S11.E10: The Battle Of Ranskoor Av Kolos

[ganesh]

10 minutes ago, taanja said:

When did it become a kids show?

1963? I wasn't around then, so I don't know for sure. 

[Eulipian 5k]

The Doctor's message is what I expect from a sixties founded show/character. Think of it , is there ANY disagreement between nations today where you don't see leaders openly ,in the press, first instinct, can we bomb them? take them out? Yet we wonder why there are so many mass shootings? It's all we teach today. America's been at war since this generation was born. Relax, check out an FPS, the Doctor is no threat to today's blood lust .

[taanja]

21 minutes ago, ganesh said:

1963? I wasn't around then, so I don't know for sure. 

I started watching at the end of John Pertwee's tenure -- and then of course on through to Tom Baker and beyond..... Hm? They sure didn't strike me then as a young adult to be a kids show (except maybe the cheesy special effects) and when New Who started-- with Christopher Eccleston... many of those eps were NOT kid friendly.

This was the first season where I felt the writers (and by extension the actors parroting the words) were speaking to children.

[ganesh]

That's not my take on it. We're not the target demo and never were. 

[taanja]

1 minute ago, ganesh said:

That's not my take on it. We're not the target demo and never were. 

Right! and now that I'm old-- I am out as a one of the desired demographic!

[Dobian]

The Doctor might usually be a pacifist, reflecting the sixties mores from the early years of the show, but we have had the War Doctor, so I think it would be nice to see the Doctor vacillate between the two extremes in different incarnations rather than always be just a slightly different version of the same Doctor.  And this isn't really for social or political message reasons, it's just better when you have this character take different sides of the same argument.  I know this season people jumped on the show for being a little bit Doctor SJW with the female Doctor and some of the episode themes, but I thought they balanced things alright and had plenty of pure sci fi, especially in the last two episodes.  The problem with the season was that there was no real compelling story arc, and not much exploration into how the Doctor was actually handling being female for the first time.

[Eulipian 5k]

13 minutes ago, Dobian said:

The Doctor might usually be a pacifist, reflecting the sixties mores from the early years of the show, but we have had the War Doctor, so I think it would be nice to see the Doctor vacillate between the two extremes in different incarnations rather than always be just a slightly different version of the same Doctor.

But, as Eleven said, " He was the only one not fit to be called the Doctor" The War Doctor isn't even counted in the numbering; remember we saw Twelve's eyebrows refer to himself as "No sir, all thirteen" when the TARDISes were zapping Gallifrey.

[Dobian]

1 hour ago, Eulipian 5k said:

But, as Eleven said, " He was the only one not fit to be called the Doctor" The War Doctor isn't even counted in the numbering; remember we saw Twelve's eyebrows refer to himself as "No sir, all thirteen" when the TARDISes were zapping Gallifrey.

Ah but that can be easily seen as denial.  He was still one of the incarnations of the Doctor even if all the other versions reject him.  They might be afraid to admit that there is a part of him in them.  And that's something I would like the show to explore at some point because it's *interesting*.

[Mabinogia]

9 hours ago, QuantumMechanic said:

Killing Tim Shaw would have been a nice change from the mindless pacifism of Chibnall (the only thing mindless pacifism does IRL is get lots and lots of people killed and Chibby's advocacy of it is yet another strike against him) and made people think.

I have to admit I spent most of the episode yelling at the Doctor that none of this would be happening if she'd just killed the unrepentant serial killing Shaw when she had the chance. If she had killed Tim Shaw, a horrible mass murderer, the innocent crew member, and who knows how many others (did the people on those planets he took die? I was confused on how that all worked) would still be alive. 

I am against the death penalty unless there is no shadow of a doubt that the person will kill again if given the chance. I 100% knew Tim Shaw would kill again as soon as he found someone to kill. 

I am glad that Graham didn't kill him, though, because his killing would have been out of revenge as opposed to for the greater good. I know it's splitting hairs but I don't really believe in a black and white view of the world. I think killing Tim Shaw out of revenge would have eaten away at Graham.

