The Distinction in AG Doctor Who
by HTPBDET
Posted by Craig in HTPBDET’s absence
The debut of Rose was a much-anticipated and much-feared event. On the one hand, there was the possibility of Christopher Eccleston’s Doctor; on the other, there was pop-star-child-bride Billie Piper who appeared to have disaster written all over her in indelible ink. On the one hand, it was being made in Cardiff and so had purpose built studios and production facilities which might mean it was better supported and resourced than the desperate final chapter of the JNT Era of Doom; on the other hand, it was being made in Cardiff! On the one hand, it was being helmed by Russell T Davies, who knew a thing or two about ground-breaking television; on the other hand, Davies appeared to have a view about BG Doctor Who which had been on display in his seminal Queer As Folk. On the one hand, none of the former writers for the programme were to be involved; on the other hand, neither Eric Saward not Andrew Cartmel would be involved.
A veritable universe of possible outcomes.
Rose established that AG Doctor Who was a continuation of BG Doctor Who in the simplest of ways: it remade Spearhead From Space. This was inspired. At one stroke, the territory was similar, but not the same. Same villains, same TARDIS exterior, same idiosyncratic wanderer in time and space ( this one with a Northern accent, a cool leather jacket, a huge grin, a penchant for “Geronimo” and a suitably scientific approach to problem- solving ) and same sonic-screwdriver ( sort-of ).
Indeed, it was easy to postulate that Rose was occurring at around the same time as Spearhead From Space – two Doctors fighting off the same invasion force but in different ways.
But there were huge differences too: the opening credits ( which were startling, but truly exciting and evocative ), the interior of the TARDIS ( at first alienating but then, quite quickly, utterly mesmerising ), the Time War and the destruction of Gallifrey and the Time Lords.
But the biggest change, the most profound, the most genius notion… Rose herself.
Despite 26 seasons, there had never been a companion like Rose. She was fresh, unique, modern and funny. Her sense of wonder at the TARDIS and the possibilities it offered were unparalleled, as was her sheer joy at the danger of adventuring.
No companion had ever boarded the TARDIS with the intention of having fun and adventures in time and space – not the first time anyway. Most companions had joined because they had no choice, it was their only way of escaping a particular horror or their lives had been destroyed. Jamie and Sarah come the closest – but Sarah was a disbelieving stowaway and Jamie made a snap impulsive choice to hang with people he liked. Rose was the first to actively choose to travel with the Doctor, knowing what it meant, for the sheer fun of it.
And that is the single, most profound and far-reaching distinction between BG Doctor Who and AG Doctor Who.
In BG Doctor Who, the story is everything – always. There are adventures which feature the Doctor and his companions, and they are important in those stories, but they were not the defining issue. They are not the story. It is always about where does the TARDIS land?; what do they find?; how are they endangered?; and how do they get away?. The Doctor and any given companion take different sized roles in the story, but it is about the story always.
In AG Doctor Who, the story gives way to the companion. Since 2005, it has all been about the companion.
With Rose, Martha and Donna, the focus was on how they experienced the adventures, how they interacted with the Doctor, how their lives were changed and their families affected. And their time with the Doctor was not uninterrupted; they came and went as they chose, not always constantly in his company since setting foot in the TARDIS. This was never the case in BG Doctor Who, except, perhaps, during the Pertwee exile and even then there was no sense that either Liz or Jo had spent any significant time out of the Doctor’s company.
With Adam, Mickey, and Wilf, the picture was different. Each came on board the TARDIS because of a particular companion, after that companion had started travels with the Doctor. That, also, was an entirely new basis for a relationship with the Doctor.
Jack, unsurprisingly, is an anomaly. He tags along but is never really a companion in the true sense: he is more an occasional aide. But, once again, the notion was new.
BG Doctor Who had never seen companions like this or stories told in this way, with the focus so clearly on the experience of the lead female companion.
But after Tennant regenerated, the central pulse changed again. Rather than being about the experience of the companion, the entire narrative drive became about the mystery of the companion: first, Amy, then Rory, then River and now Clara.
2013 saw AG Doctor Who briefly flirt with the BG Doctor Who style. From Asylum of the Daleks to Angels Take Manhattan you see a set of “traditional” stories – where the focus is, mostly, on the adventure the TARDIS crew are having. But even then, there is a loose arc about “What happens to Rory and Amy?” ( another companion mystery ) and the Ponds do not travel continuously with the Doctor. It is haphazard adventures in time and space rather than continual ones.
People often comment that the RTD seasons were “too soap opera”. I don’t really understand that, except in the sense that it was always clear what was going on in the personal and home life of Rose, Martha and Donna. But that was the point – some of the most interesting stories look clearly at the effect or possibilities or consequences travel with Doctor bring.
To me, though, the SM years are much more “soap opera” – “Who does Amy love?”, “What happened to Amy?” “Will Amy marry Rory?” “Can Amy love?”, “Does the Doctor love River Song?”, “What happened to Rory and Amy’s baby?”, “Does River Song love the Doctor?”, “Did the Doctor ruin Amy and Rory’s marriage?”, “What happens to Rory and Amy?” “Does Clara love the Doctor?” and “What is the Doctor’s big, deep, dark secret?” – these are the actual arcs of the last three seasons and, narratively, they are way closer to soap opera than anything done in the RTD era.
And they are, as narrative driving forces, as far away from BG Doctor Who as you can imagine.
So – clear points of distinction.
But still, undeniably, Doctor Who.
Because the focus may change, the narrative drive may change, the Doctor may change, the companion may change, the monsters/foes may change – but one thing is constant and defines Doctor Who. BG or AG.
The TARDIS.
The secret of the success of Doctor Who.
From November 23, 1963 to eternity.
57 comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
@HTPBDET –
A complaint. Your writing, as ever, is both fascinating and compelling. And as such, is proving a major distraction from getting my work done 🙂 You have a real talent for mixing the personal and the analytical, and as such provide articles that manage to be entertaining, informative (and informed), balanced while still justifying your own viewpoints. I hope your recovery is going well and I hope we see you back posting soon.
As far as this piece is concerned, you’ve hit the nail on the head contrasting the story focus of the BG Who adventures with the companion focus of the PG Who adventures. I think the impact of multi channel tv cannot be underestimated here. In 1989 we only had four channels, 3 of which weren’t broadcasting 24/7. By 2005 there were in the region of 200 with constant re-runs of proven ratings winners. ‘Just’ a story is no longer enough – that allows people to dip in and out as they choose. To get the ratings necessary for survival, shows need that catch to bring people back each week. Rose provided that superbly, as an everywoman who was the best of us but still one of us – yeah, she was off having adventures, but she was someone we wanted to go back to hang out with, the adventures being incidental to that visit to a friend.
It’s this very point though that I think is the bigger risk for the show in the future – it doesn’t have to just find new stories, it needs new catches. You’ve highlighted the change from the experience of the companion to the mystery of the companion from the RTD era to the current SM regime. That’s the reinvention that the show thrives on, but there’s only so many times you can provide a mystery companion without the show going stale – I think we saw the same problem with Martha. It was too close to the Rose formula and second time round suffered in comparison (and also I think contributed to the clamoring for Rose to return which ended up souring my memory of her for a while).
The show seems in much safer hands now than in the 80’s (not hard I’ll grant you) and both RTD and SM have reinvented from positions of strength – I’m sure the period of mystery companions is now coming to a close. The danger will come when those extra reasons to watch don’t change (or don’t change well.) I just hope that fresh ideas on how to capture an audience and maintain ratings continue to thrive because I’d hate for people to miss out on the great stories Doctor Who can tell. Again.
Anyway, apologies, think this has turned into rather an incoherent ramble, when mostly I just wanted to say thank you for your blog entries 🙂
@OsakaHatter @HTPBDET
HTBPDET and OsakaHatter I intuitively agree with most of your analysis. I do rather wonder what the focus will be post Steven Moffat and post Matt Smith although I have some faith that the AG Who creative team are good enough to come up with some new audience catching idea if the BG theme of “Adventures in Space and Time” isn’t enough. My real fear is that there isn’t enough time to give both a story focus and a companion focus is a 13 episode 45 minute series a proper go. To date, I feel that we more often than not end up with stories that really deal adequately with one axis or the other, but not both together.
When you look at series that seem to have got this about right (Buffy, Angel, Stargate in its many guises) the character elements seem to fit into the story on the whole, but they have the advantage of a 22 or 24 part series, where the series has the space to fit in one or two largely character led episodes in the run. I’m not convinced AG Who has got this quite right yet (the Amy/Rory debate on the Companions thread illustrates some different perspectives on this though).
One other thing, which I think is an important point to make, is that so far, with the exception of the Angels, AG who hasn’t managed to create any distinctive recurring monster or villain of its own with a believable agenda of their own (something which the Angels seem to have lacked so far). I appreciate this is much harder to do now than then, but given the smart people we have writing the show, I think it would be good for the development of AG Who if it created its own recurring foe (perhaps in an intermittent story arc that lasts several years). To much reliance on BG Who continuity (even if you’re going to reboot it – eg Cybermen) can’t be good creatively.
