Was the RTD era good television?

[rushy]

The thing is that regeneration as a concept is complete fairy tale bullshit if you think about it longer than two seconds. Sure, I can buy that there's some alien process that turns you younger, but something that randomizes your physical features, bone structure, hairstyle, PERSONALITY?

At that point, switching genders is absolutely not a stretch.

[burrunjor]

Sept 21, 2023 22:16:53 GMT rushy said:

The thing is that regeneration as a concept is complete fairy tale bullshit if you think about it longer than two seconds. Sure, I can buy that there's some alien process that turns you younger, but something that randomizes your physical features, bone structure, hairstyle, PERSONALITY?

At that point, switching genders is absolutely not a stretch.

Sorry but I dislike this way of thinking. "It's unrealistic so we can make anything happen." By that logic, since the TARDIS is utterly absurd, let's have the Doctor turn into a Dinosaur that shoots eye beams and flies through the air. 

That is not a good attitude to have when writing sci fi and fantasy in my opinion. You still need laws and limitations even in something like Doctor Who as that's what gives it an identity and stops it from being a parody. 

Meanwhile I have NEVER understood this argument that people give of "you can change height, hairline, bone structure but not gender? Why."

YOU have changed your hairline, your bone structure and yes, your personality too! Are you the same person in any way now that you were when you were ten? Every cell in your body changes every 7 years. Regeneration can be seen as a similar process, only more rapid and more extreme, but it's the same basic thing.

However gender is clearly a lot bigger a thing to change, since only 0.1 percent of the population do it, and those who do change gender, DO feel like they've become a completely new person. (Hence why dead naming them is seen as a nasty and spiteful thing to do.) 

Adding a gender change to the concept of regeneration is a terrible, terrible idea because. 

In the original all of the Doctors were meant to be the same person under the new face. Whilst their outer persona's were different, they all followed a template to their core personality that was laid down by Hartnell's performance. IE the key to getting the Doctor right in Classic Who was in getting someone who would in some ways be different and make it their own, but not so much you could never imagine it was still Hartnell under there. 

Now New Who admittedly broke this from the start in regards to being believable as Hartnell (hence the controversy), BUT I think it got away with it because Eccelston was the first Doctor in 2 decades. I'm not saying Classic Who was forgotten. I myself am someone who discovered it in the 90s, but obviously due to simply not being on tv it wasn't as mainstream, so new who put it back in mainstream popular culture again, therefore for many Eccelston was their first. 

Even then however, Eccelston, Tennant, Hurt, Smith and even Capaldi I feel were still believable if you will as being the same characters as each other (with Matt adding elements of the classic template, perhaps explaining why he is the most popular Doctor overall of the new who boys as he bridges the gap.) There was if you will a new template for the new who Doctors like there had been for the classic era Doctors, one laid down by the 9th and 10th Doctors that the others followed. (Ironically perhaps a bit too closely, or maybe there just wasn't as much in the new template as there was in Hartnells?)

Still either way that is basically how to do DW and regeneration. Create a template and then stick to it, whilst also varying it within the template. If you make them all completely different with no similarities, then the Doctor becomes just a title passed down to other characters. The fact that he seems like one character is a key to its success, as it causes people to keep watching when their doctor is gone.

Compare DW's longevity to Primeval that never recovered from losing Douglas Henshall. Even though I love Jason Flemying (who would have made an excellent Doctor btw in the mould of Pertwee.) When Henshall left all the story arcs, relationships and characters that were tied up in his character had to go with him and for most Primeval lost its identity. Hartnell to Troughton however? They could keep up things like the Daleks, his companions, Cybermen etc and even Hartnell's development which made the transition smoother. Ditto Jon to Tom. 

With this in mind a woman is just too jarring coming after either template, both of which were firmly male. The only way you could get away with it, is if you had another hiatus and then the first of the new batch was a woman, but even then you'd need her to be in a different canon I'd say. Still whilst that would be more practical, I still don't think it would be a particularly good idea, because ironically as someone who clearly LOVES female heroes, I'm not interested in a novelty female version of a male character. 

I actually think any producer who would cast a woman is a dickhead to be honest, because they are putting the actress in such a difficult role. There's no way she could play it. 

