Now, the special itself just confirms to me what I've been thinking for a while now - Davies should NOT write this show. He's obviously an excellent producer, and his big-picture ideas are some of the best we've ever seen. But when it comes to writing episodes, his plotting and timing is lacking, and it's more evident here than ever before. I enjoyed it, but overall I think that the plot was jumbled and goes way too far to deify the Doctor, as the Master arc did last year.
The Doctor is fundamentally human in temperment, no matter the incarnation. Recently, it's been getting to the point that even the audience knows the Doctor is invulnerable, and it thus removes any point of danger or jeopardy from the show. I mean, the Doctor just isn't AFRAID like he used to be, you know? I beleive that RTD is far too invested in his creation to objectively write him.
posted
So, I just finished watching the last episode of season 1 of The Sarah-Jane Adventures.
BRILLIANT STUFF!
This was a REALLY good series.
It's not just for kids AT ALL. The season as a whole was really good too - and it climaxed in the right place and ended well!
Very tight season.
Just one thing...
*spoiler space*
*spoiler space*
*spoiler space*
I hope Mr. Smith is back to normal... his computer powers weren't due to his contact with the crystalline life-form were they? I think that Sarah-Jane said that he was the computer core from their space-ship?
Let's hope that the 'public' aren't still under the impression that SJS is still some crazy child-snatcher! "Chrissie" didn't seem to mind going into her front Garden.
I hope Clyde phoned his Mother!
Everyone had something important to do in the last episode, which was nice. There was also a nice arc to the series.
OK - anyone think there was a 'Bad Wolf' element to season 1? I think it was U.N.I.T.
Sarah-Jane ringing the 'Brig' to dismantle the Slitheen Stations around the world. Sarah-Jane mentioning her UNIT training. The close-up of the UNIT book The 'friends in high-places'. Even the poster in Luke's bedroom (when he was supposed to be Ashley) had big letters down the side of it U N I T.
I hope it is.
Neat.
P.S. I hope at some point in the future we get a Doctor cameo - or a Sarah-Jane cameo on Doctor Who (with possibly Maria or Luke).
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: The Doctor is fundamentally human in temperment, no matter the incarnation. Recently, it's been getting to the point that even the audience knows the Doctor is invulnerable, and it thus removes any point of danger or jeopardy from the show. I mean, the Doctor just isn't AFRAID like he used to be, you know? I beleive that RTD is far too invested in his creation to objectively write him.
Mark
Is it possible that they've written him like that for a reason... sort of?? I remarked above on the comment made by The Doctor in TVOTD where he said "That's me - unsinkable!" Is he tempting fate saying such a thing... like the people who claimed that the Titanic, itself was unsinkable? Maybe it is an allusion to what might be ahead of him?? Like he and Rose being told off by Queen Victoria in the Were-wolf episode... their actions came back to bight them in the arse, when Queen Victoria made them enemies of the British Empire, saying that had such power but acted so... carelessly.
Having said that as well, though - he HAS lost a lot too... The Time War destroyed his race and his home planet, he lost Rose to another dimension and he's continually in the presence of death... look how overjoyed in "The Doctor Dances" from season 1 he was because he had a day free, with no one dying! So maybe he does consider himself 'unsinkable'. Let's hope that the writers don't think this - otherwise, yes it makes him a very one-dimensional character doesn't it?
Let's hope the writers take note of such things. Keep on writing him as a 'powerful' yet ultimately 'vulnerable' figure. Having said all this though, it might be that he was just written like that in the Christmas special... he has been 'vulnerable' in season 3: When was converted to a human, when he 'lost' Martha in "Gridlock" also where he finally opened up about Gallifrey etc. also when he realised that Professor Yana was actually the Master in the last part of "Utopia".
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
They had a similar "problem" with Tom Baker's Doctor. As time went on, he seemed more and more invunerable. It was getting harder to believe that he was ever in any real danger - he always knew wha to say or do to save the day. Which is the main reason why his replacement was a much softer, less sure of himself character.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think the "unsinkable" line says more about how he's been ACKNOWLEDGING his invulnerability of late, rather than setting himself up for a fall. After 903 (or more) years of life, this Doctor has been almost tragically cocky about how he always survives, with his only constant companion being death.
