New Doctor Who Companion Announced

eternaldoctorwho writes "Jenna-Louise Coleman will be the newest companion to the Doctor (Matt Smith) on the hit series Doctor Who. The announcement came earlier today on the BBC's Twitter page devoted to the program, along with some other details about the upcoming season of the show. Miss Coleman is also known for her previous roles on Emmerdale and Captain America: The First Avenger."

Comments

Male companion

[Stargoat]

Why can't we have a long term positive male companion? Yes, it's nice to look at young women, but that isn't what Doctor Who is all about. Is it going to take a female doctor before we have can have a decent male companion that isn't a coward or dies every other episode?

(If it does require a female companion, can I vote for Emma Thompson?)

Re:Male companion

[jimmerz28]

Yea younger than Captain Jack please. He's getting too old to be the hot boy on the block; it's getting a little unbelievable.

Re:Male companion

[Stargoat]

errr, (If it does require a female doctor, can I vote for Emma Thompson?)

Re:Male companion

[martin-boundary]

Unfortunately, somebody or something always needs rescuing or helping, otherwise it's not drama.

Do you really want to see a helpless male companion running and screaming, and needing to be rescued every episode? It gets old pretty quick if you're a guy watching the show (can't comment on the alternative). What's the demographic split between male and female viewers of Dr Who anyway?

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't we have a long term positive male companion?

Because the Doctor likes nice young girls to show them that it's bigger on the inside.

Re:Male companion

[owlnation]

Why can't we have a long term positive male companion?

Probably because the BBC is trying to hit the right advertising demographic in the US. It's one of the very few scripted shows that the BBC can sell abroad, and they want to milk every penny out of it they can (even though its production is wholly subsidized). The BBC loves to get paid twice for things -- and more so with Dr Who as it has lots of merchandising too.

They did used to have male companions, back in the days when the BBC actually gave a fuck about its Charter. It was originally supposed to be an educational show for children, but now it's wholly-commercial, ratings-driven TV (of variable quality) -- something the BBC is not supposed to produce.

Hopefully this girl can act better than the ginger girl, who could not act to save her life. But since this new girl is an ex-soap opera actress, I'd think it's likely she's been hired for her other assets.

You'll probably only see a male companion if the Doctor gets a sex change.

Re:Male companion

[LordLucless]

Back in the day, male companions were vastly outnumbered by female. And there's male companions in the new series too - Captain Jack, Rory, and Donna's Dad for that Christmas special (if you count that). But it's not like Doctor Who is alone there. Pretty much every show with a lead character has a supporting character of the opposite gender.

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Absolutely not. As in, hell no. Ick, I think I just puked up a little.

Re:Male companion

[fermion]

We have had several male companions. Turlough, Adric, the Brigadere, The first companions were the doctors granddaughter, her teacher, and Ian. Not to mention Jamie.

In this current incarnation, the males have been less present, perhaps because the companions have been more explicitly romantic objects. Certainly most of the girls were sexualized, many more than the current companions, but then so was Turlough, wearing the fewest clothes that we have ever seen on Doctor Who, until Nicole Bryant(did Slader have a bikini scene at the beggining of the B&W episodes?)

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not claiming this is in any way representative of Who viewers as a whole, but my university has a Who fan club (we call ourselves the Society of Gallifreyan Scholars) and the membership is ~75% female.

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

IMO the best/most likeable but also most forgotten male companion was Harry Sulivan, but they removed his character from the show early when they figured Tom Baker could credibly do action scenes.

There was also Ben Jackson in the 1st/2nd Doctor era, though most of the episodes he was in have since been lost.

Re:Male companion

[Beardo the Bearded]

I'd like to see more "companion rescuing the Doctor" events.

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

We already had a female Time Lord. Her name was Romana.

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been many male companions throughout the history of Doctor Who, even in this latest (2005) series.

The thing is, 90% of the general audience is heterosexual and LIKES to see a female companion for the Doctor. Better ratings and all, which is what actually drives the series. And it IS actually what Doctor Who is about. The Doctor is the last of his species and is utterly alone in the universe. A companion is something he requires for company, and while there has rarely been any sexual relationship shown, it has often been implied. (Rather loosely, as it is basically a children's show.)

But really, do you complain about other TV shows with male stars and female co-stars? It seems to be a general winning formula for television success the world over.

Re:Male companion

[mjwx]

Probably because the BBC is trying to hit the right advertising demographic in the US. It's one of the very few scripted shows that the BBC can sell in the US,

Please remember that USA != world. In Commonwealth countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) the BBC sells a lot of programs both in DVD and Syndicated TV. Lets not forget the rest of Europe.

Even in India, you can get a lot of BBC programming. BBC have pay TV channels all over Asia and the BBC's and ABC's (Australian) children's programming is exported the world over. It was a surprise to see Thomas the Tank Engine dubbed in Tagalog (Filipino) on TV in Davao a few years back.

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

The female companions don't run and scream and need helping very often. And how many shows have a bumbling male? Why wouldn't that work?

I think the biggest argument against it is one of tradition. The Doctor is an old guy who likes young women. Always has been.

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

i would absolutely go there. i don't know what's wrong with you.

girl that's been round the block a few times could teach you a few tricks the young ones don't know.

Re:Male companion

[morari]

I was always disappointed that Jack Harkness didn't stick around for more than a few episodes. Of course, I guess the character did get his own show to make up for it.

What I really want is for the Doctor to take on a non-human companion. That would open things open a lot more, I think. Also, while we're at it, why doesn't the Doctor ever regenerate into a female form?

Re:Male companion

[Malc]

Forget about America. The BBC is just trying to reach out to a broader audience at home. The ambiguous romance angle allows them to appeal to the less nerdy.

Re:Male companion

[evilviper]

Why can't we have a long term positive male companion?

Because the old Dr Who had an audience the skewed heavily male, and the makers of the new series are dead-set on getting and keeping a significant number of female viewers, or die trying... That's why there's been such a heavy dose of romance in the new series.

Re:Male companion

[wonkey_monkey]

Yes, it is going to take a female Doctor. It's a male/female dynamic.

Re:Male companion

[wonkey_monkey]

I'm not claiming this is in any way representative of Who viewers as a whole, but my university has a Who fan club (we call ourselves the Society of Gallifreyan Scholars) and the membership is ~75% female.

I am interested in your society and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Male companion

[Grimbleton]

Dr Who already has a rather bumbling male character who only seems to get his head in gear on occasion, and mostly near the end of the episode. Currently he's played... by Matt Smith.

Re:Male companion

[kannibal_klown]

Why can't we have a long term positive male companion? Yes, it's nice to look at young women, but that isn't what Doctor Who is all about. Is it going to take a female doctor before we have can have a decent male companion that isn't a coward or dies every other episode?

(If it does require a female companion, can I vote for Emma Thompson?)

Well they have Rory, who's been a partner of Doctor + Amy for quite a number of episodes. IMDB says 22, so discounting the pilot and the odd "remember me" episodes that's about as much as Martha Jones.

Though perhaps that's who you meant about "dies every other episode" as he has died a number of times.

Re:Male companion

[AmiMoJo]

I was surprised to see Doctor Who on Japanese satellite channels, dubbed into Japanese.

Re:Male companion

[CarbonShell]

The lizard chick with the katana!
It would be quite interesting because it adds the extra problem of non-humans milling about in human history/future.

Re:Male companion

[Nutria]

Except that it makes no sense for a bog-standard human without any cool toys to regularly rescue a sonic-screwdriver-weilding Time Lord, especially if she is a new companion.

Re:Male companion

[BigZee]

We have. Although Rory wasn't present for certain parts of the 5th season, he was for a substantial amount of it and was a companion throughout season 7. Micky Smith was also around for the first couple of seasons whilst Rose Tyler was a companion. In both cases they were probably not as prominent as the female companions but they were there. Unfortunately, the press tend to focus more on the female companions than the male ones. Captain Jack for example wasn't mentioned in the press yet was in four episodes of the first season. Similarly, when Amy Pond was announced, there was no mention of a boyfriend/husband that would also be in the show.

Re:Male companion

[JosKarith]

Matt Smith went to UEA, Norwich. A friend of mine shared an accomodation block with him - seems that he had a bad habit of shouting "Who loves the c*ck" when entertaining a young lady in his room... Unfortunately that knowledge has made it hard to take the 11th Doctor seriously despite my being a life-long fan of the show...

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

You should correct that to clarify that they are fans of the NEW Doctor Who. I don't know a single woman who can tolerate original doctor who. Original doctor who doesn't have enough sappy "we wrote this for women" plot points.

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

I vote for Hugh Laurie. It would be freaking awesome :D

Re:Male companion

[Baron_Yam]

No, a person cannot be forgiven for implying Canada when they say US.

There are 50 states in the USA, and Canada has over 10% of the population of the Americans, meaning Canada is bigger than 5 average state populations combined. Though there are at least six major cultural groups within Canada, each of them is distinct enough from what you'd find south of the border that lumping them together is imprecise as best.

Anybody who thinks of Canada as 'North Wisconsin' is invited to either completely ignore us or educate themselves on the subject.

