The Faces of the Doctor
7 February 2014 at 22:19 #25082
There, @bluesqueakpip, you see? I knew I could rely on you. (salutes) And I find it interesting, now that we look at TGWW in light of this discussion, that not only are there two time streams running parallel, but that they remain collided (or perhaps re-collide?) after the initial POD (like the acronym, @barnable!). Because we don’t normally see the Doctor entering another time stream, and yet, these ones join up again, allowing him and Rory to return (as far as I remember, I’m a bit vague on the episode). Or is this time stream only a different one for Amy? Because what actually defines a time stream? Is it particular to a single person? I think I’m going to have to ponder this one for awhile.
As to Clara, I assumed that it was because she hadn’t seen that part of the moon landing footage. But you’re right, possibly the Silence look or act differently enough that they don’t appear to be the same beings that humans were told to kill? Because as @purofilion says, these aren’t really the same Silence.7 February 2014 at 22:24 #25083Anonymous @
@wolfweed I wanted to thank you for uploading (it seems like forever ago) the Q&A Movie of Dr Who with McGann on post number 19718. Would you (or anyone else) remember the series MCGann and his brothers starred in about the potato famine? McGann mentions it in passing but his voice is so very low and it’s muffled. I think it was ’94? A terrific series: hard to watch but utterly brilliant. Kindest, puro.7 February 2014 at 22:29 #25084
@purofilion – it’s The Hanging Gale.8 February 2014 at 00:39 #25085Craig @craigEmperor
@purofilion @bluesqueakpip I just thought I’d check all was well before I went to bed and up pops The Hanging Gale. A blast from the past…
A long time ago, when I just got out of University, I worked for a more or less Irish-based film and TV production company called Little Bird and I worked on The Hanging Gale (just as office assistant, general dogsbody, coffee maker, occasional script ideas – I was gonna be a director one day, that was the plan anyway).
One time Paul and his three brothers all popped in to our office on Regent Street for a script meeting with my boss Jonathan Cavendish and the writer Alan Cubitt (who’d done Prime Suspect 2 and recently did The Fall). I wasn’t sure if I should bring up Doctor Who then, but wish I had now. They were a fun bunch and it was a lively day. It was always good having actors in as most days were just development or finance related.
The series turned out really great, but I left before it was shot, so I never got a credit. I’m not bitter 😉
I did get my name in movie credits while I was there though, and I’m on IMDB for a little seen Albert Finney film they made in 1994. And I did get to meet Albert Finney as well. He was a gent and a star. My tiny bit of movie stardom:8 February 2014 at 01:24 #25086Anonymous @8 February 2014 at 14:32 #25094ScaryB @scaryb
I actually love the multiverse theory, it’s just that my brain has problems conceptualising it for more than 5 seconds without exploding! I can just about keep hold of the idea that we (the viewers) follow the Doctor’s trail as he jumps timestreams/miniverses, so we may be aware of occasional anomalies but there is a consistency in that we follow the Doctor. (is that right??!) (Thanks @bluesqueakpip, @arbutus, @barnable for patient explanations)
The Hanging Gale was a great series, well worth checking out/revisiting.
@craig Albert Finney and the McGanns (amazing amount of talent in 1 family) – glad to hear they were nice people (and not jealous at all!!)8 February 2014 at 15:44 #25097
@scaryb, that’s exactly what I had in mind. I like the idea too, but I will be the first to admit that it isn’t airtight. I really have to watch The Girl Who Waited again!16 February 2014 at 04:02 #25345
Because I’m in ‘fangirl’ mode for the Seventh Doctor at the moment, I want to talk a bit about him again (also I have been talking about this a bit in another thread but thought it would be better here)… though this is actually more of just a theory.
Now… the Seventh Doctor started off rather clownish and silly in his first season; but soon in the next two seasons became a very manipulative, darker character. Playing his enemies (and sometimes companions) off against one another like a game of chess. This Doctor had one of the most profound changes of character than any other; excluding the First Doctor here… who knows what he was like before Ian and Barbara… we only got a glimpse of that personality in those first few episodes.
