S09.E01: The Magician's Apprentice

[jaytee1812]

Was it just me, or was the otherwise-terrific Michelle Gomez' accent going in and out? It was distracting. I was like, "Hey, now she's Scottish," whereas before she burr wasn't coming on as strong.

I think it's just Michelle's accent. You find that with some Scottish accents they become stronger with certain words and phrases. Also it may well be stronger when she's in a scene with Capaldi.

Edited September 22, 2015 by jaytee1812

[Commando Cody]

As they have pointed out in this show before, you can't always change time. Whatever steps The Doctor might take to keep Davros from turning evil, may be the thing that leads him to being evil. 

[MadMouse]

Amy and Rory weren't killed off.  They lived in another time, quite happily Amy said, and lived to be in their 80's.  I thought it was a great end for them and I hope Moffat gives Clara an equally nice send off. 

 

I know someone asked this earlier, but I didn't see a response.  Who was the Magician's Apprentice?

 

That was until they were turned into Cybermen last series and ordered to self destruct. Not the happiest of endings. 

[MadMouse]

Amy and Rory weren't killed off.  They lived in another time, quite happily Amy said, and lived to be in their 80's.  I thought it was a great end for them and I hope Moffat gives Clara an equally nice send off. 

 

I know someone asked this earlier, but I didn't see a response.  Who was the Magician's Apprentice?

 

That was until they were turned into Cybermen last series and ordered to self destruct. Not the happiest of endings. 

[alias1]

That was until they were turned into Cybermen last series and ordered to self destruct. Not the happiest of endings. 

True.  And not just Amy and Rory.  Even sadder, in my opinion, that's apparently what happened to The Brigadier.  Nice. 

 

Moffat tends to overdo everything.   

[LoneHaranguer]

 

Whatever steps The Doctor might take to keep Davros from turning evil, may be the thing that leads him to being evil.

Would it really matter as long as the Daleks still wound up with the potential for the same evil? In Genesis of the Daleks, they rejected Davros' leadership, so unless they were created with an extreme of warm-and-fuzziness that no one would go to under the circumstances, you may get the same results with a good Davros. At least that would keep the universe from shattering. The Doctor has backed away from changes not worth mentioning in comparison to having not-so-evil Daleks because he doesn't have the same resources to smooth over big changes like the Time Lord Council did.

[shandy]

 Missy had a good point about her and the Doctor trying to kill each other not being that big a deal since they're Time Lords (and can regenerate).

 

I'm glad Missy is there to remind us the Doctor was  once one of many, rather than the all powerful being he seems to have become in the RTD / Moffat era. Exploring Classic Who, I enjoy the dynamic where he speaks truth to power, rather than being the power itself. I appreciate that this world wide phenomenon shtick may need him to be a superhero, but the thief in the night trope, to me, is more interesting. 

[call me ishmael]

I'm glad Missy is there to remind us the Doctor was  once one of many, rather than the all powerful being he seems to have become in the RTD / Moffat era. Exploring Classic Who, I enjoy the dynamic where he speaks truth to power, rather than being the power itself. I appreciate that this world wide phenomenon shtick may need him to be a superhero, but the thief in the night trope, to me, is more interesting. 

I agree.  Part of it is that it is hard to take the opponents that seriously (the Silence was the last ones who seemed really threatening).  The Doctor as world power is derived from his having "destroyed" the Daleks and the Time Lords in the Time War (which of course we now know he didn't).  But rewatching some of the Baker episodes you realize that in the old days he was just a very, very smart guy who came up with ways to outwit his foes (when he was lucky).  The notion that the whole universe would be scared of him is a bit much.  Scared of the time lords I can see.  But the Doctor?

[Kromm]

I'm not sure Missy is any more evil than the Doctor is these days. Evil is often defined by whose side you're on. She comes off as more ruthless because the Doctor is the one who makes friends with the animals and has reason to hand-wring them being in danger or dying from what he does; Missy keeps her distance emotionally. I suppose it'd be too much to expect to see Clara killed off just to see how Missy reacts. Missy had a good point about her and the Doctor trying to kill each other not being that big a deal since they're Time Lords (and can regenerate).