Re:Male companion

[dintech]

The BBC is unique in that is has the license fee. Everyone in the UK has to pay a yearly fee of about $240 if they have a TV or go to jail / pay a huge fine.

The BBC cares quite strongly about what we license fee payers want. The reason for this is very clear; it makes them nearly 6 billion dollars a year but yet it's unpopular as it's seen as a tax on televisions. If they don't keep license fee payers happy, it is possible that enough of a revolt would mean that the license fee is finally scrapped. I don't think any amount of US syndication is going to replace 6 billion dollars a year.

The choices made in Dr Who are for a traditional British audience who have been watching the show since childhood. It's one of the few programs that is popular enough that people think the license fee is 'worth it'. Sorry if this bursts your bubble in that everyone in the world is just trying to keep the US happy.

Re:Male companion

[Patchw0rk F0g]

Canada is largely thought of as "North Wisconsin".

By who ? My tired, puckered ass, you idiot.

Instead of a long rant, one line from north of the border: "You, my friend, are a xenophobic fucking cunt."

Re:Male companion

[TheRaven64]

I think most of us try to forget Adric. When he dies, you can tell when he dies that all of the characters are thinking 'we have a time machine. We only saw the spaceship crash from the outside - we could go back and rescue him before it does. I really hope no one else thinks of that...'

Re:Male companion

[TheRaven64]

What I really want is for the Doctor to take on a non-human companion

That sort of defeats the point of the companion. They exist in the show as a surrogate for the audience, someone who will ask the same questions as the audience and allow The Doctor to explain things for the benefit of the audience without breaking the fourth wall. An alien companion can work, but only if there is also a human companion.

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot Mickey, and that other guy that was there for 1 episode.

Re:Male companion

[jamesh]

What I really want is for the Doctor to take on a non-human companion

That sort of defeats the point of the companion. They exist in the show as a surrogate for the audience, someone who will ask the same questions as the audience and allow The Doctor to explain things for the benefit of the audience without breaking the fourth wall. An alien companion can work, but only if there is also a human companion.

Sci-Fi usually operates on the basis that any alien we meet will be significantly more advanced and worldy (universly?) than us mere humans, but that is because we are working on the assumption that they have arrived on our planet and therefore have accomplished space travel, which we haven't.

That assumption doesn't necessarily hold for a Doctor companion though. He could arrive on an alien planet where the aliens are around our level of technology (and coincidentally speak english!) and it could still work. It could be a little more interesting as the alien could be asking questions about earthlings...

Thinking about an alien companion, a Doctor Who / Star Wars crossover with Jar Jar Binks as the companion would be really cool. Especially the bit where Jar Jar gets brutally murdered 5 minutes into the episode.

Re:Male companion

[dkf]

There are 50 states in the USA, and Canada has over 10% of the population of the Americans, meaning Canada is bigger than 5 average state populations combined.

Other ways to express this. The only US state with more population than Canada is California. Every other state is significantly smaller. Canada's got nearly twice as many people as New York state. Ontario, the most populous Canadian province, has about the same number of people as Illinois.

Re:Male companion

[delinear]

That assumption doesn't necessarily hold for a Doctor companion though. He could arrive on an alien planet where the aliens are around our level of technology (and coincidentally speak english!) and it could still work. It could be a little more interesting as the alien could be asking questions about earthlings...

Could be even more interesting than the human companions, who we're meant to believe are both simultaneously brilliant, able to save the universe and solve complex logic problems, but also ask a stream of mundane questions (largely so that unfamiliar concepts can be explained to a varied audience). At least with an alien visitor there would be a reason for asking questions about everyday things. They'd have to be mostly human in appearance though, as the majority of the storylines are centred around human characters (I assume for budgetary reasons) and they'd need to blend in more often than not.

Re:Male companion

[delinear]

You missed the part about being cowards or dying all the time. Both Mickey and Rory were protrayed, at least at the start, as bumbling idiots more interested in running away from danger than diving in (and reluctantly being dragged into dangerous situations by their headstrong female companions). Both did eventually get storylines in which they got to play a more heroic role, but then it seems like the interest in doing anything with them tapers out and they either revert to form, or they leave, or we see an event every week that isolates them from the doctor and the female companion who go on to save the day themselves.

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

For months now, the Canadians have been massing on our northern border, mounted on snowmobiles armed with Enfield rifles, eating poutine and occasionally humping errant walruses. The threat from the north is real and we're fixated on taco-vendors and roofing sub-contractors from our southern border. Forget about Tehran. We need to mount a pre-emptive strike on Ottowa and the sooner the better.

On the topic of Dr. Who companions... the pics of this one, she looks an awful lot like the waitress who plays Amy Pond. My least favorite Dr. Companion of all time.

Re:Male companion

[1u3hr]

That assumption doesn't necessarily hold for a Doctor companion though. He could arrive on an alien planet where the aliens are around our level of technology (and coincidentally speak english!) and it could still work. It could be a little more interesting as the alien could be asking questions about earthlings...

There were several non-human companions; though all humanoid and played by humans. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companion_(Doctor_Who)

Leela was a "primitive" warrior woman who wore a minimal cave-girl-style outfit and was very popular back in the 70s. She had a direct and often violent way of dealing with problems. Romana was a Gallifreyan.

Re:Male companion

[harl]

Girls go for the doctor.

Guys go for the companion.

Re:Male companion

[mcneely.mike]

We need to mount a pre-emptive strike on Ottowa and the sooner the better.

Please spell it correctly... it is Ootawa. I AM CANADIAN!

Now get off my lawn and oot of my yard.

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

please please please please please http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-%26-entertainment/new-doctor-who-companion-is-middle%11aged-bricklayer-201203225044/

Re:Male companion

[j33px0r]

The female companions don't run and scream and need helping very often.

It depends upon which season. Having recently watched the first season with Doctor #1, Susan (the Doctor's granddaughter) did enough running, screaming, and other hysterics to make the viewer want to gouge out their eyes. However, such antics contributed to making the first Doctor something of a celebrity in his day.

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

K-9?

Re:Male companion

[j33px0r]

Not just any female form, a ginger!

Re:Male companion

[Oswald McWeany]

Ummm... how many girls would honestly find Matt Smith attractive? He's fun- and plays the role well- but he wasn't chosen for the part based on being good looking- it was because he really does act the part well.

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

>> did Slader have a bikini scene at the beggining of the B&W episodes?

AFAIK, the closest Elisabeth (requesicat in pace) ever got to that was at the beginning of "Death to the Daleks" when she and Pertwee were about to visit some beach planet and she was in a halter-top-and-shorts outfit, sorta retro-50s high-waisted two-piece suit.

Re:Male companion

[Oswald McWeany]

Many Sci-Fi shows operate on that premise- but there are many more that don't. Star Trek, especially later series- most aliens were more primitive than humanity.

Don't forget the Doctor has a time machine (hard to forget that plot twist) he could go to the past of a planet that is pre-human technology.

Aliens don't have to speak "English" the tardis automatically translates everything. They go to countries other than England- recently they were in Germany. It's DW's way of explaining why everyone can talk to each other- maybe a bit silly , but necessary for the plot.

Re:Male companion

[Hatta]

Especially for someone who is supposed to live forever.

Re:Male companion

[Sporkinum]

And Steven Fry could be her companion.

Re:Male companion

[JasterBobaMereel]

Rory was the one who needed rescuing in a few episodes ...and there have been male companions before

The companion is mainly there for exposition, "This is New Earth in the year 10,000 ...." i.e. the Stuff the Doctor knows and the people where he is know already, but the companion doesn't, and as a connection to the Audience, this is why an everyman (or Everywoman) works best as they are not extraordinary

Re:Male companion

[JasterBobaMereel]

In Nicola Bryant's first episode, she wore just a bikini, and Turlough a rather revealing pair of trunks, and a very wet shirt....

Re:Male companion

[sorak]

(spoiler for anyone who hasn't seen the David Tennant episodes)
He mentioned in one episode that he's still aging, and that he eventually becomes the face of Mogh. (Because that's what happens when you keep getting old but never die?)

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to troll, but is it really a good comparison to say "well, our entire country has more people than any of your states, well, except for California."

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are my mod points?

Re:Male companion

[Stargoat]

That would be the best. BBC probably couldn't afford both of them though. Or even one. But we can still dream.

Re:Male companion

[Hatta]

He ages, but incredibly slowly. On one episode of Torchwood, he spends nearly 2000 years buried underground and emerges no worse for wear.

Re:Male companion

[MindStalker]

Girls go for smart geeky guys WITH confidence. Just most smart geeky guys don't have confidence. Matt Smith has tons, at least in this role.

Re:Male companion

[sorak]

I didn't know that. I guess they'll have to come up with some crazy plot ideas if the series lasts more than a few more years, then.

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody who thinks of Canada as 'North Wisconsin' is invited to either completely ignore us or educate themselves on the subject.

No kidding! The proper way to think about Canada is 'North Minnesota.' People in Wisconsin are generally too drunk to play hockey.