If she tries to be feminine, then she will stick out like a sore thumb and jar from the men before her, simply because they were men. Not saying a woman couldn't play a hero like the Doctor. Men and women can play all of the same TYPES of heroes, but again this isn't a case of playing the same type of hero. Again you're having to imagine that is Hartnell now applying make up to himself, wearing a dress etc. That's a bigger leap than him simply becoming younger or a bit more of a fighter in this big body, or his tastes becoming a bit fancyer. If you have it that he can change that much, it becomes a slippery slope that anything about him can change. IE you can't say don't have the Doctor shag Sarah, if he can become a woman now as the response to that is "well if he can go from William Hartnell to Paloma Faith, why not get a sex drive?" Then it just keeps going and going until the template/his character is gone.

If she tries to play it as a trans person IE someone who wants to change to be the gender they are comfortable as, then that also jars as clearly that's not who the Doctor is, and also I think trying to equate it with transgenderism as idiots like Elizabeth Sandifier did, is harmful to trans people. What happens when the Doctor changes back into a male, which will happen sooner or later? You're basically giving trans people this icon and then snatching it away from them. 

If she tries to play it as someone gender neutral, IE lets strip any and all femininity from her just to make her not jar with the men, then your question becomes, why not just cast a man in the first place? Don't give me the "well she was the best for the part". Really that's why you have to cover up her gender? 

Finally if you have it that it's an accident, well okay that might make more practical sense, but even then what's the point? Why have a female hero who is a man trapped in a woman's body and will change back? Not exactly empowering?

Also in the current climate you'll be putting this woman at the head of the culture war bullshit, and you'll also be putting so much pressure on her, because as the first female Doctor she will have ten times the responsibility to be good as any man in the role, because she'll feel more artificial and crowbarred in there.

Jodie Whittaker meanwhile fell victim to ALL of these problems. She openly said she didn't know how to play it, because the previous Doctors were men and she couldn't relate to them, so even she admitted she felt disjointed from the character. At the same time she had to be made as genderless and sexless as possible to fit, which drew criticism with a lot of people saying the female Doctor was pointless as a result, and her being given an awful, unflattering costume, like a baggy rodeo clown. Meanwhile what I said that once something as big as his gender has been changed, it becomes a slippery slope of well anything can change now, which is exactly what happened via the Timeless Children and the furry Doctor retcons in Jodie's time and the eventual deregeneration. 

Finally she was also put front and centre of the culture war bullshit too, and said to be flying the flag for all women rather than just playing a role in a tv show like Tom Baker had been. 

Thing is Chibnall knew all of these things would happen, but he didn't care. I mean if I could work these problems with a female Doctor out in 2013, so could he. He went ahead with it however for his own ego of being the first man to cast a woman in the role. You could say maybe he was just so ideological he didn't care, but I don't think he is. The guy isn't even remotely left wing or feminist. As we've been over he's a bandwagon jumper. 

Hence why his era of Torchwood contains sleazy, exploitative trash as he was trying to cash in on the hotter and sexier fantasy trend of Smallville, Buffy and Xena. (Then there is also Kerblam and his shilling for the BBC. Guy's as left wing as Sargon of Akkad.) 

He was just an egomaniac looking to earn his place in the history books and I am so glad it blew up in his face, just like his avatar Whizz Kid trying to entertain the Gods of Ragnarok. 

Sadly however Chibbers and Jodie's ineptitude I think is distracting people from the fact that a female Doctor is just a bad idea in general. Yes I don't doubt with scripts by Bob Holmes, and an actress like Paloma Faith, Morgana Robinson or Susan Wokoma in the role, that the female Doctor would have been watchable, but in the long run it would still have caused all of those problems I mentioned. First thing we need to do if we do get an alternate sequel, or prize it from the Fitzroy's cold dead hands, is be strong and say NO FEMALE DOCTOR WHO!

[iank]

Yeah that's the "it's all fantasy" illogic BS that renders everything pointless and meaningless.
Favoured by New Who saddos, of course, because they think - wrongly - that it excuses that show's endless stream of nonsensical drivel.

[rushy]

Sept 22, 2023 10:03:33 GMT burrunjor said:

YOU have changed your hairline, your bone structure and yes, your personality too! Are you the same person in any way now that you were when you were ten? Every cell in your body changes every 7 years. Regeneration can be seen as a similar process, only more rapid and more extreme, but it's the same basic thing.

