RTD: I wanted to do a Star Trek crossover

[wamdue]

Given how much you like him, you're doing yourself a massive disfavor. The Second Coming and Bob & Rose are both brilliant pieces of television.

The Second Coming ill give you, but im not so sure about Bob & Rose.

Then your soul must be empty.

what makes you think I have a soul?

 

[The]

Jeez, Sci, is this your dissertation? I think you're taking my comments a might too personally/seriously. Let me see if I can wade through all of this...

Actually, none of that bothers me. Seriously. The main aspects of RTD's writing and presentation that bother me are the absurd Jesus-Doctor,

I've said it before and I'll say it again: That was an undermining of religious dogma, not a confirmation of it. The Doctor didn't save the world, humanity did; he just channeled them. He said so himself in ascribing the powers he gained to the human populace.

Which is fine if that's what you go to watch Doctor Who and tv for, the undermining of religion. Whereas, I go to it for exciting and intelligent plots, well-crafted and thought-out. Jesus-Doctor doesn't offend me because it's for or against religion. I could care less what Russel Davies thinks about religion. He's a fucking tv writer. I'm not going to invest time or thought into his armchair philosophies about metaphysical concepts. Jesus-Doctor offends me for being a ripe and bold cop-out. Just like Donna punching some buttons, and Rose becoming the Phoenix, Jesus-Doctor is an imbuement of superhuman abilities to The Doctor that were not previously in existance, had never been used before, and (god willing) won't be again. I mean, why stop with the Tinkerbell floating stuff? Why not just give him a big red cape and paint a "D" on his chest? Utter nonsense.

or bringing Rose back for the ratings,

I don't think he brought Rose back for the ratings. To me, it looked more like he did it because he knew he was writing his last season, and in the finale, he wanted to, well, play with all of his toys. I mean, "The Stolen Earth"/"Journey's End" is crammed with RTD's characters

Given the context, I can see it either way. So, I'll concede that was the reason for her return. But, I think we all know it was useless to the plot. Martha could very easily have filled that slot. Hell, Sarah could have filled the character slot. So, it was pretty pointless to bring her back, and thus gutted the emotional yearn of her ending.

or fantasy-optimism he has The Doctor spouting about he human race constantly

That's definitely a matter of subjective opinion.

Of course, as are the ones that subscribe to it.

I think that optimism about humanity, even in the face of all that, is still an appropriate theme. After all, Doctor Who is a family show. It's aimed at families and especially at children, and I don't think there's anything wrong with sending the message to children that people are basically good so long as you don't cover up the fact that people can be bastards, too.

And I'm not saying it's wrong, in its place. But, of all the writers for Doctor Who, RTD tends to go overboard with shoehorning those little pro-human rants into his scripts. He portrays humans as being "special" to the universe, and (like with Trek) I find that absolutely silly. The culture of "everyone is special" has lead to the culture of non-responsibility. There's good, there's bad, and there's mediocre in life, and I think it sends a false, commericalized message to the youth by saying "Humans are the most specialest of all the species, ever". That's why we're ruining this planet, because it's "our" planet. That's why anglo-saxons screwed the Native Americans and the Africans, because they were "special". It's an empty notion that humans are somehow better than the universe around them. I'd rather humans just be portrayed as to what we really are: "citizens of the universe" (or for the more pessimistic, "a devouring infestation").

or the much-remarked deus ex machina solutions

Some of which are no such things. The ending to "Last of the Time Lords," for instance, would be more accurately referred to as a deus ex demos device: The god from the people.

Come on man, terminology is just semantics. The ending is still a cop-out, no matter how you slice it.

And the solution to the Daleks and Cybermen in "Doomsday" is no such thing, as the Magic Levers of Doom do not intervene suddenly and without forewarning, but are instead MagGuffins that have to be earned by overcoming obstacles -- and who exact a price for their use in the form of Rose's disappearance.

I have no problem with this one, really. I always thought it was his best one. Until he brought her back again, that is.

Meanwhile, I don't think his deus ex machina endings are inappropriate for some of his stories. I mean, everyone love the Daleks, but, let's face it, it's impossible to defeat them without a deus ex machina under most circumstances.

Oh I dont know....the previous eight incarnations of The Doctor never had too much problems coming up with at least a slightly plausible and relatively solid solutions to the Daleks, that didn't involve Sarah, Tegan, or Ace punching the "Control the Daleks" buttons. I'm willing to just ignore it, since I love Donna and thought the episode was fun in and of itself. But, it really is transparent that he painted his plot into a corner.

They're simply too powerful -- and, if you were to use them in the most adult manner possible, too dangerous.

