Theories even more insane than what's actually happening
Theories even more insane than what's actually happening
DISCLAIMER: The Doctor Who Forum is a Doctor Who fan site and is not, in any way, connected with or affiliated to the BBC.
Doctor Who is copyright © the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). No copyright infringement is intended.
Ah, you’ve actually made this a lot broader than I thought it was intended to be, I thought you just wanted a discussion of the differences between RTD and Moffat. Maybe this would actually be better as a “Behind the scenes” forum topic. What do others think?
@Craig @Shazzbot
I tend to agree with Craig.
But, actually, I think that if we just renamed this as Running the Show AG, things would be confined to the RTD/SM eras – which I think is really what most people were interested in discussing (or so it seems)
I just worry that the topic that @Shazzbot (bless you) has staked out is too unwieldy for one place – and I am not sure really how many people want to debate the difference between the eras of Verity Lambert and Steven Moffat?
Do they?
But, I will ramble on anywhere really…
Happy with whatever you all decide.
đ
@Shazzbot
Haha – you’re just trying to make sure we don’t go off-topic again đ
I agree with @Craig and @HTPBDET re renaming it Running the Show AG, especially since it is AG that really introduced the role of Showrunner which your title plays on, and a couple of people had suggested it. And it’s more inclusive for our younger members!
I concur with all above. I think this topic would otherwise be so huge as to theoretically encompass pretty much the whole show. I think even if we focus on AG, it would still be legitimate to invoke old producers as the need arises, no?
I think if this is to be a Blog, we need someone to clearly state a position to start off. Potentially – what they see the differences as, and whether they are a source of concern to them. As @nick has expressed some problems recently with regard to issues like characterisation, depictions of old foes, the way the TARDIS works, etc, perhaps he would like to consolidate his opinions on the run?
I think the danger with a Forum topic like this is that that it will potentially cross with so many other forums on the way. @bluesqueakpip helpfully reminded me today that it’s only a few weeks until we discuss a topic we were perhaps in danger of delving too deeply into. Itâs worth bearing in mind. Iâm also slightly concerned that if we start a RTD v Moff Forum specifically, that will mirror some of the tedious arguments that go on our old home on the G.
So for my preference, someone with concerns, or strongly in favour of the changes expressing their view in a blog.
I second @Phaseshift‘s suggestion. And can I stress that we should really avoid making this personal. No ‘Moffatt raped my childhood and he should die, die, die’ nonsense, please. Let’s leave that to Twitter and the G. (Not that I think any of the fine people on this site would stoop to those levels, obviously.) Objective discussion of their work only, I’d suggest…
On reflection, I think something about BG Who and the behind the scenes influences — and the wider, external influences (e.g. Mary Whitehouse on the Hinchcliffe era and so on) — on the show could be interesting. But it’s a large topic, probably too big for one blogpost, I suspect.
OK, I’ve changed the blog completely (@Nick, take note), based on audience feedback. (@ScaryB – you’re so not wrong! đ )
Sadly @PhaseShift, it was before I saw your comment. I’m happy to do more changes as you see fit. I’m looking to prompt a conversation with leading questions, not present a viewpoint to which responders can agree or disagree. It’s more of an ‘open question’ in this format.
I have my own opinions but they’re not important; I’m looking to elicit everyone else’s opinions. As a starting point, there’s this article in Doctor Who TV where David Selby and Max Jelbart discuss ‘Why the Russell T Davies Era Worked’.
But we have posters so much more articulate, knowledgeable, and insightful on this forum and I know we can create a conversation which will be wonderful for everyone to read and participate in.
Okay, as it’s too hot to even think of trying to sleep, I’ll have a go on the differences between Companions.
RTD’s Companions had a family life on Earth, and family problems on Earth. The Doctor represents that highly unsuitable boyfriend with the flash car and the no-visible-means-of-support. He turns up, and in each case he ‘seduces’ his Companion away from her or his normal life.
Rose didn’t mind too much, as she was already getting worried that she’d made a mistake leaving school early (for another unsuitable boyfriend). Martha was reacting to stress (parents breaking up + medical school = escape, please!). Donna was older; she’d tried the ordinary life and decided now was the time to try the exciting one.
But all three of these characters had family on Earth: that they stayed in touch with and whom the Doctor interacted with.
The Moffat Companions, on the other hand, have very little apparent family life on Earth. It’s not that they don’t have one: even Amy has an Aunt. But we barely see them – Brian only makes his appearance in the last few Amy/Rory episodes. And when they do interact with the Doctor, they don’t see him as the highly unsuitable boyfriend. Brian (rather like Wilf) encourages Amy and Rory to travel with the Doctor. The Maitland kids want to go too. And the Maitlands in general just see the Doctor as ‘Clara’s boyfriend’.
The Doctor also takes the Moffat Companions into his TARDIS at very specific points in their life. For Amy, he accidentally picks the night before her wedding – the night before she symbolically changes from a child to an adult. For Clara, he accidentally picks a time shortly after she’s symbolically changed from child to adult. Clara, faced with a choice between going travelling (student/child) and looking after the kids who’ve lost their mother (responsible adult), has chosen the adult role.