I was wondering if there could be a canon reason to why the Seventh Doctor changed so much? Could it be he had a very long post-regenerative state? Or did it simply take a while before his proper personality settled in? If you compare his character from ‘Time and the Rani’ or ‘Dragonfire’ to it in ‘Curse of Fenric’, ‘Greatest Show in the Galaxy’, ‘Ghost Light’, ‘Remembrance of the Daleks’ and ‘Survival’ you can really tell he’s changed a lot. Fun and rather care-free to brooding and melancholy… very odd… but very interesting!1 March 2014 at 15:18 #25938
This is a continuation of the conversation that started on the Sofa.
@purofilion and @devilishrobby – I do watch a lot of Doctor Who, but I’m not near watching them all yet! Anyhow, yes I’m beginning to like my theory on the First Doctor; that he is principal starting point for all the Doctor’s personalities, and with each different regeneration certain traits either become recessive or are amplified. It does make it seem that they are all connected much more if you think of it like that. For if the Doctor had not become a Time Lord, he would of just been a regular Gallifreyan… there would be no regeneration. The First would be the only Doctor… but, you know, he’s a Time Lord… so there are many more versions of himself.
And yet it still seems that the various Doctor’s do often like to differentiate themselves from one another, but really this is quite normal, it has been said before that a human probably wouldn’t get along with themselves anyway. I wonder if the different incarnations feel the need to differentiate themselves from other Doctors… a sense of being yourself, that no one else is you. Just think of the Eleventh Doctor’s regeneration speech. They are the same Time Lord, and yet it is important to remember they are all unique… and none should be forgotten… I’m looking at you War Doctor! Its important to remember they are all the Doctor, part of this one character; connected… but also important to remember they are all individuals themselves too.
After all, some fans will have a much bigger emotional attachment to one incarnation… and not so much others; because they’re unique even though they are the same. And this is getting hard to explain… lol!1 March 2014 at 19:24 #25950
@purofilion @monochromedimension @bluesqueakpip
My own view of Six was probably coloured by my experiences watching Five after having started the series during Four’s era. (That sentence looks goofy, sorry!) I took a long time to warm up to Five because he often felt colourless to me after Four’s distinctive, strong personality. Five did have charm, and was a very principled incarnation, but often felt a bit sober. He didn’t really start to shine for me until near the end of his run. When Six showed up, despite some rocky bits, I actually thought, “Here’s a Doctor with a bit of individuality.” I didn’t like everything about him, but on the whole, I enjoyed him, especially in situations where his righteous indignation could come to the fore. I’m not sure that Peri was the best personality match for him, either; they did tend to grate on one another. Certain of his stories were not successful, in my view, but I enjoyed many of them. And I will agree with Monochrome that, appalling as it was, the coat grew on me. It seemed a very visual expression of the Sixth Doctor’s personality!1 March 2014 at 20:07 #25964
@arbutus – I agree that the coat was definitely a reflection on the Sixth Doctor’s personality, so I really wouldn’t want it changed; its part of his character. I’m glad there’s somebody else here who likes the Sixth Doctor as well, was a little concerned a while ago! lol Have to say the Seventh Doctor looks great in that coat as well;
And the Fifth Doctor was indeed a huge change personality wise from the Fourth Doctor, he’s much more reserved; its a shame its only at the end of his run as the Doctor did his personality begin to manifest itself properly. Perhaps sometimes folks are so attached to one Doctor… they do not accept the new Doctor for quite a while, its understandable I guess. Again, its treating them as if they are completely different people, when it reality, they all make up the character of the Doctor.1 March 2014 at 20:39 #25967
the Seventh Doctor looks great in that coat as well;
Sylvester McCoy had the advantage of having played a number of actual clowns – appearing confident in something that made him look like a Fool was no problem. 😉
I’m sure you’ve seen him as Radagast – this is a guy who can carry off bird poop. 😀
That was the irony, really. The actor who usually played the dark characters, and wanted a sombre costume, got stuck in something that looked like a car crash in a clothing factory. The actor who usually played the professional fools ended up in something fairly sensible.
I have said it before somewhere on this forum: I think Sylvester McCoy was not only a better actor than Colin Baker, he was a braver one. When his interpretation in his first series wasn’t working, he was both able to realise it and brave enough to change it. He is, quite definitely, ‘my’ Doctor – I thought he absolutely nailed it in his second and third series.1 March 2014 at 20:49 #25969
@bluesqueakpip – Oh I know, lol! And I adore him as Radagast as well. But just look at how cute he looks in that coat! Ahhhhhh!
