Forum Replies Created

Viewing 17 posts - 701 through 717 (of 717 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #13511
    Nick @replies

    @Shazzbot (or the Rani rather)

    I would add Donna into your list with Sarah -Jane (given what she was up to at the beginning of the Adipose adventure).

    In BG Who, the Doctor didn’t really have control over the Tardis and once a companion had been swept off by him, they couldn’t have a family life outside the Tardis while they were travelling with him. The Companion story arc early was sometimes all about getting them home, although there were Companions who didn’t really have a home at all (eg. Victoria, Jamie, Zoe, Vikki etc). By the 70’s (UNIT stories) more stories were set on contemporary Earth so it was natural that there was more of a Earth base where Jo/Sarah/Ian could be dropped off home between stories. After that we had quite a large % of Companions (Leela, Romana, Adric, Nyssa, Turlough for example) who had no (Earth) home or were not strictly Human anyway. Looking back, I’d say the majority of later BG Companions a home life, in the sense of AG Who didn’t exist (eg Teagan had no close family I recall and as an Aussie in the UK, not many close friends here either). The Companion story dynamic was therefore different in BG Who as you have stated.

    In AG (obviously) the Doctor is able to give Rose an intergalactic phone and drop Rose/Amy/Rory/Clara home at will (from hazy memory both Donna and Martha had fewer visits home while travelling so it was less of any issue for them). That’s actually quite a change in the Companion tory dynamic really, which is what RTD wanted to show us (the wider impact on them and their families of the Doctor) that BG Who couldn’t show us. We also didn’t get any relationship dynamics in BG Who (I guess most of us now consider Ian/Barbara and Ben/Polly were in relationships during their travels ?). I would say that reflected the wider era attitudes given it was a family tea time show.

    Whilst I would generally agree that the treatment of Companion departures was pretty awful overall, there were quite a few that left for their own and narratively good reasons (Teagan, Romana, Nyssa, Adric, Turlough, Ian/Barbara, Steven, Victoria immediately come to mind). The surprise in most cases, was that the departure came out of the blue, as they didn’t bother to sign post the Companion character development which “caused” their departure to happen. If they had done that, would we really be making this to be such a big difference BG/AG as we do ?

    Nick

    #13445
    Nick @replies

    @jimthefish

    Finally something I don’t fully agree with (again off topic though)

    But with Old Who you could be forgiven for asking why every story wasn’t as good as Talons or The Invasion when the writers had the same amount of time to develop their characters and so on.

    When you look at the number of episodes and stories in a typical season of old who (7 stories with the show being on  TV for average of around 25 to 30 weeks a year) the production team was busy on the shooting side of things (last minute rewrites by the script editor, tweeking characters for casting changes etc etc) I suspect that there was actually less time to focus on the scripts than today. There also wasn’t the same sort of post production time before the episodes were shown (many special effects were added live on the shooting day for example), limiting re-editing and reshoots (not sure if they do this today). The other thing we probably forget that there was much more weekly drama programmes being shown which were made in the same shooting style which used many of the same writers as Who (Z Cars springs to mind, but I know there were others).

    In fact I think one of the script weaknesses of modern Who is that there are so many stories per season which SM and RTD have scripted that sometimes I fear too little time is available for them to focus on the other scripts. Many of the best non-RTD/SM stories have come from reworking prior art (eg Dalek, Human Nature, Blink). RTD also had SM, but I don’t think SM has a writer of quite the same caliber in his team). The specials and half season presentations we had in 2008 and 2012/13 should also contribute to a much higher story standard ?

    Nick

    #13427
    Nick @replies

    @bluesqueakpip        (tempting rage here. This really isn’t the right place, but still..)

    yes, you certainly could have had ‘The Girl Who Waited’ with a different set of characters. But it would’ve been a different story. And Amy would be a different person if you omitted the memory of Rory as her primary motivation. With Rory and Amy, Rory is the more obviously loving in relationship terms (which fits their respective personalities: Amy is assertive, easily angered and adventurous; Rory calm, caring, and domestic).