Re:Male companion

[NoahsMyBro]

SONOFABITCH!!!!

You couldn't have told me about this 30 years ago???? !!! ????

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

Throughout the history of the show, there have been numerous strong male companions. Rarely are they solo however. In fact the 1st male companion Ian Chesterton(played by William Russell) was a typical 60s strong male figure always dealing with the safety of his fellow female teacher Barbara, and the Doctor's granddaughter Susan, while the doctor took care of the bigger picture.

Of course you always had Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart as a strong, though simple minded, male figure. Though not a companion in the traditional sense, but still had a endearing quality and who's death was instrumental in the actions of the doctor in last years season finale.

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank fuck you don't work on the show. Female doctor? Male companion?

Fuck off.

Re:Male companion

[Hatta]

If you haven't watched Torchwood yet, I'd advise against it. It's really pretty bad.

Re:Male companion

[tguyton]

Original Doctor Who is the best, I actually enjoy it more than the new take (and I am indeed a woman). Of course, my parents were big enough fans that they named me after one of the female companions, so I may have grown up with a bit of a bias.

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

He had a female time lord as a companion for a while.

Re:Male companion

[MindStalker]

Yea I didn't figure this out myself till maybe 5 years ago. //Been married for 9 years. ///Hold on, wait, what?!?!

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't we have a long term positive male companion? Yes, it's nice to look at young women, but that isn't what Doctor Who is all about. Is it going to take a female doctor before we have can have a decent male companion that isn't a coward or dies every other episode?

(If it does require a female companion, can I vote for Emma Thompson?)

YES!! Like Jamie from the second doctor!

Re:Male companion

[evilviper]

BBC Worldwide made more than half of its (2009) revenue from abroad.

The aim (was) to generate two-thirds of revenue from abroad by 2012.

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8149767.stm

Re:Male companion

[KingMotley]

Actually the license fee gets the BBC about (3.5 billion pounds) 5.5 billion dollars. They also collect (1.5 billion pounds) 2.4 billion dollars from BBC Worldwide.

Could US syndication replace the BBC tax? It's already quite well on it's way. In fact, if you just include BBC One content (which is all that is rebroadcast overseas here on BBC America), it already does. In the last published financials (http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/pdf/bbc_ar_online_2010_11.pdf - this years should be finalized any day now), the BBC Tax income only increased 2% this year, while overseas syndication income increased 10% this year, and will likely be even higher in 2012 now that BBC Worldwide just landed a nice deal to transmit in HD. If you don't like it, may I suggest you protest by never watching BBC One ever again.

Re:Male companion

[spiralx]

The license fee is hardly unpopular unless you read the Murdoch press, which has been smearing it for years now. From Wikipedia:

In September 2009, The Guardian reported an ICM poll showing an increase in support for the licence fee to 43%; "The fee is backed by 43%, against 24% who think advertising should foot the bill and 30% who think people should pay to subscribe if they want to see BBC programmes. In 2004, only 31% backed the licence fee, 12 points lower than today."

So support has increased over the last decade by quite a bit despite all of the propaganda in the press; I don't see a public revolt happening any time soon.

Re:Male companion

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Actually, Mogh is the (deceased) father of Worf on Star Trek: the Next Generation. You're thinking of the Face of Boe, and one of Jack's comments to the Doctor and Martha strongly suggests that he will become the Face eventually. The video on YouTube showing how Tennant and Barrowman learned of this plot twist is hilarious.

Re:Male companion

[oh_my_080980980]

Well especially if he's not going to nail her. Jesus I've never seen a more effeminate Doctor than Matt Smiths!

Re:Male companion

[oh_my_080980980]

It's Science Fiction not drama. Who the fuck says you have to have helpless companions. That speaks the the quality of writing if you have to have helpless companions for a story to work.

Moffat you suck!

Re:Male companion

[oh_my_080980980]

My wife LOVES the original Doctor Who and not his gay twat hour show that is masquerading as Doctor Who.

Re:Male companion

[N0Man74]

The biggest Doctor Who fan I ever met was female, in her mid 20's... and was a huge fan of the old shows too. Her favorite companion was Leela.

Re:Male companion

[harl]

Girls go for guys with confidence. The smart and geeky is optional.

Re:Male companion

[savi]

This makes me suspicious. A friend of mine supposedly has a friend whose friend dated Matt Smith and revealed that he shouted this during sex. I'm now wondering if this has entered internet myth territory. Do we have any first-hand sources for this? Or is it always a friend?

Re:Male companion

[dintech]

BBC Worldwide is a separate entity.

Re:Male companion

[cyberchondriac]

I think you'd be surprised. Sometimes I wonder if what constitutes being "attractive" is simply being young and famous on TV. Look at Colin Morgan who plays the title character on the BBC/SyFy show, "Merlin" I've read of women swooning over him on fan forums, but he isn't your classic leading man either.

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

It took me five minutes of struggling to watch the show before I gave in and considered him the worst doctor.
That's out of all the series, films, and children in need shows.

I still think Patrick Troughton was the best. Had the best chemistry with his two companions - Jamie and Zoey. Matched only by Tom Baker and Romana.

Re:Male companion

[wed128]

We're all trying to forget that other guy...

Re:Male companion

[cyberchondriac]

Canada is largely thought of as "North Wisconsin".

By whom? Wisconsiners? I'm "American" (as in the US) and I never looked at Canada as anything but another nation.

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. It's not Doctor Who, but it has it's own charm. Some episodes are a LOT better than others, though.

Re:Male companion

[Pope]

Romana 2 was the best.

Re:Male companion

[rkhalloran]

>> did Slader have a bikini scene at the beggining of the B&W episodes?

Closest you're going to get to that is a two-piece 'sunsuit' outfit at the beginning of 'Death to the Daleks' during the Pertwee era, as she and the Doctor were preparing for an outing on a beach planet with effervescent seas...

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably you would do so here: http://gallifreyanscholars.tumblr.com

Re:Male companion

[TangoMargarine]

Boe! Face of Boe!

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, I was coming to say that I wanted Captain Jack back. That's one sexy boy. And he's polysexual, he'll meet aliens and screw them....

Re:Male companion

[TangoMargarine]

Canada is bigger than 5 average state populations combined.

at least six major cultural groups within Canada

So basically, it's California.

Re:Male companion

[TangoMargarine]

He could arrive on an alien planet where the aliens are around our level of technology (and coincidentally speak english!) and it could still work.

Unfortunately the whole "the TARDIS translates in your head" thing doesn't really work if neither the Doctor nor his companion's native language is English, yeah...not that anybody would care...

Re:Male companion

[Tetsujin]

Why can't we have a long term positive male companion? Yes, it's nice to look at young women, but that isn't what Doctor Who is all about. Is it going to take a female doctor before we have can have a decent male companion that isn't a coward or dies every other episode?

I think Rory really developed nicely, actually. If you look at his first adventure away from home, he's kind of like, "Why the hell am I here in this crazy place?" But later on we have some nice "crowning moments of awesome" like Rory the Roman, his time with Flesh Jennifer and his involvement in the raid on Demon's Run. He probably was never entirely comfortable going on dangerous adventures, but he learned to deal.

Re:Male companion

[Tetsujin]

Matt Smith went to UEA, Norwich. A friend of mine shared an accomodation block with him - seems that he had a bad habit of shouting "Who loves the c*ck"

How do you even pronounce an asterisk??

Re:Male companion

[Tetsujin]

He had a female time lord as a companion for a while.

Yeah, Susan was cool, at least when she got to be "Smart" Susan and not "Susan in Distress"...

Re:Male companion

[Translation Error]

What I really want is for the Doctor to take on a non-human companion.

Does K-9 count?

Also, while we're at it, why doesn't the Doctor ever regenerate into a female form?

Well, if you're asking from a writing perspective, I guess they don't think that would be popular. If you're asking for an in-universe answer, genetics would suffice.

Re:Male companion

[oldmac31310]

Sorry, no. Five minutes is way too much. Think again.

Re:Male companion

[Phoenix666]

Canada is an awesome country and the people are fantastic. It is not a significantly multi-cultural country in the same way that Switzerland is not. The Swiss speak French, German, Italian, and Romansh, and there are minorities like Tamils who live there, but no one would seriously claim it's a multi-ethnic state.

Canada is like northern Wisconsin, or northern Maine, or northern Minnesota, or northern Washington. Or, if you prefer, northen Wisconsin, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington are like southern Canada. Their climates are identical, geographies similar, and historically there has been a lot of cross-border cross-pollination. Of course they're similar.

I get that some Canadians resent being lumped in with the U.S. They should. But exaggerating the differences above to salve wounded patriotic pride is gratuitous.

Re:Male companion

[oldmac31310]

I think you are the only person to have seen season 7. You are awesome. You must be a timelord. No spoilers please.

Re:Male companion

[Baron_Yam]

'Similar' is not 'same'. I wouldn't claim someone from New York and someone from Los Angeles were the same, and Canadians and Americans are different enough to warrant separate categories.

By your definition, the most of the Commonwealth may as well be one country.

Re:Male companion

[jo42]

It's really pretty bad.