One last observation on AG Who is that it is perhaps (well definitely in my opinion, but I recognise other will view things differently) there has been too much focus on modern Day Earth. (+/- 1800 to 2020 or so). As RTD wryly used Donna to highlight just about nobody on Who Earth could possibly believe that we are alone and yet the Who Earth doesn’t seem to have reacted at all. Am I the only person to believe that the Earth would politically and economically remain unaffected by surviving an Alien invasion ?
Nick
@Nick @HTPBDET –
Nick, you raise an interesting point which has also been bothering me – where are the iconic and original monsters of AG Who? You’re exactly right when you say:
… and you note that you think the Angels, as original as they are, lack a believable agenda. What are they for? What is their creed? Well, it is I guess, ‘zap them back in time to feed off their remaining life energy’. But they underwent too many changes between Blink and the Byzantium and became confusing (‘don’t blink!’ … ‘err, keep your eyes closed and pretend you’re looking at them!’) – and besides, simply being parasites doesn’t make them ‘iconic’. If they were to be brought back for another story, I shudder to think what else might have changed in the logic of how to ‘fight’ them.
The Angels don’t compare to Daleks (exterminate everything that isn’t Dalek) and Cyberman (convert everyone they see to their own kind); they’re not like Judoon (intergalactic policemen) nor like Sontarans (warrior clones who glorify battle).
There have been a few good monsters/villains in AG Who, who do have believable motivation, but appear written for one story only – the flying dragons from Father’s Day, Prisoner Zero, the Vashta Nerada, the Headless Monks, and many more.
We’ve seen the Silence but are still not told what they want (kidnapping a time-head baby and raising it to kill the Doctor is a one-note storyline) – how could they possibly be written to be as recurring as Daleks / Cybermen / etc? The GI wants to feed off human mind energy but once you’ve taken over ‘the wi-fi’ to do so, what next for such a creature? (And again … what is its motivation? what does it want?) The farting monsters should always have been on Sarah Jane Adventures on CBBC on not part of official Who canon.
And Nick, I also completely agree that all these alien invasions of quasi modern-day Earth just don’t make sense, since there are no political or economic repercussions.
HTPBDET – all these concerns are probably outside your original thesis when you planned this post, but I’d be interested to hear your thoughts. Do you believe AG Who lacks the kind of monsters BG Who had, what with the former seeming to lack motivation / a believable agenda that allows for endless recurrences? And also, seeing that the Pertwee era was set solely in modern-day Earth, it bears comparing to the point Nick raised about AG Who feeling like it’s set too much in modern-day Earth, and some ripple effects on our society would have to have occurred.
AG Who certainly has referred to the ripple effect of very public alien invasions. There was the joky reference in Voyage of the Damned to everyone in London getting the heck out for Christmas, for example. The aliens always invade London at Christmas. Similarly, Turn Left talked about the impact that the loss of the Doctor – leading to the loss of Sarah Jane and Torchwood – would have. That impacted Earth’s government catastrophically.
If you presume that the Whoniverse’s ‘alien invasions’ are the equivalent of our ‘terrorist attacks’, then it’s pretty easy to see why the economic and political structure hasn’t been drastically changed. The alien invasions are intermittent – rather than something night after night, like the Blitz in WW2. Most of them are very visibly averted. Yes, people die – but not at a level that will destabilize society.
So I’d guess that – for people like the Maitlands – it’s a case of, yes, there are aliens. Some are hostile. There are people whose responsibility it is to fight off any attempted incursions (UNIT). Your personal chances of being killed are probably pretty low. Day to day, it’s really not something you bother about too much.
Given that the Maitland kids seem more excited than anything by the thought that Clara’s boyfriend is an alien, it’s possible the government has quite truthfully said that some aliens are helping them. 😀
With regard to the iconic Who monsters: Daleks were created in 1963, Cybermen 1966, Sontarans 1973. Ice Warriors aren’t always monsters, but they were created in 1967. The Autons first appeared in 1970. The Silurians also appeared in 1970. The Master first appeared in 1971.
Have you noticed the pattern? Most of the iconic monsters appeared in the first ten years of the programme. The AG series does have its own recurring alien races – the Judoon turn up several times (in SJA as well as Who itself) and have an entirely believable agenda. We adults might not like the Slitheen, but they are pretty popular amongst the seven year olds. The agenda of the Weeping Angels may be simple, but it’s believable. Lunch.
Hi @Bluesqueakpip – I take your point about ‘getting the heck out of London at Christmas’. But honestly, the Earth getting relocated in space then towed back home? That would have a massive and long-lasting effect on human society; so much more than a terrorist attack. The Daleks swarming through the skies in their millions? Goodness gracious, that should have had an effect (and then Amy didn’t even remember the Daleks).
And I forgot to say in my original comment (which is too long already!) that of course Torchwood was created as the result of an alien attack, so yes, there are indeed long-term (and positive) repercussions.
It’s just confusing to me – all this alien contact / invasion business should have changed so-called ‘modern-day’ Earth in ways that it wouldn’t recognisable to us actually living in these times but without those traumas.
@Shazzbot – okay, I’ll see your Daleks swarming through the sky in their millions and raise you getting bombed from the air for 59 days straight by hundreds of aircraft.
The Earth getting towed through space? Um. Atomic bombs? Interballistic missiles?
All of these were traumatic, destructive, and the last one could potentially destroy all life on Earth. But would someone from the 1930’s really not recognise the 1950’s? Heck, someone from the 1930’s could probably pick up the politics section of the newspapers, and the only surprising thing would be – um, I think it would be the discussion on data protection. And that the Chancellor of Germany is a woman. 😀
OK – Iconic “monsters”
As @Bluesqueakpip points out most of those were created in the first 10 years. You could probably also add the Zygons to that list. I’m not up to speed enough with 80s Who to give rundown on that period – maybe Fenric. That’s 9, say a dozen to cover for the ones I’ve missed. In 26 years.
AG Who (iconic in this context defined as instantly recognisable new aliens that could be brought back as repeating threats).
Weeping Angels – you really can’t ignore them – the whole concept is original and very, very creepy. They shouldn’t be overused, but that applies to all the “monsters” (In Angels/Manhatten they have pretty much reverted to type as in returning you to the past, there’s just more of them than there would usually be; The ones in the Byzantium were 51st century Angels – they could have evolved)
Vashta Nerada – what’s not to like with the “Piranhas of the air”? Not in every shadow, but ANY shadow. And any planet. They could easily make a reappearance (They don’t transfer well to merchandising tho, LOL)
Silence – Again, just an amazing concept, which is hard to get out of your head, and has spawned regular jokes (about pen marks on your arm etc) on various threads (still do). They could reappear in a different time, or planet. And they look great.
Slitheen – one for the kids
The Ood – instantly recognisable with repeat possibilities
That’s 5 out and out original, iconic aliens, in 8 years. You could also add memorable characters (which are notable, but maybe not at iconic foe level) – Dorium, Headless Monks, Teselecta, Flesh, Waters of Mars, Face of Boe, Catpeople, the Dreamlord)
That sounds comparable to me.
Re motivation – I think “lunch” is good enough motivation, they don’t all have to be taking over the universe 😉 You could include the GI on either side of the Gap although he’s had a bigger presence AG. (And I really really want to see the return of the Shakri (Stephen Berkoff)). Plus notable AG reworkings of above mentioned BG “monsters”
@Shazzbot Re multiple invasions and wouldn’t somebody notice?
Amy’s not knowing about the Daleks and Cybermen in Eleventh Hour was a plot point (missing bits in her life because of the crack sucking it up). The universe has been re-set at least once since then; did the Dr not do a retrospective memory wipe after the earth got towed back to its correct position?
@ScaryB @Bluesqueakpip @Shazzbot
I obviously wouldn’t have raises the “recurring alien foe” bit If it didn’t bother me. Yes all of the well know monsters were created early on in the show, but I think I would argue that that the lack of new recurring foes in BG Who reflects the change in the show (or the show runners attitude) from looking forward creatively to focusing on the legacy too much (although the Daleks are a special case in themselves given their hyper-popularly in 1964/65/66). Trying to keep the interest in the audience by resurrecting the past ones who proved to be the most popular.
ScaryB you list some great concepts AG Who has created, but has yet to reuse (Ood weren’t a foe after all). In the same way, I can give you The Black/White Guardian of Time, Fenric, the Eternals, Osirians (good old sutekh) all good BG concepts never reused off the top of my head. I’m sure you could pick others from BG Who if you wanted to.
I have to ask myself, why Steven Moffat resurrected the Great Intelligence as a badge. The GI in 1967 wasn’t feeding off the minds of Humans in the wifi back then (it was rather unknown origin entity with great mental powers who was able to control the minds of certain people and certain objects using specific technology that wanted to concur the world so that it could have physical substance). The New GI seems to be definitely something of a different concept to me. Why not a new name as well ? By the way, where are the Yeti ? 🙂
I find it bothersome
Nick
@ScaryB @Bluesqueakpip @ Shazzbot
I think there have been 8 events of Global significance in AG Who where it would be generally aware that “we are not alone” and the buggers want to take our planet:
all of which happened over about 4 or 5 years time period. We can guess on the effect this might have, but I’d say an UN run earth and space based global defense system(s) with observation points towards the edge of the solar system, a resurgence in space travel with the development of large earth orbit and moonbase(s) costing multi-trillion dollars over 10 to 20 years wouldn’t be an unbelievable response. We might not agree much down here, but I think we’d agree that we rather don’t want anyone taking it away from us.