    Absolutely, the story would have been different and would have felt differently, but I don’t know that I completely agree with you that Amy would be a different character. As @HTBPDET comments above, the Amy/Rory separation was for me shoe horned in as it suited a particular angle that Mr Moffat wanted to highlight without any (apparent) real thought given to the reasons why it happened.  In retrospect your explanation makes a lot of sense when we see how they departed together looking back across their story line, but did the elements really get us their.

    There’s lots of different perspectives which is why I enjoy reading what is written here. Again, not the place, but I found that the mechanism Mr Moffat used to write the Amy/Rory characters out unsatisfactory on an emotional and intellectual level, but that’s me.

    If you think about it

    Travelling in the TARDIS is something so spectacular that Companions need a really good reason to leave

    is just a writers conceit, even if its one we choose to believe and share. No sane Human Being I’ve met really wants to “suffer” multiple near death experiences, even if there are interludes (which we don’t see on screen too often) which are the complete opposite.

    I absolutely agree that the treatment of companions departures in Old Who was, most of the time, awful at the best.

    Cheers

    Nick

    #13425
    Nick @replies

    @jimthefish

    If I had a couple days and multiple drafts, I couldn’t have made your point better from any point of view.  Again, my opinion differs slightly, but only around the edges. I really must give up this forum lark.

    I had pretty much concluded that you, @HTBPDET and I were largely dancing around nuances in our mutual point of view. I’m sure we all know padding when we see it. The “padding” in Talons reflects the two hour length of the Story which demands some character development, which adds to the overall positive effect, but could just as easily be shortened and removed without any real detriment to the story.

    I don’t think I have ever seen any past (or current) production team comment on how they picked what would be a 6 part from a 4 part story (2 verses 1 now). In some cases, it must have been the strength of the concept when pitched, but in others it is quite hard to see the reason (if there was one).

    I have a lot of sympathy for the production team in old Who (especially after reading Terrance Dicks on the problems of making the War Games for example) as they had a lot of screen hours to fill across many months on quite a limited budget. I wonder how the current team would cope if the BBC asked for 20 episodes on the same budget they have for 13 now ?

    I also wonder if our expectations aren’t driven by our preconceptions of the genre ? If you look at something like “The Killing 1” with its 22 (I think) parts all one hour each, its quite slow TV to watch with multiple dead ends in its story tree going from the crime in the opening shots to its denouement in the final scene. It would be easy to cut that down to 12 or even 8 episodes without distorting the underlying story and yet I don’t think many of us would actually want that to happen.

    Nick

    #13418
    Nick @replies

    @scaryb

    I don’t necessarily disagree with your view although I would argue that this was really a choice made by the writing team. Would that story need to be done slightly differently if they didn’t show some background to their relationship woes ? (which by the way I don’t recall being explained in the story at all although I could easily have missed that).

    I could argue that even if the writers had chosen to completely omit the Amy/Rory relationship background completely, that particularly story could still have worked really well. Amy’s anger and resentment at being abandoned would still be a valid character motivation and you don’t absolutely need the memory of Rory being the primary motivation for her survival surely ? It would have become a different story for sure (probably darker and more emotionally complex), but would it have been worse ? Reflecting on this perhaps the difference between family and adult orientated drama ?

    I’m not sure this is the right forum to discuss this particular topic though ?

    Cheers

    Nick

    #13412
    Nick @replies

    @MadScientist72

    Yeah, I realize that the whole story’s more complicated. I was just trying to point out that he didn’t completely reject the Time Lords, even if he did reject some of their rules – particularly the non-interference policy, which they hypocritically twice put him on trial for violating, even though they periodically used him to violate it without officially getting their own hands dirty.

    As I tried to indicate, I knew I was being a bit of a bore there. I guess I differ from you on my perception of the Doctor’s character and relationship with the Time Lord society. I think he totally rejected the basis of their society and their attitude to the Universe as a whole. I don’t see the glimmer of acceptance that you do.