Too much fudge packery for my tastes...

Re:Male companion

[Abstrackt]

How do you even pronounce an asterisk??

With great difficulty.

Re:Male companion

[rizole]

Sandi Toksvig?

Re:Male companion

[boristhespider]

On the contrary, quite easily. That word is pronounced as either "casteriskock" or "kestarck", depending on context.

I understand that I've given two pronunciations, but you speak English so you're used to the same word being pronounced in different ways (or different words being spelled the same way).

Re:Male companion

[atomicxblue]

They did it with Jamie and Aldric years ago. Both of them turned out to be well loved characters.

Re:Male companion

[hexadecimate]

As a friend of mine once pointed out, if Canada ever joined the US, the Presidency and the HofR would be dominated by the Democratic party for at least the next two decades. Canada would have more electoral votes than any state but California, and enough left-leaning congressional districts to tip the balance. In Canada Obama would be considered a moderate conservative, and Rick Santorum would be institutionalized and kept under heavy government-subsidized sedation.

Re:Male companion

[coxymla]

Leela was still a human though. Her tribe were the degenerate descendants of a surveying mission that crashed or got stranded or somesuch.

Re:Male companion

[evilviper]

Canada is bigger than 5 average state populations combined.

The "average" is brought down by some really, really tiny states. If you want to talk averages, let's try nation-wide population density figures...

The top 4 US states have populations that are singificantly more than 50% the population of all of Canada... California has more people, Texas has about 3/4rds as many people, and New York & Florida have a little more than half as many people as all of Canada.

And you can't ignore the fact that 90% of the population of Canada is within 100 miles of the US border.

Re:Male companion

[evilviper]

The only US state with more population than Canada is California. Every other state is significantly smaller.

No, California is larger, Texas has about 3/4ths the population (not significantly smaller), and New York and Florida each have more than 50% the population. It would help if thee US had more large states.

Ontario, the most populous Canadian province, has about the same number of people as Illinois.

And? Ontario is geographically HUGE, 90% of their population is within 100miles of the US border, and Illinois isn't one of the most populous states, by far.

Re:Male companion

[evilviper]

one line from north of the border: "You, my friend, are a xenophobic. (...)"

Are you trying to prove that Canadians don't know what Xenophobic means? Or did you throw a word into a thesaurus and accidentally picked the antonym instead of the synonym? Since when is saying "they're practically one of us" being xenophobic, in any possible sense?

One line from south of the broder: "You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means."

Re:Male companion

[evilviper]

Considering that the US is currently divided about 50/50 between democrats and republicans, ANY new territory could make national elections one sided for many years to come. Canada would likely vote with New York, but California is only about 55/45 democratic, so it often-enough goes to republicans, it just hasn't since Bush Sr., thanks to the insane right-wingers the republicans have put forward for the past few years. Even throwing Canada in wouldn't stop a republican presidential candidate if they were sane enough to win California, along with Texas & Florida, Ohio and the other usual suspects.

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know a single woman

There... ftfy....

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine Eddie Izzard as the doctor with Ianto Jones the companion. Even Tebow could genuflext to that!

Re:Male companion

[JosKarith]

The guy who told me this was the person sharing a block with Matt and isn't someone prone to making stuff up so I'm tempted to believe him.

Re:Male companion

[sorak]

Sorry. I'll try to IMDB next time.

Re:Male companion

[Anonymous Coward]

How do I get mod points? I want to mod this up to a 6.

Re:Male companion

[Patchw0rk F0g]

1. We're absolutely not "practically one of you". That's not only a false statement, but it makes me puke in my mouth just a bit. That's just an asinine thing to even aver.

2. Xenophobe: a person who fears or hates foreigners, strange customs, etc. Yeah, that sounds about right. Sorry if you got your wordy-things wrong, but yep, that's what I meant to say.

3. See all of the above if you still have any questions as to why I'm so friggin' proud I'm not an "American" like you.

Re:Male companion

[evilviper]

2. Xenophobe: a person who fears or hates foreigners, strange customs, etc. Yeah, that sounds about right. Sorry if you got your wordy-things wrong, but yep, that's what I meant to say.

Absolutely nothing I've said could possibly indicate fear or hate of Canadians. As I said, my statement was the absolute, positive, polar opposite of that.

1. We're absolutely not "practically one of you". That's not only a false statement, but it makes me puke in my mouth just a bit. That's just an asinine thing to even aver.

Ah, I see... That explains it. So what you're trying to express is the fact that YOU are the xenophobe, who fears and hates the US. I guess you're just upset at me for not playing along, like a racist, yelling at someone for saying we're all basically the same.

3. See all of the above if you still have any questions as to why I'm so friggin' proud I'm not an "American" like you.

Xenophobia often results from nationalistic sentiment.

Hot stuff!

[blind monkey 3]

Pity about the current doctor though..... where's a decent evil dustbin when you need one.

Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Too Bad David Tennant doesn't want to act the Doctor anymore, Matt isn't bad, & does eventually grow on you but David is and in my opinion the best Doctor of the newer series.

Re:Too Bad

[apharmdq]

Tennant ran around and yelled a bit too much for my taste. Eccleston felt far more like the classic Doctors, in that he was more of thinker than a man of action. I definitely preferred Eccleston to Tennant. (Though Tennant does look dashing, and has some great moments.) I haven't gotten to Matt Smith yet, but from what a few friends of mine have told me, his Doctor is a lot closer to the classic Doctors, which is something I really liked. (FYI, my favorite Doctor is still the 7th, though I thought each one brought something unique to the table.) In any case, I have a feeling Tennant would have gone over a little better if it weren't for Russel T. Davies' writing style. But I guess I shouldn't complain, as RTD did bring the show back from the dead after all.

Re:Too Bad

[skine]

Tennant was a theatrical doctor.

Which really should be considered a contradiction in character.

Re:Too Bad

[geminidomino]

. Eccleston felt far more like the classic Doctors, in that he was more of thinker than a man of action. I definitely preferred Eccleston to Tennant.

And here I thought I was alone in the world. (My brothers still mock me for it)

Re:Too Bad

[wonkey_monkey]

Too Bad David Tennant doesn't want to act the Doctor anymore

Tennant has always given impression that he loves playing the Doctor and will do so at any opportunity. Thankfully he also knows that it's best to go out on a high.

Re:Too Bad

[bryan1945]

My wife is still pissed Tennant left.

Re:Too Bad

[TheRaven64]

No, you're not alone. Tennant and Smith both seem more like self-parody (although there's some precedent for that in Doctor Who). I still enjoy their performances, but Eccleston was the only one who made me believe he was almost a thousand years old. Tennant and Smith seem like the Midlife Crisis Doctor - next thing you know he'll paint the TARDIS red...

Re:Too Bad

[delinear]

I think Smith could have made a much better doctor if he'd been given the role ten years later. I don't understand the need for ever younger doctors, I'd like to see a return to an older actor with more gravitas. I really liked Tenant, but mainly because he brought something different to the role, I don't want that approach to become the norm.

Re:Too Bad

[ProppaT]

Ehh, Matt Smith is more like Tennant's quirky, ugly brother. They're not too far apart in acting styles, although Smith does get a little more introspective than Tennant did. The only way Smith is more like the old Doctors is the fact that he dresses more like an old Doctor.

Re:Too Bad

[TheRaven64]

The younger actors sort-of make sense. When The Doctor was young, he was played by old actors because very young people usually try to seem more grownup than they are. Now that he's over a thousand, he wants to seem younger, so he regenerates into a younger-looking body. On the other hand, it needs to be a young actor who can pull off the whole looking 20 while being over 1000 thing, which I don't really think Matt Smith can do very well.

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see Hugh Laurie as the next Doctor, personally I feel he'd be perfect for the role.

Re:Too Bad

[wed128]

Mine too...the ladies love him!

Re:Too Bad

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

I'd love to see Robert Picardo play The Doctor. I'll admit it's 90% for the joke (he played The Doctor in ST:Voyager), but if he can do a British accent, I think he'd be able to pull it off well.

Re:Too Bad

[Dusty101]

I don't agree. Smith's probably the most Patrick Troughton-like Doctor since, um, Patrick Troughton. And that's a really good thing. He's probably my fave of the new show so far. From both new & old, though, it's Tom Baker FTW for me.

I also think that Matt Smith comes across as less self-conscious of having to play "The Doctor" than Tennant. I always found Tennant's portrayal to be decent, but a bit too obviously "Oh, I'm mad, me! Look! Look!" Maybe that works better for US TV audience expectations, though? I know that he's probably the favourite on that side of the Pond.

Of the new ones, my wife liked Eccleston the best. Plus, he at least had that interesting "survivor guilt" thing going on - he did come across as genuinely broken from PTSD a few times. And his scene where he first faces down the chained-up Dalek was awesome.

Re:Too Bad

[Amtrak]

VERY YES!!!! Mod points why have you failed me!

Re:Too Bad

[Tetsujin]

No, you're not alone. Tennant and Smith both seem more like self-parody (although there's some precedent for that in Doctor Who).

