Scots brogue that was the problem but concluded rather that it was a combination of too fast delivery and poor articulation. In other words, all they needed to do was slow down and remove the marbles from their mouths. 😉
4 August 2016 at 10:00 #53557@puroandson @ichabod
It’s funny how it goes with these things. We’ve had 5 companions so far and only one had both parents. And Martha was the least successfull companion of the renewed series. I think it’s not the case of the family as a load but the fact that they were rather unlikable. I love the relationship which 9 had with Rose’s mother and 10 with Donna’s mother. Those things made the stories fuller. Shame we didn’t see more from Clara’s family but it wasn’t the hapiest family ever. And it was Danny who was the only true orphan of the series and he didn’t want to travel with the Doctor. I think as an orphan who lived in an orphanage he had time to sort his life out and realised what he wants in his life. He didn’t want to run. Doctor’s companion are the people who want to run away from their lives.
4 August 2016 at 12:23 #53560I must have good ears. I could always understand them. Perhaps I can hear fast. *big grin*
Danny was boring, steady but dull. Clara was anything but dull, neither is the Doctor. I don’t think she really wanted to settle down, and maybe that was a fault in her personality.
Frankly, if I’d lived on Gallifrey, I’d have run away too.
Missy
4 August 2016 at 12:54 #53563Hi there.
I don’t think “not wanting to settle down…was or is maybe a fault of personality.”
Mum didn’t “settle down” for years. I don’t think my cousins in their 30s have ever settled down 🙂 whilst I don’t know if I even ever want to settle down -is it some female companion Doctor Who thing which requires them to somehow have dates, get engaged, buy a house, buy ALL the stuff you have in house and THEN get married. Maybe not in that order!
I don’t sound optimistic about those life choices just yet. I don’t think Clara would have (either) for a very long time. I think that’s good actually. And that’s strictly my opinion, though.
Thanks,
Son of Puro
4 August 2016 at 13:23 #53568@mersey that is an interesting observation. Perhaps companions, like children in literature, need to be sans parents, or at least one parent. Parents and family in general anchor us to the here and now. AG Who has played with the issue of parents, rarely considered in BG Who. RTD really brought something new to the story when he introduced Jackie and Micky, giving Rose earth roots. Also the deceased father added interest and drama elements. He tried to do something very different with Martha’s family and failed. I think in part because they were not sympathetic but also perhaps because they were too “ordinary”. They were a very average family. Donna’s family might well have been the same had the actor playing her father not died necessitating the introduction of Wilf who was brilliant, wonderful, etc. Amy is sans parents when we first meet her and that obvious and unexplained lack contributes to the mystery surrounding the character. Why is this child in the house alone? When we finally do meet her parents they take something away from the character. She is just the girl next door again. But then in a stroke of brilliance we get
Ron’sRory’s Dad. Clara is delightfully parent free for most of the story which works well for her character. She has no one to “ground her” to earth and that enables the introduction of Danny to set up that conflict.@ichabod I have the impression that P.C and Jenna were good friends off screen too. Seeing them together on their travels it appeared that there was a really good rapport there and I think that helped generate that warm screen “chemistry”.
Cheers
Janette
4 August 2016 at 13:29 #53569@puroandson Son, I presume, one should never ever “settle down”. Being in a relationship, having children, etc does not mean an end to fun and adventures. It just means that you have more people to share those adventures with and someone nice to return to and recover and plan for the next adventure. And the moments between the adventures can be wonderful too, it is all what you make of it. (actually the most “settled” time in my life was probably when I was working and at Uni and single.)
Cheers
Janette
5 August 2016 at 00:00 #53571@missy
“I must have good ears. I could always understand them. Perhaps I can hear fast. *big grin*”Possibly, but not necessarily. It’s also possible that it went by so fast that you didn’t even notice that you didn’t get some of it, or at least, that was my experience when I went back and watched episode one of season 8 several times. I discovered there was dialogue that I had missed that I hadn’t even noticed was even there, because it went by that fast that I didn’t even know about it until the second or even third viewing.
5 August 2016 at 05:58 #53572Hi there Janette, how are you?
Yes, you’re quite right. Son was filtering some of those ideas about “settling down” (I think) from Clara’s perspective. Watching both a dreadful trial (televised in the US some years ago), studying philosophy at his school and learning about the various ‘isms’ and ideologies have turned him into a feminist (of which I’m proud!).