Ignoring any social and political effects, which could be rather profound, this sort of urgent investment would realistically trigger quite profound technology shifts as side effects (I think its quite safe to say that without the cold war, modern electronics, networks and software developments would have happened much slower than actually occurred). We would need a new energy source for sure. An example, we are collectively spending around $20 billion in total over more than a decade on the ITER fusion reactor prototype in Europe. Contrast this with Shell (alone) planning to spend $33 billion on oil and gas exploration in 2013 alone. We might even have a go at fixing global warming as a side effect.
Nick
@shazzbot
I’m not sure if any writer can set out to create an icon with intent. Surely “iconic” status is conferred onto something after many years because it filters into wider Popular Culture? The Daleks are really the only monster to do this, and the other icon of the series is the TARDIS.
The reason for the Daleks superiority is that they are reasonable easy to give the impression of in a drawing, and easy to imitate. They also benefit from that early surge of popularity “Dalek Mania” in the sixties. Could anything like that happen again? I don’t think it could. As @HTPBDET said on another thread, at that time in the sixties there was nothing really like it. No real comparisons or competition. These days, from an early age, kids grow up in sea of pop culture references from an early age with transformers, super-heroes and the ever present Star Wars amongst many many more.
@bluesqueakpip is right in that the late seventies and eighties were bereft of new creations with longevity and repeatability, and I’d suggest that was because of the massive upsurge in genre product following Star Wars in 77. Effects and impact on public consciousness became diluted.
The Daleks and TARDIS are true icons though. Repeated and referenced so many times in so many formats. Example are John Birt being represented as a half human half Dalek consistently in Private Eye, mentions in lyrics like Remote Control by The Clash “Repression – gonna be a Dalek”. Add in endless pastiches and parodies (because Dalek behaviour is very easy to parody), and you can see why they became “iconic”.
Described in blink as a race of psychopaths so compare them to the concept of serial killers. They “feed a need” in killing by sending people back in time. That seems kind perhaps, but the act of separation on the ones they leave behind could be said to mirror the kind of behaviour some killers have shown in the past in taking positive pleasure in observing the impact their actions had on the survivors. There were plenty of opportunities for the Angels to zap Sally Sparrow early in the episode, but perhaps half the pleasure for them is to watch, and play with their food as they take someone else she’s just bonded with?
The most dangerous kind of killer is the one who can overcome serial behaviour and change the way they operate. This throws the people who are hunting them because it makes them less predictable. In Byzantium it’s clearly said they are gorging on the time energy from the crack. So they kill for pleasure and half the pleasure is taunting the figures of authority (Octavian and The Doctor) with their actions using Bob’s voice. Another aspect that has been recorded in real life killers.
Believable motivation? There are plenty of real world equivalents.
@Nick – I think you are genuinely missing the reason why most of the iconic monsters appear in the first ten years.
Once a monster becomes ‘iconic’, it’s then available for use in stories. This reduces the number of slots available for new monsters. This makes it less likely that, in this reduced number of slots, a new monster will hit the ‘iconic’ bullseye. It’s not a ‘lack of creativity’; it’s a numbers game. The more monsters available for a writer to reuse, the less slots for the newbies.
And that’s why most iconic monsters come from the first ten years of the Before Gap series: that was the period when they had to invent everything from scratch.
It’s a credit to After Gap Who that they’ve resisted the temptation to stick entirely to the old guard, and have introduced a huge number of new alien races/creatures. But as the After Gap monsters themselves become recurring, the available slots reduce still further… there were eight episodes in the first series of After Gap Who with new monsters. By Series 3, we were down to six – and it’s stayed at about that level. If you count the Time Zombies and the Spoonheads, Series 7 actually manages eight, while still reprising Daleks, Weeping Angels, Ice Warriors, the GI, Silurians, Sontarans, UNIT and Cybermen. And every single one of those reprised BG icons have been developed in distinctively AG ways.
Personally, I’d be quite happy if I never saw the White/Black Guardians again, and by the time we got to Fenric the show was being watched by a very small audience indeed. I wouldn’t rate Fenric as ‘iconic’ outside the hard-core BG fans.
And of course the Ood were a foe; they may have been mind-controlled, but in their original story, they were the threat. They come in the ‘Ice Warrior’ category; you don’t know when they turn up whether they’re benign or malignant. Same with the Judoon; if you’ve broken the law in some way, you’ve definitely got a problem. Lawful good – and thick!
To me, the reason Steven Moffat resurrected the Great Intelligence is that this is the 50th Anniversary Series. He was looking for a Before Gap foe that could be recreated in a specifically After Gap way and could realistically appear in stories set in the past, the present and the future (to represent the three parts of this anniversary; Who’s past, its present, and its future). But he clearly didn’t want to use the bloody Daleks/Cybermen yet again…
@PhaseShift
I can’t comment for Shazzbot, but I don’t think the Angels have an agenda. Yes, as you describe, somebody along time ago created a “race” of deadly assassins who feed off time energy. They do this to continue to survive and if they do it in a sadistic way for their pleasure well yes, they realistic in that human killers do that too. No matter how well you describe it, that’s not an agenda and to great or lesser extent they’re either present at a location or they’re not so they are in or out of the story on arrival. They don’t appear to be doing anything except feeding.
This is why they have not got an AGENDA that actively motivates them to arrive in a location (other than to feed). This differs from the Master, Daleks, Cybermen etc etc. Ultimately while the motives of the Daleks/Cybermen etc are rather predictable they at least act as a protagonist.
Of course, its possible to write a narrative where the Angels decide that the Doctor is the juiciest piece of time energy out there and actively decide to hunt him down. Even here it would only be to feed. An alternative would be that they are used as a hunter by their creator (or third party even) for some specific purpose, but even here they are not the primary player.
Steven Moffat created them and has used them a couple of times so far. The real test will be whether other writers and show runners chose to use them again. I’m sure they’ll be back, but probably not that often.
Regarding your Icon point, I don’t think any writer/designer can create one; the public do. Its obviously much much harder know then in the past, but it isn’t impossible. The most recent I can think of in the Sci-Fi world is that the X-Men films seem to have created three iconic characters (Prof X, Magneto and Wolverine) from the larger number of mutants shown both in the films, cartoons and comics. How long they last in another matter entirely.
The point I raised, that Shazzbot highlighted is that AG Who seems to have failed so far to create a recurring foe other than the apparently agenda less Angels. Why is this ?
Cheers
Nick
@Nick –
Indeed. And it’s been made extremely obvious, via the Maitland kids, that ‘he’s an alien!’ is a viable solution to the average young denizen of the Whoniverse.
But your speculations as to what would happen in the event of a constant war against the aliens – which this isn’t; After Gap Who is faithfully representing its time in playing ‘alien invasion’ as some kind of ‘terrorist spectacular’ – owe more to science fiction novels than to the evidence from real life history. Science fiction novels which deal with an alien invasion do generally have the result as a global government (or at least a global alliance) leading to massive investment in space and technology research and its rapid implementation.
However, the reason the SF novelists do this is because they want to get to the exciting space battles between us and our alien invaders. Which is difficult when we don’t currently have any bases and our space fleet looks like a collection of plumber’s mistakes. 😀
Reality, in the form of World War 2 (when we were genuinely facing a world-wide ‘alien’ invasion) suggests that – while research will be important – beefing up and implementing Earth-based conventional forces will be the priority. The aliens, after all, have to hold what they’ve taken. Further, these aliens have all been very different – so the new Science Head of UNIT will be concentrating on training scientists to be the equivalent of the Bletchley Park codebreakers. What is this new threat, what are its characteristics, what can we do about it, has anyone seen a blue police box? (Power of Three)
Beefing up satellite launches for a better observation and weapons system is likely (Dinosaurs on a Spaceship). There certainly won’t be a world government; the Allies in World War II spent much of their time trying to coordinate basically independent forces (and arguing a lot) and their alliance broke apart into the Cold War almost the second the threat had been removed.
The discovery that there really are aliens won’t make any profound changes to our social and political systems – especially if their invasions don’t succeed. Profound changes only occur when societies come into sustained contact. Successfully repulsed invasions, if anything, only confirm people in the belief that their social/political systems are working well.
I mean, seriously, the Vatican has a policy on alien contact. The idea that there might well be other forms of life ‘out there’ is firmly embedded in the public consciousness by endless stories, movies, TV shows … finding out that they do exist is going to be exciting, but it won’t be a shock.
😉
@Bluesqueakpip
Hmm, not sure I agree with you much there. For one I never raised the Iconic point, which is something the audience creates itself out of the writers original conception. I merely questioned why AG Who is reusing so many BG monsters and why the AG writers seem, so far, to not have managed to crate there own.
I absolutely agree with you that it was much much easier to do first time round than it is today or even by the 1980s. Its actually got harder still to do as the fans as a real conceptual grouping came into being with our love of “continuity” and our demand to see the familiar and favourite monsters of past shows, creating a need for recurring foes, which isn’t actually necessary to the show’s overall narrative. Does that mean we shouldn’t try to create a fresh monster/foe idea that has dramatic potential for a future life within the show ? Has AG Who really given this a try yet ?