As for SJA (for which we do have a separate thread, BTW), Sarah Jane is supposed to re-appear in the flagship series, but not vice versa (since the Doctor would never take a back seat in someone else's show). The Doctor of course gets mentinoed in SJA, as a li'l fanwank every once in a while.
Yeah, what's up with that? They've had three years to realize that the Doctor was already well over 900 years old back in the McCoy years. Did Davies just decide that, for his own unfathomable reasons, he must have a 900-year-old Doctor, and no damned "continuity" is going to tell him otherwise?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I wonder if Tennant's ever mentioned that, seeing as how he seems to be a bit of a geek. He did get the credits changed, after all.
Also, does this mean that the 9th Doctor was only around for a year or so? That's pretty bad when you put it up against the decades and centuries the other Doctor's managed.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Where does that 900 year age come from anyway? And how does it fit in the history? Which incarnation of the Doctor is supposed to have lived that long!?
posted
900 years was a Davies invention. He knew (everyone knew) that the Doctor was around 750 through much of his fourth incarnation. The sixth Doctor mentioned he was 900 years old, and in the very first story of the seventh, he explicitly states his age as 953. Depending on how you follow the novel continuities, the eigth Doctor was 1100 years old by the time he started (and the seventh was visibly aged). Most people in the fandom figure the last two incarnations have been a little vain for being so old - so 900 years could be a Gallifreyan 39. I think we're just waiting for Romana to show up again and set things straight.
As for his ninth incarnation lasting "only" a year, well, that's what regeneration is all about. You don't use it to live forever - you use it to avoid getting killed. Also, it seems to imply that there was no real break between Rose and Martha, even though there is supposed to be a period in which the Doctor travelled alone following "Doomsday". The whole point is that Davies has established his own continuity which is mostly consistent within his series; regardless of the details, this is far better than the 26 year run, which was frequently inconsistent within single episodes.
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: As for SJA (for which we do have a separate thread, BTW),
Really, I never saw one... it's only because of this thread that I knew that it had started! (Apart from the pilot at the start of the year)
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: Sarah Jane is supposed to re-appear in the flagship series, but not vice versa (since the Doctor would never take a back seat in someone else's show). The Doctor of course gets mentinoed in SJA, as a li'l fanwank every once in a while.
Mark
We'll it'd be nice to have the SJA gang get to see/meet/experience The Doctor, and also to have him sort of acknowledge the good work that Bannerman Road is doing!
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
The Second Doctor was 600 years old, I believe. They usually explain the long life spans by finding a period where a regeneration travelled alone (the 4th, 6th) or had companions who weren't human and so could also have had years of off-screen adventures (the 5th), or just shoved it in between 2 minutes of a TV show where the Doctor was off-screen (the 3rd).
As to the Doctor being old, I remember an implication that the Doctor goes through his regenerations faster that most Time Lords. Considering that his 9th regeneration is only 3 away from the end, if he's considering 1100+ to be pretty old then maybe he's not doing so badly.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"As to the Doctor being old, I remember an implication that the Doctor goes through his regenerations faster that most Time Lords."
I think that mainly comes from the fact that almost all other Time Lords spend their time just kicking back on Gallifrey. The Doctor uses up his regenerations faster because he's one of the very few Time Lords who's actually in a position to get killed and need to use them.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Considering that he has very little in the way of "superpowers" and all that, it's frankly shocking he doesn't get killed more often.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I had one of my (many) mad thoughts the other night - how about a crossover with a much-younger First Doctor? If he clocked up about half a millenium in his first incarnation, there's plenty of scope.
A picture of William Hartnell, the youngest one I could find. Nobody really leaps to mind who looks anything like him, except:
. . . Of course, there are persistent rumours that David Mitchell is going to be the NEXT Doctor. . . I hope not, because then the temptation to put Webb (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/article24101.ece) in as the Master would be unbearable, and the show would turn into that awful Reeves'n'Mortimer version of Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased).
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