I think both Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy have very different acting styles to one another, so I don’t know if its right to compare them. I like Colin Baker, I think he’s great as the Doctor. And McCoy is brilliant; I agree in his second and third seasons he was perfect… after all the Seventh Doctor is one of the two Doctors I consider ‘my Doctor’. I’m sorry, I couldn’t pick just one… it had to be the First and Seventh!
I could go on and on about the Seventh Doctor right now, but I think we’re still on the subject of the Sixth Doctor.1 March 2014 at 21:22 #25976
@monochromedimension – I think Colin Baker has turned in some very good performances. In fact, he could have been a terrific Master.
I just think he was woefully miscast as the Doctor – something that isn’t his fault.
Of course, he was also landed with some of the worst scripts in the entire history of Doctor Who, scripts that manage to make the deadliest disasters of AG Who look like something out of Shakespeare. Okay, thinking about it, Shakespeare having one of his rare off days. But still.
Oh, well. As long as you don’t make me watch The Twin Dilemma. Once was enough for a lifetime. 🙄2 March 2014 at 01:38 #25993
@bluesqueakpip – Nah, I think ‘Varos’ will be the Sixth Doctor episode we’re going to watch. And ‘Fenric’ for the Seventh Doctor.2 March 2014 at 05:19 #26005Anonymous @
Does david Bradleys, quite eerie, appearance as William Hartnell, count as a face of The Doctor?2 March 2014 at 13:17 #26014ConfusedPolarity @confusedpolarity
@bluesqueakpip – Colin Baker got the roughest end of the stick imaginable as The Doctor; I hadn’t thought of him as a potential Master before but crikey, that could’ve been really good!
He’s probably my second-least favourite (I refuse to say least liked as a matter of principle) of all the Doctors, mostly because I don’t blame him for the chronic problems that blighted his era. Controversial observations may well follow….
I adore Doctors One, Two, Three, Four, Seven and Ten; appreciate Eight as the one good thing about his sole full-length outing; can see the good in Eleven and Five without absolutely loving them unreservedly. Six’s issues were not of his making, although I generally find his era the least appealing of them all, but…
Nine is the one who really doesn’t tick “The Doctor” boxes for me. Partly it’s the premise – the war damaged survivor is something Christopher Eccleston played brilliantly, and ironically I rate his performance in “Dalek” as the finest in the AG show. But after a brilliantly Doctorish entrance at the beginning of “Rose”, he started to lose me.
First he started deliberately calling Mickey by the wrong name. It struck me as small-minded, spiteful and fundamentally “not the Doctor”. I can take him being rude, insensitive and arrogant on occasion, but it seems I couldn’t deal with the idea of a petty Doctor 🙂 But there was also something about Eccleston’s demeanour in the part.
I appreciate what Russell T Davies was doing, wiping the slate clean and avoiding all that accumulated back-story, but even so there were moments of lightness in the character that never worked for me. I found some of the big grins that accompanied the trademark cry of “Fantastic!” a bit forced, and oh how I hated the outfit! Divorced Dad trying not to embarrass the kiddies on custody weekend sprang to min.
That said, I loved “The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances” and he had the simplest and for me most touching regeneration of the new era so far. I also loved Rose in that series (went off her when she got all doe-eyed and possessive the following year!) and as I say, the acting performance in Dalek – those scenes when he first sees the chained Dalek still give me goosebumps. Heck of an actor, but not quite “The Doctor” for me – with sincere apologies to the very many people who adored Nine!2 March 2014 at 14:26 #26019
Nine is the one who really doesn’t tick “The Doctor” boxes for me.
He doesn’t for me, either. Series 1 remains the only AG series to date where I wasn’t bothered if I missed an episode. At the time, I thought I’d just grown out of Doctor Who; it wasn’t until David Tennant that I realised I just hadn’t liked Christopher Eccleston in the role.
But he should take a lot of credit; he took the role on at a point where it needed the level of credibility he gave it. He sent a signal out that the part was one that could be played by ‘serious’ actors. He brought millions of kids back to Doctor Who – and they didn’t care that he didn’t seem like ‘The Doctor’, because they’d never seen any other Doctor.