    Of course, that doesn’t stop him from

    • recognising that some of the tasks they perform (eg protecting the Universe from certain elements – thinking of those thins whose name I forget from the first new series when Rose meets her dad before he died -, limiting Time Travel etc are necessary for the good of the Universe; and
    • acting to make sure the inherent power that the Time Lords possess(ed) doesn’t fall into the wrong hands, whether they be Time Lord, Dalek, Sontaran or the Master’s.

    Can we really say that there is any form acceptance or at least understanding from the Doctor in what the Time Lords chose to do to their society during the Time War ?

    The “absolute power corrupts absolutely” quotation really does seem to fit best with how the Time Lords have been written in the series.

    In respect of the Doctor himself, I suggest that what Moffat is showing us with Matt Smith’s characterization (and to a degree RTD did with David Tennant as well) is how the Doctor himself copes with power himself. The full phrase (depending on which form the quotation is taken from) is

    “It is not only the slave or serf who is ameliorated in becoming free… the master himself did not gain less in every point of view,… for absolute power corrupts the best natures” or “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men”.

    Interesting ?

    Thanks

    Nick

    #13458
    Nick @replies

    @scaryb

    I don’t necessarily disagree with your view although I would argue that this was really a choice made by the writing team. Would that story need to be done slightly differently if they didn’t show some background to their relationship woes ? (which by the way I don’t recall being explained in the story at all although I could easily have missed that).

    I could argue that even if the writers had chosen to completely omit the Amy/Rory relationship background completely, that particularly story could still have worked really well. Amy’s anger and resentment at being abandoned would still be a valid character motivation and you don’t absolutely need the memory of Rory being the primary motivation for her survival surely ? It would have become a different story for sure (probably darker and more emotionally complex), but would it have been worse ? Reflecting on this perhaps the difference between family and adult orientated drama ?

    I’m not sure this is the right forum to discuss this particular topic though ?

    Cheers

    Nick

    #13409
    Nick @replies

    @MadScientist72

    Interesting thoughts

    About the Valeyard: Prior to the GI’s mention of the name, the only source we had for the Valeyard being any form of the Doctor was from the Master’s lips.  Since the Master was the Doctor’s arch-enemy, he can hardly be considered a reliable source. Since the Doctor seemed to be unaware of this alleged link to the Valeyard prior to the master “divulging” it, it’s entirely possible that the Master made it all up. This also brings up the question of how the GI became aware of the Valeyard. Is there some sort of connection between the GI & the Master? Or the GI & the Valeyard himself?

    That’s not how I remember the Trial of a Time Lord ending. I thought it was clear that the Valeyard was Doctor 13 and his personality was an amalgamation of the dark elements of his previous selves. This certainly wasn’t denied at the time and has gone down in “history” this way. Still I haven’t seen it since it was first broadcast, so I’m sure you could be right.

    I think its possible for Mr Moffat to pretty much do anything he likes, but I would say there is no need for there to be a connection between the GI and the Master or the Valeyard. The GI predates both of these characters  in the show’s history, but of course some sort of alliance is possible. I think a new Master is less likely than anything else, but this could be just the plot twist we might expect to see in an anniversary story (and therefore why we probably won’t). It feels sort of natural to expect the Master to be at the Fall of 11 (who may actually be the 12th incarnation) if only to gloat. It seems more probable that we might see the Valeyard in the anniversary show given the hint dropped by the GI regarding the Doctor’s future, but I’m not sure that is actually necessary.

    I believe (without any specific reason) that the way new Doctor zero comes about (if that happens) must resolve the character issues shown post timewar by Doctor’s 9/10/11 and probably eliminate the future Doctor which becomes known as the Valeyard. A fight between the Valeyard and the previous Doctors’ over his soul and future makes good dramatic sense, but have they chosen to go down that route ?

    I’m looking forward to seeing how they manage to do this and I’ll try not to be disappointed if I don’t like it.

    Cheers

    Nick

    #13456
    Nick @replies

    @htpbdet @jimthefish

    my two cents (for what its worth) is that padding should be defined along the lines of anything that is of no intrinsic value to the story or the characters and is really dull to watch.