Indeed, as I’ve explained to him, settling down takes various forms for different people. I was quite settled upon purchasing a house even though we didn’t have Son for another year or so. By this time I’d finished working overseas and studying and so could delve into other projects -whether it be gardening, designing areas in the home with fabrics or French polishing some antiques -there was always something to keep me both busy but relatively stationary (for once).
I think Clara is a free spirit and enjoyed having her job, seeing Danny, travelling with ‘Uncle Doc’ and (perhaps lamenting) discussing with her grandmother the many lives (or jobs/ideas/potential goals) she, Clara, might yet lead.
Son was pursuing this line of thought I believe: to avoid settling down isn’t necessarily a fault or issue. I think he mourns the fact that when I became very ill any long term project or future travel was no longer possible for me. He is also a free spirit who is “emotionally attached to this house, a lot, Mum” but who is thrilled to have the world and its wonders around him when he’s ready to see it for, and by, himself.
Kindest, PuroSolo
5 August 2016 at 07:31 #53573@puroandson. I understand absolutely. Interesting to hear son’s thoughts on the matter and as always he expressed himself well. I still object to the notion of “settling down”. It is to my thinking a very fifties concept. Men in the past were expected to “settle down” to, get a “steady” job, marry and have a family. There is no longer any such thing as a “steady” job, and having family should never be just a bind or burden. I think modern feminist thought does tend to depict “family” as the great evil. It is an aspect of feminism that I disagree with. (maybe I should say Feminism as opposed to feminism which really just means equality for men and women without dogma attached) Family has enriched my life greatly and, being rather addicted to travel, I was determined from the start that the children would not be an anchor. Travelling with children was enormously rewarding even though they now remember very little of those adventures, especially the youngest. He was watching Longitude recently and when I informed him that he had been to Greenwich and seen Harrison’s clocks he was disappointed because he has no recollection of it. At the time he probably just wanted to know when we were going back to the pie shop or when he could escape and run about on the grass having sword fights with his brothers.
Hope you are feeling well and keeping out of hospital as much as possible.
Cheers
Janette
5 August 2016 at 07:53 #53574It is to my thinking a very fifties concept. Men in the past were expected to “settle down” to, get a “steady” job, marry and have a family. There is no longer any such thing as a “steady” job, and having family should never be just a bind or burden. I think modern feminist thought does tend to depict “family” as the great evil. It is an aspect of feminism that I disagree with.
Yes I understand -I believe feminist thought has been enriched by ideas of womanhood being whatever that entails to a unique individual.
I still see, on my forays into the dark, medieval and lonely woods of you-tube much nasty chatter about “the feminists or the feminazis” in particular which leaves a terrible memory escalating into war in my dreams!
Certainly a family of any kind should be compatible with feminist thought-processes. I fear, though, when I watch Q&A and see the suited up young gents in their 20s and their be-ribboned female companions that we’re heading into a conservative future where Young Liberals, asserting their staunch beliefs in Traditional Family or Family First (Party) epigrams will attempt to send us back sans Tardis to the 50s.
That they feel most comfortable with those images speaks to problematic family discussions, an overabundance of poor literature and television and even worse schooling in History and English!
Yes, I think programmes like Who with terrific role models for young women in River Song, Donna, Clara and Amelia are land- marks for young girls with voracious appetites for all that is, or should be, good. That I remember a sensitive Rory, an almost autistic Doctor and a young man like Danny Pink struggling with past deeds or memories of war convinced me that the fabric of society is woven of authentic and deeply complex material not always sewn into dogmatic perceptions.
x Puro
5 August 2016 at 10:41 #53575@stitchintime
Not the case. My OH (when he watched any) had trouble catching dialogue, so I told him what had been said.
Some people had the same trouble with The Abominable Bride, complaining that BC mumbled? No he didn’t, I and my OH, could hear every word said clearly. sorry for threadnap, just neede an example and that was perfect.
Unfortunately we have great trouble understanding some American actresses, they sound like chipmonks. The love interest in Murdoch is a prime example, we have to listen very closely.
