Relationship between Amy and the Eleventh Doctor

[Thestral]

Martha and Donna's relationship with the Doctor was totally different, and it's a bit unfair to cast Martha's time as lacking sexual chemistry or proving that they could just be friends. The whole tragic point of Martha's story is that she totally fell for the Doctor... and he couldn't see it, because he was still recovering from Rose. It's an unrequited thing, a la Marcus and Ivanova - fortunately for both parties, it doesn't end the same way.

At the conclusion of Martha's year, we realize that for Martha at least, they can't "just be friends." That's changed later, but only after Martha has a chance to move on and find someone else.

That's not really the point, though -- the point is, the Doctor's never been in an actual, honest-to-goodness, committed relationship before. It's never been done! The Doctor has never been depicted as having a partner.

So it would be something new for Doctor Who.

I suppose. But that wasn't my point. You said

But Doctor Who has done that, with Martha and with Donna.

in response to

Having a male and female of almost the same age on screen together and not having some overly stupid sexual chemistry and proving that they can just be friends is pretty refreshing in my eyes.

which is clearly not descriptive of Martha's time with the Doctor. And Martha's season is at least as important as any of the others when looking at the Doctor's relationships (or lack thereof) even if she isn't Rose - especially because she isn't Rose.

 

[DimesDan]

That's not really the point, though -- the point is, the Doctor's never been in an actual, honest-to-goodness, committed relationship before. It's never been done! The Doctor has never been depicted as having a partner.

So it would be something new for Doctor Who.

Apart from it being new and different, why should they? seriously? why?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

So it would be something new for Doctor Who.

Apart from it being new and different, why should they? seriously? why?

Love is a revelator, it shows characters in a different, more authentic light. It digs deeper than other emotions and unearths beautiful, admirable things as well as ugly, dangerous things. It brings conflict, emotional poignancy and high-stake drama to the table. Love makes fiction better. That's why.

 

[DimesDan]

So it would be something new for Doctor Who.

Apart from it being new and different, why should they? seriously? why?

Love is a revelator, it shows characters in a different, more authentic light. It digs deeper than other emotions and unearths beautiful, admirable things as well as ugly, dangerous things. It brings conflict, emotional poignancy and high-stake drama to the table. Love makes fiction better. That's why.

You know what, I can't fault you for that and it's true, although I'm still not sure I actually want the Doctor falling massively in love with a companion, with a fellow Time Lord or Gallifraen in general, I might be sold on the concept.

 

[Mr. Sin]

The fact that Amy might not trust the Doctor could be interesting. Of course, a lot of companions kind of start out suspicious of him...

 

[Captain Pike]

So it would be something new for Doctor Who.

Apart from it being new and different, why should they? seriously? why?

Love is a revelator, it shows characters in a different, more authentic light. It digs deeper than other emotions and unearths beautiful, admirable things as well as ugly, dangerous things. It brings conflict, emotional poignancy and high-stake drama to the table. Love makes fiction better. That's why.

Sure, but there should be a distinction here about love of a platonic kind - which has always been in Doctor Who really (a fathers love for his children, a teacher's affection for their student. Mutual respect, understanding and self sacrifice etc), and the overtly romantic depictions in the new series.

Isn't platonic love at least as illuminating to a character or as interesting, if not more so than the romantic kind? Shouldn't resisting the urge to bump uglies with a lesser species be seen as responsible, as well as an expression of care and respect?

Well that's the way I see it. The old show was never about anything more than platonic love between the doctor and his companions (despite what some fanboys and fangirls might like to believe), and it wasn't less dramatic for it, quite the opposite, it was all the richer, imo.

 

[Skellington]

Full frontal snogging, with nudity, gets my vote.

One can dream.

Polygamy, with River Song (and possibly Queen Bess).

 

[Sci]

Apart from it being new and different, why should they? seriously? why?

Love is a revelator, it shows characters in a different, more authentic light. It digs deeper than other emotions and unearths beautiful, admirable things as well as ugly, dangerous things. It brings conflict, emotional poignancy and high-stake drama to the table. Love makes fiction better. That's why.

Sure, but there should be a distinction here about love of a platonic kind - which has always been in Doctor Who really (a fathers love for his children, a teacher's affection for their student. Mutual respect, understanding and self sacrifice etc), and the overtly romantic depictions in the new series.

