As soon as we learned River was going to be a recurring character, I knew that when they eventuakky revealed her identity and origins, it was likely to be disappointing. So I didn't bother to get my hopes up. Worked out well, that did.
"Our lives are back to front." -River Song
- Thread starter RoJoHen
- Start date
Agreed. She was the focus of far too much of the last series, she's beginning to feel like Homer Simpson's suggestions for Poochie the Dog - 'River needs to be louder, angrier, and have access to a time machine. Two, whenever River's not onscreen, all the other characters should be asking "Where's River"?'.
I'd be more than happy for her to disappear for the next series or two.
LOL @ the Poochie the Dog comparison!
As explained before that's because it has become accepted among the fandom that this is just what happens. Remember in England there isn't a myriad of networks with a bazillion shows on where actors can get work. Things just work differently over their. I have always been someone who likes long runs (like you must be RoJo) but have come to accept that once certain actors become popular and in demand they're just going to leave the show.
Oh yeah I agree with that. It is something that has always bugged me about the fandom. As I've said before, I'm all for being critical when it merits it...but continuing to watch something one hates and has a continued problem with is something I've never understood here. This is kind of why I think there should be some kind of general "Doctor Who" haters thread. Bitching for the sake of bitching just gets old.
What identity and origins?
She was River Song and a future companion of the Doctor that he got very very close to. That covers it. There was no need to ask who she really was or where she came from. I thought the focus should be more on why the Doctor told her his name?
Ok she is Amy and Rory's daughter and part timelord because they did it on the Tardis. But why did the Doctor choose her above others to tell his name. Why did they get closer to each other. Where is that relationship? That's the mystery I wanted revealed. The other stuff of who and where seemed convoluted.
I think one of the biggest problem for the Companions' longevity, is they are intended to be someone the Doctor explains "Technobabble and Timey-Whimeyness" to for the audience. The longer they stick around, the less they can be used for that role, and you need someone new to fill that role that hasn't already had everything explained to them
I think it's more than that. If it's to simply explain technobabble than you don't need a full time companion. Any random character who is willing to listen will do. Big Finish is experimenting with no companion stories with the 7th Doctor and it works pretty well.
More important is the audience has to identify with the companion by learning about them since the Doctor always is a mystery. That still doesn't explain why you need a new one (it's probably a decision of the actors involved) and it can be tedious breaking in a new companion and explaining what a Dalek is or why the Tardis bigger in the inside than the outside.
Oh sure, you need the Companions as someone for the audience to relate to, but, as you said, that doesn't have anything to do with their revolving door. I wasn't meaning to define why Companions are needed, only why you need to keep changing them. And the show has always wanted to go back often to "It's bigger on the inside" and other newbie Companion tropes, for any newbie viewers, to keep it simple and easy to jump in anywhere as a new viewer
I don't know If I agree with your statement that they become less useful as a sounding board over time. Every adventure is a novel situation for the companion no matter how long they travel with the Doctor and there are long running companions like Jamie or the Brigadier that can still be used to explain technobable. The revolving door has more to do with the production sides. The actor want to explore other career options (Billie Piper) and the producers want to change things simply so the show doesn't become stagnant.
Well it's more of a running joke now and even that's becoming tiresome. Your explanation only makes sense if the show was continually gaining new viewers but as of now the people watching the show are the faithful who already get it.
Eh, lots of new folks climbed on board in S2 with Tennant's arrival, and many other new ones climbed on board with Matt Smith.
Many kids in England start actively viewing the show at 6 years old, from what I understand. The show has been on the air for 6 years now, so, by the time the show returns for Series 7, there will be 7 year olds that weren't even born yet when the show premiered with Rose. So, I absolutely believe the show gains new viewers every year.
Can you really call them "new" if Doctor Who is such a well known cultural phenomenon and it's terminology is part of the lexicon. Look at Star Trek. Unless the person is very young, I don't really need to explain transporters or warp drives.
Yes but kids pick up thing fast and they don't need a complete explanation to enjoy things. It took me years to understand the Doctor Who universe because I was an American and there was no internet or large fandom and PBS showed things out of order. The whole bigger in the inside than the outside, I just accepted because that's how the show worked.
There's been several threads in the last year or two on this very board of folks that have just climbed on board, and BBCA viewership is at an all time high, I'm sure this is happening in other Countries as well (And remember, the viewers who post on this board are a very tiny piece of the viewership, so, 5 admitted new viewers on this board, translates to a whole lot more than that in viewership). And yea, if you've never seen an episode before, you are a new viewer. "Bigger on the inside" and other Newbie companion Tropes was shorthand for all the first time Companion questions/comments, not, just that one statement.
Yea, the Companions are changed frequently to keep things fresh as well, but, part of that is you can only say "Why's that Doctor" so many times with the same Companion before it gets stale
The BBC America and other foreign countries have absolutely no influence on the running of the BBC. As affliates, they probably make suggestion but since BBC is funded by British citizens I don't see how any one outside of the UK can influence things. Also there isn't this sort of repetition on other UK show (Top Gear doesn't explain who the Stig is every other episode).
Also new viewer should not imply ignorance. I know a lot about LOST even though I've never watched a single episode. Doctor Who is a similar cultural phenomenan. Kids hear their parents, siblings, older kids, TV, radio all talking about it and they pick things up.
My point is that it's the actor and/or producers who gets tired of it first before the audience. No one asked Rose to leave. Billie Piper made that choice. Amy Pond isn't coming back because Moffat wants to go in a different direction. Shows can have stable casts for years.
I thought Karen and Arthur were leaving because they're getting too busy to continue on the show. I'm sure Moffat would much rather keep them on if he could.