The Davies Companions make a sudden and drastic decision (barring Donna, who changed her mind and then had to spend ages finding the Doctor again). The Moffat Companions are making a decision that’s entirely consistent with their life. Amy has known the Doctor since childhood, and has dreamt of travelling with him. Rory would spend two thousand years outside a box as long as he can stay with Amy. Clara always planned to travel – the Doctor’s simply taking her a bit further than she expected.
The families of the Davies Companions either become surrogate family to the Doctor (Rose, Donna) or act like an estranged family (Martha). But Amy and Rory aren’t surrogate family. They are the Doctor’s family; his father and mother in law. With Clara, the Doctor is firmly described as ‘boyfriend’.
Russell T. Davies added the ‘family drama’ elements to the Companions (which was rarely present in BG Companions – and if it was, the drama was usually that the family had been horribly killed). But he kept the sudden decision to leap into the TARDIS. Travelling with the Doctor represents a drastic change.
Moffat moved the ‘family drama’ elements to the story of Team TARDIS rather than keeping it on Earth – but made the decision to travel in the TARDIS a natural extension of the new Companion’s previous life.
Any thoughts?
@bluesqueakpip
You’re just too good at this kind of stuff for me to disagree with anything you’ve written here, although I might yet come up with some quibbles around the edges in any discussion. It will be interesting to see whether anyone else has a different and equally plausible psychological explanation for this characterization difference.
First quibble (eating my own words already). On reflection your explanation for Martha is a bit too narrow I feel. I’m not sure we saw any evidence that she actually wanted to escape (other than the general don’t we all sometimes feel that way when things happen which we really don’t want to face up to just yet). Her motivation may have been more complex in RTD’s mind ?
For me the other interesting question is why RTD and SM chose to follow different paths – what is their underlying narrative purpose as show runners and how as it affected the stories we see. By this last point I don’t mean that Rose pops back home (very obvious difference), but that I think there must be other subtle differences in the type of story shown ?
Of course there is also a progression in the Rose story from series 1 to 2 (and after since the characters shelf life post departure has been longer than she travelled). Does that have some bearing as well (I also read that RTD planned a spin-off starring Rose, which he decided not to go through with. Any impact ? ).
Nick
@PhaseShift
I’ve had a rather idle time at work recently, but I’m not sure I’ll have enough time to think of all the small differences between (BG/AG + BG/AG-RTD) and AG-SM that I find bothersome and write a somewhat coherent post that will survive beyond initial analysis here :). I will see what I can do though
Nick
@Bluesqueakpip Excellent analysis as ever, hope you’ve cooled down a bit. (Come up to the far north, we’re struggling to hit 20 here)
@Nick –
RTD had the job of rebooting/revitalising an extinct series whose credibility rating was approx zero. He played to his strengths, needing to find entry points for a new 21st century audience. Moffat had the luxury of taking over once it had been established, so has more scope to play with the history/storytelling. To ensure the show’s survival on mainstream TV they had to make it relevant and attractive to a modern audience. I think we long term fans have been incredibly lucky that the first 2 showrunners were such fans of the original show themselves, and have shown real respect (so far – maybe I’ll change my mind after 50th, LOL) and love for the show’s history, without feeling themselves hidebound by it. You just have to look at the McGann Movie to see what it could have been.
Right Nick, your turn đ
@Shazzbot
Ah c’mon, you know that’s not right. Everyone’s voice counts in here. And this is your blog, so you need to put your cards on the table so to speak đ
@Bluesqueakpip @Nick @JimTheFish @ScaryB
Bluey – thank you for your contribution on companions! Will reply separately to your points raised.
Nick – this was for you, hope you’ll be back with more thoughts.
Jim – you’re right, no-one here would do that. Not about Moffat or anyone/anything else.
Scary – OK, but I suck at this compared to y’all!
My immediate thought about the difference between RTD’s and SM’s reigns were the story arcs. RTD had Bad Wolf, but does that count as ‘an arc’? It was a phrase we heard / saw several times (sometimes literally, eg as graffiti painted on the Tardis) and it culminated later when in the alternate universe, Rose re-met 10 on ‘Bad Wolf Bay’ in Norway. (which amusingly in Norwegian included the word ‘dalug’ which 10 mis-heard as ‘Dalek’) But I don’t think this counts as an arc. It was a way to re-use a particular phrase – establishing a ‘catch-phrase’ if you will – but it wasn’t what I think of as ‘an arc’ which should be a journey with a recognisable beginning, middle, and end (payoff).
The real ‘arc’ of RTD’s time was Rose’s story. We saw her grow from a slightly bored teenager into a fearsome warrior and we saw it in the traditional story-telling mode of start-middle-end.
SM started with Amelia/Amy Pond and created another companion-based arc, in that throughout his series up until the last, we lived her life with her. Necessarily, it was a journey that included loops back and forth, re-visiting herself as a child, living alternate timelines that were winked out of existence (but which she remembered), and had great gaps which we didn’t see on-screen (but which we could fill in from what we learnt of her life around those gaps).
Then in the most recent series, the story arc was Clara’s life (‘the mystery of Clara’).  Again, we lived her life with her; but again, a bit back-n-forth, with gaps and Claricles. We’re only in the middle of this story arc, so we’ll see how SM treats the rest of her story, and whether we get a traditional story-telling payoff.