Personally I feel like the 2005 series started out with a heavy dose of self-parody (the initial Auton story, then the Earth's destruction story right after were both loaded with this - "New Earth" and the space station from "The Long Game" were pretty heavily loaded with this as well), and it's mostly just in the Matt Smith years that it's emerged from that. Some of that in the Tennant years was just holdovers from Eccleston (like "New Earth", Cassandra as the ultimate expression of plastic surgery gone too far, the Slitheen and Captain Jack, etc.) but there was a lot of "wow that's a goofy alien name"-type stuff and "veiled commentary on a contemporary thing" stuff (Adipose, for instance)

For sure there's a lot of the Eccleston and Tennant years that I enjoyed quite a lot, but to me season 5-6 with Smith is the best the new show's been. I think the show grew up a bit at that point, and developed into a better show with less reliance upon parody.

Re:Too Bad

[oldmac31310]

Which 'British accent'?

I'm actually excited

[Anonymous Coward]

should be fun to see someone new

Lucky Doctor

[dimeglio]

I think the doctor would be quite happy with his new partner. Just saw a picture and she's quite pretty. I'll miss Karen of course...

Re:Lucky Doctor

[pseudofrog]

I still miss Donna.

Are those torches I see over the horizon?

Re:Lucky Doctor

[stonedcat]

Donna always made my skin crawl.. I kinda wanted to strangle her.

Re:Lucky Doctor

[FPhlyer]

Absolutely. Catherine Tate was brilliant as Donna Noble and really helped to balance Tennant's interpretation of the Doctor.

I'm hoping that a new full-time companion for Matt Smith's Doctor will enable us to see a different side to the Doctor than the current "Mad Man in a Box." It would be nice to see a more serious side to the Doctor a little more often.

Re:Lucky Doctor

[93 Escort Wagon]

I think the doctor would be quite happy with his new partner. Just saw a picture and she's quite pretty. I'll miss Karen of course...

You didn't see that picture on the first link of this submission. Why on earth would the submitter think the best link for this actress, Jenna-Louise Coleman, would be a photo-less Wikipedia page?

Actually I believe I know the answer. Said Wikipedia page was created yesterday (seriously - check the history). He actually created the Wikipedia page when he submitted the Slashdot story!

Now, for you slightly more normal readers... here is her IMDB page.

Re:Lucky Doctor

[NotQuiteReal]

Donna? Well, I guess interesting != hot. YMMV. But, all said, not a wrong sentiment.

Re:Lucky Doctor

[type40]

Here's to the best temp in Chiswick.
(Raises a bottle of WhiteOut)

Re:Lucky Doctor

[Anonymous Coward]

People serious liked her? All she did was run around furiously howling at things and piercing people's eardrums. Loud and obnoxious got old real fast. I was glad to see her go. Karen was hot, yeah, but she was also witty, curious, rebellious and a perfect foil to the doctor. I'll miss her personality more than her beauty and I really enjoyed her beauty. She really made that character come to life which put new life in the show. It's too bad she's leaving.

The only part I really didn't get was when they snapped back to exploring the universe immediately after discovering River Song is her daughter. It was like, ok. call off the search. She'll be fine, we don't need to find and rescue

• our daughter

, she'll turn up eventually. huh?

Re:Lucky Doctor

[SilverJets]

Yeah I never understood why people liked her either. Other than screaming at things she had the emotional range of a cardboard cutout and I never saw any chemistry between her and The Doctor.

Re:Lucky Doctor

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I believe I know the answer. Said Wikipedia page was created yesterday (seriously - check the history). He actually created the Wikipedia page when he submitted the Slashdot story!

OP is mistaken, the wikipedia page dates back several years.

Re:Lucky Doctor

[cyclomedia]

Clearly I'm the only Martha Jones fan around here.

Re:Lucky Doctor

[Anonymous Coward]

she sucked worse than Tulisa did

Re:Lucky Doctor

[TheRaven64]

Dropping hints early on in the series that she was going to die seemed like it was going to be great for ratings. We all wanted to watch it to make certain that we didn't miss that. And then in the finale she didn't die. Such a shame...

Re:Lucky Doctor

[TheRaven64]

No, Martha was good. I was a bit surprised at how much I enjoyed Rose. When I heard they'd cast Billie Piper, I fully expected the show to suck. Martha Jones was slightly jarring at first because they introduced her straight after the episode where she'd played another character, but once you got past that, she was great: one of the few characters (Nissa probably being the best other examples) who could keep up with the doctor and match his intellect. Then there was Donna, a stupid annoying chavette.

Re:Lucky Doctor

[Anonymous Coward]

Tenant's Doctor was heading towards the god gone mad at the end. Donna kept trying to bring him back down to reality. I thought Donna Noble was under-rated by many.

Re:Lucky Doctor

[Anonymous Coward]

Donna always made my skin crawl.. I kinda wanted to strangle her.

Yeah, I did too, but never as much as I wanted to punch Billie Piper in the face.

Re:Lucky Doctor

[eternaldoctorwho]

You are always free to add a picture to the wiki page yourself. Also, the page in question has been around since 2006.

I linked to Wikipedia because I cared more about a descriptive biography than just her picture and filmography, which is essentially all that IMDB has.

Re:Lucky Doctor

[Oswald McWeany]

Absolutely. Couldn't stand her. I remember the first episode she was in thinking- oh god don't make her a companion.

Then they didn't... and then... they did!

She is one of the most annoying human beings ever.

Re:Lucky Doctor

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I believe I know the answer. Said Wikipedia page was created yesterday (seriously - check the history).

What? The first revision was 21:29, 20 April 2006

Re:Lucky Doctor

[omnichad]

Actually, the best part of Catherine Tate playing companion was introducing me to her as an actress. Because of her role, I ended up watching The Catherine Tate Show on Netflix - hilarious.

Re:Lucky Doctor

[Corf]

I was fortunate to see Tennant and Tate in Much Ado About Nothing in London last year. There was no lack of chemistry. Felt like they had far more fun on stage than they ever did on television.

Re:Lucky Doctor

[cyberchondriac]

Clearly I'm the only Martha Jones fan around here.

Nope.. check up about 40 posts earlier..

Re:Lucky Doctor

[TangoMargarine]

I think Martha edged out Rose for first in my book as well. Not a fan of Amy or Donna, and Rory can go kill himself for the 27th time and stay dead. PLEASE.

Re:Lucky Doctor

[X86Daddy]

My thought on that aspect: they belatedly realized that they kinda already did "raise" her, by growing up with her as a best friend, and due to her influence on their lives, they couldn't go back and alter that. River's childhood already happened a certain way, and they even witnessed it already. It still doesn't account for ages zero through 8 or so, but causality and all that... *shrug*

I hate to say it...

[PCM2]

...but the last season of Doctor Who stunk so bad that I almost completely lost interest.

When Steven Moffat was first announced as the new show-runner, he gave a bunch of interviews about how the best Doctor Whos were the old ones where things were scary, and all these plans he had that sounded really great and like he could save the show from the worst aspects of Russell T. Davies' cloying writing.

Well, scrap all that, because he gave us an even younger Doctor, companions straight out of Australian soaps, even more of Davies' deus ex machina solutions, even more of the Doctor waving his sonic screwdriver around like it's Harry Potter's want (they destroyed it in the old show for a reason), incomprehensible stories full of characters you can't identify and don't care about, and he actually made the Doctor the sidekick in his own show. I never really got to the point where I thought New Who was better than the original, but now I think it's really much, much worse than the old shows, warts, cheap budgets and all.

Re:I hate to say it...

[FPhlyer]

Series 5 and 6 of the new Who actually did something that Doctor Who has needed for a long time: it made time travel an important plot point in several of the stories. Time travel has obviously been an important part of Doctor Who, a story about a time traveler, since it began in '63, but usually time travel has been used as a plot device to get the Doctor into a dramatic situation. Steven Moffat has taken time travel and made the paradoxes an important part of the story itself.

Unfortunately, Moffat has failed to resolve any of these dramatic time travel story lines in a way that makes any sense. He uses time travel as a device to get out of a sticky plot complication without worrying about if it makes any logical sense. The finale of Season 5 illustrates this: The future doctor goes back in time and gives Rory the sonic so that Rory can free the Doctor so the Doctor can go forward in time so that he can go back in time to give Rory the sonic... The only way that I can digest that poorly thought out resolution to the problem of getting the Doctor out of "the perfect prison" is to shake my head and let it slide because I like Doctor Who. But seriously... couldn't the writing staff of the series come up with a better resolution than that?

Re:I hate to say it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Predestination paradoxes.

God I hate them. And it's not that they make absolutely no sense, I can live with that, It's that I have to see myself every family reunion.

Re:I hate to say it...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff. I'd much rather have that than any of RTD's resolutions. Moffat may in fact be a time traveler himself, though. That, or he has seriously been thinking about this show his entire life. In the mid-90s, he was posting messages on Usenet about plot points he'd later actually bring to the show.

Re:I hate to say it...

[guttentag]

...but the last season of Doctor Who stunk so bad that I almost completely lost interest.