Your hairline, bone structure and your personality evolves because of pre-programmed DNA (for the lack of a better term). The only reason that DNA would turn me into Tom Baker is if the programming were drastically altered. As in, completely different human DNA. And if genetic makeup can be altered to that extent, then it could easily change biological gender as well. After all, the only reason males have nipples is because their mom's bodies hadn't defined their chromosomes yet. It's something that occurs in the process of development.

If regeneration completely alters your DNA, then a change in gender would be a trivial shift. Why would the chromosomes be safe if nothing else is?

[rushy]

Also, and this is purely a personal thing, but I cannot imagine Hartnell and Tom Baker being the same person at all.

[burrunjor]

Sept 23, 2023 22:46:53 GMT rushy said:

Also, and this is purely a personal thing, but I cannot imagine Hartnell and Tom Baker being the same person at all.

Doesn't matter what you can imagine. 

The facts are. 

William Hartnell and Tom Bakers Doctors have the following things in common. 

Both are outlaws who want to explore the universe, learn about new planets, species and cultures. Both also want to live a life where they are free of all obligations. 

Both do have a strong moral centre, and often get involved in troubles that aren't their business as a result of this and their curiosity. 

Both prefer to do things on their own terms, up to and including saving the world, hence why they sometimes have to be forced to save the world and be a hero. (Keys of Marinus, Key to Time.) 

Both are a jack of all trades, master of none. IE their time machine and long life means they have become talented in lots of skills, like fighting, medicine but aren't complete experts in them. 

Both are cagey about their past. 

Both love name dropping the famous people they've met throughout history. 

Both are presented as at least having no romantic interest in humans whatsoever, and adopt mentor roles to their young female companions. 

Both can be child like and selfish in always getting their own way, but also at other times quite wise as a result of their age and can cope with things like loss as a result extremely well. 

Both are posh, artistocratic in their manner and approach. (Both men where working class actors who affected that accent incidentally because they knew that's what the character was.) 

Both have a clownish exterior at points IE love being playful, laughing to mask their true intentions. 

Both have a similar moral code where they don't like weapons, and prefer to find peaceful solutions, BUT will use guns, weapons, lethal violence if need be to save the day.

Both even physically have similarities. IE long, big wild hair, dress in frock coats, with a Victorian/Edwardian feel to them, hell both even have similar themes in their clothing, IE scarfs and funny hats. 

Finally even as actors Hartnell and Tom were similar in that both were unconventional character actors, who were known for playing darker and villainous characters prior to playing DW, who would have never played a character like James Bond or Batman, and as a result really jumped at the chance to play a leading hero. 

The only differences between them are their outer persona's, IE Hartnell is crotchety, an old man, more irascible, where as Tom is more overtly eccentric, larger than life and obviously has his own distinct sense of humour, both which are not nothing, but ultimately as you can see, those changes still fit within the similarities I've outlined above allowing there to be continuity between Hartnell and Baker. 

Meanwhile let's look at the 9th Doctor and compare him to Hartnell. 

He doesn't travel for the same reason. He explicitly says that he travels because his people are gone and he can't settle anywhere else, and makes out that he would prefer to have a normal life. 

He falls in love with and kisses a 19 year old three years older than Susan. 

He doesn't have any fighting skills, in fact many of his other skills are not demonstrated, he relies on the sonic more, which can now do more things.

He talks in a working class accent and doesn't embody ANY aristocratic qualities at all.

He is hysterical, and mentally unstable.

He can't cope with loss and regularly sheds tears.

Physically he dresses in a black, ordinary leather coat and has short hair.

Even the type of actor who plays him, Eccelston whilst having an edge to him was more of an edgy leading man if that makes sense. IE he is still the type that would have played leads in gritty oop north dramas, but Tom it's safe to say strayed more into the Tim Curry type of actor.

Now that's not to say that Eccelston had NO similarities with the first Doctor. IE he still had the clownish exterior, the mystery about his past, living life by his own rules etc. However that isn't enough for him to be the same character, and the differences are too jarring as well like him and Rose. 

Again these are facts, and I might add Eccelston wasn't even the worst for this. All of these differences would continue to be expanded and added too with later Doctors, creating more of a divide. 