At one point during the Amy arc, though, I started feeling sympathy with people complaining that SM had made it all too complicated. Some viewers would have preferred a more straightforward beginning-middle-end type of story, and the jump cuts and foldbacks and universe-rebooting and criss-crossing timelines became a bit too much for them. Intellectually, I found it fascinating – but emotionally, I started to flag somewhere in the middle. I’ve said elsewhere that I liked the character of Amy but I don’t think I ever really warmed to her, and that’s for several reasons but the confusing order of her story, her arc, was part of that.
So, my conclusion is that while both RTD and SM had great long story arcs focused on the primary companion, RTD wrote his in a more traditional story-telling manner, and SM deliberately broke his stories up, flung the pieces into the air, and let them land in a jumble on-screen.
@Bluesqueakpip – I agree with you, the families of the companions do make a sharp contrast between RTD and SM. What I find most interesting about the lack of immediate family members for the companions in SM’s reign as showrunner is that his stories have been focused to such a great degree on the idea of ‘family’.
Do you think this was deliberate? SM created family-less companions (leaving River aside for a moment) but wrote his adventures for them to include the concept of how important families are?
Whereas RTD wrote in the companions’ families but his adventures focused more strictly on the relationship between the primary companion and the Doctor.
You’re right, it’s too hot for thinking! I’ve been told off recently for complaining about the heat and how it means I’m not a ‘proper Brit’. But surely a cooling breeze would be nice? đ
@Shazzbot – I think it’s deliberate. Amy and Rory’s lack of visible family made it possible for them to become the Doctor’s real family. Not a surrogate one that he’s visiting – but a family who stay with him until death parts them.
If you like, the RTD Companions are all still ‘children’. They’re all still living with their parents. But the Moffat Companions may start as children – but by the time of Power of Three it’s being made visually obvious that the Doctor is now the ‘adolescent’ child to Rory and Amy’s somewhat exasperated parents. He’s not just legally their son-in-law by S7 – Amy/Rory and the Doctor often are in the roles of parents and child.
They grew up. The Doctor prefers not to. As long as he doesn’t grow up and only ‘dips into’ his Companions lives, he doesn’t have to face the fact that he’ll outlive all of them. He can pretend, the way he tried to do with the Brigadier, that they’re not ‘really’ dead, because he can visit them any time he wants.
When Amy, Rory and River became genuinely his family, he ended by having to face all their deaths. And it hurt.
Clara likewise, only lives with her parents when she is a child. By the time she goes on board the TARDIS she’s grown up, is living 200 miles away from home – and has a responsible job. The Doctor ‘takes her out’ on her days off. She’s already told the Maitlands that she’s planning to travel, and they’re looking for a new nanny – now that the kids are somewhat recovered from the immediate shock of losing their mother.
The Doctor keeps treating her like a little girl; but she’s not. He thinks he’s the one protecting her; like Susan, she was the one trying to protect him.
@Shazzbot –tell me about it. ‘Mad dogs and Englishmen’, indeed. I’m sorry, but when it feels like I’m swimming in a bowl of warm soup and there’s no bloody air conditioning beyond a fan – it’s too hot!
@Bluesqueakpip – to drag the conversation back to my original concept, which was to compare script editors / showrunners across the history of the programme (which admittedly was a very big ask), I picked up on this from your comment:
I’m seeing Hartnell and Pertwee in my mind when I think about that. Both seemed quite grown-up (Troughton and Baker T less so in comparison, with their impishness). The most obvious thing about AG Who to me – and being an acknowledged ignorant of BG Who – is that the Doctor has now been characterised as someone who, as you say, is a bit of a Peter Pan.
This is something only modern-day showrunners could attempt. The original producers had a quite different vision of the Doctor – as an educational figure (i.e., a teacher, and in that time period, a teacher was an authority figure – why else have Ian and Barbara?). The contrast between what originally was envisioned by the production team for the character of the Doctor, and what the two most recent showrunners have envisioned, is stark indeed.  The overgrown man-child who shuns responsibility is an accepted stereotype in today’s mass entertainment, but it didn’t exist in the same way in the 1960s and 1970s.
Of the BG Doctors, Hartnell has his moments of utter irresponsibility (breaking a vital bit of the TARDIS so he can stay on Skaro). I’ll leave @HTPBDET to comment on whether Troughton’s Doctor was genuinely immature or only seemingly immature. Tom Baker’s Doctor was definitely a ‘man-child’. As was He Who We Do Not Mention. Davison and McCoy were reasonably grown-up – though they had their moments.
So it’s definitely not something only modern day showrunners could attempt; the Doctor’s underlying streak of shunning responsibility was there from the start. It’s just become much more apparent with the After Gap Doctors. Indeed, it seems to increase with each Doctor – Tennant’s Doctor was more irresponsible than Eccleston’s (who generally seemed to be simply someone with no home to go to and no responsibilities left to have). Smith’s Doctor is both very, very old and very, very young. He’s like someone who’s  said ‘you know what? At my age, I don’t have to bother.’