Even if we buy the position that they both consider humans as akin to animals/pets, there's still the fact that Missy/The Master historically has gone out of his way to be cruel to them/murder them, and The Doctor, at most, would only be guilty of toying with them/using them (and risking himself to save them). It's hardly the same.  Missy can pull out a weapon and simply erase the animals.  The Doctor can and does occasionally on a larger scale cause them to die, but it's certainly not his intention going into things for that to happen.

[Megras]

UK viewer here and personally I was watching the rugby world cup match that clashed and recorded Who. That may have had an impact on the reduced viewing numbers too.

[LoneHaranguer]

 

Missy can pull out a weapon and simply erase the animals.  The Doctor can and does occasionally on a larger scale cause them to die, but it's certainly not his intention going into things for that to happen.

Missy and the Doctor are moving in opposite directions. The former used to kill when he didn't need to and would crush them to doll size. Now she generally kills only when necessary and gives them a humane death. The Doctor has become more cavalier about people dying. Intentions aside (and I think the Master has always wanted to rule, not kill anyway) I think the Doctor's body count is higher.

[tennisgurl]

You know, I like Clara a lot, but I think I am ready for her to move on. I wish we could get a companion that is not a modern person from the UK. Why not do what the old Who did occasionally, and have companions from the past, or the future? Or aliens? Or anyone other than an average person from the UK. It would be a nice change. 

[Llywela]

Missy and the Doctor are moving in opposite directions. The former used to kill when he didn't need to and would crush them to doll size. Now she generally kills only when necessary and gives them a humane death.

'Generally kills only when necessary'? Did you not see her randomly killing at least two people in Saturday's episode, for no reason at all other than she could and because it would expedite her negotiations with Clara? There was nothing necessary about those deaths. She enjoyed killing and she enjoyed the reactions to her killing. Murder is still murder whether quick or slow. I know fans like to latch onto an entertaining villain and believe them to have good in them really, but seriously: Missy is just as evil as Missy as she ever was as the Master. The character has always been unpredictable and has always been capable of cooperation when his/her interests align with an opponent's, but the thirst for power and casual disdain for all other life hasn't changed at all. Just because she's entertaining to watch doesn't make her good. The character was always entertaining to watch but has never been good.

 

And you think the Doctor's body count is higher? Really? Try watching Logopolis. The Master wipes out a third of the universe in that one, and doesn't particularly care.

 

I'm not sure why fandom seems so keen to believe that the Doctor is as bad as the evil he fights. He isn't and has never been. The Doctor fights to save lives - he may have grown hardened to collateral damage along the way, but his desire to save and protect has not changed. Missy deliberately and cruelly destroys lives and enjoys it. How can anyone consider the two comparable?

Edited September 24, 2015 by Llywela

[benteen]

You know, I like Clara a lot, but I think I am ready for her to move on. I wish we could get a companion that is not a modern person from the UK. Why not do what the old Who did occasionally, and have companions from the past, or the future? Or aliens? Or anyone other than an average person from the UK. It would be a nice change. 

 

The writers didn't want to put in the effort to write for Victorian Clara, which I found disappointing.  The main character in Sleepy Hollow lived in the American Revolution and awakes in present day America.  Some of the very best material is him getting interacting and getting used to the 21st century.

 

The Doctor wondering if he is a good man or not is ridiculous.  His 900 years defending Trenzalore should put that question to rest for all times.

Edited September 24, 2015 by benteen

[Ringthane]

The writers didn't want to put in the effort to write for Victorian Clara, which I found disappointing.  The main character in Sleepy Hollow lived in the American Revolution and awakes in present day America.  Some of the very best material is him getting interacting and getting used to the 21st century.

 

The Doctor wondering if he is a good man or not is ridiculous.  His 900 years defending Trenzalore should put that question to rest for all times.

 

That's kind of the point I was trying to make somewhere though (about this Doctor not knowing who he is or what he's really like).  He's just received a complete new regeneration cycle, something we've never seen happen on the show.  He spent 900 years on Trenzalore expecting to die at the end of it - no more regenerations and no more Time Lords to do anything to help him.  Suddenly, he has thirteen new lives.  That's got to be a huge shock, even to a Time Lord.  Imagine knowing for centuries that you're going to die, preparing for it, and then getting that new set of lives.  How does that change a Time Lord?  Does that mean he's still the same person, or is he a new person? 