Isn't platonic love at least as illuminating to a character or as interesting, if not more so than the romantic kind?

I think you need both, really. It's not psychologically realistic to expect a character not to experience sexuality and romantic love. Sure, you need platonic love, too -- no one's questioning that. But you need romance as well.

And, no, platonic love is not going to be more interesting than romantic love to the vast majority of people. Characters inherently invest more of themselves into romantic love than with platonic love -- after all, you don't make your platonic friends you're life's partners.

Shouldn't resisting the urge to bump uglies with a lesser species be seen as responsible, as well as an expression of care and respect?

I'd consider it an expression of racism, really -- or, if you will, speciesism. Yes, Time Lords are more intelligent than other species; so what? They're just as prone to corruption, both moral and political, as any other species. They're just as prone to ethnocentrism and aggression.

Being more intelligent does not make you better. It's what you do with that intelligence.

Humans are not a lesser species than Time Lords.

Well that's the way I see it. The old show was never about anything more than platonic love between the doctor and his companions (despite what some fanboys and fangirls might like to believe), and it wasn't less dramatic for it, quite the opposite, it was all the richer, imo.

And that was then and this was now. It's been done before. Time for something different.

"What was that, Doctor?"

"Change, my dear. And not a moment too soon."

 

[Captain Pike]

See, from my perspective, shoehorning in romance into Who makes the show that much more generic. What's so revolutionary and edgy about conforming to a formula which is expected for just about every other male / female relationship seen on tv these days? Superficial Hollywood TV execs rub their hands together at the thought of sexual tension distilling into romance between their leading characters - it's a scene played out over and over and over again ad infinitum. I see nothing whatsoever groundbreaking about it.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

The fact that Amy might not trust the Doctor could be interesting. Of course, a lot of companions kind of start out suspicious of him...

Particularly Sarah Jane Smith. She was very distrustful of The Third Doctor and even believed he was the enemy for at least one episode.

 

[Sci]

See, from my perspective, shoehorning in romance into Who makes the show that much more generic. What's so revolutionary and edgy about conforming to a formula which is expected for just about every other male / female relationship seen on tv these days?

I'm not interested in being "revolutionary" or "edgy." I want to explore these characters, and in my view a romance is one of the best ways to do so, because, well, love is a part of life! It's not about being "revolutionary," it's about creating a psychologically realistic and complete character.

Superficial Hollywood TV execs rub their hands together at the thought of sexual tension distilling into romance between their leading characters

No they don't. They want unresolved sexual tension. Hollywood executives have been terrified of the idea of actually depicting real relationships on TV for decades, ever since the UST on Moonlighting fizzled out when the two characters actually got together. That's why "will-they-or-won't-they" scenarios are much more common than actual relationships on American TV.

I, for one, don't want unresolved sexual tension in the long run. I want unresolved sexual tension for a little while -- long enough for the characters to believably fall in love... And then I want it resolved. I want the characters to decide to enter a relationship and try to make it work. And I want it to stick, at least for a season or two. I think that's far more interesting than eternally unresolved sexual tension. That was the problem I had with Ten/Rose after the first half of Series Two -- it just wasn't believable that one or the other (really, Rose) wouldn't have acted to force the other's hand.

 

[Captain Pike]

That's nice Sci. I don't.

 

[Sci]

That's nice Sci. I don't.

Then you are in effect asking for a psychologically unrealistic, incomplete character and a TV series that forever limits itself from telling deeper stories about human nature.

 

[StCoop]

It's probably worth remembering that the Doctor's Wife returns for four episodes in the upcoming series so they don't need the Companion for the Romance element.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Supposed wife you mean if you are indeed referring to River Song's return. Moffat has never confirmed exactly what the nature of their relationship is.

 

[Captain Pike]

Expecting realism of any kind from what is essentially an artificial fantasy construct is in itself kind of absurd. I shouldn't have to remind you of that Sci.

 

[davejames]

I have no problem with romance and wouldn't mind a different scifi series that explored a realistic relationship, but for DW I just prefer a Doctor who's a bit more aloof and mysterious and, well... alien.

Once you throw in a romantic relationship (no matter how well-written), it can't help but make the Doctor seem a little TOO relatable and human I think.

 

[Sci]

Expecting realism of any kind from what is essentially an artificial fantasy construct is in itself kind of absurd.