To quote from Jenny Joseph’s poem:
I note that Smith’s Doctor is currently wearing a purple coat đ
@Bluesqueakpip @Shazzbot
This is fascinating, but its not somewhere where I’m even going to attempt to play. Your explanations are too convincing for me. A small contribution though:
I don’t know if I came up with the following idea myself, or what someone else here wrote lodged in my mind, but I rather think in 9, 10 and 11 we’re seeing how different elements of the Doctor’s personality are dealing with the effect of the Timewar and presumably his own actions (which we have yet to fully see).
Nick
@Bluesqueakpip @nick @shazzbot @ScaryB
 I think it is important to work out about whom we are speaking.
Who are the AG companions?
For RTD, Â is it Rose, Martha and Donna? Or that group plus Adam, Mickey, Jack and Wilf? For SM, is it Amy and Clara, or Amy, Rory and Clara or either group plus River, Brian, Artie and Angie and The Paternoster Gang? Even perhaps Nefertiti and Ridell too?
What makes you a companion in AG Doctor Who? This was always an easier question in BG, even during the great companions/assistant schism of the Pertwee era. Companions ( Liz being the exception ) shared the adventures with the Doctor and travelled alone, or with other established companions, in the TARDIS, usually travelling continuously; others, like The Brigadier, Benton or Yates or Dr Tyler are there in the TARDIS Â because they are there, not because they have chosen to be travelling with the Doctor. Â Or, in Ian and Barbara’s case, they were abducted. Or, in Harry’s case, he was tricked!
But it is much harder in AG. And harder still in SM AG.
But, it seems to me, this is one of the key differences between RTD and SM.
In many ways, RTD conformed with the BG notions of companions, so Rose, Adam, Mickey, Jack, Martha and Donna would all be companions for me but Jackie, Pete, Wilf and even Sarah-Jane Smith would be friends or acquaintances. But not companions to either the 9th or 10th Doctors. Â (Sarah-Jane obviously is a special case and overall she can be seen as a companion to Doctors 3 and 4, but her relationship with Doctors 10 and 11 is distinctly different).
But one of SM’s key decisions, it seems to me, is to show a Doctor so damaged by his past experiences that he does not have companions. He has friends. (And, with the greatest of respect to my learned friend @bluesqueakpip, I don’t see that the Doctor treats Amy, Rory and River as Family, at least any less than any earlier Doctor treated his companions as Family)
Smith’s Doctor does not let anyone into his travelling life. He simply lives his life, opting to choose specific bits of it with various people at various times. He travels with people when he wants to; they don’t travel with him.
It is a very different take on life in the TARDIS.
“He doesn’t like goodbyes” is clearly true enough.
For Smith’s Doctor.
So, to avoid them, he does not stay close, he does not travel with people the way each of the earlier incarnations did. He does not share the TARDIS in quite the same way – it is not home to Amy and Rory, nor Clara.
So the view we have, as audience, is fractured. We do not see the whole of the arc of the Eleventh Doctor’s time with his friends. We see interludes, not whole symphonies.
This is especially so with River; it is equally so with Amy and Rory, but perhaps more obscured by the grand language about what good friends Amy and the Doctor are.
As an idea, it makes perfect sense. The Doctor has been traumatised by Donna’s fate and goes off the rails, forced to regenerate before he is ready to “die” – so the new incarnation sets new rules for himself : Don’t get too involved. Travel alone. Visit friends every now and then. Let them live their lives and just shake it up every now and then.
This is clearly true of all the recurring characters in the SM era: the Paternoster Gag are a good example. Â The Doctor clearly cares for them, but he visits infrequently, picking up where he left off. Riddell and the Doctor have a whole friendship about which we know basically nothing.
But even that new approach does not work for the Doctor, because he goes into a hermit-like sulk after Amy and Rory are thrown back into time.
But then the mystery of who or what Clara is brings him back to a position closer to his earlier selves. He wants to travel with her. And travelling with her, in more like the “traditional” way, brings out the best in him.
There is another way to look at the same issue.
The Eleventh Doctor crashes into little Amelia Pond’s life and , essentially, messes her up. He breaks a promise which affects her for life. He does not know that for some time but that is what happens.
Having just dealt with Rose’s heartbreak, Martha’s unrequited love, Donna’s loss of her magnificent side and Wilf’s stoic belief in him, this little girl represents a risk of further hurt – Â for them both – a risk he will not take.
So he runs away and opts for a dip in – dip out philosophy in order to try and limit harm to himself and her – and anyone else he encounters and likes. Â Until he experiences the loss of Amy and Rory and understands that he suffers the same pain when they are gone – perhaps dipping in and out does not help him after all. Perhaps it makes it worse for him and them.
It’s a unique approach, never tried before. Â And a mighty distinction between the two eras.
@Bluesqueakpip
No question – each Doctor has been, at times, irresponsible and immature.
Troughton’s need to be better than Zoe was delightful and funny – and immature.
The point is a good Doctor knows when being immature is the wrong response.
@Nick – you’re not going to get off so lightly! This blog was your idea and I’m really interested to hear what you feel are the differences between RTD and SM. @Bluesqueakpip and I have focused on the companions but there is so much more to discuss in terms of themes.
RTD had 9 and 10; SM has had 11. You’re right, the Time War is incredibly important in AG Who: 9 and 10 followed the progression of PTSD to megalomania, and 11 has hid his head in the sand a bit about his effect on the people he cares about most.