 

A better producer would have set up Capaldi's first season to explore that more thoroughly and completely, and then ended up with the same epiphany at the end.  He should have spent the entire season in an identity crisis, so to speak. 

[alias1]

You know, I like Clara a lot, but I think I am ready for her to move on. I wish we could get a companion that is not a modern person from the UK. Why not do what the old Who did occasionally, and have companions from the past, or the future? Or aliens? Or anyone other than an average person from the UK. It would be a nice change. 

I like Clara a lot, too, but I'm ready for a for a change.  And as I said last season, I want companions that are something like Psi and Sabra (not related, not romantic, and perhaps not even from Earth).  I don't want another young, pretty earth girl.  And I'm hoping we don't get Missy all season.

[benteen]

That's kind of the point I was trying to make somewhere though (about this Doctor not knowing who he is or what he's really like).  He's just received a complete new regeneration cycle, something we've never seen happen on the show.  He spent 900 years on Trenzalore expecting to die at the end of it - no more regenerations and no more Time Lords to do anything to help him.  Suddenly, he has thirteen new lives.  That's got to be a huge shock, even to a Time Lord.  Imagine knowing for centuries that you're going to die, preparing for it, and then getting that new set of lives.  How does that change a Time Lord?  Does that mean he's still the same person, or is he a new person? 

 

A better producer would have set up Capaldi's first season to explore that more thoroughly and completely, and then ended up with the same epiphany at the end.  He should have spent the entire season in an identity crisis, so to speak. 

 

I agree it's a missed opportunity.  900 years in one place would change you and how does the Doctor just go back to traveling through time and space as though nothing has changed?  And why has he developed a psycotic hatred for soldiers?  I would assume its from 900 years of fighting a war but it was never delved into on the show.

 

The biggest missed opportunity was having the Doctor living out his final regeneration.  As long as Doctor Who is popular and making money for the BBC, The Doctor was ALWAYS going to end up getting a new regeneration cycle.  But the show could have had a great storyline where the Doctor realizes that his next death will be his last.  How does the Doctor go about saving the universe now knowing his next mistake might be his last?  The Doctor would have truly been grappling with his own mortality there.  It could have been great and I still can't believe Moffat blew that story idea in the space of a 75-minute Christmas special.  That was yet another failing of him as a writer.

 

Doctor Who End of Days could have provided great storyline material for the Doctor.

 

I think Clara has worn out her welcome.  My choice for next companion would be Young Davros.  I like the idea of The Doctor traveling around with "the future Darth Vader" but no way is Moffat going to do that storyline.

Edited September 24, 2015 by benteen

[alias1]

 

And you think the Doctor's body count is higher? Really? Try watching Logopolis. The Master wipes out a third of the universe in that one, and doesn't particularly care.

 

I'm not sure why fandom seems so keen to believe that the Doctor is as bad as the evil he fights. He isn't and has never been. The Doctor fights to save lives - he may have grown hardened to collateral damage along the way, but his desire to save and protect has not changed. Missy deliberately and cruelly destroys lives and enjoys it. How can anyone consider the two comparable?

I'm really looking forward to seeing Logopolis.  BBCA will be showing Logopolis next Monday from 10am to Noon. 

[tennisgurl]

 

And as I said last season, I want companions that are something like Psi and Sabra (not related, not romantic, and perhaps not even from Earth).

I would love to see them come back as new companions! They both had good, interesting rapports withe the Doctor, and had cool backstories and powers that could be explored more. So much better than "pretty young British modern woman". 

[Darth Nigel]

What I'd like to see:

  The Doctor travels back to Skaro, and rescues Davros from the handmines. After that, The Doctor and Missy figure out how to end the "eternal war", or at least to get them to sit down and talk.  Davros grows up happy and an inventor, and invites the Doctor to visit anytime. Big happy ending and no more Daleks in this timeline.  Then we get to explore a universe that doesn't have the Daleks, and imagine what that might look like.