You're confusing Realism -- which is the idea that characters in a story should display personalities that seem like plausible representations of real human personalities -- with Naturalism, which is the practice of creating convincing re-creations of physical environments and of the physical world.

And, no, there is no conflict between Realism and non-Naturalistic forms. There's a long history of combining the two -- particularly in, say, the genre of magical realism.

 

[Captain Pike]

Expecting realism of any kind from what is essentially an artificial fantasy construct is in itself kind of absurd.

You're confusing Realism -- which is the idea that characters in a story should display personalities that seem like plausible representations of real human personalities -- with Naturalism, which is the practice of creating convincing re-creations of physical environments and of the physical world.

Not at all. First of all, 'plausible representations of real human personalities' does not need to include every possible thing a real world person would do, say or think. We need not see the characters eat 3 meals a day or sleep or burp or excrete or read or vomit or scratch or yawn to assume that they do in fact do these things.

Secondly, and more to the point, these characters are as much a construct as anything else in a fictional world. Applying the test of 'real human personalities' to them is useful, but only to a point. A point which is determined by the type of story, it's purpose for existing, the target audience, the resolution/fidelity of the character etc. One of them isn't even human, so in his case requiring 'real human personalities' is getting off on the wrong foot entirely. As for the companions, these expectations are fine, but only within the parameters dictated by the creators of the fictional world.

In the past the creators of the show saw fit to exclude any notion of romance between the doctor and a companion. Not only do I respect that, I think that it works very, very well, for reasons I have stated elsewhere.

I am not adverse to romance or sexuality depicted in other shows. There are shows that are 'right' for that kind of thing, and those that aren't. Those who have long enough memories may recall that I was one of the people who campaigned rigoriously for more overt sexuality and titillation in Enterprise during it's run.

Nevertheless, depictions of romance between the doctor and a (human) companion are just not something I want to see in Doctor Who. I find the thought particularly vomit-inducing on the whole.

It has nothing to do with the doctor being limited to an 'incomplete character' because of it. Romance can be explored between the doctor and others beside the companions, if you really need to see that kind of thing. I quite enjoyed the first doctor's flirtation with Carmeca in The Aztecs or Madame Pompadour in The Girl in the Fire Place. But the companion is placed in a situation of trust with a being, a different species entirely, of vast intellect and age and experience. Sure one who could, if he wanted to, sweep her/him off their feet, but I feel that would be an enourmous betrayal of that trust, a misuse of his position of power and a step backwards for the character. It essentially undermines the character as I see it.

And speaking of exploring characters, well this can be done in different ways apart from putting them in a romantic situation. One of the interesting things about TOS is the friendship between the lead characters. The 'bromance' if you will - though this description hardly does it justice and only serves to denigrate it imo. I don't need to see Kirk & Spock in bed with each other (though there are plenty of slashfic people who relish the thought) - such a notion makes me feel slightly sick tbh. But the friendship that exists there is something that is very inspiring imo, and the depth that it gives to both characters is above and beyond what is often seen in typical onscreen romances. Forcing the view that it's actually a romance rather than a friendship only serves to sully and degredate what was/is a noble depiction of friendship.

I know that many fans will never let this go and will keep pushing for Doctor/companion romances to be the focus of the show. That's fine, but just accept that many classic fans like myself really don't want the series to go there, and it's not necessarily because we are close minded or shallow or prudes or that we want incomplete characters or anything like that - these are complete mischaracterisations and are, on the whole, incredibly shortsighted and wrong.

Cue 40,000 word response...

 

[Sci]

But the companion is placed in a situation of trust with a being, a different species entirely, of vast intellect and age and experience. Sure one who could, if he wanted to, sweep her/him off their feet, but I feel that would be an enourmous betrayal of that trust, a misuse of his position of power and a step backwards for the character.

You're talking about a companion as though she -- or he! -- is automatically not the Doctor's equal, as though the relationship between the Doctor and companion is akin to that between a teacher and a teenaged student.

It's patently absurd. First off, you're not respecting those characters' rights to make decisions for themselves, as though they somehow inherently lack the intellectual maturity to enter a relationship with someone just because they live in the TARDIS.

Secondly -- the Doctor regularly puts himself and his companions into life-threatening situations. Why is that not an abuse of trust, but entering a consensual relationship with a fellow adult is?