Do you attribute this change to SM as showrunner? Or do you think that any showrunner would have flagged up this issue?
@Bluesqueakpip – trust you to find the perfect quote. {sigh}
Thank you @HTPBDET – that was masterful, as always. And to draw it all back in to the distinction between showrunners – why do you think that SM deviated so wildly in his depiction of companions and their relationship to the Doctor?  Because he could? Because it was different to what came before? Because modern culture extols the virtues of dip in – dip out kind of relationships? (eg Facebook, Twitter, etc)
It’s interesting that you have posited that it’s the Doctor dipping in and out of his friends’ (/companions’) lives in SM’s reign – a lot of conversation up to now has been about how it’s the companions dipping in and out of the Doctor’s life.
And this: ‘Donna’s loss of her magnificent side’ – kudos to you for expressing my sentiments so tersely. She had the greatest story arc of all the companions (that I’ve seen), because she started at such a ‘low’ point, then grew to such great heights … and was left nattering in the end on her mobile to her friend about ‘planets in the sky! what are you like?!’ Of course, she had a come-back in overcoming the Master but that wasn’t enough.
Ahhh, @Nick – everything you’ve argued in your Companions thread post is relevant to this blog (which, can I remind you again, you asked for?!).
The change in the relationship between the Doctor and the Tardis between RTD’s reign and SM’s, is huge. This is bigger than the differences in how the companions have been dealt with between the two eras.
What does this change say about how SM has handled his reign as showrunner? And do you think the next showrunner (be it Mark Gatiss or another) will let this plotline down gently, or run with it?
@Shazzbot
As to SM’s motivations, well I think that he had a specific idea about how he viewed the Doctor’s travels and he wanted to explore that.
I also think that SM is very much about “moments” and “ideas” and a dip-in/dip-out approach provides more scope for that – equally, dip-in/dip-out provides for more of a modern feel – as you say, the modern attitude to short, rich commitment  – or transient over stable; ephemeral over permanent – is reflected in that sort of story-telling.
He also wanted to have longer arc stories, but wanted not to be a slave to the arc – and dipping in and out of the Doctor’s life permits that.
Yes, I am possibly quite alone in my view about who is dipping where – but that’s okay. I feel quite calm that my view is correct and I am equally calm that other people know that their view is correct for them.
RTD would tell a string of stories and scatter clues which eventually fell into place when the denouement was revealed.
SM likes to show you the ending, or part of the ending, or a version of the ending and then work backwards, peppering the odd clue here and there, sometimes leaving the arc entirely, and then stitching all the patchwork elements together when he is ready.
It is entirely a matter of taste which approach is preferable. But they are certainly different!
đ
@Shazzbot
Yes, a good chunk of what I had tried to express in the Distinction blog and the Companions thread and the various counter-views fits in here, although in trying to keep the original discussion flowing I continued there. Perhaps we should copy both sets into here ? (views anyone) or it may be better to summarise the arguments here perhaps ?
Nick
@HTPBDET –
I think you won the ÂŁ5 there in terms of the difference between RTD and SM. I was blindly feeling my way toward it with my explanation of start-middle-end story arcs vs toss-it-all-at-the-screen story arcs. But, of course, you’re right – it’s not a scattershot approach that SM has done; his difference was showing the payoff first, and then getting back down to telling the story of how we arrived at that payoff.
Job done! What next blog topic can I totally screw up?! ( đ )
@Shazzbot @HTPBDET
I agree of course, but is your description entirely correct description. The “fall of 11” as dropped in quite a while back, but we still don’t know what it exactly means. His narrative is ? perhaps more typical (beginning middle end) than you suggest, its just that he hasn’t chosen to (yet) make it clear how the different bits, perhaps from several strands of the same story arc fit together yet.
Is he doing Series 8 as well ? (I thought he was was). Its possible that he will take the final dÊnouement int0 2014 rather than end it here with the anniversary or Christmas special.
Nick
@Shazzbot
Is it?
I rather think too much has been made from The Doctor’s Wife:
Now, that does not mean that the TARDIS always controls what happens to the Doctor and where she lands. It can mean that, but it does not have to mean that.
And it’s not true. The TARDIS did not take the Doctor to where the kidnapped Melody was, for instance.
And, personally, I think it simply means that when things were desperate for him she always took him where he needed to go – which could simply be a way of saying that she permitted him the energy to regenerate – because it was established in Tenth Planet and Power of the Daleks that the TARDIS was central to the regeneration process. (We have discussed this elsewhere)
So, I don’t think, for even a moment, that the TARDIS has taken him, say, to Telos (for Tomb) or Nerva Beacon (for Ark in Space) or anywhere else.
But, no doubt, it did take him to all the places he needed to go and asked her to take him…like Metebelis Three for instance. In the final episode of Planet of the Spiders, the Doctor says the “TARDIS brought me home”.
We have known for ages that the TARDIS is sentient and protective of her main passenger.
I don’t think The Doctor’s Wife changed anything.
@Nick – you’re entirely right, in that so far this thread has focused on the differences in how companions are treated betwen RTD’s and SM’s reigns as showrunner.