Part of your explanation can be simplistically expressed (which you aren’t being and I’m being totally unfair here) is that there are so few episodes left after all of the returning BG monsters, foes and story arc elements there just isn’t enough space left to use any AG creation again and what gaps there are taken up by the Angels and Ood. For me, that’s Easy to solve – lets have a Dalek free or better still BG monster free season for a change (contractual obligation willing). BG who managed it occasionally. We didn’t have the Cybermen and Daleks popping up ever year or even every other year, even though the pressure to reuse monsters on a flagging show must actually have been a very great temptation. You can see JNT succumbed more than in the relatively more successful years that preceded him.
Fenric and small audience. According to Wikipedia some 4 million of us tuned in over 4 weeks to watch that story (and pretty much the same for the whole of the last season). Obviously that’s a lot less than the 7.1 million average for series 7b, but its not in my opinion a “small audience indeed”. Given all the crap the show was facing at that time, the time slot etc, you might actually say that in pure numbers terms it wasn’t a bad effort at all given the circumstances. We might also find that a good chunk of the 1980’s 4 million recurring viewers are pretty much in the same demographic group as a similar sized part of the present 7/8 million audience today (even if you exclude those of us who have watched both).
I agree with your point regarding Fenric as being unknown outside as you put it hard core fans. My intention was to list some characters who could have successfully (in my opinion) been used again and therefore had the chance to become wider known in both the BG and AG universe. If Steven Moffat had brought back Fenric instead of the Great Intelligence in series 7b would we really have noticed the difference ? I would ask you to question yourself on just how many of the AG monsters and foes (who have had one screen outing) do you really think will be remembered outside fan sites such as this in 5 or 10 years time. Even today, many are fading into memory.
Thanks
Nick
@Nick @Phaseshift @Bluesqueakpip @Shazzbot
Nick – I don’t really get your point that all iconic foes need an agenda – which you seem to imply means a BIG PLAN to either obliterate the Dr or take over the earth/universe/all of time and space. But you then go on to criticise AG Who for creating earth/universe/all of time and space shattering stories (particularly in the finales). It seems to me that Moffat recognises the need NOT to threaten to destroy the earth/universe/all of time and space too often, and the stories since series 5 have mostly concentrated on threats to smaller groups of people, with foes who are less megalomaniac and melodramatic.
As both Phaseshift and Bluesqueakpip point out AG Who has demonstrated a huge amount of creativity in coming up with a range of new monsters – with new angles on what they can do to you – and doing a really good job of reinventing old ones. With 13 stories/year (when we’re lucky 😉 there’s not a lot of scope for re-running old foes and I think all credit to the new team for not re-using foes too often, as it’s something the show has been criticised for in the past, and in AG – even daleks and cybermen lose their edge when we see them repeatedly.
But my point with the ones I listed above was that they COULD be re-used if the right story came up.
I don’t see the GI having changed a huge amount since The Abominable Snowmen. He’s taking advantage of superior 21st century tech to continue to do what he always did – influence people through their minds, using people as puppets. His original intentions were never clear. His actions in AG directly link with BG – revenge on the Dr for foiling his plans. Repeatedly.
As Phaseshift points out iconic status is conferred later from people outwith the show. If you include in the definition of “iconic” that it should have worked its way into the mainstream, then I agree, probably only the Daleks and the TARDIS have really achieved this. (That’s not a criticism btw, I think it’s impressive!). It’s too early to judge re characters from the other shows you mention – Prof X, Magneto and Wolverine.
There are very few rules for writing Dr Who but one of them would seem to be that the contemporary earth the Dr inhabits should remain recognisably the one we know. If it is disrupted it needs to be returned to a state we still recognise. It’s a family show, and that’s the audience’s way in – this is our world, and the Dr COULD exist – if we just watch the stars closely enough we might see him! Dr Who isn’t the show that’s going to give you a post apocalyptic vision which people have to deal with in a realistic way on any long term basis, though it might tackle it in a story eg Turn Left.
Nick – I think we’re going to have to agree to differ on this one! For me AG Dr Who has done a really good job of inventing a wide range of new, mind-twisting and scary aliens, with a range of motivations, developing and reinventing old ones in ways that make sense and resisting the tempatation to revisit past successes too often (the odd dalek, cyberman story excepted). BG Who also had more than its fair share of non-iconic identikit monsters – but we don’t remember them now 🙂 (except for the odd Quark!)
Anyone mention nanobots yet…?
@Bluesqueakpip
I don’t particular think recent history shows what you think is correct. No absolutes here though as my perspective can easily differ from yours. In my view, I think the likely response is pretty clearly from recent history when there is a real threat.
The perceived Soviet threat create NATO in response, NATO’s existence resulted in the creation of the Warsaw Pact. Would the Soviet Union ever really have invaded western Europe ? Impossible to say now for any surety, but it was perceived as a real possibility. The cold war cost an enormous sum of money to maintain let alone all of those pesky proxy-ways that were thought elsewhere with the major powers supporting one side or another (Korea, Viet-Nam, Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East, Soviet Afghanistan invasion to name a few). I think its realistic to consider that several major, if separate events of the scale AG Who describes is enough to result in some sort of major change of the sort I suggest.
Would we not be living in fear after events of these sort have resulted in several thousand (or many more perhaps) Deaths and considerable property destruction. Even AG who jokingly suggests 3 or 4 million Londoner’s evacuate the city after just two Christmas smallish events (yes I don’t believe that would happen in the real world). 9/11 seems to have managed to create a quite similar effect on the US population and politics (at least for a year or two afterwards) and has arguably had quite a profound global effect in many different spheres.
Nick
@Nick
I should point out re: Fenric that I was also there. I watched Curse of Fenric on first broadcast. I enjoyed it. I also couldn’t care less if Fenric ever came back or not. I’m sure that if Fenric does ever come back, it’ll be because a writer has a good idea on how to develop the concept.
The answer is very simple indeed – you are defining your concept of ‘monster’ in such a way that it excludes the most popular AG alien races.
You’ve excluded the Ood (not a foe). You’ve excluded the Slitheen (They fart too much). You’ve excluded the Weeping Angels (lunch isn’t an agenda). You’ve not mentioned the nano-thingy-wotsits, presumably on the grounds that the Gas Mask Plague was a technological accident rather than a ‘foe’ with an ‘agenda’. You’ve excluded Catkind, presumably because they’re a race of individuals, some good, some bad. You’ve excluded the Weevil (presumably because they’re rather boring). The Judoon? Sorry, too law-abiding. The Silence? Only in one series so far, so I’ll give you that. But I’d say it’s odds on they’ll be back at some point.
So what is your definition of ‘monster’? Reinvent the Daleks? You don’t need to reinvent the Daleks. You want a monster like the Daleks, bring in the iconic pepperpots! There is no point in reinventing the wheel – or the Daleks.
And I take serious objection to your claim that ‘lunch’ isn’t an agenda. Lunch is the most primal of agendas. Lunch led homo h. sapiens to spread out across the world. Lunch led it to create entire new technologies. Lunch has led us to drive other species to extinction.
Lunch is a terrifying agenda – especially when YOU are the ‘lunch’. 🙂
Final thoughts for now – I think a lot of this recent debate goes back to that key difference between AG and BG. It’s about the storytelling. BG – the stories were mostly happening already and our team dropped into them. In AG the stories are more often about the TARDIS crew themselves. I need to think about this more deeply, but in AG it seems to me that the monsters can often be seen as multi-layered metaphors, more than in BG Who when it was often (not always) more about the adventure than the effect on the crew.
eg Vincent (depression), The Almost People (idenity), Amy’s Choice (temptation), The Ood (slavery), The God Complex (gods/faith), Silence (loss of memories), Cybermen (self identity/lack of family), Weeping Angels (loss) etc
I don’t mean that the best BG stories lacked depth or resonance – far from it. Just that AG uses the monsters to represent those themes in different ways
@Nick @Bluesqueakpip
AG Who is VERY keen on undermining our expectations – not every alien is a monster, many are acting on basic hardwired instincts eg need for lunch 😉 (Vashta Nerada), some are just misunderstood (Hide), but that doesn’t make them less memorable or inventive. You need to look at them from a different perspective to see the beauty of them (The Dr’s philosopy and not a bad one for real life too).
@Nick
The threat of invasion from the Soviet Union is simply not comparable to a threat of invasion from a succession of entirely different alien races with differing technologies, logistical requirements, strategy, and tactics.
Nor is the threat of invasion by the Soviet Union’s massive military force comparable to a succession of invasion attempts that have been defeated within two or three days. The only successful one (by the Master) got retconned specifically so that it didn’t hugely influence the present social/political setup of the Whoniverse’s Earth.
If you were to ask me what has caused the most far reaching social and political changes in the last seventy years, I wouldn’t point to the Cold War. The League of Nations may have been ineffective, but it predated the United Nations. NATO may have been in response to the Cold War – but before then there was the Allies and the Central Powers (look up World War One if you don’t recognise those groupings). NATO wasn’t a major change; as I’ve said up above, somebody from the 1930’s would easily recognise our modern politics.
