Doctor Who: Season 4

[Houndred]

It would have been better if SOMEBODY really did die, though I'd be sad for Wilf. pfffft.

Oh and thanks for the clothing free Dr. :wideeyed:
What is so wrong with us hearing him say he loves Rose? Even the duplicate? It's ok for tons of people to die but all we get is a whispered in the ear lost in translation rip off?


x-mas special:
So basically they wiped the slate clean with the Dr on his own again, Ok....but.... for fscks sake, THINK OF A NEW ALIEN/EVIL for us to be bothered with already. :rolleyes:

[Maltaran]

That was a complete cop-out with Donna. She should have properly died!

[potsherds]

[quote name='Blue Roses' post='1428702' date='Jul 5 2008, 20.49']what, huh, what just happened, how, eh, pause rewind, oh I get it, what, Capn Jack's not dead, oh for goodness sake, a lot of Dalek stuff, reality bomb, why, what, eh, regeneration, what, uh, pause, rewind, and alot of mumbo jumbo, oh just plain silly, this makes no sense, what, huh, now there are multiple copies running round, what the hells happening, more mumbo jumbo, oh for goodness the sake the earth can't move like, what, huh, what are they talking about, crying, what, huh, now there off to join Torchwood, more crying, oh for goodness sake and yet again cybermen. Here endeth the series.

And yes the Daleks talking in German was most amusing.[/quote]

Exactly!!!


Gotta agree that Tate's acting got much better over the series. I'm really getting sick of all the Tate hate. I liked her attitude, although could of done with a little less hysterics. But honestly, so she' not the skinniest and prettiest companion, she still was a good foil to the Doctor, and was quite tolerable by about half-way through the season. I dare say, Donna was a great deal better than Martha. Ugh.


Definitely looking forward to Davies(?) leaving and Moffat taking over. We need some new ideas.

[Xanrn]

Yeah the actress who plays Martha is so wooden its funny.

Such a fuss made about genociding the Daleks, I mean come on.

[potsherds]

I've been browsing a feminist's fandom-something LJ, and the talk of how Donna wasn't given the choice of burning out and dieing as someone she wanted to be, and instead mind-wiped and returned to a person she loathes, was really quite offensive. I have to agree in retrospect. There are other points made about the general uselessness of Rose, Martha, and Sarah Jane Smith, in this episode, and it really adds up to putting the Doctor back as the lonely, vengeful, emo-god, and the women back in their place. Huh. Lack of enthusiasm over the ep just turned to mild distaste.

[potsherds]

Ooooh. And two lovely quotes from Moffat:

[quote]There’s this issue you’re not allowed to discuss: that women are needy. Men can go for longer, more happily, without women. That’s the truth. We don’t, as little boys, play at being married - we try to avoid it for as long as possible. Meanwhile women are out there hunting for husbands.[/quote]

[quote]Well, the world is vastly counted in favour of men at every level - except if you live in a civilised country and you’re sort of educated and middle-class, because then you’re almost certainly junior in your relationship and in a state of permanent, crippled apology. Your preferences are routinely mocked. There’s a huge, unfortunate lack of respect for anything male.[/quote]


My hope that Doctor Who will improve with Moffat in charge have just plummeted. The stories might be somewhat more original, but I can't hope to have any worthwhile female foil for the Doctor while he's in charge. Yeah, I think Doctor Who is going quickly down the tubes.

[Jon AS]

This soooo did not live up to the build up. As others have said, this show desperately needs some original ideas. And less Deus Ex Machina resolutions.

[quote name='potsherds']And two lovely quotes from Moffat:[/quote]

Wow that's...pathetic.

[mormont]

[quote name='potsherds' post='1429329' date='Jul 6 2008, 18.37']I've been browsing a feminist's fandom-something LJ, and the talk of how Donna wasn't given the choice of burning out and dieing as someone she wanted to be, and instead mind-wiped and returned to a person she loathes, was really quite offensive. I have to agree in retrospect. There are other points made about the general uselessness of Rose, Martha, and Sarah Jane Smith, in this episode, and it really adds up to putting the Doctor back as the lonely, vengeful, emo-god, and the women back in their place. Huh. Lack of enthusiasm over the ep just turned to mild distaste.[/quote]

Yeesh. No offence, but this analysis seems... well, rather partial and simplistic, and bluntly I think it's missed a fairly large point.