 

   Would never happen.  But it would make for some interesting stories.  And in the worst case, Davros could invent something that looked llike the Daleks, maybe as an exosuit for for his people so they could explore hostile worlds... cue ominous music...

 

[Llywela]

What I'd like to see:

  The Doctor travels back to Skaro, and rescues Davros from the handmines. After that, The Doctor and Missy figure out how to end the "eternal war", or at least to get them to sit down and talk.  Davros grows up happy and an inventor, and invites the Doctor to visit anytime. Big happy ending and no more Daleks in this timeline.  Then we get to explore a universe that doesn't have the Daleks, and imagine what that might look like.

...sounds good, until the fabric of the universe starts to unravel because the change to the timeline is so massive, history re-written on a colossal scale...

 

Too much of the Doctor's own history is tied up with the Daleks. I think changing that history would be dangerous.

[benteen]

I'd still like to see The Doctor take young Davros as his companion.

[John Potts]

Darth Nigel Then we get to explore a universe that doesn't have the Daleks, and imagine what that might look like.

 

Given what was said (by the Doctor, in Genesis) that the Daleks bring other races together to oppose them, I expect we'd see a new threat that arose because the Daleks weren't around (doubtful that they could be a threat to existence itself, though). Or we'd see an existing race growing into a bigger threat (Sontarans, Cybermen, Autons, whoever) as a result. (And would be an adaption of the Mirror Universe in Star Trek - the DS9 episode Through the Looking Glass investigated the negative consequences of alt-Spock's reforms in the original Trek episode Mirror Mirror).

 

Of course, it's never going to happen!

Edited September 25, 2015 by John Potts

[LoneHaranguer]

 

'Generally kills only when necessary'? Did you not see her randomly killing at least two people in Saturday's episode, for no reason at all other than she could and because it would expedite her negotiations with Clara?

IOW, no reason at all except this one. The Doctor has commented on how short a human lifespan is to a Time Lord, so she doesn't see what difference a little bit makes, but if it's something she can use to get what she wants, why shouldn't she? People die for the Doctor to get what he wants too; he just lets someone else pull the trigger.

[Commando Cody]

They could do an "It's a Wonderful Life" type story to see what would happen if the Daleks were never born. 

[Llywela]

IOW, no reason at all except this one. The Doctor has commented on how short a human lifespan is to a Time Lord, so she doesn't see what difference a little bit makes, but if it's something she can use to get what she wants, why shouldn't she? People die for the Doctor to get what he wants too; he just lets someone else pull the trigger.

No. Are you seriously claiming that killing completely innocent people just to win an argument a bit quicker is a valid thing to do? That because humans don't live as long as Time Lords, it's okay for Missy to kill them just because she feels like it? That it's okay for Missy to murder people just to get what she wants? Really? And no, that isn't a Time Lord perspective - the race of Time Lords existed for millennia and the Master is the only one who ever went around the universe thinking it was okay to kill people just for kicks.

 

When have you ever seen the Doctor kill someone just to get what he wants? He doesn't. He never has. The Doctor has dedicated most of his existence to protecting other beings. Not always being able to save everyone is not comparable with choosing to murder people! The Doctor isn't always able to save everyone, and then he beats himself up about it and feels guilty about it, because he has a hero complex - but that doesn't make him responsible for those deaths, however much fandom might love the romantic notion of the dark, angsty, brooding hero. Sure, he sometimes kills or allows the deaths of his enemies when he's trying to stop them from enslaving and murdering innocent people, but I think the person who attempted to enslave and murder other people gets to shoulder full responsibility for the consequences of their actions, rather than the guy who had to take extreme measures to stop them and save lives. Killing an evil enemy in defence of other lives is not comparable with casually murdering people for fun!