9/11 – if you are living in a suburb of London, what changes will you notice from 9/11 in your everyday life? I’m living fairly close to Canary Wharf (a major target) and frankly – bugger all where I live. If I go over to Canary Wharf itself, the security guards are more obvious than they used to be, and you may have your car pulled over and checked before you can enter. That’s it. No major societal changes; the Whoniverse equivalent is that people might spot UNIT a bit more (and we’ve seen them in various episodes).
If you were to ask me what’s caused the major changes in society, the main one I’d point to has very little to do with the Cold War. It’s the female contraceptive pill. Those changes have been rapid, massive – and weren’t really caused by ‘The Russians are Coming!”
😉
@ScaryB
Yes, there are different views on this and I’m trying to do nothing more than explain my point of view and respond to the points you and others raise explaining why your different point of view.
As I have pointed out, I never mentioned Iconic in the first place and I’m not attempting to use that expression as it isn’t relevant to the thrust of the point I want to make. I am asking why it has yet to happen that we have a recurring AG foe (other than the Angels who lack some sort of agenda imo) and see that as a distinction between BG and AG Who> I also find it a bit worrying for the future long term health of the show. The more cult we make it appear, the more likely the BBC will decide its not mainstream enough for the cost of making it. In any case, todays AG audience deserve to be given the chance to create their own icon(s) surely ?
I’m using “agenda” to mean nothing more than a plan to justify their actions in that particular story and a rationale of sorts for their wider actions. All foes/monsters require this whether they achieve iconic status or not. I could argue with the Angels Steven Moffat has managed to successfully create a foe who lacks some of this criteria which ought to make them unsuccessful. Its actually a great achievement for him to get away with using them several times really. However, I think that lack of agenda effectively limits their usefulness as a protagonist at the end of the day which makes it harder to continue to use them going forward without really repeating the same story again. I think we would all agree (?) that this problem is why the frequent use of the Daleks etc becomes problematic.
I agree we have few real icons in the show, I’d say three rather than two on the whole – the Doctor, the Tardis and the Daleks plus a few near icons (Master, Cybermen). Its completely understandable that AG Who seeks to make use of these icon or near iconic monsters and foes. I’m not complaining although I do think as an adult it has been over done. I don’t know what the average 10 year old would think though.
I am not criticising AG’s use of the big Earth invasion stories either. I understand fully why RTD did it and can appreciate why SM has chosen not to. My original post was that the frequency and scale of these invasions all set on present day Earth (3 christmas’ in a row over London for example) was a difference to BG Who, when there was fewer such events in total (from my memory) and were generally played as smaller scale and therefore would have had less dramatic effects on our society (Spearhead from Space is the only BG example which springs into my mind as the Auton’s were meant to be widespread). I’m not hiding my opinion that this is something I wouldn’t have chosen to do (even if I understand why RTD did), but then I’m not a show runner (and never will be fortunately). I find it irritating that despite all this happening the show seems to ignore the wider consequences by glibly glossing over it. The point that I have tried to make though is that events like this would have a major impact and I don’t find the counter-arguments convincing ones.
Cheers
Nick
@Bluesqueakpip
You’ve excluded the Ood (not a foe). You’ve excluded the Slitheen (They fart too much). You’ve excluded the Weeping Angels (lunch isn’t an agenda). You’ve not mentioned the nano-thingy-wotsits, presumably on the grounds that the Gas Mask Plague was a technological accident rather than a ‘foe’ with an ‘agenda’. You’ve excluded Catkind, presumably because they’re a race of individuals, some good, some bad. You’ve excluded the Weevil (presumably because they’re rather boring). The Judoon? Sorry, too law-abiding. The Silence? Only in one series so far, so I’ll give you that. But I’d say it’s odds on they’ll be back at some point.
Ok, on the Ood I’ll take your point. As for the rest they haven’t reappeared (slitheen twice in one season doesn’t count for me especially when its a survivor from the first adventure). All of these are good monsters/foes BUT (as yet) not reappeared in the show. That’s my point. I’m not trying to point out a lack of creativity, but the lack of a good attempt to use this creativity again, especially when every season has had a Dalek story (or two) and the Cybermen have poped up several times. Will the Silence, headless monks, the army of priests be back ? I hope so , but post Steven Moffat on current form it doesn’t look that likely.
Cheers
Nick
( @Craig – this is why your site is so wonderful – it allows for this kind of long-form conversation and debate, which probably couldn’t be done on any other Who site)
@Nick @PhaseShift @ScaryB @Bluesqueakpip – This has been a lengthy but utterly compelling conversation on the differences in monsters/villains in BG vs AG Who (a sub-thesis of the original blogpost idea). There are obviously huge discrepancies in opinion and analysis by y’all, and I have to say that I have learnt a lot, and have even more to chew on. Thank you everyone!
Please don’t think this comment signals a desire for an end to this debate – not at all. Just expressing my admiration for your articulateness, insight, and civilised debate so far, which has been highly informative to read – and it’s just dead lovely to know can exist on the internet.
@Nick
Sorry, we are just going to have to disagree on this. That’s OK, it’s allowed 🙂
I don’t understand how you can say the AG Who is LESS creative for not repeating its foes when you acknowledge that it has created a wealth of new and original characters and creatures – some of them recurring – a much bigger, believable world than BG who was ever able to achieve.
For me Dr Who has always been, first and foremost, about the stories and concepts. Some of the ones which have stuck in my head for nearly 50 years – eg An Unearthly Child, Edge of Destruction, Marco Polo, Mind Robber, The War Games – don’t feature a monster at all. They’re about ideas and stories.
I’m very unlikely to still be around in another 50 years, but (assuming memory faculties are still intact) I would not be at all surprised if eg Blink, Midnight, SitL/FotD, Asylum of the Daleks were still hanging around the back of my mind.
Dr Who in the future will live or die on the quality of its stories and the telling of them.
PS Just for ref – in the last 3 series – 42 episodes inc Xmas specials – there have been 2 Dalek stories and 2 starring the Cybermen. Plus guest appearances for each in Pandorica/Big Bang. 3 reinventions – Silurians (with spinoff regular character in Vastra), Ice Warriors and the GI (the Xmas/7.2 miniseason arc). The Weeping Angels featured in 3 episodes. The rest – 25, approx 60% – featured new creatures/antagonists. (And apologies for attributing iconic to @Nick. Remove it from previous posts and all my points still stand)
@nick
It may be helpful if you take an example of say, The Sontarans, and tell us what you believe their established “Agenda” is, if we are talking at cross purposes about motivations, drives and “Agendas”.
@ScaryB
Great summary at the end there, and agree with you on the creativity front. For everyone who wants to see the return of a monster (new or old) there seems to be another who’s “bored with them”. It’s a delicate balance and one I welcome. It’s strange when you see variety being criticised.
As I asked on another thread, which other show would go to the trouble of creating something as beguiling as those clockwork droids to use once? Or the minotaur creature in God Complex, new CGI models for the Atraxi and a host of others. I don’t see minimising the return of old creatures as a fault, I see it as creative drive.
@Nick – just one little comment before we agree to differ
Huh?
The Slitheen went on to a happy career in the Sarah Jane Adventures, as well as a small part in the big cameo of The Pandorica Opens. The Ood have reappeared in several stories: including The Doctor’s Wife and Pond Life (the webisodes) in the Steven Moffat era. The nano-thingy-wotsits have reappeared several times (major plot point in The Big Bang, in fact). The Catkind turned up in Series 1 and Series 3. The Weevil were mostly Torchwood – but again, they were part of the big Pandorica cameo. The Judoon – Sarah Jane Adventures, big Pandorica cameo, A Good Man Goes To War.
@Nick and everyone
Goodness…I turn my back for a few days (@JimTheFish, I blame you; you have made the sleeping dragon open an eyelid! And I still owe you a Krotons defence…) and excitement reigns on the Blog!
There is such a lot to think about and talk about here – and everyone has made interesting contributions which I personally find very interesting and worthwhile. So cheers!
Just to pick up on one thing, and I will come back to harder ones later, I just wanted to say that I have some sympathy for Nick’s view about the GI in AG Doctor Who. I think his shorthand summary of the BG Great Intelligence is spot on.
And I don’t think that AG Doctor Who shows the same GI as BG Doctor Who – and I have discussed this elsewhere on this site.
But…I don’t think it really matters that much, does it?
Like many other things in AG Doctor Who, the use/nature/function of something from BG Doctor Who has changed.
There is almost nothing about the Daleks which conforms entirely with their BG presence. They are obviously Daleks, but they are quite different Daleks. The Cybermen have been completely rebooted in an alternative Universe and then, latterly, apparently, the remnants of the original Mondasian/Telosian Cybermen pop up. The Ice Warrior in Cold War was very similar to, but also different from, the originals. The Time Lords are shut away, the Master can fly, the Doctor can speak to animals, psychic paper fools everyone, the sonic screwdriver can do anything, the TARDIS decides where the Doctor needs to be, UNIT is not UNIT as we knew it but something subtly different…the list goes on.
As the programme delves into its archives, it changes and adjusts the things it finds there for AG purposes.