Missy
5 August 2016 at 11:05 #535785 August 2016 at 14:15 #53579@puroandson Last election R.2 spent an hour at a poling booth alongside a Family First supporter and was subjected to her diatribe. Their view of family is wrong in so many many ways. For instance, traditionally women did work, until the mid nineteenth century women worked. It was a mark of wealth for a married woman not to work and even then she worked, managing a house with servants and usually doing voluntary work too. The value of a person’s “work” should not be measured by how much they earn but what they achieve. (That was actually a male thing. “I earn the bread so I am boss. No mate you might bring in the money but you don’t manage anything else…) I wrote an interesting story (short bio) a few years back about a local woman, poor, really poor, who gave up paid employment when she married but continued to work in the community until her death and had a very enriching life. The topic of what gives value to a person’s life is a complex one. (and as you might have just deduced one I am rather interested in/passionate about. In part because I come from a family where earning a income and doing something of worth are not necessarily the same thing.) Unfortunately I feel that feminism has been somewhat subverted by capitalism and the work ethic/cult. I know of far too many women who become career slaves, think that gives them equality all the while being made use of at work and still going home to do the housework and be prime parental carer and take their husband’s names. That is not feminism in my thinking. Of course this is perhaps largely, an Australian problem. Certainly in Sweden there is much greater gender equality. Men do housework too!! And they take on parental duties. They also get parental leave. Often saw groups of hip cool young men hanging out together at cafes, each one with a latte in one hand while pushing the pram back and forwards with the other. Always made me smile and think, “if only in Australia”. It is possible. It happens, just not here, yet.
I could tell a funny story about that but this post is already long enough.
Sorry for the rant. It is Friday night and I am relaxing. for me relaxing and ranting seem to go hand in hand..
But it is the sofa and we should be discussing Dr Who where there is no housework to be done. Who does dust the Tardis?? Maybe it dusts itself. Back in the early days they had food dispensing machines. Now they just seem to go out for takeaway.
Cheers
Janette
5 August 2016 at 19:09 #53580Who does dust the Tardis?? Maybe it dusts itself
I really hope so – can you imagine having to dust an infinite number of corridors? 🙁
6 August 2016 at 01:03 #53581@missy
“Unfortunately we have great trouble understanding some American actresses, they sound like chipmonks. The love interest in Murdoch is a prime example, we have to listen very closely.”I guess that goes to show that we all ‘hear’ differently, as that does not present a problem. And perhaps too, it does have something to do with the dialect, whatever the linguistic experts may say.
6 August 2016 at 05:52 #53582Perish the thought! *grins*
@stitchintime.
True, dialects can make things difficult, but we have no trouble understanding American male actors, only some of the females. Very odd.
Missy
6 August 2016 at 23:59 #53585If you’re going slightly deaf, it’s the higher frequencies that go first. If you also have a problem with distinguishing children’s words as well as some of the women actors – possibly time to get your hearing checked out. 😕
7 August 2016 at 00:10 #53587@missy
Very odd.Yes.
7 August 2016 at 09:39 #53590Good advice and pretty much the case with my OH (other half). he has trouble hearing the microwave, and cant hear the phone if he’s taken his hearing aid out. I can hear all of them.
It’s a good point, were it not for the fact that I and he, have no trouble at all with some American actresses, and none at all with British actresses.
It’s so amusing that American children all sound like chipmonks, *chuckle* well, to us they do.
Hopefully, I haven’t offended our American members.
Missy
7 August 2016 at 17:32 #53596My experience with people complaining that actors mumble is that they frequently seem to be over fifty and have attended rather a lot of rock concerts. 🙂
But if it’s only some actresses (and not the ones with the higher voices), then the explanation might be their regional accents anyway. Accents are often gendered – the rising tone inflection near the end of the famous ‘Valley Girl’ accent is called Valley Girl for a reason.
I do have a bit of a problem with what’s called phonological awareness, though, and I often find that I have to concentrate to understand someone who has an accent new to me.
8 August 2016 at 01:06 #53597@bluesqueakpip
My experience with people complaining that actors mumble is that they frequently seem to be over fifty and have attended rather a lot of rock concerts. 🙂Well, I’ve actually avoided rock concerts in particular and loud noise in general for most of my life as I have fairly sensitive hearing and therefore mostly prefer prefer peace and quiet. Thus, I can only guess that, as well, we don’t all hear the same. In any case, as far as DW is concerned, I did notice that things improved as series 8 went along and that improvement continued into series 9; so, maybe they received some feedback on that and made some adjustments.
8 August 2016 at 01:39 #53600@stitchintime
You’ve avoided rock concerts? Music?
Wow. OK. I must have been to 1000s but then a few hundred more auditorium concerts typically called ‘classical’ as part of my job -and my hearing is fine, and has always been: possibly it’s a cochlear issue whereby the position of these organs (I’m staying simple here for ease) has something to do with hearing and something called diverse hearing patterns. The size of the ear canal also effects both tone, timbre and something else called ‘noise affect’.