 

This is something that comes up a lot in New Who, and to be honest, I think the showrunners are responsible for it, because they've put out something of a twisted message over the years in the interests of generating extra drama (or melodrama). So we regularly get characters accusing the Doctor of being responsible for the dangerous situations they find themselves in, but it isn't actually true and we shouldn't fall for it. If a man walking down the street sees a house on fire and runs in to try to put it out, and manages to save one or two people but a couple more die, are those deaths his fault? No. He might beat himself up and feel guilty about not being able to save everyone, because he's sad about the deaths, but that still doesn't make it his fault. It's just the same with the Doctor. If he sees an evil being trying to take over a world and goes into battle to try to stop it, and people die in that struggle, it is his fault? No, it's the fault of the evil being who had designs on someone else's world.

 

So no. The Doctor is a person who has spent his entire existence trying to protect other people as best he can, fighting evil and saving whole worlds. The Master/Missy is a being whose entire existence has been spent murdering the innocent and destroying lives. The two are not comparable. Because Missy is cooperating currently, that doesn't mean she's becoming good or that her past evil deeds don't matter (especially when she's still actively murdering along the way), and because the Doctor sometimes doubts himself and worries about the high cost of the battles he fights, that doesn't mean he's becoming as bad as the Master. They aren't moving in opposite directions along the morality spectrum. Their interests occasionally come into alignment, bringing about a temporary state of truce and cooperation before the next outbreak of hostilities, but there's nothing new about that - it's been happening since way back in 1971.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Llywela

[Ringthane]

Well, we still don't know exactly what happened to the clockwork guy from "Deep Breath" - did he fall or was he pushed?

[LoneHaranguer]

 

That it's okay for Missy to murder people just to get what she wants? Really? And no, that isn't a Time Lord perspective - the race of Time Lords existed for millennia and the Master is the only one who ever went around the universe thinking it was okay to kill people just for kicks.

Okay by whose standards, ours or aliens who think of themselves as superior? Most of the Time Lords considered themselves above it all. The Master has always wanted to rule. The Doctor meddles (in which there will inevitably be losers as well as winners).

[alias1]

Well, we still don't know exactly what happened to the clockwork guy from "Deep Breath" - did he fall or was he pushed?

I believe he fell.  The Doctor "does no harm."  If Moffat has broken that tenet, then it's another reason why I wish he would leave.

[azshadowwalker]

And to add to the opinions of Missy. I'm not her biggest fan, but mostly because she seems kind of like a slightly more wackier verson of River Song. Her personality basically fits into every other 'strong woman' Moffat has ever wrote so as much as I like Michelle Gomez, I feel like I've seen the character in so many other iterations before. 

 

This is exactly how I felt about her. And i didn't even like River Song, so why the hell would I want to see a brunette copy? She is very stock character.

[Llywela]

Okay by whose standards, ours or aliens who think of themselves as superior? Most of the Time Lords considered themselves above it all. The Master has always wanted to rule. The Doctor meddles (in which there will inevitably be losers as well as winners).

I'm sorry, what exactly are you trying to argue here? Yes, the Time Lords consider themselves above other species and most of them avoid meddling in their affairs, but that doesn't mean they consider enslaving and murdering those other species to be acceptable! As for the Doctor, sure, there are inevitably losers as well as winners in any battle, but if he didn't get involved, those battles would happen anyway and more people would die. Doesn't make those deaths his fault.

 

I'm not sure why you are arguing this line. What was it about this episode that made you believe Missy was becoming a better person? Was it because Clara was naive enough to think an offer of cooperation meant she was becoming 'good'? 'Cause Missy herself slapped that one down quick smart. Was it because you thought an offer of cooperation meant she was becoming 'good'? That's not how this character rolls - and an offer of cooperation that comes hand in hand with wanton murder could never be considered the start of a redemption arc. That's not what this is about.

 

And I really, really don't understand why you seem to believe loss of life in the battles the Doctor gets involved in - lives that would have been lost whether he was involved or not, his intervention simply prevents greater loss of life - make him as bad as the Master who goes around wantonly murdering people left and right. I don't know why you'd want to believe that. A monster of some kind invades a world and causes extensive loss of life. If the Doctor gets involved and tries to stop that monster, he isn't going to be able to save everyone, but he'll save as many as he can - and his efforts always, always end up preventing greater loss of life, by stopping the monster. He feels bad about the people he couldn't save, he wishes he could have done more - but he is not responsible for those deaths. The monster that killed them is responsible. I really, really don't understand why anyone would believe that failing to save everyone is comparable with choosing to murder.