As BG Doctor Who always did. The Daleks in Dalek Invasion of Earth are not the same as the Daleks in Dead Planet by any stretch of the imagination – suddenly they have gone from a dying race on Skaro to Universe conquering marauders. But we all coped.
The Cybermen changed every single time we saw them in BG – but we did not mind that. The wonderful Invasion really has them as the equivalent of the Ogrons to the Daleks in Day of the Daleks (Vaughn being the Dalek equivalent and prototype for the Master), but no one really minded because it all worked.
The Sontarans in Two Doctors bear no resemblance to the wonderful Lynx from Time Warrior but you can argue, pretty successfully, that the Ice Warriors and the Great Intelligence and the Nestenes were consistent throughout BG Doctor Who.
Change in Doctor Who is just one of the things you absolutely have to accept to get on board; and not just of lead and companion, or producer and director, but of villain and friend, type of story and manner of execution.
Now, having said all that, I never understand why AG people don’t take the time to make things consistent if there is no good reason not too. For instance, I never understood why it was not Sutekh who was encountered in Satan Pit/Impossible Planet – nothing would have detracted form the story, but something could have been added.
Gridlock uses a BG enemy in a new effective way.
But I think the reason Moffat revised the GI was simple: he wanted an Anniversary villain and he did not want to use Daleks, Cybermen or Sontarans. He had already used Nestenes and Gatiss was desperate to do his Ice Warrior story. So, it was the GI or nothing. There are no other repeat main villains in Doctor Who, apart from the Master and the Silurians/Sea Devils, both of whom have been in AG Doctor Who.
So he took the GI and made it work for the story he wanted to tell – in exactly the same way Terry Nation took the Daleks and made them work for the story he wanted to tell in Dalek Invasion of Earth or Pedlar and Davis took the Cybermen and made them work for Moonbase. Or, indeed, as Haisman and Lincoln took the original GI and Yeti and made them work for Web of Fear (the notion of the Yeti robots worked perfectly in Tibet but made no sense in modern day London; that didn’t mater because we loved them!).
I respect the fact that it bothers you – and, in truth, it bothers me sometimes too.
But in the grand scheme of things all that matters is the adventure, the story – and when you use a recurring monster in a compelling way, Doctor Who, BG or AG, flies. The final scenes of Pandorica Opens show that as clearly as anything; just as the opening scene of Good Man Goes To War proves the exact opposite.
I don’t mind that the GI was altered for this season, because, on the whole, the sense of what the GI is was maintained although the precise execution was somewhat different. Moffat updated the what but not especially the whom.
At the time, I did not understand why House could not have been the progenitor of the Great Intelligence. And, actually, I still don’t. If House had been, all that went before and all that followed could have been enriched and The Doctor’s Wife not diminished by one jot.
Old enemies are like old friends – you have to work at keeping them fresh in your experiences! And sometimes they change…
🙂
@Nick, @Bluesqueakpip, and @ScaryB and others….
I think @ScaryB has hit the nail on the head. Old Who and Nu-Who (sorry, I just prefer them) are telling different kind of stories. Nu Who is largely (and especially under Moffatt) using monsters as metaphors for things like loss of identity, separation anxiety, depression, divorce, miscarriage etc. This is largely because these tend to be the pre-occupations of both modern writers and their audiences.
Old Who — or at least when it started pinning its colours to the SF mast — largely used Terry Nation’s template for I’d say the majority of stories. And Nation had a serious Nazi fixation. But, to be fair, in general we were dealing with a generation of writers who remembered WWII. Thus most stories — with exceptions, of course — were largely concerned with militaristic despots/dictators who craved Powerrrrrr and plucky freedom fighters and/or a populace determined to resist oppression. The shadow of WWII hangs heavily over Old Who. And even with the isolated exception, it isn’t until the 80s and Chris Bidmead, but really not until Cartmel and Aaranovitch, that that mould is broken.
I’m honestly not sure about this ‘iconic’ argument but I think largely old monsters have been reintroduced because (probably because of the historical accident of Dalekmania) the idea of the recurring monster has become part of the dynamic of the show. With Nu-Who, it has also become an opportunity to re-invent them. I think the most successful returns — the Silurians and the Sontarans — have been so precisely because they vary so radically from their Old Who versions. That surely is the very epitome of creativity. The Daleks and Cybermen (interestingly until this year with Asylum and Nightmare) have floundered because their very motivations — political domination through military might has proved itself to be outdated and no longer quite as compelling for modern audiences.
@Nick — re. The Great Intelligence. I think Moffatt has chosen it because it is a recognisable villain for anniversary year but also one that didn’t really have that well defined a backstory or set of capabilities. Yes, it didn’t bother too much about ‘taking over’ minds in the 60s but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t. With the two 60s GI stories, the GI didn’t really appear until the last episode with the Yeti being the main baddies. Perhaps they were chosen because its very vagueness gave him more room for manoevre? Besides, wasn’t it Neil Gaiman’s idea originally to bring back the GI?
But a great discussion. I agree with @Shazzbot that there’s probably a blogpost in all this…
@Oh, and fantastic post @HTPBDET. Just brilliant….
And yes, thanks to everyone who’s contributed on this thread, it’s been an interesting discussion so far. Don’t think anyone’s mind has been changed for their original position, but it’s been a fascinating journey 🙂
@JimtheFish (thanks to you and @Phaseshift for the complimentary comments btw) Agree with you that the influence of WWII was still huge in the 60s. I was born 10 years after it ended and WWII/Nazi stories featured strongly in books, comics, TV as I was growing up, right through till the 80s (and the next generation of writers) as you say. It’s been mentioned before but there was also the Cold War and Spies and the threat of having recently created the means of potentially our own destruction in the atom bomb. Dr Who was born into a world where secrets were power. When the Doctor would immediately up sticks and depart as soon as his secret is discovered by 2 school teachers. That doesn’t happen AG. He still has secrets though.
@HTPBDET
Really? I’m amazed. That is one helluva creative run when you think about it. And it’s still going on in AG Who, whether it’s reinventing old villains or creating brand new ones. (Dammit – you realise I’m going to have to go and check that claim out now…?!! 😉 Now where did I put that pdf of the Guardian Guide to every Who Monster Ever…?)
The GI – did it not take over Padmasambhava in the monastery in a similar way to Dr Simeon in the Snowmen, and Ms Kizlet in BoSJ? (I may well be misremembering… it’s been a while!)
Are we specifically told it isn’t? 😉
@ScaryB @JimTheFish @Shazzbot @Bluesqueakpip @HTPBDET
An enjoyable discussion. I posted that the lack of returning monster/foes created by AG Who appeard to me to be a distinct difference from BG Who. That point sort of got lost in the discussion I think. I admit I didn’t consider the reoccurrence of incidental characters who pop up more than once to add colour to episodes when they need I. There is better done in AG Who for sure.
My point is that the villain/foe (a story protagonist) if you prefer apart from the Angels hadn’t returned as yet.
During the discussion, I tried to explain why I see the Angels who seem to lack an agenda -and I wish I used a different descriptive word there – other then lunch were different concept and their lack of agenda ought to make it increasingly difficult to use them again. I think I understand why SM has brought the Angels back. Perhaps out of all the AG monsters so far, they have had the biggest audience impact, so its natural that the show would want to use them again. However, as (I think) HTBPDET has shown in another post whilst Blink was a fantastic story it is easy to poke holes in the story. Of course one always loves your own creations and I think SM has done a fantastic job of using them regardless of their limitations as protagonists 🙂
At no point did I say and certainly don’t believe AG Who lacks creativity, but RTD/SM have made a creative choice to use BG characters frequently rather use one or more of the monsters/foes which AG who created more than once (and sorry no SJA on CBBC don’t count for me – never watched one, never will I suspect – no more than Torchwood does. They may be set in the same universe, but they are not Doctor Who).
I find it this decision bothersome (worrying if you prefer). The more Doctor Who eats its own tail recycling old concepts in a new (often better) way the less time there is available to create something entirely new. By my count:
Season 1 Daleks 15 % screen time
Season 2 Daleks and Cybermen 46 %
Season 3 Daleks and Master 38 %
Season 4 Daleks and Sontarans 31 %
Specials Master and Timelords 25 %
Season 5 Silurians 15 % screen time
Season 6 none (did I get that right ?)
Season 7 Daleks, Cybermen and Ice Warriors 23 % [ignoring the split here]
That’s an awful lot of the show’s time spent revisiting old ideas. I think the Angels are in 4 episodes in total.
I grew up with BG who and fully appreciate why the writers want to bring back Old foes. Given my choice, we’d see Sutekh and Horus, The Rutans, The Sea Devils, more Master et al for sure. A different BG monster per 13 part season, why not ? But I’d prefer to see the show create something new and memorable with an interesting back story prosecuting their own agenda across several seasons in preference to what we have today. I think the kids watching today should have the chance to grow up with their own new foe not with those from my Childhood.
Pontification over for now 🙂
Cheers
Nick
@PhaseShift
re Agenda
I’m not sure why this word causes such a problem . It makes me wish I’d chosen something better for sure. Taking your suggestion of the Sontarans as an example, so far as I can see their agenda is
It’s pretty simplistic goal I think, but does allow them to act in a variety of ways and schemes to further their agenda. Of course if either side ever wins the war the rest of the Galaxy might be in trouble.