[rushy]

Tom might be the aristocratic type, but Eccleston embodied well what I thought to be the most defining and memorable aspect of Hartnell's personality - his sense of authority, not suffering fools gladly. That's what draws me to both of them. They're also pretty much the only Doctors who give a crap about preserving the timeline lol. Tom often just comes off as playing himself if I'm honest, increasingly so as his era goes on. Although I will say that his season 18 performances in isolation are the best of any Doctor.

When it comes to him travelling for different reasons and having mental issues, that's obviously the result of experience. I got the impression from Hartnell that his Doctor had lived a cozy life until very recently.

[burrunjor]

Sept 23, 2023 23:31:52 GMT rushy said:

Tom might be the aristocratic type, but Eccleston embodied well what I thought to be the most defining and memorable aspect of Hartnell's personality - his sense of authority, not suffering fools gladly. That's what draws me to both of them. They're also pretty much the only Doctors who give a crap about preserving the timeline lol. Tom often just comes off as playing himself if I'm honest, increasingly so as his era goes on. Although I will say that his season 18 performances in isolation are the best of any Doctor.

When it comes to him travelling for different reasons and having mental issues, that's obviously the result of experience. I got the impression from Hartnell that his Doctor had lived a cozy life until very recently.

Well they all have that sense of authority, even Davison "you're the only one who knows anything about fighting Daleks." That comes from the Doctor being the smartest person in the room and have the experience. 

Meanwhile they all care about preserving the timeline, because again they have to or else there is no show. Tom Baker refuses to bring Eldrad back to after she left her planet 150 million years ago and his decision in Genesis is as much about what will happen to the timeline. 

Again Tom did play himself no one's denying that, but that's the point it was still within those limits. IE Tom brought his crazy sense of humour into the part, as that could fit as the Doctor always has that, but he didn't bring in the fact that he was a notorious ladies man as that wouldn't. 

Meanwhile whilst I agree that Eccelston's differences can be traced to him being the last survivor of the war, but I don't think that's a good development. as it's so different to the Doctor. It would be like if you did a version of Captain Kirk where the Federation was completely destroyed and he was on his own in the universe. Would that feel like the same character? Or a version of Batman where Gotham was blown up? 

Developments I feel have to be natural. Also later New Who Doctors wouldn't just change the reason he is travelling in the future, but in the past too, with the Hybrid and then Timeless Children crap. 

[rushy]

Sept 24, 2023 9:08:52 GMT burrunjor said:

It would be like if you did a version of Captain Kirk where the Federation was completely destroyed and he was on his own in the universe. Would that feel like the same character? Or a version of Batman where Gotham was blown up?

If it's written well, absolutely. There are fans out there who still ask for a spinoff about that version of Riker where the Borg conquered the Federation.



Also, I don't think Kirk is honestly a great example of a consistent character. I'm currently watching the original series movies and he's borderline unrecognisable as the same man who was in the TV show. The whole crew (with the exception of Spock) kind of evolve into very broad caricatures of themselves. It's not a decision I hate, but going from TV Kirk (who very rarely lost his composure) to movie Kirk (who tells Spock he should've knocked him on his damn ass) is a bit of tonal whiplash.

[rushy]

LMFAO at this

[Cherry Pepsi Maxil]

Sept 14, 2023 13:29:54 GMT zarius said:

Series 2 would have gotten the show cancelled if Grade were still young.

That aside, series 1, 3, and 4 are all bangers, and I can still watch them. I can't say that about much of series 6-10. Even Jodie's era is more rewatchable than those. Some exceptions aside (series five, 50th, Heaven Sent/Hell Bent, Extremis, World/Falls), I just didn't take to Moffat at all.

I kind of agree about the Moffat era.  Apart from a few Series 5 episodes and the second half of Series 7 I rarely if ever rewatch stuff from that period. Even if Series 2 is worse, I still find myself going back to certain episodes because it's the era I grew up with. 

[Cherry Pepsi Maxil]

Series 3 is the best (you can't convince me otherwise) and Series 1 has a terrific finale and a much better structure and arc than Series 2. Series 4 I just find hard to sit through. I never warmed to Donna as a character.

[Cherry Pepsi Maxil]

Sept 23, 2023 22:46:53 GMT rushy said:

Also, and this is purely a personal thing, but I cannot imagine Hartnell and Tom Baker being the same person at all.

I can imagine every classic Doctor being the same person as William Hartnell. I can't with any of the modern Doctors although Smith does a great job invoking Troughton.