This was similar to the Doctor's thought that letting those spiders die slowly was more humane than putting them out of their misery. It wasn't for their benefit, it was for hers, so she wouldn't have to live with having killed them. 

Oddly, I did love this season, though I completely and utterly seem to disagree with Chibnall's philosophy. lol

[Chaos Theory]

The Doctor doesn’t kill Hitler.  The Doctor  has never killed Hitler.  

[Eulipian 5k]

2 hours ago, Dobian said:

Ah but that can be easily seen as denial.  He was still one of the incarnations of the Doctor even if all the other versions reject him.  They might be afraid to admit that there is a part of him in them.  And that's something I would like the show to explore at some point because it's *interesting*.

Another reason I was sad when John Hurt passed. The ingenious creation of the War Doctor and his angst/guilt would be the source of the Doctor's Pacifist views.

It seems that by not counting his incarnation, NuWho hasn't joined with the canon of 1963 Who. (Even though the Ninth showed up in WD's leather Jacket.)

Edited December 13, 2018 by Eulipian 5k

[LoneHaranguer]

4 hours ago, taanja said:

I started watching at the end of John Pertwee's tenure -- and then of course on through to Tom Baker and beyond..... Hm? They sure didn't strike me then as a young adult to be a kids show (except maybe the cheesy special effects) and when New Who started-- with Christopher Eccleston... many of those eps were NOT kid friendly.

IMU the phrase "children's show" just meant that it wasn't adult enough to have to kick the kiddies out when you watched it; and it did have an educational element when it started. But long before the reboot, you had things like "Genesis of the Daleks" that weren't very kid-friendly either, but did carry the same reluctance of the Doctor to kill the bad guy, if you're looking for that kind of moral statement.

[tennisgurl]

I dont think that Doctor Who is a "kids" show as much as a family show. I think it was created as a semi educational show for the whole family to enjoy, and that has more or less been consistent. Its mostly appropriate for the whole family, with some dark episodes, and some lighter, more "kid friendly" episodes as well. I dont think the show has a real demographic that it solely focuses on, its for everyone. 

The Doctor has always had a pacifist streak, but its grown more pronounced over the years. But, its nothing new, nor are a lot of the elements of the show that people are now claiming "isnt real Who" or "SJW are taking over" or whatever. It really just baffles me when people say this. Like, they have watched the rest of the show, right? Did they all forget the old school Who episodes about racism, nuclear war, regular war, the changing demographics of the UK, etc.? Or the New Who, which has often done stories that dealt with social issues, and the problems of certain time periods (remember John Smith and Martha being stuck being subjected to racism in early 20th century England?), did that just not happen for some people? You can dislike this season, that fine, but the stuff that some people are picking on just seem weird, as none of that is new territory. Not saying that all of their commentary has been amazingly written (like Not Trump and the bugs), but its nothing new to Who. And while the Doctor has had some iterations that were more alright with violence than others, most of the New Who Doctors have been against killing in general. 

[One4Sorrow2TooBad]

In a Utopian society pacifism probably works fine, but in the real world , when someone is pounding your face into the ground, you try to fight back. 

[DanaK]

Well, this Doctor and previous ones claim to be a pacifist and against killing, but I’m sure Tim Shaw and Kerblam’s Charlie would dispute that, along with a whole host of others who have ended up dead or nearly so going up against the Doctor

Edited December 13, 2018 by DanaK

[starri]

50 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

Did they all forget the old school Who episodes about racism, nuclear war, regular war, the changing demographics of the UK, etc.?

Or “The Happiness Patrol,” which is a big, blatant a critique of Margaret Thatcher, especially her attitudes towards the gay community. 

[ganesh]

Family show might be more apt. Fundamentally, the show was made with kids in mind. 