Then that's the nature of the beast. If you're going to create a villian who is that powerful, then you have to have the intelligence to create plots that serve to deal with them on an equal level. Dumbing them down to spinning tops to solve your creative dilema is shooting yourself in the foot, and it's lazy writing.

And much as I agree they're over-used, I also think that they serve an important rhetorical purpose in a family show, reminding children what the dangers of racism and ethnocentricity really are.

And Superman is an analogue to empowering American immigrants, and Jews of the 1940's. I'm pretty sure both have evolved past their original, antiquated intentions. The Daleks have always been the Nazis. That aspect of theirs is pretty paper-thin these days, though. Besides their obvious marketing value, they're about as socially and culturally relevant as the aforementioned Last Son of Krypton. I like the Daleks fine. But, I can't subscribe any deeper meaning to their presence than I could The Master.

And, frankly, my way of looking at it is -- who cares how they defeat the Daleks? To me, the heart and soul of that episode was in Davros' confrontation with the Doctor, where he declares that the Doctor has taken innocent people and turned them into weapons, and reminds him of all the innocents who have died in his name. Theme and character are more important than plot.

I don't agree with that last statement at all. That's the excuse of a writer caught up in their own percieved "art" (not you...Russel I mean). Who cares how the Daleks were defeated? Pretty much anyone who invested any interest in the conflict of the episode. Yes, I agree the illumination of The Doctor was interesting, and made for a strong emotional moment. Would have been even stronger if RTD didn't just concentrate only on his era when providing the flashback evidence, but that might be more for legal reasons than creative.

Okay, I'll concede that point. You're right, the common person watching the show is going to let a lot more of the less-than-stellar stuff slide...IF they are predispositioned to just watching nonsense for entertainment. But, these people are the lower rung of the cultural ladder, in my opinion.

Gee, thanks.

You have a very low opinion of yourself if you think I was talking about you in particular.

Maybe they just have different creative agendas with programs like Doctor Who? Let me put it this way:

I don't mind stuff in Doctor Who that would drive me crazy in other series, because, first off, I acknowledge the legitimate need the writers have to mitigate depictions of human pain for the sake of the younger audience.

Of which they don't give the "younger audience" enough credit. Life's a lot harder and darker than anything Doctor Who can come up with. But, that's just my opinion.

I don't think that's sugar-coating things, or being dishonest to children, because they do depict pain and suffering. Every single season of Doctor Who ends with somebody leaving: The Ninth Doctor and Jack in Series One; Rose, Jackie, Mickey, and Pete in Series Two; Martha in Series Three; Donna and Rose again in Series Four. (Hell, Series Four leaves you with the impression that the Doctor never expects to see any of those characters again.)

If departure and change are the hardest things they depict, emotionally, then I think it is a disservice to the younger crowd. And, if nohing else, change and motion is the spinal cord of Doctor Who itself. If that's so hard to deal with, then I think we need to question what that says about our culture.

Doctor Who has a responsibility to mitigate its viewers' pain that an adult drama does not have.

Why? Because it's a "family show"? Nonsense. Good drama is good drama, and feeling sad is part of life. That's why the ending of Season Four rocks the most, because there was no upbeat at the end. I loved it. Wish they would do it more.

Secondly, I think the other thing you're overlooking is that, for many people, the plot exists to serve the characters and the themes, not the other way around. Is Doctor Who full of plot holes sometimes? Sure it is. In fact, there's a fundamental plot hole built into the very premise of the series: Why doesn't he just use the TARDIS to solve all his problems? For some people, plot holes can destroy any work. For me, plot holes only damage the work if I think the story is inherently plot-driven, and I don't think Doctor Who is about plots. Doctor Who is about characterization and theme, and if we have to rip the plot a little bit and then put some duct tape over it to support the characters and themes, then I'm okay with that. That doesn't make me someone at the lower end of the cultural spectrum -- it just means that I place my dramatic emphasis on a different aspect of the story than you do.

That's your right, and your opinion. Personally, I think if other shows can hold the balance between plot and characterization, then it shows a greater respect for the audience than just "this is my art...love it".

However, from my experience (and this isn't just this board) the majority of disagreements occurs when someone complains about something RTD has done, and fifty Russel Zealots pop out of the woodwork to vehemently oppose their opinion.

And in my experience, the fights start because RTD haters decide to provoke them.

What, by stating an opposing opinion? By critisizing aspects of RTD's era or scripts? If that's provocation, then you must think this conversation is the equivalent of fist-fighting in an alleyway. I'm certainly not saying some of the RTD-Haters aren't dicks. But, that goes both ways. I've seen many times where someone like JKTim talks about what he doesn't like about RTD, and gets inundated with a lot grief for stepping outside the box. Seeing it as one-sided implies you're wearing biased blinders.