    I’m sure Robert Holmes could have written this story which is around 2 hours long (cutting out the titles and the repeat of the cliff hanger) to fit 4 four parts (80 minutes) or even the current series format (45 minutes) IF he’d been required too. I guess he would have cut-out some of the music hall scenes, eliminated one of Lightfood or Jago (combining the two roles perhaps) shortened other scenes etc. I’m absolutely sure the end result would still have been one of the best stories ever made in either BG or AG Who.

    I guess which format you prefer to see (6, 4 or 1 part) is a matter of personal choice. I, along with HTPBDET I guess ?, prefer the 6 part format for this story and don’t see much if any padding in the writing or execution here. Other though wouldn’t survive the padding test.

    One problem I have with some of the AG stories is the lack of padding if you like. In the recent Rings of Akhaten for example, the whole sacrifice/singing stuff I found a bit confusing and hence had little empathy for the main character (the little girl). More character and story development here would have improved the overall end result. That I found the end rather contrived and silly is purely down to my preferences regarding how a story should end.

    In AG we now have a different sort of padding now as well surely ?

    Taking HTBPDET’s Amy/Rory dialogue as an example, did we really need the arc of their relationship embedded into the series ? I loved the duo because of what the actors and writers managed to do with their characters and the inter-play with each other and the Doctor. The ups and downs in their relationship didn’t add anything much for me.

    Nick

    #13407
    Nick @replies

    @htpbdet @jimthefish

    my two cents (for what its worth) is that padding should be defined along the lines of anything that is of no intrinsic value to the story or the characters and is really dull to watch.

    I’m sure Robert Holmes could have written this story which is around 2 hours long (cutting out the titles and the repeat of the cliff hanger) to fit 4 four parts (80 minutes) or even the current series format (45 minutes) IF he’d been required too. I guess he would have cut-out some of the music hall scenes, eliminated one of Lightfood or Jago (combining the two roles perhaps) shortened other scenes etc. I’m absolutely sure the end result would still have been one of the best stories ever made in either BG or AG Who.

    I guess which format you prefer to see (6, 4 or 1 part) is a matter of personal choice. I, along with HTPBDET I guess ?, prefer the 6 part format for this story and don’t see much if any padding in the writing or execution here. Other though wouldn’t survive the padding test.

    One problem I have with some of the AG stories is the lack of padding if you like. In the recent Rings of Akhaten for example, the whole sacrifice/singing stuff I found a bit confusing and hence had little empathy for the main character (the little girl). More character and story development here would have improved the overall end result. That I found the end rather contrived and silly  is purely down to my preferences regarding how a story should end.

    In AG we now have a different sort of padding now as well surely ?

    Taking HTBPDET’s Amy/Rory dialogue as an example, did we really need the arc of their relationship embedded into the series ? I loved the duo because of what the actors and writers managed to do with their characters and the inter-play with each other and the Doctor. The ups and downs in their relationship didn’t add anything much for me.

    Nick

    #13366
    Nick @replies

    @MadScientist72

    The Doctor didn’t actually reject Time Lord society, he just ran away from Gallifrey for a while. He was even elected Lord President of the High Council of Time Lords twice (TB & PD – although PD never actually assumed the office).

    Hi there. It’s a bit more complicated than that I’m afraid.

    The Time Lords arrested the second Doctor and sentenced him to Earth for a period of time with a forced regeneration (becoming the third Doctor) during which he ran several “errands” for them. The third Doctor was eventually pardoned and given back his freedom to roan in Space/Time as a reward by the Time Lords for services rendered.

    The Two Doctors story line (during the sixth Doctor’s regeneration) which featured the second Doctor can be interpreted as the Doctor running another errand for the Time Lords in the gap between being arrested and sentenced to Earth as well. The fourth Doctor was also hijacked by the Time Lords and put onto Skaro at the time the Daleks were created to do their bidding as well (if he wanted to). A couple of other fourth Doctor stories inferred he might been steered by the Time Lords as well. [Robert Holmes – at least in the Target books, referred to the Time Lord body that did this as the CIA – Celestial Intervention Agency]

    The fourth Doctor ended up becoming President first when he was the only candidate to survive in the Deadly Assassin (the favourite for the job was unmasked as a crook working with the Master). I vaguely recall that this appointment was later renewed when the Fourth Doctor sorted out the Sontaran invasion of Gallifrey. The Fifth Doctor was later asked to be president as well (which you know).