[Eulipian 5k]

4 hours ago, Dobian said:

Ah but that can be easily seen as denial.  He was still one of the incarnations of the Doctor even if all the other versions reject him.  They might be afraid to admit that there is a part of him in them.  And that's something I would like the show to explore at some point because it's *interesting*.

Another reason I was sad when John Hurt passed. The ingenious creation of the War Doctor and his angst/guilt would the source of the Doctor's Pacifist views.

It seems that by not counting his incarnation, NuWho hasn't joined with the canon of 1963 Who. (Even though the Ninth showed up in WD's leather Jacket.)

[Llywela]

7 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

The Doctor doesn’t kill Hitler.  The Doctor  has never killed Hitler.  

The Doctor once blew up a whole room full of baby Daleks, just to prevent them growing up to become genocidal adult Daleks. He agonised over it, but ultimately decided that it was the right thing to do. That was in 1974 and was a much more nuanced examination of right and wrong than today's hardline 'killing of any kind is always bad, no one who travels with me must ever kill' stance. Heck, the Fourth Doctor travelled with Leela, who went around stabbing enemies in the neck just as a matter of course! He disapproved of her killing people and attempted to show her that there was usually a better way of achieving their aims, but there was none of this hypocritical moralistic 'if you kill anyone ever you are not worthy to travel with me, ever' malarkey. I'd have bought it more if the Doctor had discussed with Graham the effect that killing would have on him, rather than laying down the law like a schoolteacher.

Doctor Who is badged as a family show, but its primary audience has always been 8-10 year olds, ever since 1963. The approach taken in appealing to that young audience has certainly changed over the years (this particular season has been pitched unusually young), but that has always been the target demographic.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Llywela

[Enigma X]

I have seen classic Who and new Who and know it is called a children's or family show but overall never seen it as such. There have been many (not most) episodes that have been kid or child friendly though. 

 

I reluctantly give my opinion that I overall did not enjoy the new season. I proudly call myself a "SJW" and am glad that many issues in that vein were openly addressed on the show, but the execution is falling flat for me. I can't pinpoint what it is. I adore the companions.  

[Eulipian 5k]

8 hours ago, Llywela said:

this hypocritical moralistic 'if you kill anyone ever you are not worthy to travel with me, ever' malarkey. I'd have bought it more if the Doctor had discussed with Graham the effect that killing would have on him, rather than laying down the law like a schoolteacher.

Rule #1 the Doctor lies. He  wouldn't let that cat Burglar ride with him because she was a thief, what was that about? In their 3000 year lives, some principles become wibbly-wobbly. He has threatened to blow adversaries up with everything from Jammy Dodgers to various self destruct devices. And many series arcs were developed around how many people the Doctor has sacrificed in their travels.

The Doctor is a Pacifist but the entire universe was abuzz to seek revenge on the Eleventh and blow up the TARDIS. And he warned that "A good man doesn't need rules, and you don't want to find out why I have so many". The Pacifist pronouncements may be more a caution to the Doctor him/herself than to the companion.

(Don't know how the optics would work with the Doctor trying to teach a grown Grandpa about how things would affect his psyche. (It wouldn't work with a "30" something Tennant or Smith either and a 60 something Graham)

Edited December 13, 2018 by Eulipian 5k
lecturing Granpa?

[Llywela]

23 minutes ago, Eulipian 5k said:

(Don't know how the optics would work with the Doctor trying to teach a grown Grandpa about how things would affect his psyche. (It wouldn't work with a "30" something Tennant or Smith either and a 60 something Graham)

I'm not sure age really comes into it when it is a case of 'this is a thing I have direct experience of and you don't' - and note that I said 'discuss' not 'lecture'. I'm not sure how that can be interpreted as more teacherish and therefore worse optics than the actual scene as it played out of the 30-something Whittaker laying down the law to a 60-something Walsh. If anything, it becomes an opportunity for the actor to demonstrate their chops, to find out if they can pull off a sense of the Doctor's true age despite the youthfulness of their features. Like David Tennant playing across from Bernard Cribbins, bonding as fellow 'old men'.