But, it gets pretty annoying after awhile to have to defend every comment that doesn't automatically fall in line with the collective RTD consciousness that some fans have created...

Considering that most of fandom hates RTD, and that in my experience the RTD defenders are always outnumbered, I really don't know what the hell you're talking about here.

But, wait...I thought RTD was adored by millions of fans, so the haters must be the minority, right?






There. I think this should conclude our annual "RTD Sucks!/RTD is Awesome!" debate. Same time next year?

 

[DWF]

Just like Donna punching some buttons, and Rose becoming the Phoenix, Jesus-Doctor is an imbuement of superhuman abilities to The Doctor that were not previously in existance, had never been used before, and (god willing) won't be again. I mean, why stop with the Tinkerbell floating stuff? Why not just give him a big red cape and paint a "D" on his chest? Utter nonsense.

The Doctor isn't human anyway and he has come back from the dead by regeneration several times, I'm not sure mich more Godlike a person can get than that. And the Time Lords were all considered Gods by the Minans of Minos.

 

[The]

Doesn't change the facts that an unknown "superpower" was introduced at the last second to tie everything up...

 

[DWF]

Doesn't change the facts that an unknown "superpower" was introduced at the last second to tie everything up...

It wasn't introduced at the last second though the psychic energy use to free and deage the Doctor was the same energy that the Master used to get into power in the first place and keep people afraid of him.

 

[The]

You're arguing semantics. The "energy" was a "psychic field" created by satellites. Can The Doctor mentally tap into CNN satellite and be reborn as Anderson Cooper? That's about the same absurdity we're dealing with here.

If you like it, fine. But, the fact is that it was neat-and-tidy slice of nonsense offered up at the last second (and it even regrows clothes!) because Russel either couldn't, or didn't want to, come up with a solution that made sense. Instead, he granted The Doctor a superpower to get him out of the situation...

 

[DWF]

You're arguing semantics. The "energy" was a "psychic field" created by satellites. Can The Doctor mentally tap into CNN satellite and be reborn as Anderson Cooper? That's about the same absurdity we're dealing with here.

If you like it, fine. But, the fact is that it was neat-and-tidy slice of nonsense offered up at the last second (and it even regrows clothes!) because Russel either couldn't, or didn't want to, come up with a solution that made sense. Instead, he granted The Doctor a superpower to get him out of the situation...

It's not semantics and you're making conclusions that aren't there. And regernation is a superpower as well by your definition of the word.

 

[The]

It's not semantics and you're making conclusions that aren't there. And regernation is a superpower as well by your definition of the word.

Semantics are involved when you say the energy field already existed, thus that excuses The Doctor's sudden ability to become The Beyonder-Jesus-Doctor. Nuclear warheads already exist in the Doctor's universe. Why didn't he will one up out of the blue to stop Davros? Same thing. The conclusion is equal to what we've seen from that episode.

And regeneration IS a "superpower". Sure. Albeit, one I'll buy leaning towards realism, far more so than an abstract energy field that can do pretty much anything needed by the script. However, regeneration was introduced almost fifty-years ago. If his ability to manipulate energy was introduced even ONE year prior, I could accept it (if I had to). Hell, even within that season, I would at least see where they were coming from. But, when you can snap your fingers and all's right with the world, then there's no point in involving yourself in the conflict or the plot. What does it matter? He can just wish it away...

 

[DWF]

It's not semantics and you're making conclusions that aren't there. And regernation is a superpower as well by your definition of the word.

Semantics are involved when you say the energy field already existed, thus that excuses The Doctor's sudden ability to become The Beyonder-Jesus-Doctor. Nuclear warheads already exist in the Doctor's universe. Why didn't he will one up out of the blue to stop Davros? Same thing. The conclusion is equal to what we've seen from that episode.

And regeneration IS a "superpower". Sure. Albeit, one I'll buy leaning towards realism, far more so than an abstract energy field that can do pretty much anything needed by the script. However, regeneration was introduced almost fifty-years ago. If his ability to manipulate energy was introduced even ONE year prior, I could accept it (if I had to). Hell, even within that season, I would at least see where they were coming from. But, when you can snap your fingers and all's right with the world, then there's no point in involving yourself in the conflict or the plot. What does it matter? He can just wish it away...

