• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Bye-Bye Ponds?

I am a 26-year old American, and I have never seen anything other than nuWho.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with switching out the companions, but it's certainly not necessary to keep things fresh. There are other things you can do to accomplish that.

I just...well...I like Amy and Rory! I liked Donna! I liked Rose! I didn't want to see them go!

That's all it boils down to. I like these characters, and I don't like the assumption that they're only worthwhile for 2-3 seasons.
 
Being a few years old, and a Brit. I grew up DW I would class Peter Davision as my Doctor, and when the companion's changed every few years it was no big deal. It was a much bigger deal when the Doctor regenerated, and yes I do remember the 4th regenerating into the fifth.

No one is making assumptions that they are only worth a few seasons. In many respects getting a role on DW can launch a career espically with DW from 2005-. (Personally I loathe calling it nuWHO as it is a continuation of DW). Quite a few actors actually want to appear on the show.

Whilst it might be a niche show in America, it is one of the highest rated Drama shows in the UK pulling in audiances in the region of 7-10m viewers. To put that in a US perspective that would be in the region of 32-45m (given the US has a population of 4.5 times that of the UK). How many drama shows in the US pull in those viewers?

So for some actors it is a stepping stone in starting a career, a new show might generate interest just because actor x from DW has been cast in it.
 
Why do Companions have to turnover all the time?

1. The Companion is us, someone for us to relate to and live vicariously through, and the writers use the Companions to ask the Doctor for explanations of things for us. The Companions learn stuff quickly, and it stops being believable to always use them for that, after awhile. Keep the Companions Naive and you get to use them for it again.

2. BBC can't afford to pay much, so, as a Companion, it's not nearly worth what being one of the Friends regulars would earn.
 
Three years will constitute a good innings. I hope Smith doesn't decide to bail out at around the same time, though; there's quite simply no reason from an artistic point of view to replace him. Another couple of seasons would be welcome.
 
I can't say I'm surprised; frankly it's a minor miracle we got Amy Pond for three consecutive seasons as it is. I'll be sad to see her go, but I expect her departure will be well-written and emotionally satisfying. As for Rory, I had hoped they would kill him off last season but they still have one more series to make up for that mistake. Arthur Darville is a competent actor but his character is an idiot and he serves no purpose. Good riddance!
 
I'll miss them especially Amy (she's just so cute) but this is Doctor Who and companions come and go. It's part of the show. I don't mind this aspect as it keeps things fresh. Hopefully Amy's replacement will catch my fancy.
 
Companions come and companions go. Even the best can't/don't want to stay forever. The most successful pairing of Doctor & companion being the fourth Doctor and Sarah Jane Smith.
If it's time for the Ponds to move on, it's time. Karen has even said that once she leaves there'll be no Rose Tyler (spoilt and over-rated) style re-appearance.
 
Except for the 3rd and 4th doctors the show has never kept a doctor the same for more than 4 seasons. Cast changes are what makes DW unique. As long as there are good stories and good writing it doesn't matter.
 
I'll miss them, but it's probably about time they went. I noticed how critical Rory was starting to become of the Doctor by the end of his second season with him -- I don't really think Rory as a character would want to travel with the Doctor much longer. I think he'd be okay with settling down in that house the Doctor got them. If he does keep going it'll probably only be due to wanting to watch over Amy and indulging her adventure lust.
 
You know, I've been thinking, Amy and Rory have already had their good-bye to the Doctor. What is actually accomplished by bringing them back only to permenentally remove them?

Yeah, I love them as much as anyone else, and they are among my top 5 favourite companions, but the time for a new companion is now, or rather when the new season starts, IMO.
 
The Wormhole said:
You know, I've been thinking, Amy and Rory have already had their good-bye to the Doctor. What is actually accomplished by bringing them back only to permenentally remove them?
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but their goodbye scene with the Doctor just seemed weird to me. I felt like it completely came out of nowhere. If Amy and Rory are going to leave, they need a much better goodbye.
 
RoJoHen said:
The Wormhole said:
You know, I've been thinking, Amy and Rory have already had their good-bye to the Doctor. What is actually accomplished by bringing them back only to permenentally remove them?
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but their goodbye scene with the Doctor just seemed weird to me. I felt like it completely came out of nowhere. If Amy and Rory are going to leave, they need a much better goodbye.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah it was kind of out of nowhere. But it was a good-bye scene, they have parted ways with the Doctor, and thanks to River they know he doesn't really die. They live happily ever after with Amy becoming some famous model and Rory presumably enjoying a life of luxury. There, end of story. Do we really need them brought back just to say a "heartbreaking" good-bye?
 
From where I'm sitting, if that had been a real goodbye scene, Amy and Rory wouldn't have been in the next two episodes.
 
Their goodbye is certainly better than what many companions got in the past. The worst victim of this is Dodo who is written out of her final serial from behind the scenes and never got the chance to say goodbye to The Doctor.
 
They've already had a longer tenure than Chris Eccleston or Paul McGann and by the time they finish, they'll have had a longer run than Troughton, Peter Davison, Colin Baker or Sly McCoy. And as long or longer than many companions. So while I like them and think they'll be hard to replace, it's not the end of time...er, the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top