Definitely I found S9 hard to differentiate so I simply turned off the music portion (I have a programme which allows me to do that -it’s not for purchase unfortunately) and heard the dialogue. In the end we had what’s called a ‘dry score’ or ‘dry run;’ whilst that was very helpful it’s not for everyone, I’m afraid and lowers the megahertz output by dozens of decibels causing a timbre change in the voice as well
PuroSolo
8 August 2016 at 02:23 #53601@puroandson
I’ve been to classical, some jazz, pop concerts, one or two rock I think, many years ago and the odd loud party but that’s about it. It does damage your hearing eventually, but you don’t usually notice until your 40s or even 50s. Nowadays, it’s said to have reached epidemic proportions. Part of the problem is that you don’t usually feel any pain. Also if people are drinking at the same time, it impacts their hearing such that they don’t notice if it’s too loud.I also read that people living back in the bush, in areas relatively free of traffic, construction, airplanes flying overhead, etc., tend to retain perfect hearing into their seventies whereas most of us these days have lost some hearing by that stage due to our relatively noisy environments. I used to say when I visited my cousin who lived in a fairly remote area that the silence there was deafening, something she did not understand until she moved to the city to train to be a nurse and then came back home for the holidays.
But wow, that’s a great device you have for tuning out the sound track, as it’s true, I think, sometimes that is part of the problem, as I have read that in some posts elsewhere. I don’t think that has been a big issue for me with DW, although it has happened from time to time and also with other shows.
8 August 2016 at 02:46 #53602@stitchintime
Oh yes, it would be worse by the 60s and 70s I expect. I’m nearly 50 and don’t have hearing problems (one problem I don’t have!) yet.
The silence is deafening concept is definitely interesting and certainly Australia provides a lot of ‘raw’ dry’ material. Travelling around the outback with nothing about for literally 1000 miles except me and one other person, sleeping on top of the RUV to stop the scorpion arrival which kicked in at 2 am was astounding. No sounds. At all. Except the crackling of the fire (also used to avoid the scorpions and snakes). We are covered by sound now: whether it be the fridge whining or the dishwasher, the swish of water in the pools or birds trilling in the trees. Oh, there’s the A/C on most of the year too and somewhere in the background the washing machine or dryer. It can’t be avoided 🙂
I find Jazz concerts and blues generally louder than rock concerts, per se: possibly because the former were usually five or six hours long. The longer, the better.
Yes, drinking or swallowing, and. chewing gum will effect lateral transference -the sound ‘bounces’ around from ‘side to side’ rather than ‘in and out’ the canal.
8 August 2016 at 02:48 #53603gosh, we’re on the Companions thread -not good! <ducks from mods>
better head to Sofa or Pub
8 August 2016 at 04:55 #53606Never been to a rock concert. Although I did go to see the Beatles perform, but all I could hear were stupid females screaming. which spoiled the whole experience.
I shall never understand why certain members of my sex “scream.” The Doctor would probably call them ‘pudding brains.”
Missy
8 August 2016 at 05:07 #53608“stupid females screaming“
give it a rest.
Women and men screaming and hollering at concerts is par for the course and simply means people having fun. Women scream for all sorts of fun reasons -actually
Clara screamed a lot and so did Donna. Rose was on her way to a concert with Tennant and she was hooting about it: they ended up somewhere else where they nearly lost their lives.
But anyway. No wonder Son has packed it in here.
PuroSolo
8 August 2016 at 05:17 #53609what with people above taking comments about family completely out of context -in conversations with Son -and re-reading them this morning I’d say the level of debate needs to improve. To be what it once was. A page above and we had Jim, Pip and Winston elucidate beautifully on canon and the power of this concept to allure, to create friction and to augment perception.
That’s all I need. And I become unbelievably frustrated when I read other comments which are snipy, undignified and contextually incorrect. No doubt illness has doubled my reactions.
I think it’s good for me and Son to have a Forum holiday.
I do love this place -and I’m retired so I have time. But other things need to be done; former colleagues to write to, other correspondence and general ‘work’ to do with music. One of which is to see if I can play Bach’s variations the way I once did. It involves recordings and loads of listening. I shall do this whilst lurking.
@arbutus -yes, you’re right. The Pub -another frustration I have about threads and their purpose. Thank you -the Aussies are doing very well indeed. Even today in 5th and 6th they performed with courage and it was thrilling to watch. The American guys completely screamed their way thru the interviews being had by others. They were SO excited: young Phelps on his 19th medal. The joy and fun of it. 🙂
To fun and cheer!
Puro and Son
-
AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