For one thing, Mickey and Jack were every bit as useless as Rose, Martha and Sarah-Jane (and Jackie and Harriet, who are odd omissions from the list: why no mention of them?). None of them ultimately stopped the Daleks, though Rose and Harriet in particular played crucial roles earlier. But the one thing they did all do was step up and take responsibility. They tried to do something themselves, on their own initiative, rather than being helpless bystanders.

And the Doctor, let's remember, was pretty generally useless himself. It was Donna, in the last analysis, who saved the day: [i]not[/i] the Doctor, in either incarnation.

To criticise the writing because the female companions are 'useless' is therefore pretty silly. If we're going to analyse everything in terms of sex and gender, we might as easily point to the fact that of the three Osterhagen key operators, it was the only man who was the one who refused to take moral responsibility for his actions.

On the decision of the Doctor to blank Donna's memory, this does fit a pattern. It's a pattern that is deliberately referenced in the episode, was highlighted in a recent episode, and has been consistent throughout every incarnation of the Doctor going back to the 60s. It's simply that he's an arrogant, high-handed S.O.B. For all his warm words about humanity, he does not regard his companions (male or female) or any other human being as his equal: and he never has. He is perfectly comfortable dictating crucial decisions on behalf of the whole human race on the basis of what he personally thinks is best, never mind one individual. The only characters that have ever really stood up to him on this are Harriet, and Donna.

As an example, as well as Donna's memory, look at what he does with Rose. Not only does he refuse to commit to her, or even admit that he loves her: but he dumps her in a parallel universe and palms her off with a second-rate substitute of himself. And for this she is supposed to be [i]grateful[/i].

Now, you can certainly construct an argument about this being an 'alpha male' behaviour pattern: and if this was being presented as an unreservedly admirable thing, then yeah, I would agree that the writers should be shot. But it's not. Simply because the Doctor did choose for Donna does not mean that the writers believe or expect you to agree that he was right to do so. They've spent some time in recent series pointing out the alternative view - indeed, that was the point of including Davros' observations in the episode itself. There's something of the benevolent dictator about the Doctor: an ambiguity to his character, at the very least. Enough that I don't think it's at all fair to tar the writers with the Doctor's actions.

[Werthead]

Very disappointing. No deaths, the TARDIS survives unharmed, Davros was massively under-used and there wasn't really any point to him sticking around, and the fate of the second Doctor was lame. It's also quite obvious that Davros and probably Dalek Caan will return.

[b]Torchwood[/b] Season 3 does look more interesting now though, and it's about time they noted the Gwyneth/Gwen thing. Also, it's very intriguing that the Daleks name the Doctor 'the Destroyer of Worlds', as that's what they called him in [i]Rememberance of the Daleks[/i], the Ka Faraq Gatri ('Bringer of Darkness'/'Destroyer of Worlds').

Also remember that RTD is still in charge for this year's Christmas special and the three new specials next year. I think he only hands over to Moffat for the 2010 Christmas special, so it's still a while before things will change in a big way.

And they still haven't pushed the button properly on the Time War yet. There must still be more to be told about that conflict, and what it was that the Doctor did that destroyed both Skaro and Gallifrey and both the Dalek and Time Lord fleets and sealed the whole thing away from the rest of the universe. I suspect we won't see this properly unless they make a feature film, but certainly there should be some clarification of WTF was going on there.

[felice]

Another translation of "Ka Faraq Gatri" is "nice guy - if you're a biped", and this episode certainly fits the spirit of that version. The Doctor is very arbitrary about who he chooses to protect; he condemns his clone for wiping out the Daleks even though they'd otherwise have killed countless innocents, just as he condemns Harriet Jones for destroying the Sycorax ship which would have gone on to enslave people from other worlds instead.

The Time War is clearly going to get undone at some point; Dalek Caan has now established that the events of the Time War aren't immutable after all, and if Davros can be retrieved, why not Gallifrey? The only question is whether it will happen in next year's specials, or be left for a later producer.

[Dornish]

[quote name='potsherds' post='1429334' date='Jul 6 2008, 13.46']Ooooh. And two lovely quotes from Moffat:

My hope that Doctor Who will improve with Moffat in charge have just plummeted. The stories might be somewhat more original, but I can't hope to have any worthwhile female foil for the Doctor while he's in charge. Yeah, I think Doctor Who is going quickly down the tubes.[/quote]
Not to be a pig about it, but I'd say from a certain perspective those quotes are pretty spot on. And there's no way Moffat is anti-woman though he is incredibly skilled at lampooning modern relationships. Watch [i]Coupling[/i] if you haven't already. Its one of the funniest sitcoms ever, sort of a [i]Seinfeld[/i] meets [i]Friends[/i], but with a [i]High Fidelity[/i] style honest humor to it. Oh and written entirely by Mr Moffat.