Funny you should mention it. Last year they officially renamed the show "Doctor Who Stunk So Bad That I Almost Completely Lost Interest" and collected huge product placement fees from a deodorant company until they realized no one noticed the change.

Re:I hate to say it...

[lightknight]

Solution? Gender change. Bonus points if you chose a gender that doesn't exist on earth.

At the very least, you'll have something to talk about...

Re:I hate to say it...

[Anonymous Coward]

usually time travel has been used as a plot device to get the Doctor into a dramatic situation. Steven Moffat has taken time travel and made the paradoxes an important part of the story itself.

Unfortunately, Moffat has failed to resolve any of these dramatic time travel story lines in a way that makes any sense.

I prefer if they would never use time travel to solve problems. It's best use is to go new places and times. You get they insanely complex problems created that are magically solved and you just cringe in anticipation of the next one. I'm at the point now where I'd much rather see a few more seasons of Firefly than more Doctor Who. The plot on Doctor Who has really gone downhill.

Re:I hate to say it...

[delinear]

They knew this once, that's why the TARDIS was written to be so unreliable. You couldn't rely on it to go back five minutes and give you time to defuse the bomb or whatever. At best, you point it at a destination in time and space and end up vaguely in the ballpark. This meant you could use it as a device to put the characters in new and interesting situations, but if your plan to save the day relied on getting it into one exact position at one exact time (using it to catch River Song after she jumps out of a tall building in the recent series, for instance), then you'd better go back to the drawing board.

Re:I hate to say it...

[omnichad]

Thanks. Now I'm going to lose half my day reading Steven Moffat posts on rec.arts.drwho - someone mod parent post up. It's fascinating to see.

Re:I hate to say it...

[Anonymous Coward]

But as we learned in the Doctor's Wife, the TARDIS is sentient. And while she may not have taken him where he wanted to go, she always took him where he needed to go.

Re:I hate to say it...

[Tetsujin]

Series 5 and 6 of the new Who actually did something that Doctor Who has needed for a long time: it made time travel an important plot point in several of the stories. Time travel has obviously been an important part of Doctor Who, a story about a time traveler, since it began in '63, but usually time travel has been used as a plot device to get the Doctor into a dramatic situation. Steven Moffat has taken time travel and made the paradoxes an important part of the story itself.

Unfortunately, Moffat has failed to resolve any of these dramatic time travel story lines in a way that makes any sense. He uses time travel as a device to get out of a sticky plot complication without worrying about if it makes any logical sense. The finale of Season 5 illustrates this: The future doctor goes back in time and gives Rory the sonic so that Rory can free the Doctor so the Doctor can go forward in time so that he can go back in time to give Rory the sonic... The only way that I can digest that poorly thought out resolution to the problem of getting the Doctor out of "the perfect prison" is to shake my head and let it slide because I like Doctor Who. But seriously... couldn't the writing staff of the series come up with a better resolution than that?

Don't know what's to complain about. I like when time travel stories have weird paradoxes. The Doctor was able to free himself from the Pandorica because he'd been freed from the Pandorica. :)

Re:I hate to say it...

[Tetsujin]

Predestination paradoxes.

God I hate them. And it's not that they make absolutely no sense, I can live with that, It's that I have to see myself every family reunion.

You sound like the guys from The Department of Temporal Investigations.

Re:I hate to say it...

[mjwalshe]

er all the youngest companions are from old who Susan Vicki and Adric - all the new ones have bee 18+ Rose was probably the youngest. I think they should promote Clyde and Rani from the SJA

Re:I hate to say it...

[Kalriath]

And yet humans annihilating 10% of their ancestor humanity required a piece of complex equipment based on a time machine to achieve.

Re:I hate to say it...

[Tetsujin]

And yet humans annihilating 10% of their ancestor humanity required a piece of complex equipment based on a time machine to achieve.

10% was just the initial attack. The paradox being held at bay was that humanity's future was being drastically changed, and future humanity (whose history did not include those events) was the instrument of that change.

With the Doctor's little trick, the only paradox is how he got out of the Pandorica in the first place. But the resulting events don't contradict themselves. There's nothing he did when going back in time to get himself out of the Pandorica that prevents him from getting out of the Pandorica. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Doctor Who was never exactly consistent with regard to specific rules of time travel, anyway...

Re:I hate to say it...

[Kalriath]

You mean how he talks about how we can't cross his own timeline, but there's an episode in series one where the entire premise is him doing it three times?

too much change!

[jollyreaper]

Wot? I'd just gotten used to the ginger one already!

Re:too much change!

[Anonymous Coward]

I just got used to the fact the doctor doesn't have curly hair and a rainbow scarf. Too much change? Dr Who is all about change.

Re:too much change!

[SydShamino]

When I saw the headline "New Doctor Who Companion" my first thought was "Wow! Who is replacing Matt Smith as Karen's companion?"

Re:too much change!

[mcneely.mike]

Tom Baker...THE BEST EVAR!

Re:too much change!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fourth Doctor is BEST Doctor.
SAY IT. Or Leela will cut you!

Re:too much change!

[tguyton]

My kingdom for mod points!! I agree wholeheartedly :)

Re:too much change!

[mcneely.mike]

Okay, okay...

'Or Leela will cut you!'
There. Sheesh!

I'd rather that Leela raped me, though.

Don't care until it is on Netflix

[NotQuiteReal]

[fingers-in-ears] + "nananananaaaanaaanaaanaaa" (I can't hear you).

No "spoilers", please! What with this modern age, and all, we don't all live in "real time". If some entertainment is worth experiencing, it will be for a while, and not everyone can experience it at the same time.

Currently, I am watching "The Doctor", and "Emilia Pond" (with "Rory")... Don't confuse me with actors names, I don't want to NOT "suspend belief" to geek out about the (real life) details that don't affect me. I am not in the TV biz, this is just entertainment for me.

Sometimes watching "dead" series like "Firefly" (or whatever) is nicer, since you know there IS an end.

Another show I enjoy, "Breaking Bad" will have a final season, that THE SHOW CREATORS know is the end, so they get to create a satisfactory story too, I hope.

Are "fans" of any serial really good for an on-going work of "art"? Maybe a complete story is, by definition, better than an unfinished story?

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix

[pseudofrog]

I "agree".

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Most brilliant two-word reply. And to think I'd spent all my mod points already. d'oh.

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

"This"

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Are "fans" of any serial really good for an on-going work of "art"? Maybe a complete story is, by definition, better than an unfinished story?

According to Aristotle's poetics, yes. The principles of Aristotelian dramatics often involve what us geeks call "the rule of Mario". Things always happen in 3s -- since it is the first "perfect" number that contains a beginning, middle, and end. That same principle applies. All stories (Aristotle specifically speaks of tragedy) must have a clear beginning, middle, and end. In that sense, serials as a whole cannot fulfil the basic principle of Aristotelian dramatics that underpin most of Western story-telling although individual episodes and arcs can. (Even the sitcom form is based in these principles)

I like that the Doctor goes on forever in new guises. (It would be nice to have a middle-aged doctor sometime)

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the worst abomination of all, the neverending story that you end up watching for far too long, desperatly hoping that it will get good again (or at all). I'm looking at you, Lost, any ST other than TOS, Rescue Me, Dollhouse, 24, et al.

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix

[TubeSteak]

No "spoilers", please! What with this modern age, and all, we don't all live in "real time". If some entertainment is worth experiencing, it will be for a while, and not everyone can experience it at the same time.

The last episode of Dr Who was about 6 months ago.
I don't know if there is an ISO standard for spoilers, but i can't imagine that it would mandate general internet silence for 6 months.

/The last Christmas special didn't really advance the overall story line

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix

[Grimbleton]

Voyager was better than TOS.

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

stop reading about it on the Internet then - we're not going to wait 5 years for you to catch up before we dare draw breath

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

If some entertainment is worth experiencing

Don't worry, we're talking about Doctor Who.

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix

[Zaatxe]

Currently, I am watching "The Doctor", and "Emilia Pond"

I'm still on "Rose Tyler" stage, you insensitive clod!

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix

[Zaatxe]

True that. I managed to make my wife interested in Star Trek with Voyager. Specially because of the female captain. She still does a hell of Janeway's "engage" impersonation!!! :-)

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix

[Tetsujin]

Mike Nelson did a good impersonation as well...

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix

[Dusty101]

Them's fightin' words, Neelix-lover...

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the last season just was released on netflix this month, I agree with the "No spoilers, please!" thought.

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

I approve this comment. Voyager was also my favorite. With TNG close second, then TOS and finally DS9.
I have mixed feelings about Enterprise.

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix

[Grimbleton]

Neelix was an excellent addition to the crew. Not only was he undeniably "different" in personality to the average Starfleet officer, he still managed, despite their best efforts, to worm his silly way into their hearts.

I'd say Neelix was a better character than Spock.

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix

[Grimbleton]

I wouldn't mind ENGAGEing Kate Mulgrew a few times.

New Doctor Who Companion Announced?

[Anonymous Coward]

So it has come to this.

I dislike the whole premise of the show.