But he didn't just snap his fingers and solve everything. And regeneraton is just another form of energy that's used in a different way as was seen in Journey's End.

http://www.lofficier.com/dwudt2.html

TIME LORDS The Time Lords' physiology included two hearts, a respiratory bypass system, the ability to withstand a greater range of temperature and radiation than men, telepathic powers and, finally, the ability to regenerate their bodies at least twelve times. On certain occasions, the Time Lords could create a projection of their future selves to help them through their impending regeneration: Cho-Je (ZZZ), the Watcher (5V) and possibly the Valeyard (7A-7C) were such projections.

The Doctor just used the Archangel network to free and deage himself as well as cloth himself.

 

[The]

But he didn't just snap his fingers and solve everything.

Did you miss the "semantics" part of the conversation?

I'm not going to do this circular debate with you. I've made my points using the facts available as presented by the show. You're wanting to debate whether he literally "snapped his fingers" in avoidance of the point made. You know what I mean when I say it, so I'm not going to go back and forth with you.

The Doctor just used the Archangel network to free and deage himself as well as cloth himself.

And that's the part that not only doesn't make any sense, but doesn't correlate to anything else previously done by The Doctor in Doctor Who. You want to believe otherwise, that's your prerogative...

 

[DWF]

And that's the part that not only doesn't make any sense, but doesn't correlate to anything else previously done by The Doctor in Doctor Who. You want to believe otherwise, that's your prerogative...

You mean like how he used recreation generator to deage and clone himself in The Leisure Hive? Or used the power of the cat people to get back to earth in Survival? And funnily enough before the word regeration was used on the show people though the first Doctor merely made himself look younger.

 

[Sci]

Jeez, Sci, is this your dissertation? I think you're taking my comments a might too personally/seriously.

Fair enough, but when you pronounce that mass numbers of people you've never met are culturally inferior to you because they don't agree with your opinion of a TV show, it's a bit insulting, especially if one happens to be amongst that mass.

Which is fine if that's what you go to watch Doctor Who and tv for, the undermining of religion. Whereas, I go to it for exciting and intelligent plots, well-crafted and thought-out. Jesus-Doctor doesn't offend me because it's for or against religion. I could care less what Russel Davies thinks about religion. He's a fucking tv writer. I'm not going to invest time or thought into his armchair philosophies about metaphysical concepts. Jesus-Doctor offends me for being a ripe and bold cop-out. Just like Donna punching some buttons, and Rose becoming the Phoenix, Jesus-Doctor is an imbuement of superhuman abilities to The Doctor that were not previously in existance, had never been used before, and (god willing) won't be again. I mean, why stop with the Tinkerbell floating stuff? Why not just give him a big red cape and paint a "D" on his chest? Utter nonsense.

The climax to "Last of the Time Lords" is not a superpower that just appears out of nowhere to solve all of the problems, nor is it a cop-out, and that's for a couple of reasons.

First off, the ability of the Archangel Network to tap into psychic energy to manipulate people was already well-established in "The Sound of Drums." It was how the Master was able to hypnotize everyone into voting for him. Having the Doctor use it in reverse, gaining the psychic energy of all of humanity and then channeling it against the Master, is a perfectly legitimate means of resolving the plot. You might as well complain that Checkhov put a gun on the mantle in Act One and dared to actually fire it in Act Three.

Secondly:

Author Una McCormack nicely outlines here and here why it's not utter nonsense, and why it is, in fact, a thoroughly intelligent plot development that brought one of the primary themes of Series Three to a satisfying resolution.

Money quotes:

One of the 'big themes' of the season is that we should think very carefully about how and why we create our Gods. Throughout 'Gridlock', while Martha is trapped in the car with the Macra biting, she constantly says, "The Doctor will save us! The Doctor will save us!" In fact, it's only her co-passenger, Milo, turning the engine on and driving like a lunatic that saves them in that situation. (The Doctor's intervention comes later, after Boe-Jack has died to save the world.)

<SNIP>

On the Doctor as glowy-Christ, again, I think we need to see this in the context of what the season as a whole seems to have been saying about where you should put your faith, and in whom. What seems important in this episode is that this power is not innately the Doctor's (although Jack-Boe clearly thinks it is, as later he describes him as the 'Lonely God'). The Doctor's power is conferred by people: by Martha's Riddley Walker style mobilization of the innate power of communicative action - helped by the Master's technology, of course! (The 'power of words', technologically augmented, was foreshadowed in 'The Shakespeare Code'.) The shots of all those people saying the Doctor's name didn't call Peter Pan to my mind, they made me think of V for Vendetta.