[burrunjor]

Apr 20, 2024 11:04:38 GMT Cherry Pepsi Maxil said:

Sept 23, 2023 22:46:53 GMT rushy said:

Also, and this is purely a personal thing, but I cannot imagine Hartnell and Tom Baker being the same person at all.

I can imagine every classic Doctor being the same person as William Hartnell. I can't with any of the modern Doctors although Smith does a great job invoking Troughton.

Agreed. I'm sorry to say but I think it's a bit shallow when people say none of the Doctors were believable as the same character in old who. Again a basic analysis will show that the classic Doctors are all similar in the following ways. 

All want to explore the universe because they love travelling and want to live life on their own rules. None really set out to be a hero, but a combination of their own curiosity and morals often lead to them getting involved. (Though even then it's more often their curiosity. Caves of Androzani, Planet of Spiders and the first Dalek story are all kicked off by the Doctor not knowing when to pull out.) 

All have the same moral code of being willing to kill if need be, but preferring to find peaceful solutions to problems. All are willing to use weapons of any kind if need be, all are decent hand to hand combatants. 

All are aristocratic, and posh and more gentlemanly types of heroes.

All are largely asexual and tend to look on their companions as surrogate daughter figures. Not always, but it is a running theme.

All in some ways are mature when it comes to dealing with things like death, having lived such a long and eventful life, yet all can be extremely childish in that they have do things on their own terms. Even saving the earth, hence why Pertwee, Tom, Hartnell and Colin all say no to, resent being sent on missions to save the universe from other people because then it becomes work. 

All even physically have long, big, elaborate hair, dress in Victorian/Edwardian era clothes that are also a bit more elaborate. (And there are several themes that run through several of them, like funny hats, scarfs, frock coats.) 

The Doctor also tends to be played by a more unconventional character actor, whose known for playing villains, eccentric supporting roles, or outrageous comedy characters. 

These are all hard character traits that run right the way through from Hartnell to McCoy. All 7 classic era actors very clearly stayed within that template and tried to do something new within those limits. This isn't even my opinions, Bob Holmes, JNT, Terry Nation, Terrance Dick also all said as much as did every actor who played the role from Troughton to McCoy! Of course no one is saying you can't develop the Doctors character, but you have to do it naturally. Like Davison gets his companion into trouble like Hartnell did, but unlike Hartnell he tries to help them because he's now become a better person. McCoy similarly takes the fight to the Daleks because he's dealt with them for centuries and is tired of them.

New Who meanwhile doesn't develop its changes naturally. It actively contradicts the original's character template in the following ways. 

The Doctor's sexuality changes from a jack the lad slapping his companions on the arse and forcing himself on ninja lesbians, to a gay guy going on about how many fingers he can fit up his arse. 

The Doctor actively says he hates travelling and would rather have a normal life but can't because his people are gone. Then we find out he was only fleeing because he was scared of a prophecy, then we find out he was brainwashed by the Time Lords into being a champion of justice. 

The Doctor also is a lot more emotionally immature, and specifically can't cope with loss and goes completely mad when he loses someone to the point where he tries to destroy the universe to save them. 

The Doctor's moral code is also too extreme both ways. He goes from being too sadistic in condemning bad guys to an eternity of torture and shooting unarmed men, to never wanting to fire a gun even if the universe will be destroyed if he doesn't. 

Even physically he often dresses in normal modern clothes, and has short, trendy modern hair. 

Finally the type of actors they've got to play him are not eccentric character actors, really Peter Capaldi is the only one who fits into that type of category.  

(All of this is without mentioning the jarring gender change.)

As I've said before, if new who were a remake these changes would all be fine (well maybe not the timeless children which is shit even within New Who's continuity) Still remakes invite you to be more experimental, as you only have to follow a very basic template (IE the Doctor still has to be a time travelling hero in a blue box who fights some of his enemies.) Sadly however its makers and inexplicably its fans who look down on the original insists on it not only being a sequel, but the ONLY sequel there will ever be, so yeah it it just comes over as bad, lazy writing and a toxic influence on the original, and no amount of "but Tom Baker was young and had curly hair unlike Hartnell." Justifies that. 

[rushy]

I don't know, I feel like there's a very clear throughline from Hartnell to Pertwee, but then it kinda gets lost somewhere during the UNIT era.