[Karmashock]

I don't mean to troll so if this offends anyone that is unintentional. But I really don't "get" the show.

I like science fiction but Dr Who just seems to be endless deus ex machina. His "sonic screwdriver" can apparently do just about anything except when it's not convenient and then it's inexplicably useless. There's no logic or reason to anything. Everything seems to happen almost at random. And while some might argue that's part of the fun of it the show pales in comparison to shows like Red Dwarf that were also very random but at least had an internal logic that remained consistent to itself at least for an episode or two.

I just don't get Dr Who... I've tried to understand it... I've probably watched a couple seasons of it and I always walk away rolling my eyes.

I suppose I genuinely like the "Angels" while they don't make any more sense then anything else they at least create great suspense on the screen so the episodes are always fun. But the rest... It's just sad.

I get that the show was started in the dark ages of television but so were a lot of shows can concepts that have since been updated so they're not quiet so embarrassing.

As I said, I don't mean to troll... if I offend I'm sorry... I just don't get the show. It make me a lot happier if they make some effort to make sense... even in the abstract. If they made sense but it was highly complex or philosophical that would be okay as well. But as it stands, I'm pretty sure any brain power spent trying to make the plots make sense is wasted.

Re:I dislike the whole premise of the show.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think alot of people would agree with you actually, and the current series has gotten worse in this respect since it started. As David Tennant's reign went on the stories became more and more unbelieveable and its actually somehow worse under Moffat who was the best writer in the Russel T Davies era. I have to admit I have turned off since Tennant left and not because I think Matt Smith is bad (I think he is too young though...they should have tried to get David Walliams who has always been interested in the role).

The 1960's era of the show is in my opinion the most grounded the show ever has been. There was little in the way of plot devices, stories made sense and it always felt like the Doctor and his companions where traveling though a series of desperate and bleak adventures thoughout time and space. They also spent less time on Earth encountering the same alien species over and over, which is one of the crappy aspects of the show since 1970. The aliens were in many ways also more interesting, had more depth, and had more complex adjendas than just "taking over the earth or the universe." Whats more not everything that was potentially bad was going to "tear apart the universe." Often the aliens themselves were not actually "evil" but just trying to survive themselves...and the Doctor had to reason with them and reach a compromise.

Yes it was cheap and the acting was questionable as they could not take too many attempts at a scene, but it really was more "real." There have been some gems in the modern series as well...they just need to tone it down and make it believeable.

Re:I dislike the whole premise of the show.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's better to treat Dr. Who as "science fantasy" rather than as "science fiction". That is, it might present some scientific concepts every once in a while, but if you're depending on the science to be realistic, forget it. You're a bit more likely to find philosophical commentary (as in "Genesis of the Daleks", where the Time Lords send the Doctor to genocide the Daleks, and he asks whether he has the right to do it, even KNOWING for a FACT how evil they are, and what horrible deeds they are known to have committed in the future).

Star Trek makes more pretense to be science fiction, but it's always handwaving and doing bogus things, too. If you want hard science fiction, look for books by authors such as Larry Niven or David Brin.

Re:I dislike the whole premise of the show.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an inner child thing.

Re:I dislike the whole premise of the show.

[Xest]

You're not alone, I always found the new Doctor Who series to be a pile of shit, despite having watched it since I was a kid, and having spent many hours when I was young watching even the black and white episodes from before I was born.

I've just found the new series' painful since they revived it, the acting is horrendous, the storylines seem shit, the costumes and effects just look pathetic.

Of course it's all down to personal tastes, so if many people love it then so what? But IMO it's a far cry from the older Doctor Who series, maybe it's just because I was young back then but things like the Daleks and particularly an episode with Sea Devils coming out the sea just scared the fucking shit out of me. Nowadays it's all like some super colourful load of bollocks, it just isn't as dark, it isn't as beleivable. It's not the Doctor Who I remember as a kid - it's a million miles away from it.

I know it's one of Slashdot's taboos - to claim you don't like Doctor Who, just as you're not allowed to praise Microsoft, hate Steam, or anything like that, but meh, I just can't watch it - I'd rather re-watch old episodes personally.

Re:I dislike the whole premise of the show.

[Anonymous Coward]

You should try to find and watch some of its earliest episodes. It was a real eye-opener in
the 60's and 70's and so it riding on that reputation in its later years.

I agree with some that "science fiction" doesn't really do it justice; some people get it
(like Anime, so I hear) and some don't.

Re:I dislike the whole premise of the show.

[dkf]

And while some might argue that's part of the fun of it the show pales in comparison to shows like Red Dwarf that were also very random but at least had an internal logic that remained consistent to itself at least for an episode or two.

Red Dwarf's internal logic was very consistent, but did involve Lister's breakfast and "brown alert". Don't think about it.

Re:I dislike the whole premise of the show.

[stevencbrown]

And while some might argue that's part of the fun of it the show pales in comparison to shows like Red Dwarf that were also very random but at least had an internal logic that remained consistent to itself at least for an episode or two.

Would that be the Red Dwarf where Lister has his appendix removed... twice? :-)

Re:I dislike the whole premise of the show.

[Karmashock]

I think it's all the writing really. I can't blame the actors or the costume department until that's fixed.

I think the writers don't actually know what science fiction is or like it. Get rid of them and try again...

Re:I dislike the whole premise of the show.

[Beerdood]

"In episode 2F09, when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is some sort of magical xylophone? Ha ha, boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder. "

If you're anything like comic book guy, (and I am myself a bit) then that could also be one of the big peeves you have with the show. Every 5 minutes in the show I could /facepalm about something that doesn't make sense, or some poor decision made by one of the main characters. But my wife loves the show, so I'll continue to watch it for a while. I find the premise doesn't make a lot of sense, the technical accuracy is off, and the characters seem to continue to make poor decisions. But maybe the show is more fantasy than science fiction and geared towards a female audience (as suggested earlier in this thread) - The show seems to be more based on character relationships and the ongoing sexual tension between the doctor and the companion and philosophical / ethical conundrums. Perhaps it really shouldn't be classified as a sci-fi show then, despite seeming to be like one (along the same principle of how some people might classify Star Wars as sci-fi just because it's in space with lasers and aliens, though it's not sci-fi at all).

Re:I dislike the whole premise of the show.

[Karmashock]

I don't have a vagina myself but I don't see why the sonic screw driver for example increases the romance? It just murders the plot or any attempt at making sense of anything.

Re:I dislike the whole premise of the show.

[Dusty101]

I think it's probably a matter of picking & choosing. I just went back & re-watched the whole of the Tom Baker run (which is frequently regarded as Golden Age Doctor Who), & there were a few duff ones even then.

Of the new show, I think one could legitimately claim that (e.g.) "Dalek", "The Empty Child", "The Girl in the Fireplace" and "Blink" were all high quality stories, with some creepy moments.

I do have to concede, though, that while composing this post, I scanned back through the list of the new series episodes, & really great stand-out ones may indeed be a bit thinner on the ground. Maybe part of it is simply that there's less time to build up and then resolve stories than in the old show, so it often feels rushed?

Re:I dislike the whole premise of the show.

[ZosoZ]

I fear the Doctor Who from when you were a kid isn't the Doctor Who you remember as a kid. Pathetic costumes/effects? The prosecution presents The Myrka, m'lud.

Re:Doctor Donna!

[TemplePilot]

Doctor Donna, Doctor Donna, Doctor Donna, Doctor Donna, Doctor Donna! BEST ONE evar! But yeah time to move on... Younger more lucious side kicks ... The older I get the more pervy the lady in the show is gona be. Maybe I'll be forced to stop watching telly when I'm ninety two? Otherwise, BAD WOLF!

Hmmm...

[Panaflex]

I'd like to have seen Jaime Murray appear in the series, maybe as a companion from future. I also hope they do more historical fiction.

Re:Hmmm...

[afidel]

I love her as HG Wells.

Re:Hmmm...

[afidel]

Wow, some random asshat went through and randomly downmodded some of my recent posts as -1 troll, how weird.

Re:Hmmm...

[Kalriath]

You're on Slashdot, that's not weird it's normal. I got a few of those too.

Best Dr Who ever

[Anonymous Coward]

He gave us plots that made sense, he gave us plot threads that ran a whole series and characters with depth and less men in rubber suits.

If ever you find yourself thinking a Dr Who in the new series doesn't make sense, just watch it again.

I have my gripes with Moffat, in particular I think he tries to resolve far too many things in the big epic end of series specials, and they end up looking messy with too many scenes, but he's far far far better than what's gone before.

Re:Best Dr Who ever

[PCM2]

he gave us plot threads that ran a whole series

...but went nowhere.

and characters with depth

Like who? River Song, my favorite Doctor Who character of all time?

and less men in rubber suits.