I think we can take it as read (from ‘Last of the Time Lords’ and ‘The Shakespeare Code’) that ‘power of storytelling’ is a major theme of this season, not to mention ‘will you use your powers for good or evil?’. And I think this season of Doctor Who has been extremely conscious of its status as the top-rating British family drama, and its resulting responsibilities. I think the writing asks itself about whether or not to use its powers for good or evil, and what both of those might involve.

I wrote in this post that Martha leaving the TARDIS is meant to show that she has grown up in some way (or was grown-up already), but – if I wasn’t sufficiently clear – I didn’t mean by this that Martha has put away childish things. Because that’s a daft thing to do, not to mention unlikely coming from a bunch of people producing the most successful family drama on British television. Like the angels and the demons in ‘The Girl in the Fireplace’, like the drawings in ‘Fear Her’, like the Toclafane coming true for the Doctor (a childhood bogeyman – something that can break all your hearts), Doctor Who expressly says to us: “Those childhood stories? They’re true. They contain truth.”

What does this mean? Well, first of all, it means the emotional reality of childhood experience is affirmed. It’s not silliness, or something to be grown out of – it’s real, and it matters. And so, at various places throughout this season, we are asked to consider what a responsibility this is. Whether or not we will use this power for evil. Whether or not we will tell lies [1].

Which casts a new light on the Time Lords’ spectacularly irresponsible Saturday teatime viewing: “Hey, kids, let’s peer at the infinite!” (Or did they just make them watch ‘Blake’?) So what did that produce? Well, the Master for one. And the Doctor too – we can’t have the angels without the demons, or vice versa. I also think that when we look at the Time Lord Academy (an educational institution to which children are sent at a very young age), we are meant to be reminded of the boarding school in ‘Human Nature’/‘Family of Blood’. And so we are meant to be reminded of the spectacularly irresponsible Edwardian storytelling that culminated in a generation of young men being sent to slaughter each other [2]. However, there is a difference, perhaps, between the kinds of stories these two schools are telling their students. What the teachers are telling at the boarding school is the Old Lie (dulce et decorum est...). What the Time Lords tell is the unleavened truth. Through which some are inspired, some go mad, and some run like hell and keep on running.

Doctor Who itself, going out on Saturday night on the BBC, is not unleavened truth. It’s mediated, through the telly (which we should also be wary of, see ‘The Idiot’s Lantern’), and through the watershed, and so on. Discussing ‘Last of the Time Lords’ over the weekend with Mr A., he remarked that it was about as unpleasant as you could get away with in a children’s programme. Some of the images are very disturbing: the Doctor on his hands and knees crawling out of a doghouse; Lucy Saxon the battered wife with the bruise on her cheek, fearfully alert to the Master’s every move, clutching herself for safety. And some of the ideas are terrible too: the end of the universe and the death of hope. Enslavement, treachery, tyranny, sadism. All presided over by the Master, who torments an old man in a wheelchair while singing along to the Scissor Sisters. Heavy stuff. Of course, it is put right at the end – by Martha’s stories, and people choosing to act on them (including Lucy Saxon). But I don’t think that Doctor Who is telling us that everything will naturally turn out for the best (the death of the universe and obliteration of humankind are still coming, for one thing). In other words, I don’t think it’s telling another kind of untruth, that it’s better to stay safe.

<SNIP>

Martha does not need her mother’s or the Doctor’s protection, but neither does she need the Doctor’s constant companionship. She still has a hotline to the Doctor, but he is only one of her many intellectual and emotional resources. Martha is grown-up, but without making the mistake of putting away childhood things such as fantasy and story. She is the counterpoint to poor Lucy Saxon, cruelly shown the unmediated truth of our ultimate annihilation, with nothing to leaven it. And humankind, after all, cannot bear very much reality.

This is why the programme makers are so careful to make the season endings upbeat or, at least, to make them transitions into something new. I thought the extra eight minutes in ‘Last of the Time Lords’ gave the space for this transition to be much more successful than at the end of ‘Doomsday’; there were more emotional beats between the loss and the starting over. It’s not anything like seeing all of your heroes gunned down three days before Christmas. And yet I don’t think Rusty has ever lied, and certainly not by saying, “It’s OK – they’re just stories.” All of which, I think, adds up to some spectacularly responsible storytelling.

Given the context, I can see it either way. So, I'll concede that was the reason for her return. But, I think we all know it was useless to the plot. Martha could very easily have filled that slot. Hell, Sarah could have filled the character slot.

But neither one of them would have had the emotional impact of the Doctor coming so close to having Rose back and then realizing he needs to let go of her again. (I will, however, concede that the exact reason Rose had to go back to Pete's World was poorly-explained.)

And I'm not saying it's wrong, in its place. But, of all the writers for Doctor Who, RTD tends to go overboard with shoehorning those little pro-human rants into his scripts.