But what, as you ask, is the Doctor? Does his story arc template fit the beginning-middle-end of RTD’s companion template? Or is his template more like SM’s end-middle-beginning template of companions?
Fire away. @HTPBDET sort of nailed the ‘arc’ differences between the two eras, but there are plenty more themes to tease out between these two very different showrunners.
@HTPBDET – you’re on the edge of incurring @Craig ‘s wrath because you’re bringing in BG Who into this ostensibly AG Who thread. đ
Which is what I always wanted, so, thank you. đ  But besides what the Tardis has been shown to be capable of, and how the Doctor reacts to being ‘controlled’ by her, how do you think this reflects the viewpoint of the current or past showrunner?
Is there an argument to be had about how it was impossible in the 60s/70s for a so-called sci-fi show show to be ultimately controlled by a female figure? Ships / boats et al have been deemed ‘female’ for centuries, so it’s hardly a stretch for the Doctor to refer to his Tardis as female, long before Idris came onto the scene.
@Nick
I did not mean to suggest that we were at the end of any particular SM arc or indeed any arc…there may well be an over-reaching one – we wont know until SM leaves I expect.
But we have had mini-arcs along the way – these may or may not turn out to be the SM arcs.
Time will tell.
đ
@Shazzbot
I would never want to incur the wrath of @Craig! Please delete anything that should not be here!
@HTPBDET – I think that’s a bad use of the word ‘need’. The Doctor almost certainly wanted to go to where the kidnapped Melody was. But it equally certainly wasn’t what he needed.
Had he found the kidnapped Melody, the River Song of the Library would almost certainly not have existed. The Ponds would have gone back home with their daughter, and probably never dared travel with the Doctor again. Their daughter would probably not have regenerated into ‘Mels’ (no pneumonia due to homelessness) and quite likely not into ‘River’ (Lets Kill Hitler wouldn’t have happened).
And Tennant’s Doctor would have died at the Library.
@Shazzbot
Verity Lambert made sure the programme started with a fearless, fabulous and wonderful woman at the very centre of the action – Barbara. But she was always second to the TARDIS.
The minute the TARDIS doors were opened I was hooked.
The feeling I always had was that the Doctor was at fault, not the TARDIS. They did not go where he wanted to take them because of something he, not the TARDIS, had done.
I confess to not seeing anything which suggests that Smith’s Doctor has reacted one way or the other to the notion of “being controlled” by the TARDIS. I don’t think the Doctor thinks that.
@Shazzbot
Ahem! I take exception to this phrase being used to define the Moffat era. It’s very much still under discussion and a minority view at this stage đ (See companions thread)
The TARDIS’s view on where the Dr “needs” to be could be as simple as – “it’s the place we’ve just arrived at!”
I agree with @HTPBDET – I really don’t think the Doctor’s Wife changed things that much. The Dr is clearly very much still in charge in terms of operating/steering the TARDIS, choosing destinations and deciding what to do once he’s there. The TARDIS intervenes in extreme circumstances. But the story (by Neil Gaiman, not Stephen Moffat) confirmed a suspicion/hope that a lot of fans had entertained for a long time, that the TARDIS is more than just a machine. It was also suggested at the end of the story that the TARDIS as a human was a 1-off, that when she reverted to full TARDIS-form that they would not be able to communicate with each other in the same way.
Beautiful moment for me was in JttCotT when the TARDIS is shown with her engines blown apart, but held in stasis, to (temporarily) protect herself and her occupants. The Dr’s emotional response to that was as great as for the loss of one of his human companions/friends. But they couldn’t communicate directly with each other.
Unless of course, as @Nick suggests Moffat is in fact going for a rebrand to The TARDIS and her Doctor! I do think SM’s motivation is to ultimately reboot so that there is a relatively cleaner sheet for future writers to be inventive without being overly hampered by continuity issues. If you look at how much the show has changed since he took over, it’s quite remarkable. Whether everyone likes the process of how that change is taking place is a different thing. Starting with the Time War damaged Dr was a great conceit, for all sorts of reasons, but 8 years, and 2 regenerations on, it’s probably time for the Dr to get of therapy đ
PS Re moving posts around – My preference would be to leave the threads as they are, it would be too complicated to start shunting things around, and some of the discussions would probably lose what vestiges of sense they have!  Just link to particular point if you want to highlight
Apologies to @Bluesqueakpip and @HTPBDET Overlapping posts (I’m a slow thinker đ )
HTPBDET – You summed up the magic just here –
Agree, agree, agree ;-D (oooh, that little hum as the (chunky) doors opened)
Now I’m going back to work – please stop distracting me!!! (And let my inner 7 yo go back to sleep again đ )
@HTPBDET
SM story arc/arcs
Yes I actually believe he will tie them all together before he goes. We may well be in for a shock if he does as I think he’s probably playing a long game he had in his mind at the outset (although it will have changed/developed over the years of course)
Nick
@ScaryB @HTPBDET @Bluesqueakpip
Watchyerself @ScaryB! “we are watching the Tardis show with her puppet Doctor” was @Nick, not me.  I was simply quoting him.
You’re not alone in that hope. This is why I wish the 50th / Christmas special episodes will deal with the Time War, and get it out of the way. PTSD Doctor worked for RTD’s re-boot, considering the gap in between what we’d last seen of the Doctor, and what CE alluded to in his past. But continuing to drag that heavy weight behind him for future series like a clanking chain? Not what I would call a fresh start.