I’m actually a lot happier with Christopher Eccleston’s performance after The Day of The Doctor; the story there meant that his ‘that isn’t the Doctor’ performance now makes more sense to me. The Ninth Doctor wasn’t the Doctor – he was someone desperately struggling to deserve that name again. By the time he regenerated, he’d managed it.2 March 2014 at 14:53 #26022
@Recky – I still haven’t watched that docudrama yet! Really want to watch it though… I just know I’m going to cry.2 March 2014 at 17:34 #26033
@confusedpolarity You’ve pretty much expressed my views on AG Series 1. Like you, I loved Dalek and the Empty Child two-parter, and also the Ninth Doctor’s BG-style regeneration. But Nine never really felt “doctorish” to me, either. Maybe Moffat felt the same way? I love @bluesqueakpip‘s suggestion that Day of the Doctor makes sense of Nine’s characterization. In a way, Nine feels more “not the Doctor” than the War Doctor does (I think it was Bluesqueakpip who mentioned Captain Grumpy’s very Doctor-like charm earlier). I like the idea that the big grins and sudden bursts of energy that didn’t feel quite right to us, were Nine’s attempts to act like the Doctor until he could become the Doctor. And then, as Bluesqueakpip says, he did. 🙂2 March 2014 at 17:42 #26034
@arbutus – New Who isn’t really my field of expertise, but I really just want to mention that I find ‘Dalek’ one of the best New Who episodes. I actually haven’t watched it in quite a while so can’t give a full analysis of the Ninth’s character in it… but from what I can remember… that episode was great. Though I might just more be focusing on the Dalek side of it at the moment… and this isn’t the thread to be discussing the Daleks. Hmmm… why isn’t there a thread to discuss the monsters and villains of Doctor Who…?
Perhaps thanks to these RTD rewatches, I’ll be able to talk about the Ninth Doctor more, but for now all I have to say is… he is currently my favourite New Who Doctor. Which I suppose is a bit odd as he isn’t really anything like the Old Who Doctors… and yet I prefer him over the Tenth and Eleventh? Huh… I need to watch more New Who and figure out why.2 March 2014 at 19:09 #26037ConfusedPolarity @confusedpolarity
@bluesqueakpip – I couldn’t agree more; Eccleston will always have my thanks for his contribution to reviving the show I love, however little he may have captured “The Doctor” as I remembered him. I doubt he’d take the job if he was offered it now – I suspect, rather like Bill Nighy, he’d look at the “baggage” associated with the part and bolt in the opposite direction as fast as his legs would carry him!
I suppose the problem I had was that I had a clear idea of who “The Doctor” was and it was awfully tough to see anything of him in Nine.3 March 2014 at 05:35 #26050Anonymous @
Speaking of Eccleston, I must enquire….I am led to believe that he refuses all Who based requests… whats the go with him…is he that afraid of being typecast?3 March 2014 at 11:56 #26058
@Recky – to keep it brief: it’s apparent that he didn’t have a very happy time during Series 1 of Doctor Who. Nothing to do with being typecast – he just seems to not want to revisit that period.3 March 2014 at 14:44 #26060Anonymous @
I agree doctor who number nine was not a good fit. I think Paul Mcgann should have got the job. Despite its perceived faults i thought he did a very good job and plays more like the Doctor we have come to know and love.3 March 2014 at 14:47 #26061Anonymous @
Can anyone tell me why the hell we have to wait till March the 30th for part 2 of the name of the doctor3 March 2014 at 15:12 #26063
@Recky – He didn’t have a good time making it unfortunately. But he does sign stuff though; in fact I saw something he signed for somebody, where in brackets he put ‘The Doctor’… which I think is nice. Apparently he was thinking about being in the 50th anniversary, but wasn’t. I would of really liked both Eccleston and McGann to of been in the 50th. John Hurt of course was brilliant though.