ETA re: the mind wipe. It's been part of the Doctor's character since the start of the 2005 series that he can't stand to lose those loyal to him. It's perfectly consistent for him to protect his companions against their wishes. Really this is no different than when he conned Rose into the TARDIS sending it back out of harm's way in season 1.

ETA2: It could be argued though that Donna, given the circumstances, should have been able to resist the wipe. This would have been braver writing and lead to a far more touching, and IMO superior, ending.

[mormont]

Funnily enough, Dornish, those two quotes are in response to being asked about [i]Coupling[/i].

[url="http://news.scotsman.com/doctorwho/Time-Lad-scores-with-sex.2535185.jp"]http://news.scotsman.com/doctorwho/Time-La...-sex.2535185.jp[/url]

In fact, they are an explanation of the weaknesses of the female characters. To be fair to him, then, he acknowledges that 'women don't come off well' in the series: and the quotes are (if you like) a one-sided view - he's specifically explaining his view of women's flaws. So it isn't his overall view of women, and it would be unfair to suggest that it was.

On the other hand, it is part of his view of them, and it is by and large anecdotal and inaccurate. (As the interviewer in that article suggests, women living alone actually cope better than men: they have better emotional and physical health than single men. The issue about respect is obviously more subjective, but speaking as a bloke it doesn't actually tally with my experience at all.)

ps [i]Coupling[/i] was OK for a while but got predictable and worn out quickly. It is certainly not even an outside contender for funniest UK sitcom made in the last ten years, let alone ever.

[Dornish]

[quote name='mormont' post='1430519' date='Jul 7 2008, 14.09']ps [i]Coupling[/i] was OK for a while but got predictable and worn out quickly. It is certainly not even an outside contender for funniest UK sitcom made in the last ten years, let alone ever.[/quote]To be fair, a love of UK TV is an expensive hobby on this side of the Atlantic, and it sure beats the pants off anything we have over here, what else would you recommend? I'm about halfway through Blackadder and I dig Jeeves and Wooster.

[Derfel Cadarn]

[quote name='Dornish' post='1430567' date='Jul 7 2008, 13.37']To be fair, a love of UK TV is an expensive hobby on this side of the Atlantic, and it sure beats the pants off anything we have over here, what else would you recommend? I'm about halfway through Blackadder and I dig Jeeves and Wooster.[/quote]

Father Ted
Yes Minister and the follow-up, Yes Prime Minister
Only Fools and Horses

[Werthead]

[quote name='Dornish' post='1430567' date='Jul 7 2008, 19.37']To be fair, a love of UK TV is an expensive hobby on this side of the Atlantic, and it sure beats the pants off anything we have over here, what else would you recommend? I'm about halfway through Blackadder and I dig Jeeves and Wooster.[/quote]

[b]Spaced[/b], [b]The Office[/b] and Season 1 of [b]Extras[/b] (S2 was pants). S1 of [b]The League of Gentlemen[/b] as well (S2 was weak, S3 was unwatchably bad).

Oh yeah, and [b]Father Ted[/b] as well :)

[potsherds]

[quote name='mormont' post='1430519' date='Jul 7 2008, 18.09']Funnily enough, Dornish, those two quotes are in response to being asked about [i]Coupling[/i].

[url="http://news.scotsman.com/doctorwho/Time-Lad-scores-with-sex.2535185.jp"]http://news.scotsman.com/doctorwho/Time-La...-sex.2535185.jp[/url]

In fact, they are an explanation of the weaknesses of the female characters. To be fair to him, then, he acknowledges that 'women don't come off well' in the series: and the quotes are (if you like) a one-sided view - he's specifically explaining his view of women's flaws. So it isn't his overall view of women, and it would be unfair to suggest that it was.

On the other hand, it is part of his view of them, and it is by and large anecdotal and inaccurate. (As the interviewer in that article suggests, women living alone actually cope better than men: they have better emotional and physical health than single men. The issue about respect is obviously more subjective, but speaking as a bloke it doesn't actually tally with my experience at all.)[/quote]

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, but I [i]think[/i] you're trying to excuse the quotes of Moffatt's opinions when couched in the frame of reference, that article. I read that article, and find those quotes no less offensive.

That's really all I need to say on it though. This is a thread about Doctor Who, not one of it's misogynistic writers.