@HTPBDET – “The minute the TARDIS doors were opened I was hooked.” You and me both, my friend; just decades apart. đ
@Bluesqueakpip – “I think thatâs a bad use of the word âneedâ. The Doctor almost certainly wanted to go to where the kidnapped Melody was. But it equally certainly wasnât what he needed.”
In retrospect, that’s always the conundrum; that, however clever the Doctor is, his Tardis knows more, and better, about what needs to be done or not done.
@Bluesqueakpip
Personally, I think the Doctor needed to find Melody, as, indeed, he eventually did.
I don’t think any consequences arising from that for him matter – it was the right thing to do for his friends. Melody was taken because of him. He was obligated to find her.
Which, as I say, he eventually did.
I just can’t see that the TARDIS does control where he goes and when and I still think that if she did she would have taken him to Melody sooner.
Need is such an interesting word. Need because otherwise you will die? Need because it feels right? Need because it means the same as want? Need because someone thinks you should need? Need because you think you need?
“Need” is as fluid a concept as they come.
đ
@HTPBDET –
Right now, I ‘need’ an air conditioner. đ Which is unduly glib for what you have posted, HTPBDET, sorry. It was quite thought-provoking and I went into auto-pilot ‘glib’ mode, apologies.
But it’s still too bl**dy hot out.
And it’s still worth thinking more about the multiple definitions of ‘need’.
@Shazzbot
RTD is obsessed with Atheism and the decimation of Religion – reflecting this trend in contemporary society. His Drs are the Lonely Gods, ironic replacement Messiahs. Â Also, RTD draws attention to the flaw in the Drs’ pacifism – his friends do his dirty work. You tell him, Davros! The stories are peppered with homosexual japes…..
SM is obsessed with an entertaining form of convolution. All wild geese chases and wibbly wobbly twists. His Dr is a Madman with a box, who often becomes entangled in catch 22-self fulfilling foretelling. He seems to be heading towards the opposite of what he set out to achieve (like RTD’s ‘Time Lord Victorious’) because of all those Back-to-Fronty prophecies. The frequency of visits to the 51st Century (The age of AI) Â must bear some significance (with more to come?). The stories are crammed with ‘Women are evil’ puns…..
@wolfweed – did you notice that I’ve been adding links to your On the Sofa notices about your caption competitions? I don’t want to teach your grandmother to suck eggs, but if you want a pointer on how to do that, let me know.
I don’t think you can get away lightly with this statement:
Citations, please!
@HTPBDET @Shazzbot
Re the Tardis show
This originally came out of a point I raise which questioned why the Doctors ability to steer the Tardis in the AG-SM era hd mkedly improved than in earlier series (both AG and BG). I think @Madscientist 72 and then @Bluesqueakpip (I  think as I can’t check on my blackberry at home) got ito a discussion that implied that  meant h te Tardis was actually in charge.
@Nick – the line from The Doctor’s Wife where Idris says ‘ … but I always took you to where you needed to go’ is one that allows for plenty of robust debate.
I saw your convo on the other thread and I’m not sure I have a foot in either camp: 1) That the Tardis really has been controlling everything, all along; or 2) it’s all about the Doctor learning to fly the Tardis better throughout the 50 years the programme has been on (several hundred years in his personal timeline). Or rather to say, I’m straddling both camps like a game of Twister. đ
For purposes of this thread, it’s definitely something Moffat added to the show (well, Neil Gaiman did, but under Moffat as showrunner). Is this something that makes Moffat’s reign different from RTD’s – does Moffat feel more sure of himself, more able to add to canon, than RTD did? RTD was tasked with reviving the programme from the BBC morgue, so he had different pressures on him – at least at the beginning. By the end of Tennant’s iteration, RTD was certainly playing fast and loose with canon, adding the Messiah Complex that @wolfweed referred to amongst other things.
But seemingly throwaway lines that appear to change everything we’ve known about the programme? That seems more Moffat-y to me. But my head is so woolly from this unrelenting heat (aren’t you in Dubai? you must be chuckling at us here in the UK complaining about 26c temperatures!) that I can’t think of other examples right now.
Dearest @Shazzbot
Given that I think we are agreed that that line from Doctor’s Wife is open to interpretation, I don’t see that Moffat added anything to the series by allowing its inclusion in Doctor’s Wife. We have known for decades that the TARDIS was sentient.
RTD gave us the Time War, the rationale for the Master’s villainy, tied up the story of the Doctor and Sarah-Jane Smith, established the TARDIS as a source of unimaginable power and introduced Captain Jack, the Ood, the Weeping Angels and River Song.
I think RTD did a pretty good job of  being able “to add to canon“.
I don’t know what you mean by Moffat providing “seemingly throwaway lines that appear to change everything we’ve known about the programme.” I can’t think of one except, perhaps, “but not in the name of the Doctor”.
But we don’t know what that means yet.
đ
The stories are crammed with âWomen are evilâ puns
@Wolfweed and @Shazzbot
My favourite of the ‘women are evil’ puns is when the Twelfth Century monk crosses himself at the thought of a woman.