@adt1957 – Re: Name of the Doctor – Not the best thread for that question, ‘On the Sofa’ would be better. But I am slightly confused as to what you mean… The Name of the Doctor’ is a single episode. Unless I’m completely out of the loop here, as I’ve said before… New Who is not my specialty.3 March 2014 at 16:09 #26067MattMcMad09 @mattmcmad09
Although the first Doctor i saw when they were on Tv was Christopher Eccleston, I was effectively brought up on Doctor Who and I will always consider Sylvester McCoy to be MY Doctor as he was the first I ever saw (of DVD’s and VHS tapes) and will forever be my favourite.
Also could someone please fill out this Doctor Who survey, it is for my coursework at college.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1A7AQiWdeZVNFiwRXGD1MhSal0aT0ex_cYkw5_RihH8o/viewform3 March 2014 at 17:18 #26076kk74974 @kk74974
My first Doctor ever was Ninth, and after that I am glued to the DW series…after a small reading of some whovians I think ninth was the perfect doctor for its “return” after eight, I would like to ninth last longer, but David and Matt are awesome each one on its time lapse regeneration, so I am wait g coward to see twelve…15 March 2014 at 15:50 #26418Anonymous @
Very young Faces of The Doctor15 March 2014 at 16:58 #2641915 March 2014 at 17:16 #26420Anonymous @
He looks like he’d fit in nicely with an early 70’s heavy metal band 🙂
There’s two Doctor missing from that pic so here they are
An even younger David Tennant and Matt Smith.15 March 2014 at 18:38 #26437
Here’s a young Peter Cushing15 March 2014 at 19:16 #26440
@thekrynoidman – McCoy’s self-description of himself in the early Seventies:
a hippie who could count16 March 2014 at 15:10 #26455PhaseShift @phaseshiftTime Lord
Ha – very good. The one that leaps out at me is Davison.
“Good lord – Davison has come to the fancy dress party as Basil Fawlty…”13 May 2014 at 13:40 #27497wolfweed @wolfweed
Further unexpected fez action…29 May 2014 at 22:15 #27872Anonymous @
I think the best Doctor throughout the new series is David Tennant. I think this because he gains most of the popularity through his acting. Smith and Eccleston did not have the emotion that Tennant had. He brought his way into our hearts through his emotion and passion of being the Doctor. Sure, Smith had his moments and they were good. I am not saying that they are bad actors, they’re amazing! Its just I felt more compelled to like David Tennant more, he made the moments where the companions left more bitter.2 June 2014 at 02:52 #27969Anonymous @
@max-nash247 I have to disagree, while the tenth doctor was very emotional, eleven was a lot sillier, and I like that in a doctor.Also eleven had great speeches, especially his end speech, an what was the tenth doctors end speech, “I could do so much more!” and “I don’t wanna go!” Also, eleven only ever lost two companions (at the same time) but it was so sad, I admit a tear did run down my cheek. And the only reason he got over it was because of 1800’s Clara. Also ten used Martha as a rebound. And you can probably tell Clara is not a rebound. Now I am a big fan of ten, but I don’t think he is as good as eleven. (Sorry if I rambled on, I am kind of new to forums)11 June 2014 at 14:27 #28182wolfweed @wolfweed12 June 2014 at 04:42 #28188janetteB @janetteb
Thanks for that and all the wonderful stuff you post for us @wolfweed. He does sound more like a B- or a C+ than a D student to me.
Janette12 June 2014 at 10:43 #28190
@janetteb – yes, but if you go by the frequent ‘only passed on the second attempt’ comments, that keep getting made by other Gallifreyans, he is indeed a D. The U.K.’s pass grade is traditionally a C.30 June 2014 at 16:48 #28617Anonymous @
As much as I love all of Doctor Who and it’s fifty year run I will always prefer noughties and modern who. I like all the Doctor’s except maybe the tenth incarnation.
This pains me to say it as I started watching who with Smith and Jones but David Tennant (compared to Matt Smith and Christopher Eccleston) can’t act.
The problem with Tennant’s tenure on the show is a combination of Russell T Davies, David Tennant and – well just those two really. Most of the blame has to go towards Davies because Tennant really is delightful on screen. He really is a fun Doctor and when written by other writers he is great. It is simply the fact that Davies can’t write who as well as others and that Tennant is an over – actor.
No, playing the Doctor does not excuse this. It does when the character is fun and mad. However when the character is required to be emotional and angry Tennant just can’t do it. I haven’t seen Tennant in anything else apart from the Goblet of Fire so I’m inclined to believe he is an overactor.