 

Like I said, this is something that keeps coming up in New Who, however - and it always bugs me, because so many fans seem to fall for it and believe it. Way back in season one, the 9th Doctor confronted Blon the Slitheen about her crimes and about how letting one person go doesn't cancel out those crimes - and Blon countered by saying that only a killer would know that. The Doctor didn't argue against the accusation, because RTD was hammering home the PTSD war veteran angle at the time, but he should have because he is not a killer. He is a man who has spent all his lifetimes fighting killers, and that experience gives him extensive insight into how they tick - like how a cop can have extensive insight into the criminal mindset without actually being a criminal himself. Neither Blon nor the Doctor is a reliable narrator in this instance - but fans (mostly New Who only fans, who don't actually know the character's history) latched onto the confrontation as something deep and meaningful and romantic, this wonderfully dark, angsty hero, and the writers liked that reaction so they've gone back to that well over and over. We've seen countless guest characters accuse the Doctor of causing the crisis he is trying to resolve - but we viewers know perfectly well that he isn't, so why would we choose to believe these small-minded and demonstrably wrong characters over what we ourselves knowand have witnessed? We've seen the Doctor's close friends attacking him for being unable to always save everyone - Amy, for instance, railing at the Doctor quite unfairly over various of Rory's deaths, telling him that if he can't save everyone there's no point to his very existence, which was a horribly cruel and unfair thing to say. We've seen characters complaining because something bad happened and the Doctor wasn't there to stop it, like how dare he not be here when we need him (Torchwood, Children of Earth, for instance). It's a horribly entitled attitude that completely loses sight of who the Doctor is. He's just a man who likes to travel, but will always fight against evil when he sees it. He can't always be there when things go wrong, and he can't always save everyone, it is neither physically possible nor, you know, his actual responsibility. He is not responsible for the deaths that occur when someone else does something terrible - he might be there, trying to stop it, but that doesn't make him responsible, any more than any other bystander. When the Master/Missy chooses to murder someone, only the Master/Missy is responsible.

 

So no, I'll say it again: the Doctor and Missy are not moving toward one another on some kind of morality spectrum. The Doctor is still a good man. Missy is still evil. All that happened in this episode was that their interests temporarily aligned. It's happened before. It'll happen again. They can cooperate temporarily without that cooperation making the Doctor bad and Missy good.

 

ETA: or were you just trying to argue that Missy doesn't consider murder wrong because she's a Time Lord and murdering other species is okay by Time Lord standards, and therefore she doesn't know she's doing wrong? Because that isn't true either. If enslaving and murdering other species was acceptable by Time Lord standards, they'd all be doing it. The Master is considered a criminal on Gallifrey for exactly that reason - because the enslavement and murder of other species is not acceptable by Time Lord standards. Missy knows perfectly well that killing is wrong. She simply chooses to do it anyway.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Llywela

[John Potts]

I think the Time Lords intervened because the Master/Mistress interferes with other species (as they did the Second Doctor), not because he/she kills them (though obviously killing would count as interfering!).

 

A better contrast would be with a "villain" who is callous but gets results (think Patton in World War II or Harriet Jones shooting down the retreating Sycorax Warship). Pointing out that "caring" doesn't actually save any lives is a much more valid criticism than somebody with a body count in the trillions arguing that the Doctor doesn't save everyone.

 

ETA: In terms of scheduling, Part 2 will probably take a hit given it's up against England v Wales in the Rugby World Cup

Edited September 26, 2015 by John Potts

[Occasional Hope]

Back to my point about scheduling it later - apparently it's on AFTER Strictly this year.  They've never done that before.  I woder if that means more adult themes.

[jaytee1812]

I thought season 8 was on after Strictly?