Yes, they really had medieval attitudes in  … medieval England. đ
One way of looking at the relationship between the TARDIS and the Doctor is to use the title that Gaiman/Moffat gave us.
The Doctor’s Wife.
That is, rather than thinking of one side of being ‘in charge’ of the other, it’s much more give and take. With occasional dark mutterings, sulks, and cries of ‘next time you do the driving and I’ll read the map’.
Occasionally the conversation goes something like:
Doctor: Let’s go to Space Vegas!
TARDIS: Yes, dear. Next weekend. Or last weekend. We need to go and do something about that Ice Warrior in the submarine.
Doctor: It’s got Vegas-y things. In space!
TARDIS: Yes, dear. But Clara will be with with you in the submarine. And I can see her standing next to you in the console room.
Doctor: And it’ll be exciting!
TARDIS: Yes, dear. Oh, look. We’re materialising on the submarine…
Or:
Doctor: 1893, to check out Clara. We can see if she remembers the Paternoster Gang.
TARDIS: You won’t meet them in London, dear. They’re going to be in Yorkshire.
Doctor: Set course for London!
TARDIS: They won’t be in London. They’re going to Bradford.
Doctor: Why are we in Bradford?
TARDIS: Try not to breathe in when you get dipped in slug venom … oh, never mind.
đ
@Shazzbot & @Bluesqueakpip
LKH
(On River)
Amy: ‘One minute she’s going to marry you, and then she’s going to kill you?’
Dr: ‘Ah, well, she’s been brainwashed, it all makes sense. Plus, she’s a woman.’
TWORS
Churchill: ‘Explain to me in terms that I can understand. What happened to time?’
Dr: ‘A woman.’
TBOSJ
(The Dr is on the TARDIS ‘police box’ phone, mid call from Clara.)
Monk: ‘Is it an evil spirit?’
Dr: ‘It’s a woman.’
(The Monk crosses himself.)
I haven’t yet read through all the posts here so apologies if this had already been said.
I find the greatest underlying difference between Moffat and RTD is that the latterâs writing is grounded in the everyday. His characters are ârealâ, a housing estate high school drop out, a med student with family issues and a temp whose life has hit a dead end, or several. RTDâs best stories reflected everyday concerns and issues, and that was his great strength. He reflected back to us the world we were familiar with. It was when he attempted to go beyond the everyday that his imagination failed, reminding me of a singer who canât get the high notes.
Moffat on the other hand is most comfortable with the high notes. His Doctor is based in fantasy, in Escher type stories, which make the brain hurt trying to rationalise. His characterâs are far from ârealâ. Amy, the girl who waited, had an impossible children, without parents, at least until the re-set but even then her best friend was her future daughter. Clara is impossible from the outset too. Neither Amy or Clara are âeverydayâ, not is any aspect of the universe his Doctor inhabits. It has been rebooted from a memory, and the normal rules of existence no longer seem to fully apply. Moffatâs universe feels like an alternate one to our own.
Moffatâs approach to Dr Who is opposite to RTDâs. He begins in the fantasy and works towards the real whereas RTD began in the real then added the fantasy. This gives the respective seasons of the two Showrunners a very different feel.
Both writers have their strengths and both their weaknesses. RTD seemed to be always trying to outdoe himself, to give a bigger bang at the end of each season and ended up delivering embarassing absurdity, (the bouncing master). S.M. has a tendency to build wonderful arcs that don’t really deliver at the end. But what wonderful journeys both show runners have taken the Doctor and us on.
When I heard that Do Who was returning I did not get excited. I was reluctant to even watch it after the fiasco of the film. RTD gave us something that was both old and new and I fell in love with AG Who right from the first episode. I haven’t been disappointed by Moffat’s tenure. Of course some stories are not so good but there were some real clangers in the past and I loved the series still because its strengths far outweigh its weaknesses under both show runners.
Cheers
Janette
@janetteB @wolfweed @Bluesqueakpip @HTPBDET @ScaryB @Nick
Janette, thanks for your comment! This is why I preferred an open-question type of blog, because everyone is coming at the issue with a different PoV. And your real life v fantasy distinction, and what you pointed out about series ends, I agree with utterly.
Wolfweed, OK, point taken, sort of. Except The Doctor’s not having a go at all women, just one particular one, who fascinates and frustrates him in equal measure. And as Bluey already pointed out, a medieval monk having medieval attitudes about women isn’t such a stretch. đ
Bluey – I loved the Doctor/Wife (erm, Tardis) travel dialogues!
HTPBDET (and everyone too) – I thought about this last night and woke up with a reply:
See, now, this is where I think describing differences in the showrunning themes / characters etc between RTD and SM gets wibbley-wobbley. Because even though RTD would have had to approve SM’s scripts, and therefore what SM introduced could be thought of as ‘RTD introductions’, in reality, how can you say that Weeping Angels and River Song were RTD’s? They each appeared in one episode in RTD’s reign and went on to reappear many more times – and have crucial plot points – under SM’s reign.
For contrast, Neil Gaiman introduced the idea that Time Lords could regenerate as male or female by having 11 mention that about The Corsair. But unless NG becomes the next showrunner and presides over a regeneration to a different gender, I’ll have to give that one to SM.