    The point is, he never wanted the post, never took up the appointment and never returned to Gallifrey except to sort out a crisis after he left, even if the Time Lords did forgive/forget whatever happened in the first place, which caused him to steal the Tardis and leave with Susan.

    the Moff could be planning to use it as a theme for all the episodes between the 50th & Xmas

    There are no planned episodes between the 50th and Christmas special I’m afraid and I very much doubt the theme will carry on in new series 8 in 2014.

    Sorry for being a bore !

    Cheers

    Nick

    #13330
    Nick @replies

    @bluesqueakpip @htpbdet @Shazzbot (and others before)

    Thank you for an interesting discussion on what Mr Moffat may have choosen to do in the 50th (and Christmas ?) episode(s). One thought that crossed my mind while reading it, is that while we didn’t see who follows Matt Smith as the 12th (or is it 13th ?) Doctor in his timeline in the last episode, now Matt Smith has announced his departure, the production team are completely free to show the Doctor after Matt Smith (without showing the regeneration itself) as well as including John Hurt’s (he could be the 9th, 12th, Zero or a new actor 13th as a matter of fact). [apologies if someone has pointed this out already. I haven’t read it here or anywhere else]. The possibilities he (or they) have potentially created by having the Doctor enter his own timeline at the same time as we know the lead actor will change are really quite extraordinary.

    Illustrating my point, just a little:

    • It seems to me that we can be “sure” that Matt Smith is the 11th Doctor but he may well be the 12th incarnation
    • John Hurt seems to fit in somewhere in the past rather than future because 11 seems to know who he is and what he did. I think he fits in better as the “TimeWar” Doctor (between Paul McGann’s 8 and Chris Eccleston’s 10) [but that’s a matter of opinion and preference right now. You can equally speculate whether JH 9 started and/or finished the Timewar if you like or did something completely different indeed]
    • John Hurt really is zero. It makes sense to me that William Hartnell chose to become the Doctor and leave Gallifrey for a reason. Why does he leave ? John Hurt zero made a decision(s) or lived his incarnation in a way that his subsequent selves repudiated. [Personally I choose to disbelieve this option. Looking at the William Hartnell stories with hindsight I’d say that the Doctor chooses his name sometime before he becomes the Doctor we know as he switches from the explorer in time and space we initially meet to the Doctor we know with Ian and Barbera’s influence and help].
    • John Hurt is really 12. You can argue that once 11 enters his own time stream he becomes fully aware of what happens to him in the future. John Hurt can easily be 12 (and Michael Jayston remains 13). JH isn’t a “Doctor” because of some choice he makes perhaps to avoid becoming the Valeyard (thus creating a different 13 or perhaps even creating the Valeyard 13 by mistake). [the only real evidence that this isn’t the case on screen is the past tense Matt uses, but then is that definitive really ?]

    with a little imagination, I’m sure there are many other possibilities and variations as well.

    Since we also believe that SM intends to take the opportunity to reset the regeneration clock back to One (ie new Zero Doctor) – although we should remember he isn’t/wasn’t forced to do this – you could speculate that whatever causes this to happen [and I think there will be a cause or reason] actively results in the 13th Doctor we expect (the Valeyard if you like) not to happen at all. In fact if he has changed things to create Matt Smith as the 12th incarnation don’t you have to somehow “sacrifice” Doctor 13 to reset the regeneration sequence ? [or is Michael Jayston or another actor playing 13 going to appear in a cameo role after all ?]. If the next Doctor is in indeed the new zero and SM doesn’t sacrifice showing 13 somehow shouldn’t you end up with two regenerations in this story even if they end up being only one in practice ? [ie Matt Smith 12 into 13 and the 12/13 reset into new 0 (probably simultaneously eliminating the Valeyard 13 from existing at all ? This seems to work better than Matt Smith 11 into John Hurt 12 and then JH12 into 13 followed by 12/13 into new 0 somehow. That’s why I don’t generally speculate on what happens next. It gives me a headache].