[wayne67]

Like I said, this is something that keeps coming up in New Who, however - and it always bugs me, because so many fans seem to fall for it and believe it. Way back in season one, the 9th Doctor confronted Blon the Slitheen about her crimes and about how letting one person go doesn't cancel out those crimes - and Blon countered by saying that only a killer would know that. The Doctor didn't argue against the accusation, because RTD was hammering home the PTSD war veteran angle at the time, but he should have because he is not a killer. He is a man who has spent all his lifetimes fighting killers, and that experience gives him extensive insight into how they tick - like how a cop can have extensive insight into the criminal mindset without actually being a criminal himself.

 

I'm confused. Hasn't the Doctor ostensibly committed multiple acts of genocide? Admittedly some of them have now been retconned but I'm fairly sure he murdered all the little Aracknos babies and he did think he killed all the Time Lords for a few hundred years and he has killed countless Cybermen and Daleks and fed the Angels into a crack in time. Usually it's hands off or through companions but it's not like he's never participated in a good massacre. Sometimes he just talks enemies into death like those little clockwork men with wigs or he just paints a target on an enemies back and lets other people kill them for him... Other times he just traps enemies in hell like prisons for all time, Dalek and Cybermen armies, family of Blood, Carrionites. Other times he implicitly ignores the genocides committed by his companions, the Brigadier, Rose Tyler, Donna Noble.

 

Cops don't tend to orchestrate situations where an entire race dies off in favor of humans. For instance he planted a subliminal message in the moon landing so that Humans would forever hunt down the Silence wherever they were, completely disregarding human fatalities that would result.

 

ETA Who was the Magician's Apprentice ? Clara? Missy? Davros ? Or was it just a meaningless title ?

Edited September 28, 2015 by wayne67

[Llywela]

Defeating an enemy in a war, to prevent said enemy from continuing to actively prey on others, is not remotely the same thing as choosing to go out and murder innocent beings who've done you no harm. Soldiers kill people, but we draw a sharp distinction between soldiers and murderers. If a cop shoots a serial killer on a spree, do we condemn that cop as a murderer or do we breathe a sigh of relief that the serial killer can't harm anyone else?

 

If the Doctor encounters the Daleks or Cybermen or Weeping Angels or Racknoss or whoever, and they are busily spreading death and destruction all round, should he just leave them to get on with it? Or should he fight them? Because it seems like making the decision to fight them - yes, and kill them if need be - leads only to him being branded a killer no better than they are. Perhaps the Time Lords' non-interventionalist policy was right after all, in that case. But surely the ultimate responsibility for the killings, in every case, lies with the creatures who made the initial decision to attack other worlds and other peoples, not with the guy who took extreme measures to stop them.

 

Interesting, though, to note that pretty much all your examples come from New Who. The New series Doctor is a very different person from the Classic Doctor, which muddies the waters.

 

My point about that conversation between the 9th Doctor and Blon was that they were talking about the behaviour of a predator, which the Doctor isn't. Certainly not at that point, because the only Doctors any viewer had ever known at that point were the Classic Doctors, who absolutely weren't. The new series was reinventing the character as a very different person than he'd ever actually been, choosing to present that skewed perspective of him to new viewers for reasons of drama.

[wayne67]

Defeating an enemy in a war, to prevent said enemy from continuing to actively prey on others, is not remotely the same thing as choosing to go out and murder innocent beings who've done you no harm. Soldiers kill people, but we draw a sharp distinction between soldiers and murderers. If a cop shoots a serial killer on a spree, do we condemn that cop as a murderer or do we breathe a sigh of relief that the serial killer can't harm anyone else?

 

If the Doctor encounters the Daleks or Cybermen or Weeping Angels or Racknoss or whoever, and they are busily spreading death and destruction all round, should he just leave them to get on with it? Or should he fight them? Because it seems like making the decision to fight them - yes, and kill them if need be - leads only to him being branded a killer no better than they are. Perhaps the Time Lords' non-interventionalist policy was right after all, in that case. But surely the ultimate responsibility for the killings, in every case, lies with the creatures who made the initial decision to attack other worlds and other peoples, not with the guy who took extreme measures to stop them.

 

Interesting, though, to note that pretty much all your examples come from New Who. The New series Doctor is a very different person from the Classic Doctor, which muddies the waters.