[mormont]

pots: no, I think you took me wrong there.

I mentioned that the article was about [i]Coupling[/i] because Dornish seemed to be implying that the series was a better reflection of Moffat's views on the sexes than the quotes are. Obviously, since the quotes are in relation to the series, this is not so.

I think it's reasonable to make as many allowances for people as possible, when you can't ask them directly about their views but are going off third party quotes. So I do think it's fair to point out that he wasn't discussing his overall view of women in the first quote, but specifically his views of their weaknesses. He might have equally critical things to say about men, he might have a lot to say in praise of women. But even if he does, that doesn't make his views above either correct or justifiable, of course. They're neither, even when giving him as much benefit of the doubt as I think I can.

ETA - I was actually interested in your view of my earlier points about the final episode, by the way... :)

[Dornish]

[quote name='potsherds' post='1430616' date='Jul 7 2008, 15.16']I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, but I [i]think[/i] you're trying to excuse the quotes of Moffatt's opinions when couched in the frame of reference, that article. I read that article, and find those quotes no less offensive.

That's really all I need to say on it though. This is a thread about Doctor Who, not one of it's misogynistic writers.[/quote]I think you're 100% wrong here. The fact is, Moffat's episodes have given us some of the best and strongest female characters on the show.

The Doctor's interaction with Mme. Du Pompador is the closest the character's ever come to treating a human like an equal instead of a glorified pet. Sally Sparrow pretty much carried the whole episode solo with some help from her bumbling male assistant. And River Song fucking punched the Doctor out because she knew she was right and he was wrong. He writes much better women than Davies, who gave us weepy Doctor loving Rose, weepy Doctor loving Martha, useless man crazy Jackie, etc.

ETA: Yeah, I ate some crow on the Coupling thing, I could go into a discussion on why there's still nothing misogynistic about the show but here's not the place.

[Werthead]

Former [b]Who[/b] novel writer Lawrence Miles [url="http://beasthouse-lm2.blogspot.com/2008/07/week-thirteen-25-ways-to-make-doctor.html"]has outlined here[/url] his 25-point plan to make Doctor Who 'more interesting'. Some of which is interesting and some of which is just ludicrous.

It should be pointed out who this guy is: Miles was one of the creative forces behind the [b]Who[/b] mythos whilst it was restrained to the novels, particularly the late 1990s period when Virgin Books handed over to BBC Books. He was the creator in the books of the 'Great Time War', and seems to hold a grudge against RTD using that concept in the series but not giving him credit and claiming it's not the same Time War. He's cheesed off and pretty full of himself. That said, some of his ideas are not without merit.

[b] 1. A companion who isn't from the early twenty-first century.[/b]
[b]
[/b]This is fair. In the old series the Doctor sometimes travelled with aliens, robots and humans from other epochs. In fact, between the departure of Ben and Polly in 1966 and his return to Earth in 1970, he didn't have a single contemporary companion: Jamie was an 18th Century Jacobite rebel, Victoria was the daughter of a Victorian scientist and Zoe was a late 21st Century computer programmer from a space station. The idea of having someone the audience can relate to with their own family and stuff was a good idea when the show came back three years ago, but we're ready for something a bit different now. Interestingly, Martha was originally supposed to come from 1914, but RTD changed her to a more contemporary background once he decided to link her to the character Agyeman played in the Season 2 finale.
[b]
2. A companion who's played by a proper actress. [/b]
[b]
[/b]Harsh, but may be a glimmer of truth there. Billie Piper, Kylie Minogue and Catherine Tate all smacked of 'gimmicky' casting, for all that it paid off at some point, and Freema Agyeman wasn't very experienced. Putting a more experienced actress in who can actually hold a scene with proper actors is a worthwhile idea. Carey Mulligan (Sally Sparrow) is a very good actress and that came through with her scenes in [i]Blink[/i].

[b]3. We don't necessarily need a single companion [/b]

I agree with this, and Old Who worked much better with multiple companions. However, that was during serials at least twice the length of the current stories where there's more time to fill and every character can have their own story arc. Two companions would probably be the limit in the new series and its 45-min episodes.

[b]4. No more affairs for the Doctor. [/b]

Agreed. Madame Pompadour worked but for the rest, no thanks.

[b] 5. A less sexy, less athletic Doctor. [/b]

Not entirely sure what he's going on about here. Maybe we could get a more charasmatic, slightly older Doctor (a Tom Baker for our times, perhaps) but it looks more likely that they'll continue plumping for actors who can actually withstand the extremely vigorous filming schedule. Plus, if they're good actors does it really matter if they're 'less sexy and less athletic'?