Yeah, and he also tends to be the one who has the most monstrous humans in his scripts -- from the imperialism of Torchwood to the human oppressors in the 100001st Century to Cassandra to the paranoid violence in "Midnight" to the emotional violence of Sylvia Noble to her daughter to the Toclafane.

Come on man, terminology is just semantics. The ending is still a cop-out, no matter how you slice it.

1. Terminology is not semantics. Doctor Who as a rather obvious democratic, anti-authoritarian bent to it, and firmly establishing that the Doctor's powers came from the people is important; "Jesus!Doctor" was a bottom-up power flow instead of a top-down power flow. The concept of divine authority and of divine power re-enforce pre-existing authoritarian cultural modes. That's why it's important to remember that this is a deus ex demos, not a deus ex machina.

2. See above re, not a cop out.

Oh I dont know....the previous eight incarnations of The Doctor never had too much problems coming up with at least a slightly plausible and relatively solid solutions to the Daleks,

Oh, yeah, the Doctor's manipulation of the Daleks and Davros into destroying Skaro in Remembrance of the Daleks wasn't the least bit convenient in how it just nicely wrapped up the entire Dalek problem, was it?

And, frankly, my way of looking at it is -- who cares how they defeat the Daleks? To me, the heart and soul of that episode was in Davros' confrontation with the Doctor, where he declares that the Doctor has taken innocent people and turned them into weapons, and reminds him of all the innocents who have died in his name. Theme and character are more important than plot.

I don't agree with that last statement at all. That's the excuse of a writer caught up in their own percieved "art" (not you...Russel I mean).

Fair enough, but that's something I firmly believe, too. Plot exists to serve the characters and the themes. If plot was important, then this would be a wholly acceptable version of Hamlet:

"One day, the King of Denmark was murdered while his son was away at college, and his murderer became the new King and married the widowed Queen. The murdered King's son, Hamlet, came back from college and emo'ed for a while before deciding to stop whining and do something about his father's assassination. He killed the imposter king, and then he died. The end."

But that's not the heart and soul of Hamlet. The heart and soul of the play is in the title character's wonderful speeches and musings on the nature of human existence. And that's why no one cares that Shakespeare never adequately explained how Hamlet got back from England. Sure, it's a big gaping plot hole, but who gives a shit? It's not about the plot.

Maybe they just have different creative agendas with programs like Doctor Who? Let me put it this way:

I don't mind stuff in Doctor Who that would drive me crazy in other series, because, first off, I acknowledge the legitimate need the writers have to mitigate depictions of human pain for the sake of the younger audience.

Of which they don't give the "younger audience" enough credit. Life's a lot harder and darker than anything Doctor Who can come up with.

Of course it is, and the kids will have their whole lives to discover that. But there's no reason to make them deal with adult emotions and adult pains without mitigation, without mediation. They don't deserve that, and there's no reason to try to make them assimilate that, especially since the ability of different kids at different ages to assimilate that sort of thing heathilly is going to vary widely.

Adults use art to mitigate their pain, but children use art to learn and to channel and to exaggerate their joys. It's irresponsible to impose adult mental processes upon a work designed for both adults and children.

If departure and change are the hardest things they depict, emotionally, then I think it is a disservice to the younger crowd. And, if nohing else, change and motion is the spinal cord of Doctor Who itself. If that's so hard to deal with, then I think we need to question what that says about our culture.

Departure was only one example of the deeper pain that Who features as subtext. My argument was that in bringing that subtext, it's inappropriate to not mitigate that subtext for its younger audience. The specific manifestation of that subtext is irrelevant; it is illustrative, not definitive.

Why? Because it's a "family show"? Nonsense. Good drama is good drama, and feeling sad is part of life. That's why the ending of Season Four rocks the most, because there was no upbeat at the end. I loved it. Wish they would do it more.

I loved it, too, but frankly I also thought that it was the sort of thing Davies could not have done in Series One; to me, it seemed obvious he felt comfortable doing it because children who began watching Doctor Who when they were 8 in 2005 were 11 in 2008. Clearly Davies felt that he'd adequately mitigated the pain of Rose's and Donna's departures with that final scene with Sarah Jane -- "For someone so lonely, you have the biggest family ever" -- but, honestly, I have to say that while I would agree with the choice not to have the last few moments of the episode end with a new arrival or an unexpected transition if Who was aimed at teenagers and/or adults, I feel that it's an inappropriate ending for children. As an adult, I loved it, but I can tell you that my inner child would have found the ending deeply unsettling and sad.