Davies made Doctor who a soap opera. He made being in the Tardis uncomfortable at times because he wanted Rose to be this shining example of a companion. The problem is that Davies wrote her as – well – a bitch. I’m not going to get into Rose Tyler right now but I can defend that point if asked. Davies makes the Doctor so rude to Martha at times when really that’s out of the Doctor’s character and whenever Tennant (especially in Davies scripts) was required to be emotional he would either cry like a three year old or blurt a ridiculous amount of rage for no reason. Or he would just spaz out. I know that he can do it at times cause I see it but not often.
Thank you30 June 2014 at 17:44 #28618
@fosterferris I completely agree, well except for the bit about preferring the new series. Not that there’s anything wrong with that mind you, at least you’ve bothered to give the older stuff a watch which is more than I can say for some so-called fans.
Tennant can be a bit of an overactor some times, but most of the time he’s really good, like in The Escape Artist and Hamlet.1 July 2014 at 03:17 #28623blenkinsopthebrave @blenkinsopthebrave
@fosterferris I have to confess that I agree with you as well. (But like @thekrynoidman, only in certain respects…actually the same respects). I think you are absolutely correct about the fact that there was only a problem when you combined Tennant with RTD. All the Tennant episodes I responded to were by other writers. And while I love RTD for his ability to bring back Who, I am not sure there were many RTD stories that I really liked.1 July 2014 at 09:04 #28627Anonymous @
@thekrynoidman @TheCrackIntheWall or @fosterferris (boy, am I confused) and also @blenkinsopthebrave (how’s that red wine from Sydney I cyber sent you a month or two ago by the way?) , I must say, I don’t agree with all the above.
I think for a family audience, RTD did some great work with Tennant. I don’t believe he over-acts. I think it was his studied goal to play this role in that manner. And he succeeded -almost unsurpassed, in fact.
I think of Hamlet, and a number of fabulous bits & bobs I’ve seen him in: he can play calm, still and repressed, even. But that fire of pure being that a TimeLord can demonstrate? I think Tennant had it in spades. Much bigger on screen than the skinny ‘blue suited’ preppy boy he has a tendency to show when acting the ‘media tart’.
As for the TARDIS, he swirled and twirled about that funny throne room with his coat whisking behind: Tennant made the inside huge! He believed himself to be a king: the little boy who plays it, at least- and I think that was the long game.
The trick was getting the Doctor to the point at which he culminated in the recent Christmas episode with M Smith. Before that, Tennant tried on the arrogant Doctor for Series 2, and it served that series, and the future ones perfectly. Set up to show the wisdom and acceptance of the new Doctor (Smith), we can now understand exactly what made Tennant’s Doctor tick. And that happened securely through the lens of Number 11
“However, when the character is required to be emotional and angry, Tennant just can’t do it” is an incorrect judgement, IMHO. I recall many many times when Number 10 played anger with pure, cold indifference: the first time we meet Donna for example, the richness of his ire transfixes one.
As for making Rose “-a bitch”, I recall her in ‘Bad Wolf’ (RTD) acting with such compassion toward the people and their universe. Again, ‘New Earth’, ‘Tooth and Claw’, all portrayed Rose as kindly and gentle in many scenes -also in the overall impression one receives across several series. I think she’s one of the better companions in the re-boot! Of course she was 19 and raw. Nothin’ wrong with that.
Ultimately without Tennant, I think NuWho may’ve floundered quickly…..but imagine if we’d started with Clara -is she as powerful and ‘briney’ as Rose? Or is she just sweet? Nothin’ wrong with that.
Kindest, puro.1 July 2014 at 15:18 #28630janetteB @janetteb
Hear hear @Purofilion Tennant is in my humble opinion one of the greatest actors of his generation. I didn’t always like the scripts he was given but never had an issue with his acting.