[b]6. No spurious super-powers. [/b]

Yes, it is a bit weird when the Doctor suddenly solves a problem by mind-melding with someone (WTF did that come from?) without any explanation.

[b] 7. The Doctor shouldn't know everything. [/b]

Agreed, although the Doctor's age and experience should count for something. Old Who, up until the McCoy years, often went too far in the direction of the Doctor not knowing what was going on, whilst the new series leans too far the other way. A better balance is needed.

[b]8. The Doctor shouldn't be perfect. [/b]

I don't think he is that perfect in the new series. In fact, one of the subtler story arcs of the new series has been his evolution from embittered ex-Time War soldier back to the intrepid explorer in time and space, but he's made quite a few mistakes along the way.

[b]9. The Doctor's presence should never, ever be the solution (the character himself is gradually becoming a deus ex machina).[/b]

Correct, especially when all the people in the world's 'belief' can cause him to defeat the Master or when he can regenerate from his own hand or something. The Doctor should find or help find the solution, never actually becoming the solution.

[b] 10. No technobabble. [/b]

Considering RTD promised there wouldn't be any technobabble back in 2005, it's hilarious that the entire show is now awash with it, especially Saturday's episode.

[b] 11. Absolutely no "magic wand" technology. [/b]

Whilst [b]Who[/b] has never been massively scientifically accurate, at least it would nod towards logic and plausibility, whilst the new series has gotten dafter and stupider as it has proceeded.

[b] 12. Please, in the name of God, less stories set on modern-day Earth. [/b]

RTD would probably argue about budgets, but it is amusing that, adjusted for inflation, the most expensive episodes the show ever filmed were in Seasons 7-10, when the Doctor was exiled to Earth by the Time Lords and never left the planet (well, he did a couple of times, but most stories of that period were set on contemporary Earth and cost an absolute fortune).

[b]13. No more alien invasions. [/b]

An alien invasion is fun, but we've had far too many of them.

[b] 14. Stop wasting money on "big" [/b]

Agreed, the show has gone as big as it can possibly go for now.

[b]15. Less CGI monsters. [/b]

Ah, so instead we can have more...Slitheen? :unsure:

[b]16. Stop making straight-to-video horror movies with all the horror taken out.[/b]

I'm not sure if he wants them to put more horror in (erm, 7pm on a Saturday night) or just stop with the horror altogether. But that would kill the new series stone dead.

[b] 17. We need writers who can write, not just directors who can direct.[/b]

Yep, some of new [b]Who[/b]'s writers are pretty good (Cornell, periodically Moffatt) but a lot of them have been rather bland. The directors have been top notch though, especially Graeme Harper (who was actually inherited from the original series).

[b] 18. I should obviously be hired as a writer.[/b]

Based on his own writing on the blog...no.

[b] 19. Make sure you hire the right "cult" comic-book author. [/b]

This is a response to the idea Moffat's had for asking Neil Gaiman to write for the show. Apparently Miles thinks they should aim for Alan Moore before laying into Gaiman for no reason.

[b]20. We need one - just one - proper historical story. [/b]

Yep, it would be great for the Doctor to actually have to handle some problem that doesn't involve aliens.

[b] 21. Historical stories that are actually about the era in question. [/b]

A return to the regular 'educational serial' days? No thanks, but the odd episode here and there might be interesting.

[b]22. Monsters that fit the story.[/b]

Eh? Most of the monsters they've used have fitted the story (like in [i]Blink [/i]or [i]The Satan Pit[/i]). Not sure what he means here.

[b] 23. Enough of the Daleks. [/b]

Yep, rest them for 2-3 years and then bring them back with a lot of fanfare. They've been done to death in this series.

[b] 24. Say no to story arcs. [/b]

I like story arcs, but [b]Who[/b] has overused them. I like his point about story arcs increasing the value of the season-ender episodes at the expense of the mid-season ones, which is a criticism I think can also be applied to [b]BSG[/b] and [b]Lost[/b] as well.

[b]25. Less Confidential, more Totally.[/b]

Never seen [i]Totally Doctor Who[/i], but I see nothing wrong with [i]Doctor Who Confidential[/i].

[Dornish]

I'd more or less agree with the first half of that list, and add: We don't necessarily need a female companion as the primary. At this point its starting to feel like the doctor cruises around the universe in his space/time Ferrari picking up single women.