I contrast this with the Angels, as they don’t collectively seem to want to do anything. It makes it hard for them to be a protagonist in any future story, especially in any active way.
Nick
@Nick
I suspect it’s because you’re using it to mean ‘political/military agenda’ and ‘formal plan’ – and it doesn’t necessarily mean that. It means either ‘a list of items at a formal meeting’ or ‘a plan of things to be done or problems to be addressed’, OR ‘the underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group’.
So you see how I can say ‘lunch is an agenda’ – and be perfectly accurate. It’s the underlying motivation – and in the case of the Vashta Nerada, the not-at-all-underlying motivation. Many Who characters don’t have a plan – but they do have an agenda.
If you think the Angels don’t want to do anything, spend some time considering how much of a working adult’s time is taken up in obtaining ‘lunch’. For themselves, and their children. People have economic agendas more often than political/military ones.
Similarly, Rory’s agenda is to stay with Amy. The chaotic nature of life with the Doctor means that this is probably the only item on his personal agenda – plans not really being a thing on the TARDIS – and again, it’s a personal/emotional agenda rather than a political/military one. But it drives his entire ‘career’ as Companion.
@Bluesqueakpip
In hindsight I wish I had used a better word with a little less haste for sure. I seem to have caused confusion when I didn’t think there was and didn’t mean there to be any. Motives/motivation would certainly have been better although I’m not sure it completely captures everything.
All protagonist and antagonist characters have their own unique motivation for being where they are, when they are there and what they intend to do whilst they’re there (wherever there is). The Angels as written are more like machines or animals than people as there motivation is a primary biological one (eating). People (in the widest possible usage of the term ie one that includes Daleks) have more sophisticated motives (even if we seem to forget that Daleks can have a more complex motivation than just exterminate, something the best Dalek stories use).
If we take Time of Angels as an example, the initial Angel is present because someone else put it in the space ship that crashed there. Why (and how) the rest of them turn up isn’t really explained (unless I missed that bit as well :), but of course they try and trap the Doctor/Army there and presumably send them back in time to die and then feed off the temporal energy. It made a good story to watch, but I think the moment you start to think about the plot the “holes” start to appear. Of course, you can always invent a reason to fill the plot hole to your satisfaction, but if your foe acts in accordance with their known motivation then generally you won’t need to. Steven Moffat is a fine writer, but I sometimes feel he short cuts the plot to get to the (usually) emotional point he really wants to make.
Nick
@Nick – if you mean that the Angels don’t match Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs, no – they don’t. They’re aliens.
That said, they are capable of planning and building the equivalent of a food warehouse. They’re capable of deferred satisfaction. They have a notion of entertainment (they play with their food). I can think of quite a few SF stories where the main problem with the opponent alien is that they operate on a largely instinctual level and therefore can’t be negotiated with. So I honestly don’t see the problem here: the Angels have motivation, goals (lunch!) and their method of achieving that goal provides dramatic conflict for our heroes.
They are a perfectly acceptable SF antagonist; a metaphor for those times when we find that the goals and motivations of our opponents are so different from our own that no negotiation is really possible.
We can discuss the ‘plot holes’ in Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone when we reach it on the Moffat retrospective. There aren’t as many as you think. 🙂
I think (as @PhaseShift pointed out) is that the key thing you have to remember about the Angels is that the Doctor described them as ‘psychopaths’. Their motivation for doing what they do (beyond basic sustenance’ is that it gives them a happy. That, to me, is actually the most terrifying thing about them.
Although I have had thoughts over the years that they’re perhaps actually Time Lords — remnants of Time Lords that escaped the Time Lock or perhaps a special regeneration of them that allowed them to do so. Or maybe a Time Lord weapon of some kind (a la The Apocalypse Device)…
@Bluesqueakpip
As ever we will disagree, as I see nothing that suggests planning (opportunism surely), building a food warehouse (multiple food sources are better than one but I see no plan here – more opportunism). Of course, as with Alien you can create a dramatic and exciting story (and I’m not complaining). Its the same narrative arc as trying to escape from the jungle after a plane crash while avoiding a pack of man eating rabid monkeys.
My point is no matter how exciting the story is, you can’t keep having a plane crash (or the narrative equivalent) to reshow the same story too often. Of course Terry Nation rewrote pretty much the same Dalek story several times so its not impossible if you leave a big enough gap. Alternatively, you can change the motivation slightly. For example, The Angels having met the Doctor for the first time realise he is the biggest snack left in the Universe and actively hunt him down. Writers can pretty much do anything they want :).
Since this is off the direct topic, I’m going to get told off by @Shazzbot (nicely I hope) again. Now she’s the Rani of course I’ll probably be turned into one of those pig things she made ;(.
Looking forward to the future debate, although I’ll have to buy and watch the DVD first I think. 2010 is starting to get hazy these days.
Nick
@Nick – general question: have you ever built anything? Or kept pets? Or had a vegetable garden?
😉
@Bluesqueakpip
I was thinking as much in terms of the supposedly 7 story arcs
(see here for one specific take: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Writer's_Journey:_Mythic_Structure_for_Writers dealing with screen play structure, but there are others with different versions like here: http://tobedwithatrollope.wordpress.com/2007/12/11/the-seven-basic-plots-wh-we-tell-stories-by-christopher-booker/ )
The more complex stories mix and match different elements although the whole concept, like many out there tries to bring some order out of real life chaos. Its never quite that simple.
Nick
@Nick – no telling off from me! (But beware if you grow a little curly tail 👿 )
Actually, this thread has morphed into a discussion of the monsters/villains but since that conversation started with a discussion of the differences in monsters between BG and AG Who, it’s all good.
That having been said, a separate thread just about monsters would be quite nice – but it would involve moving a lot of comments and I can’t be bothered. 🙂
@Bluesqueakpip
Yes. Obviously being a bit thick here (nothing new).
I suppose the first one caused the ship to crash and invited all the nearby Angels to come to the party knowing that the rescue ship would arrive soon. Or perhaps the first one reproduced after gorging itself on the crew ? I guess we’re dealing with semantics.
For me a plan means you get yourself put onto the ship in the first place in order to crash the ship, eat the crew and the rescue party. Surely anything other than this is merely turning the situation to your advantage (opportunism).
Still since I don’t remember the story in that much detail anymore I better shut up fast 🙂
Cheers
Nick
@JimTheFish
Jim – Nice idea, like it. In Blink didn’t the Doctor say that they were manufactured a long time ago as an assassination weapon ? The ancient Time Lords might be the number 1 candidate as creator then ?
Mind you anyone who invents a weapon which can turn on you and go one to have its own existence in its own right must be a bit of a pyscho. An early Gallifreyan Master proto-type might be a better candidate.
@Nick – I’m really not willing to do a detailed examination of Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone when we’re due to do said detailed examination of Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone on the 3rd August. 😈
However, I will say that I think you’ll find the rewatch interesting. 😉
@Shazzbot First rule of this forum is that given enough time we will ALWAYS ramble 😉 But we usually ramble back on topic sooner or later!
And I do think much of @Nick‘s problems with the AG show is to do with differences in storytelling in BG and AG, as I mentioned above. I understand what you’re saying, but assuming master Who-historian @HTPBDET is correct, then apart from Daleks, Cybermen, Sontarans, Ice Warriors, the Master and the GI/Yeti there are no other repeat main villains in Doctor Who, apart from the Master and the Silurians/Sea Devils.
So BG didn’t do much of it either apart from the Daleks, the Cybermen and the Master (with a general perception that there was a law of fast diminishing returns after a certain point). The problem with repeat villains is that you need new stories for them. I don’t see how the repeat problem is cancelled out just because the villains have an agenda, whether it’s lust for power, lunch or whatever.
re AG watchers needing their own memorable (that better than iconic?) foes – they have these. There’s a generation growing up who have never seen BG Dr Who but who think of Daleks, Cybermen, Weeping Angels etc as “theirs”.
AG is much more about creating a whole universe around the Dr so there is still the recognition factor for regular viewers of recurring characters including aliens, just that they are more likely to talk to you than eat you or exterminate you.
But again it all comes down to the storytelling. A strong monster in an otherwise weak story doesn’t work, a strong story can succeed and be memorable despite the occasional giant rat or wobbly pink snake. The magic IS the storytelling, the monsters/foes/aliens are only a part of it.
Over 50 years Dr Who has covered a host of different creatures, story types, concepts, notions etc – I’m amazed they can still come up with not only new ones, but ones that still surprise us.
@Nick
Re all the AG stories about the end of earth/universe/all of time and space etc, and why don’t we see an effect of that after wards… apart from my response above re it’s not that kind of show – what about the Pertwee era? that has to have been the earth’s most testng time ever for alien invasions, LOL, with no lasting effects that we’re aware of.
@nick
Well it’s always good to clarify these points, and in my absence, @JimTheFish and @bluesqueakpip have covered most of the points I would have raised.