Janette1 July 2014 at 15:53 #28631Anonymous @
Well, some very interesting points their.
however I can only disagree with you. Yes I really like David Tennant when he isn’t crying or using the ‘fire of the time lords’. Besides, Christopher Eccleston played that personality of the Doctor far better than that of Tennant and it worked perfectly within the parameters of one series. Everything that needed to be said was said and we got our excellent conclusion in the series one finale. There was no need for Russell to continue trying to top this. Watching the tenth doctor get ‘angry’ (and I really do think it depends on the director at times) is just lame or annoying. His last story <i>The End of Time </i>was pretty bad. I don’t mind the storyline but the focus on the doctor saying he’s going to die (what?) and someone who is very entertaining on screen but isn’t the Master. I mean if your going to say that John Simm is the Master (who’s great by the way) then at least make him relatively similar <i>to</i> Roger Delgado’s character or at least Antony Ainley’s. I feel like I’m being too harsh but I do stand by every point I’ve made and can defend them. I love all the doctors . I love the show.
Thank you1 July 2014 at 19:30 #28634
My two cents…
I enjoyed Tennant’s Doctor, although I didn’t feel that he always hit every note correctly. Similarly, I enjoyed many of RTD’s episodes, but not all of them, and not every element of them. In fact, two of them (Utopia and Midnight) list among my favourites. I have voiced my views on Rose before, she will never be a favourite of mine, but again, she had her moments for me.
Regarding the Master, I didn’t always care for Simm’s portrayal, but I did feel that he and Tennant played well off of each other. I am firmly in the Delgado camp as far as favourites go. But I certainly had no expectations that a new incarnation should be particularly like an older one. I don’t think that regeneration works that way. The Fifth Doctor, for instance, was about as unlike the First as you could get. You might certainly prefer one over the other, but that doesn’t make one or the other more correct.1 July 2014 at 19:50 #28636Anonymous @
That’s a very good point.
though I think there’s a difference between the portrayal of the hero than the villain. Altering the Doctor after each departure is designed to keep the show relevant and fresh. Yet a villain so specific as the Master should not go under such a radical change. He is a villain. He stops having that familiar sense of presence and threat if he does not stay true to his own character. That’s why he is named the Master. By doing this Russell is implying that he is a Moriarty like nemesis to the Doctor but then gives us a fruitcake. If he was called something else then he would be a far greater and serious threat. Calling him the Master is cheating if your not going to stay true to his character. It means you don’t have to prove he’s threatening or think up of a unique way to set him up as a new character. What you’re doing instead is relying on the fans to acknowledge his presence with older appearances. This would have been fine if what we got was a classic who Master. It also means that Rtd can make more short cuts by saying he is a personal villain to the Doctor again without any exposition or character development. I’d much rather he wore the title of a new villain rather than downplay the intellectual (and very sane) Master that we know. Love John Simm as a villain otherwise. One of my favourite who scenes is when he gasses the government.2 July 2014 at 04:17 #28638Anonymous @
@arbutus and @janetteb (how’s Winter doin’ for you now, Janette?), I agree with you there JB; as an actor also in the recent thriller we saw here in Oz about 4 months ago, Tennant was brilliant: generous in spirit but awkward and self destructive.
Arbutus, I completely agree with you about how Simm and Tennant were ‘buoyed up’ by each other (though Delgado was a fav of mine too); in age and complexity they mimicked each other, with personality and self-image they orchestrated (through RTD) a counterpoint of tomfoolery and carelessness with a correspondence of gesture and behaviour that lent a symmetry to their screen time -both were ‘boys’ thrilled with their ‘attractiveness’, youth and the yummies such existence brings 🙂 No wonder they were on adrenaline highs most of the time!
The Master, having spent a good portion of his existence as Jacobi’s elderly, unfocused and sweet character (with occasional flashes of chill distaste) was now precariously balanced on the edge of a receding universe. As the drums dwindled temporarily, he ached for youth whereupon the roll of the dice introduced this totally new Master twirling through the TARDIS ‘cabin’ in the same way Tennant had done before him -but with a bang and a nap 🙂
The new Master was essential to inspire another generation of viewers and perhaps to show that this malicious and sometime indifferent murderer had committed enough distasteful acts that his soul/being imploded leading to the most plausible consequence: madness or as @fosterferris said: “a fruitcake”. Or just karma!
Was there really any other way to both mine & develop this character considering his previous actions? Post hoc ergo propter hoc. I don’t believe so.
The topic ‘The Faces of the Doctor’ is closed to new replies.