Yes, good drama is good drama, but that doesn't mean that good drama is good for everyone. One of the best films I've ever seen is The Dreamers starring Eva Green, but that film is in no way appropriate for children given the themes of the binary nature of sexuality (physical intimacy vs. emotional intimacy). One of my favorite plays ever is Buried Child by Sam Shepherd, but no child should ever be exposed to a story like that. The Last King of Scotland is a wonderful, brilliant film, but I'd consider any parent who exposes their children (not teenagers -- children) to a film like that to be negligent at best.

Stories that are basically about pain are not stories for children, because children (depending upon the individual and upon his/her age and upon his/her maturity level) often do not have the emotional maturity to compartmentalize the pain of a story and then integrate it with the joys of other stories and their real lives. They are, after all, children.

Let them see stories about pain later on. No need to force Doctor Who to grow up with them; Doctor Who should be an intermediate story, one that acknowledges that pain exists but still mitigates it as children in its audience move into greater maturity levels that allow them to gradually start assimilating stories that do not mitigate their pain.

That's your right, and your opinion. Personally, I think if other shows can hold the balance between plot and characterization, then it shows a greater respect for the audience than just "this is my art...love it".

Fair enough, but I've got to wonder if it bothers you that Hamlet returned from England or that Lady Macbeth couldn't decide how many children she'd had, too.

What, by stating an opposing opinion? By critisizing aspects of RTD's era or scripts? If that's provocation, then you must think this conversation is the equivalent of fist-fighting in an alleyway.

Not exactly, but I can't help but thinking that the RTD-haters are constantly seeking to re-ignite the same fight over and over again.

But, wait...I thought RTD was adored by millions of fans, so the haters must be the minority, right?

1. I never said he was adored by millions of fans.

2. Pardon me; I was talking about fandom, that is, fanboys like you and me. Internet fans. Geeks. Not the real people who make up most of the audience.

There. I think this should conclude our annual "RTD Sucks!/RTD is Awesome!" debate. Same time next year?

Let me put it this way:

If nothing else, I'm looking forward to Moffat's term as showrunner because I expect this particular battle might not be re-fought but once in a blue moon.

 

[The]

And that's the part that not only doesn't make any sense, but doesn't correlate to anything else previously done by The Doctor in Doctor Who. You want to believe otherwise, that's your prerogative...

You mean like how he used recreation generator to deage and clone himself in The Leisure Hive?

He physically programmed a machine to do the reverse of its original function. Not comparable to sprouting superpowers on a whim.

Or used the power of the cat people to get back to earth in Survival?

As was Ace, and The Master. It wasn't a surprise notion that he was part of the same metaphysical plot, and the cat-eyes didn't just pop up at the end. Not comparable to gaining superpowers on the spot.

And funnily enough before the word regeration was used on the show people though the first Doctor merely made himself look younger.

And the show has proven those people incorrect time and time again, with plenty of examples to rely on. Not comparable at all...



Sci, I am not about to quote/rebuttal all of your points. Because some random author sees a perceived symmetry within the story and season does not legitimize or excuse poor writing. And I really think anyone who tows the RTD line will see whatever they like in his work. But, anyone can find Shakespeare in Bugs Bunny. Doesn't mean it was intentional, and I'm confident that the same applies here. Davies had no solution, so he just went the quick-fix route. It's really just that simple.

And I apologize if you thought I was referring to you when I spoke about the lowest-common denominator culture. I actually respect and appreciate your intelligence and opinions on Doctor Who, and would never classify you as such. I was referring to a particular class of people who live and breathe nothing deeper than the latest reality show, text message, or NASCAR race.

Suffice it to say, we're never going to see perfectly eye-to-eye on the subject of Russel Davies' works. Nor have we since we started posting here. But, I always welcome a healthy debate with you.

So get ready for some Moffat Bashing!

 

[DWF]

He physically programmed a machine to do the reverse of its original function. Not comparable to sprouting superpowers on a whim.

As he adjusted himself to the Achangel's psychic network, they didn't come on whim otherwise he would've waited a year to it.

As was Ace, and The Master. It wasn't a surprise notion that he was part of the same metaphysical plot, and the cat-eyes didn't just pop up at the end. Not comparable to gaining superpowers on the spot.

No, the last time the teleported back to earth he was alone and did it by himself, he left the Master on the planet of the cheetah people.

And the show has proven those people incorrect time and time again, with plenty of examples to rely on. Not comparable at all...

Just as the show has proven you wrong.