The comparison with serial killers is a good one for me. They have a fascination for some (how many movies, TV and novels are written about them). Part of that fascination is abnormal, perhaps alien, mindsets that defy casual explanation other than (as Garland Greene in Con Air put it): “Name your cliché; Mother held him too much or not enough, last picked at kickball, late night sneaky uncle, whatever.” They work on a pretty primal level of superior hunter and prey for audiences though, with motives you can never fully understand. You just need to understand that their behaviour makes absolute sense to them and they act on it. As @bluesqueakpip suggested I’ll probably return to this area when we rewatch the two parter in a few weeks.
To play a long game with a recurring alien, perhaps it’s best not to put all your cards on the table at once. We don’t know that much about them or their methods (even how they travel from world to world) and don’t those gaps allow for new stories? Different stories?
By the way the Doctor has said before they evolved.
On the GI, @HTPBDET indicated he didn’t fully agree with an opinion on the GI, which was mine.
http://www.thedoctorwhoforum.com/forums/topic/s33-7-7-the-bells-of-saint-john/page/4/#post-4245
—-
In fact, for those that care, does the good book* not say:
“I want you Doctor – or rather your mind. Its contents will be invaluable to me in my conquest of the Earth”
“And how do you propose to get it?”
“I have prepared a machine. It will drain all knowledge and past experience from your mind. Your brain will become as empty as a newborn child.”
“I can resist you, you know,” the Doctor challenged. “You can’t just take me over like poor Travers. My will is as strong as yours.”
“You must submit to me willingly. Or the machine will not function.”
“And suppose I refuse?”
“Then I shall settle for quantity, rather than quality,” the cold voice mocked. “I shall drain the minds of all the humans here, and those of many others, until I have the knowledge I need – to complete my conquest. Weaker minds will not survive the shock as yours will. The humans will die.”
Parable of “The Web of Fear”, The Gospel according to St. Terrance
So to me, this is more of a promise fulfilled by the GI. Quantity, rather than quality, with the humans dying in the process. You don’t really need to know the story to appreciate TBoStJ, but if you do, it certainly compliments it. You can even imagine Miss Kizlet being a young girl at the time of the “Web of Fear” and a weakened GI going back to the drawing board and “whispering” to her.
*”Doctor Who and the Web of Fear”, Terrance Dicks, Target Books, ISBN 0 426 11084 6
—–
So I think the intent to drain minds was there in the sixties. Back then though it was through coaxial cable rather than wireless, because, well – no wireless technology.
I think that’s about all I can say on this.
@Phaseshift Sorry, meant to comment on your idea re Weeping Angels being like psycopathic killers – that’s neat. Also that we may not know everything about them yet – scope for new story with them.
@Nick Was it you who mentioned about them having been “made”? That’s interesting, I’d never thought of them like that, I always assumed they were living creatures, not a construct. That brings up a whole load of other possibilities. I like 😉
@Nick, @bluesqueakpip, @PhaseShift,@JimTheFish ,@Shazzbot and @everyone else!
Not much time today – but just to throw a few bones into the pack…so to speak 🙂
Agenda
I cannot think of a single BG villain or AG villain without an Agenda, even if that Agenda is solely: to survive.
The Sontarans want the complete annihilation of the Rutans in order to survive. They also want Universal Domination as do, on occasion, the Daleks. The Cybermen, more often than not, are trying to survive and they seek to invade as part of survival. The Ice Warriors, except in Monster of Peladon, are trying to survive or are peaceful and in Monster of Peladon, Azaxyr is a renegade. The Great Intelligence is seeking corporeal existence. The Nestenes are marauders, they just invade for gain.
The Weeping Angels are introduced this way in Blink :
Fascinating race, the Weeping Angels. The only psychopaths in the universe to kill you nicely. No mess, no fuss, they just zap you into the past and let you live to death. The rest of your life used up and blown away in the blink of an eye. You die in the past, and in the present they consume the energy of all the days you might have had. All your stolen moments. They’re creatures of the abstract. They live off potential energy…
The lonely assassins, they used to be called. No one quite knows where they came from, but they’re as old as the universe, or very nearly, and they have survived this long because they have the most perfect defence system ever evolved. They are quantum-locked. They don’t exist when they’re being observed. The moment they are seen by any other living creature, they freeze into rock. No choice. It’s a fact of their biology. In the sight of any living thing, they literally turn to stone. And you can’t kill a stone. Of course, a stone can’t kill you either. But then you turn your head away, then you blink, and oh yes it can…
That’s why they cover their eyes. They’re not weeping. They can’t risk looking at each other. Their greatest asset is their greatest curse. They can never be seen. The loneliest creatures in the universe. And I’m sorry. I am very, very sorry. It’s up to you now…
What is a psychopath? I’d say a person/alien who behaves in an anti-social or amoral way without any remorse or indication of empathy for their victims.
The Sontarans, Daleks, Cybermen, Azaxyr, Great Intelligence and Nestenes – and the Master – are all psychopaths in my mind. Nothing special about the Angels there.
But…there is at least one key difference between the Angels in Blink and the Angels in Forest of the Dead: the latter Angel breaks Father Octavian’s neck rather than feed on his unused energy after sending him back in time. There is no explanation for that, it seems to me, other than SM wanted a wonderful scene between the Doctor and Octavian. Which he got. But that scene came at a cost (how big is debatable, I guess) to the identity of the Angels. If the Angel could touch Octavian he should have gone back into the past and the Angel should have fed on his unspent life-energy – why would the Angel not dispose of him and feed?
So, I have a deal of sympathy with views that @Nick has expressed.
Sometimes, perhaps even often, in AG Doctor Who, the sense of the integrity or original motivation or original characteristics of established villains is sacrificed without explanation for what is considered a great moment of telly. But that too was the case in BG Doctor Who.
I think Blink is mostly memorable for the extraordinary Sally Sparrow and her heart-breaking but life-affirming journey. For me, the Weeping Angels are incidental to that.
I liked them better in Time of the Angels – there was a really malevolent sense to what they were doing, and I did not see any reason why they could not or would not do what they were doing. But I was less sure in Forest of the Dead.
But I think the Weeping Angels are worthy of mega-villain status: their original conception is just marvellous. Having the Statue of Liberty as a Weeping Angel, not so much…
And, yes, someone could have made them. We know nothing, really, about what they look like when we are not watching them…
The thing is, as @ScaryB says, the story, if it is good enough, can amend past villains and their Agendas for the purposes of the story. Good storytelling is what makes Doctor Who special.
The issue for me is always when people do not want to recognise and accept that that is what is being done. I am a great believer in reconciling apparent continuity errors, but I always do it knowing that that is what they are! J
The series is littered with iconic moments and iconic scenes and even iconic stories which don’t necessarily gel with the past. And sometimes you get a story where one villain should be used, but another is: Invasion of Time is a good example – the surprise villains should have been the Daleks, not the Sontarans. Yet, it is really Invasion of Time which put the Sontarans in the major league (certainly not Sontaran Experiment), a second appearance being the key requirement for an iconic monster. (I think anyway)
I don’t think that AG Doctor Who is more or less creative than BG Doctor Who when it comes to iconic monsters. The world has changed and what makes a villain or monster iconic has also changed.
I really liked Hide but I don’t care if I never see the crooked man again; equally, if there was a good enough story featuring that race, I would happily watch it. I did not care for how The Silents/Silence (how is that spelt?) turned out – but I think they are an astonishing creation and would like to see them used again in a story that was about them and only them.
It’s rare for any Producer to preside over the creation of more than one “iconic monster” – indeed, if you discount the Master as a monster, which I do, not sure it has ever been done, except by Innes Lloyd [and Barry Letts (assuming you take the Silurians and Sea Devils as “one”, which I am not sure is right)]. But I think RTD and SM have given it as good a go as anyone else in the history of the series.
@HTPBDET
Little I can disagree with in what you have written. My “problem” with Angels is not with the creation of them as conceptually they are as fine a foe as any created. The reason I chose to highlight them was that compared to most (all) of the BG foes we have seen brought back is that motivation appears simpler (at least to me), animal like really, which makes them much harder to reuse without repeating essentially the same story.
My conceptual problem with AG foes is that having created many very good concepts, there seems to me a lack of willingness to reuse the ideas (apart from the Angels) in new and different ways which I contrast unfavourably to the willingness of the show runners to bring back BG foes and give them a significant proportion of screen time.
Of course, as a BG fan, I wanted to see the Ice Warriors again (for example). Even so I would have preferred something newer than we were given (basically a repeat of there original introduction (melting ice blocks in the Artic complete with the realisation he was alone like Varga (? hazy memory) did back in 1967). If the writers can’t find a better use of the BG concept than repeating the original BG idea, then why not just remake/update the original story as well.
Is this a lack of AG creativity ? Yes and No is my conclusion.
One final quibble. I understand why you use psychopath to describe the Daleks (for example). I’m not sure its quite the right term when the entire society is founded on principles we would describe that way. Worse still our Homo Sapiens past filled with just that sort of behavior (invasions, empires, slavery) but I would not describe our species as psychopathic even though we are very capable of acting that way when it suits us to.
As ever, a great post.
Nick
@ScaryB
I’m probably over interpreting how the Doctor described them in Blink (looking back I’m sure made wasn’t said at all) but it feels right to me to consider that they were manufactured for a purpose than evolved naturally.
Nick