 

My point about that conversation between the 9th Doctor and Blon was that they were talking about the behaviour of a predator, which the Doctor isn't. Certainly not at that point, because the only Doctors any viewer had ever known at that point were the Classic Doctors, who absolutely weren't. The new series was reinventing the character as a very different person than he'd ever actually been, choosing to present that skewed perspective of him to new viewers for reasons of drama.

 

In most cases the Doctor isn't a soldier in a war. Soldiers in war are answerable to someone so when they commit war crimes they are held accountable. The Doctor is an adrenaline junkie who bounces from one calamity to the next hence all the manicness and gloating. Demons Run made it clear that he often goes too far.

 

For a man who claims he wants to make people better or whatever and is against violence most of his solutions are homicidal. For instance he seldom tries to reprogram the Cybermen instead they usually end up dead or blown up from his tampering with emotion inhibitors ignoring the Cybermen used to be people. There is a middle ground between not interfering and murdering an entire race because the leader/mother is a vicious asshat eg the fish vampires. He could try putting them in stasis, or prison or working with the people under attack and improving their defenses or trying diplomacy or relocate either of the sides. He's a time lord, he can pop into a future time line or use the magical room in the Tardis that supposedly produces any technology and just manufacture a giant shield around the area. He should be able to put the Cybermen in standby mode. He's supposed to be a genius. Am I supposed to believe that the solution to any problem is just to kill anyone in the opposite side of a war against humans.

 

I've only seen a few seasons of Classic Who and the only thing that sticks out is 1st Doctor ditching his grand daughter Susan in Dalek infested future Earth for reasons that never made sense. Oh and he stood by and let the Brigadier cave in an area with sleeping Silurians. I've never liked how they've treated the Silurians.

[Llywela]

The 3rd Doctor did not allow the Brigadier to cave in the Silurians - the Brig quite deliberately did that without the Doctor's knowledge, knowing he would argue against it and try to stop him.

 

I'm not interested in continuing this debate any further.

[Chip]

This topic has veered away from discussion of this episode. Anyone should feel free to take the conversation into one of the threads about the specific Doctors or create one for a past episode that might not be there.

[wayne67]

Apparently the conversation is over anyway.

 

Still trying to decipher what the point of this 2 parter was. The Doctor essentially spends this episode sulking in time before having a conversation with Davros then has an overly elaborate plan to try and kill them all for the 50th time. It never works and it's become laughably pointless having Daleks as villains, the show says they're scary but they're tin pots that X ray people to death and are slaughtered en masse with ease.

 

For a species that is apparently against everything that is different, they still have insane asylums, hospitals and sewer systems that serve as really odd repositories for old Daleks. You'd think if they are really violent sociopaths they'd just dump their old into a black hole or use them as cannon fodder in whichever war they're having that day.

Edited September 28, 2015 by wayne67

[Bruinsfan]

I agree.  Part of it is that it is hard to take the opponents that seriously (the Silence was the last ones who seemed really threatening).  The Doctor as world power is derived from his having "destroyed" the Daleks and the Time Lords in the Time War (which of course we now know he didn't).  But rewatching some of the Baker episodes you realize that in the old days he was just a very, very smart guy who came up with ways to outwit his foes (when he was lucky).  The notion that the whole universe would be scared of him is a bit much.  Scared of the time lords I can see.  But the Doctor?

At this point I can see the Daleks very legitimately being terrified of the Doctor - he's like their Boogeyman, present from their inception, able to show up at any time to thwart them, escaping certain death at the drop of a hat, often turning their own plots and weapons against them to wipe out vast armies just when they think they've won. Opposition to and fear of the Doctor has become ingrained in their very makeup. And by association, the one being that causes otherwise invincible universal conquerors to drop everything and panic would seem pretty scary to just about everyone else even if the Doctor isn't that threatening to them himself.

 

Contrast this with this.

[AudienceofOne]

Just kill me now.

 

There should actually be a law that says Moffat is never allowed to write a line for a female character ever again.

[HauntedBathroom]

No idea what you're talking about there. A quote would be a help.

[AudienceofOne]

Everything that comes out of Missy's mouth. How about Clara's appalling "Jane Austen is a good kisser" line?

[HauntedBathroom]

Do you have any proof she wasn't?