    Of course I don’t expect anything like this level of complexity to happen (its far too difficult to do properly in one or two TV episodes, although in a book…). I expect whatever happens to be simpler and at the same time to be a surprise. They’ve had long enough to think about it and to build the threads into series 7 (if not 6) after all even without the extra complexity (and opportunity) that Matt Smith leaving has created.

    Chapeau to Mr Moffat et al for sewing enough seeds of doubt and confusion that we can’t truly speculate what exactly is going to happen next.

    He may not have quite planned it this way originally when he came up with his concept for the anniversary, but I’m sure the production team and Matt Smith would have talked about Matt’s intention to leave in early 2013 at the latest. This would have given him enough time to tweak the last story to fit his concept without compromising any hints he’d already dropped into the story arc’s he created along the way as well as the 50th anniversary story for this change (Even better on that front if he had a higher level concept to link everything we’d seen over the last few years together surely ?)

    Having totally confused myself, I’ll step back into lurking on this thread.

    Nick

    #13111
    Nick @replies

    @jamesunderscore

    Absolutely true for this story and is actually the reason why it is a classic in the proper sense of the word. Old style British TV (that is sometime before NYPD Blue was shown on UK TV) definitely had its plus points, but as  @jimthefish commented only when it was done well.

    Nick

    #13110
    Nick @replies

    @jimthefish

    Jim pretty much my view too. In this case, the story is so well written and the characters fit into the narrative almost perfectly, that the “padding” really doesn’t feel like padding. I know many of my era (BG fans if you like) like to hark back to this sort of story as evidence to support the contention that AG stories are often too short and too frantic. There is certainly some truth to this, but I think it misses the point. A well written and executed story will always work out to produce something special.

    Nick

     

    #13082
    Nick @replies

    @jimthefish (apologies in not getting this to link)

    I haven’t watched this for quite a while (let alone 1 episode per week), so I won’t comment on any specifics. However, I wondered whether you thought losing the episode entirely would make for a better overall story in this particular case ?

    Thanks

    Nick

    #13081
    Nick @replies

    http://www.thedoctorwhoforum.com/members/jillybeans/   Sorry I haven’t seen those.

    My earliest memories of the series was from 1971 – Terror of the Autons. Its all a bit hazy these days, but I remember being jealous that my best friend of the time had the Radio Times edition [weekly TV listings guide for any non-UK reader] with Roger Delgado on the cover and the article inside (if I remember accurately) more than any particular part of the story itself. For example, I certainly don’t remember any of the things which caused the controversy at the time, which just goes to show you how little impact the scary stuff really has at that age (between 5 and 6). I know I saw some Patrick Troughton episodes according to my parents, but I certainly don’t have any coherent memories.

    Although  Jon Pertwee was clearly my “first” Doctor I recall early Tom Baker episodes more fondly

    #12903
    Nick @replies

    Jim I completely agree with your explanation. Personally, I found the silly costume killed off any chance that Colin Baker’s Doctor could have been taken seriously even within (most of) the fan audience. What he tried to do with the character by creating something new and different, which I welcomed at the time (at least I think I did) was just undercut from the start by the look and feel of the character and show. I guess this must in part be the Producer/Script Editor’s fault surely ? I also think that they were unduly influenced by the  “media/audience” expectation that the Doctor was this guy who could only dress in the ridiculous non-style (Coco the clown indeed).  Whilst they toned it down for Sylvester they couldn’t really get away from that perception.

    I would also pose the suggestion that the wider audience/media expectation for what Doctor Who was as a TV show at that time really made the “Darkish” Doctor concept unworkable from the outset. I don’t think there was much in the history of the show and the character of the Doctor that prepared the audience for this sort of change. This made the concept unworkable for the majority of the audience. The real shame was the initial damage done was too great, that by the time the show was getting back onto the “right” path it was cancelled (if only to return due to public outcry). The BBC 1 controller(s) made this even worse across this period by changing the length of the episodes and the day/time slot on which it was shown.

Viewing 17 posts - 701 through 717 (of 717 total)