Martha: I told them that if every one thinks of one word, at one specific time-- The Master: Nothing will happen! Is that your weapon? Prayer?! Martha: --Right across the world! One word, just one thought, at one moment! But with fifteen satellites! The Master: [slowly] What? Captain Jack: The Archangel Network. Martha: A telepathic field, binding the whole human race together. All of them, every single person on Earth, thinking the same thing at the same time! And that word, is Doctor. [The world begins chanting the Doctor's name, he begins rejuvenating] The Doctor: I've had a whole year to tune myself into the psychic network and integrate with its matrices. The Master: Stop! I order you to stop! The Doctor: The one thing you can't do... is stop them thinking. [He begins rising upwards angelically] Tell me the human race is degenerate now... when they can do this. The Master: [with a look of horror and disbelief] No!! [He shoots at the Doctor, but the laser energy is absorbed by a forcefield] The Doctor: I'm sorry. I'm so sorry.

He didn't do it by himself nor at a whim.

 

[The]

He physically programmed a machine to do the reverse of its original function. Not comparable to sprouting superpowers on a whim.

As he adjusted himself to the Achangel's psychic network, they didn't come on whim otherwise he would've waited a year to it.

When and where in the series of Doctor Who has it shown The Doctor being able to "adjust himself" to creating/manipulating "Super Energy" like we saw with Jesus-Doctor? I've seen him reprogram plenty of machines. Never seen him with superpowers.

As was Ace, and The Master. It wasn't a surprise notion that he was part of the same metaphysical plot, and the cat-eyes didn't just pop up at the end. Not comparable to gaining superpowers on the spot.

No, the last time the teleported back to earth he was alone and did it by himself, he left the Master on the planet of the cheetah people.

It's been awhile since I've seen the episode, so I checked out the synopsis on Wikipedia:

The Master transports the Doctor with him back to the Cheetah Planet for a final conflict but the Doctor resists the pull of the planet, turning away from violence, and is transported away from the dying world.

The Doctor had nothing to do with his transport, it was a function of the metaphysical nature of the planet.

And, once again, even if he had, it wasn't introduced at the last second to tie up the entire plot.

And the show has proven those people incorrect time and time again, with plenty of examples to rely on. Not comparable at all...

Just as the show has proven you wrong.

Okay. I can see by this statement that you're not into debating. Rather, you have decided to ignore the facts as presented, and go with your own personal version of the universe. A veritable rubber/glue kind of thing I'm sensing. That's your right, but it has no place in this discussion, and paints you in a very biased light.

Martha: I told them that if every one thinks of one word, at one specific time-- The Master: Nothing will happen! Is that your weapon? Prayer?! Martha: --Right across the world! One word, just one thought, at one moment! But with fifteen satellites! The Master: [slowly] What? Captain Jack: The Archangel Network. Martha: A telepathic field, binding the whole human race together. All of them, every single person on Earth, thinking the same thing at the same time! And that word, is Doctor. [The world begins chanting the Doctor's name, he begins rejuvenating] The Doctor: I've had a whole year to tune myself into the psychic network and integrate with its matrices. The Master: Stop! I order you to stop! The Doctor: The one thing you can't do... is stop them thinking. [He begins rising upwards angelically] Tell me the human race is degenerate now... when they can do this. The Master: [with a look of horror and disbelief] No!! [He shoots at the Doctor, but the laser energy is absorbed by a forcefield] The Doctor: I'm sorry. I'm so sorry.

He didn't do it by himself nor at a whim.

It was a "whim" of the writing that had him suddenly be able to do it. What happens if the Daleks shot Rose, but she suddenly decided, "I'm going to become impervious to Daleks now, since I used to be BadWolf-Rose." Would that be acceptable? If you think so, then our entire discussion is pointless.

And I apologize. I said I was through with this back-and-forth with you, and I allowed myself to be drawn in by your inaccurate conclusions. I am done now.

 

[DWF]

The Doctor had nothing to do with his transport, it was a function of the metaphysical nature of the planet.

But it clearly says.

the Doctor resists the pull of the planet, turning away from violence, and is transported away from the dying world.

He

 

[DWF]

The Doctor had nothing to do with his transport, it was a function of the metaphysical nature of the planet.

But it clearly says.

the Doctor resists the pull of the planet, turning away from violence, and is transported away from the dying world.

He did all by himself where he couldn't have done it before.

It was a "whim" of the writing that had him suddenly be able to do it.

If it was a whim why didn't he do in the first place? You've yet to answer that question.

 

[captcalhoun]

*SNORE*

 

[The]

*SNORE*

I agree. Repeating the same thing over and over IS boring...

 

[EJA]

Anyway, to get us back on the original topic of this thread, I would've loved to have seen a Dr Who/Trek crossover on TV.