Which episode was that? You're not talking about the Silence, or the terrible CG on the Rebel Flesh episodes, so you must mean the one that rehashed the Weeping Angels, which are so cheap they're actually stationary props. (They're coming back next season, BTW... again.)

in particular I think he tries to resolve far too many things in the big epic end of series specials, and they end up looking messy with too many scenes

That's kinda what I mean by "incomprehensible," especially since the scenes don't really add up to much. Even if they seem to be adding up to something, you know that a few episodes later, the Doctor will just wave his magic screwdriver and everything will be back to normal again. "Oh gosh, I forgot Rory and now he's dead again! Right, let's just fix that... and, fine. Good."

Re:Best Dr Who ever

[JasterBobaMereel]

..all on the budget for the whole series that matches half an episode of an equivalent US show ...

The BBC have no money, and have to justify every penny spent, even if it is on mainstream shows ... every complaint has to be paid attention to

Try running a TV company like that in the USA and it would go bust in a second

What is Doctor Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it that show that features aliens that look like park trash cans on wheels with toilet plungers attached to them? Was the show some underhanded government agency's attempt to promote recycling amongst the citizenry?

Grandfather paradox

[Anonymous Coward]

"The future doctor goes back in time and gives Rory the sonic so that Rory can free the Doctor so the Doctor can go forward in time so that he can go back in time to give Rory the sonic... "

Yeh, that damn grandfather paradox. You cannot travel back in time because if you killed your grandfather you would never be born. Ergo time travel is impossible.

The sooner the writers are Dr Who realize this and stick to proper FORWARDS travelling time time lords!

Time lords, that travel just far enough into the future to fight green rubber monsters the better! I for one am sick of all this 4th dimension stuff and want a return to episodes where he turns up somewhere, fights a monster, and leaves and the time part was just a backdrop.

I particularly like the episodes where he flicks a few switches and everything is fixed.

Oh and Christopher Ecclestone was the best Dr Who, his concrete one dimensional acting made the plots seem like they had more depth and Catherine Tate was the best choice for companion, making David Tennants acting seem brilliant by comparison, making a nice foil.

Donna and the Darleks

[Anonymous Coward]

I particularly remember the Donna vs the Darleks episode....

Darleks: "EXTERM-IN-ATE"
Donna: "Am I bov-ved?"
Darleks: "EXTERM-IN-ATE"
Donna: "Am I bov-ved?"
Darleks: "EXTERM-IN-ATE"
Donna: "Am I bov-ved!?"
Darleks: "EXTERM-IN-ATE"
Donna: "Am I bov-ved!?"

Oh how I laughed.... it was a comedy show right?

Re:Donna and the Darleks

[omnichad]

Wait...did that actually happen? Did I miss that?

Re:Donna and the Darleks

[wed128]

catherine tate show reference. not really worth getting into.

Re:Donna and the Darleks

[omnichad]

Yes, I get that. But I watched The Catherine Tate Show AFTER her run as Donna. If there was a reference in DW, I wouldn't have noticed, and I'm asking if I should go back and watch it now or if there's no reference to the Catherine Tate Show at all in there.

Re:Doctor Donna!

[ChunderDownunder]

meh, Martha Jones...

Spoilers

[areander]

I really hate these pre-episode/season announcements, where they take away the pleasure in seeing an episode and discovering a new companion.
I don't want to know when a new companion or even doctor comes to the screen until I am watching the actual episode itself.
Doctor Who is one of those rare shows where character replacement is woven into the story and the viewers accept and celebrate this change (minus the sadness that comes with an old doctors departure). And to me this is a great tool to surprise us and blow away our minds.

To give an example, Doctor Who has the great asset to let it's main character die and not let the show come to a stop. But last season everyone knew that the doctor wouldn't die at the lake because there wasn't a 12th doctor announcement. Imagine how much more exciting it would have been if you didn't knew if he was going to survive or not.

As far of the preference towards doctors/companions. Everyone has there expectations about the show and its protagonists and the fun part about the show is that it changes all the time. So although it has his more annoying characters sometimes, you know that someday you'll absolutely love every single detail about a certain character. And let's be honest, doesn't it feel great to have that one favourite doctor who did the most amazing things and try to find his qualities in the current and future doctors? Well it does to me :)
Since we know it is again a young and pretty companion, I do hope that her origin story is a bit more refreshing than the last ones. (For example a young egyptian princess?)
So far for my new companions rant ^^

As for the writing and episodes. I do have the feeling that the sonic screwdriver has slowly become the main character of the show and it is a bit annoying.
I would rather see the doctor get out of situations by outsmarting them, or getting rescued by a companion or even by establishing peace between two sides like sometimes happend in the old series.
The thing I really like about the new doctor and his writers is that they focus a lot more on the actual time travel. It has always been my favourite prop on the show and can be a powerful tool in the story.
That said, I do find it coincidental that so many important events happen only in english speaking countries in our time.

But hey, maybe we live in an imporant time where some mystical energy draws the doctor to this time period...

can't we just have interesting characters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough of the sexual stereotypes, please. How about someone who appears and acts like they've come from the real world? Donna was just about there looks-wise, but she was LOUD AND DITZY AND RANDOM LOL. Martha was the stereotypical Blair Babe - a pushy "woman who's gonna make it!" who did and said nothing memorable, ending up as a career civil servant. Waif model Pond is entirely uninspirational, doing far too much standing around and waiting except when she's raping the Doctor or contradictorily expressing her love for bumbling cuckold Rory. Rose was kinda OK, particularly under Ecclestone rather than "I'm sorry, I'm so sorry" Tennant.

If I wanted eye candy then there was a lot of it among the above and even from Harkness. But I don't want eye candy or sexually appealing stereotypes. There are so many ways to get your sexual jollies - can Doctor Who be not one of them, please? Give me eccentric; give me pensive; give me fun. Give me what Doctor Who used to be. Hell, I have watched a few episodes of the Sarah Jane Adventures and you know what I never thought: "this programme needs to be more sexual!" I get that I am in my early 30s now and settled with a partner and don't have the raging hormones of a teen, but even when I had the raging hormones of a teen I still didn't want everything to have sexual objects in it.

she's hot

[Anonymous Coward]

an that's all that really matters...

Who cares about Doctor Who?

[MMC Monster]

Answer the question we all want to know:

When is The Amy Pond Show coming back?

Re:Who cares about Doctor Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to know that too.

Female companion?

[XrayJunkie]

Take Sigourney Weaver!
No more problems with aliens of any kind ;-)

Moffat, write this down

[yt8znu35]

Emily Blunt as the next Doctor. She could pull off the off-balance bit effortlessly. Then the show could have male companions du jour. Bonus: ratings boost the second Smith assumes room temperature and then the Doctor regenerates as a total piece of ass who also has the chops for the role.

Re:Moffat, write this down

[Kardos]

Excellent idea: http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/03/22/1247219/when-social-media-meets-tv-are-the-results-worth-watching

DrWho writers need lessons from Niel Gaiman

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Doctor's Wife" is an episode that RTD and SM should watch many times over and take notes.

It was one of the best episodes ever. Matt Smith did an excellent job.

Re:DrWho writers need lessons from Niel Gaiman

[neminem]

I wouldn't say one of the best episodes ever. It was definitely the best episode in the past couple seasons, but only because the vast majority of episodes the past couple seasons have been utter garbage, so that episode was a breath of fresh air in actually having some fun dialog, and a plot that vaguely made sense.

I miss the first 3ish seasons, where I could count on good writing every episode...

Spoilers!

[TheNinjaroach]

We just started watching season 6 on Netflix last night. I didn't know the Doctor was in need of a new companion!!

Re:Spoilers!

[Anonymous Coward]

He isn't, yet. We haven't seen the current companion(s) exit, and won't until this next season.

Does require a female companion

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been watching Dr. Who since Christopher Eccleston. I don't know about the early doctors but from what I can tell, yes, it requires a a nice young attractive female. That's at least how they are marketing it now.

I think it would be better to have a female doctor and then have a male companion once in a while. But that would cause a million male nerd shrieks in unison across the globe.

Don't forget Jenny

[RobertLTux]

in the new DR Who we still have Jenny running about somewhere/when so we actually do have a Female Time Lord running about

Re:Don't forget Jenny

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

There's also sort of another, since we haven't reached the point in her timeline where she dies, sweetie. Oh, sorry, "spoilers."

Not that she has any regenerations left, but if she and her husband were to have a child, that child would be at least half Time Lord with (I expect) a full allotment of regenerations. That's one way I was suspecting they would circumvent the old "12 regenerations" limit that may or may not have been rendered moot by a comment in the Sarah Jane Adventures; leave the TARDIS as an inheritance to the next generation.

Re:Doctor Donna!

[cyberchondriac]

meh, Martha Jones...

I had always wanted to see Martha get her wish, if only for a few eps.. Poor Martha, snubbed again and again by the Doc.

Re:Doctor Donna!

[TemplePilot]

LOL Yep, Martha Jones was a goodie too . . .

Canada

[gumpish]

Well, when 90+% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the Canada-U.S. border.......................

it's North Wisconsin.

She's already PLAYED a "doctor"

[Anonymous Coward]

Dr. Alice Krippen (from "I AM LEGEND")... you see her only briefly though, @ the outset/start of said fine film!

APK

P.S.=> And, there you go... one of my "fav. films of ALL time" bit grim, but good stuff! apk