Anyhoo. The Doctor's morals often flip-flop a bit according to plot requirements and whatever message the showrunner-of-the-moment most wants to send at this point in time. The current hardline stance feels uncharacteristically inflexible and hypocritical to me, but it is hardly the first time this has happened.

[benteen]

The Doctor is not a killer but if The Doctor isn't going to kill, I wish she would at least make sure those who are not killer never do so again or at least serve an appropriate punishment.  The Doctor should have done more to ensure that Tim Shaw didn't return to this old habits, which he was going to continue to do.  10 wasn't afraid to dish out a savage punishment when pushed to the limit.

In The Sea Devils it's mentioned that The Doctor convinced the courts not to give The Master the death penalty and instead life in prison.  This led to The Master being give a ridiculously nice cell which he promptly escaped from after concocting a new evil plan.  The Master is an unrepentant killer who keeps killing so the death penalty would have been more than appropriate for him.  Though he would have promptly found a way to cheat death again.  But at least The Third Doctor recognized the need for The Master to be locked up and punished for his crimes.  The cell he was placed in was ridiculous though and he needed far more supervision to keep him there.

Edited December 13, 2018 by benteen

[Eulipian 5k]

6 minutes ago, Llywela said:

I'm not sure how that can be interpreted as more teacherish and therefore worse optics than the actual scene as it played out of the 30-something Whittaker laying down the law to a 60-something Walsh. If anything, it becomes an opportunity for the actor to demonstrate their chops, to find out if they can pull off a sense of the Doctor's true age despite the youthfulness of their features. Like David Tennant playing across from Bernard Cribbins, bonding as fellow 'old men'.

Laying down the law is different , it has to do with authority. For instance, as a police officer the nineteen year old Yaz can lay down rules to an older person (her first scene) but if she starts a sentence, "You know, Graham, as you get older you realize...."  - No.

But yes, the Doctor, especially the Eleventh, flip-flops rules and morals as the plot requires. He/she is not a religious figure.

[The Companion]

On 12/10/2018 at 12:56 AM, phalange said:

Tim Shaw is next-level petty, waiting 3,407 years to try to get revenge. I laughed when the Doctor said that the last seven years must've dragged.

It begs the question: Is there anyone who has wronged you so thoroughly that you would wait 3,407 years to try to get revenge? 

On 12/10/2018 at 3:41 PM, DanaK said:

The Doctor’s final words to the Ux:

“None of us know for sure what’s out there. That’s why we keep looking. Keep your faith. Travel hopefully. The universe will surprise you. Constantly”

I wouldn’t mind seeing more of the Ux again. Given how overstuffed the episode was, it would have been nice to spend more time on the Ux, the Doctor and Graham’s conflict and the planet’s psycho waves

Even though Tim Shaw got dispatched, the rest of the Stenza are still out there causing trouble. I wonder if they’ll be revisited down the road?

I loved this line, though I was surprised there wasn't more to address their planet killing and the fallout when they realized it was all for nothing. I know it was because they were listening to Tim Shaw under the mistaken belief that he was their god, but holy hell, they committed mass xenocide. It seemed they should have been a little more shaken up to me. I thought it was a weak point in an otherwise strong episode. They seemed super chill to find out they were manipulated into committing large scale murder. Also, when she told them to keep their faith, maybe also add not to murder planets for it? 

On 12/10/2018 at 11:01 PM, tennisgurl said:

Loved Graham not only getting a grandad from Ryan, but an I Love You, AND a returned fistbump! Everything's coming up Graham! Loved that they got some closure for Grace, and decided not to kill the evil tooth fairy. Well, he did shoot him, but just a little bit, to get him to shut up! "Dont tell the Doc, she`ll be livid!" They're relationship was probably my favorite part of the season. Grace would have been thrilled. I really was worried about Graham though, I was scared when he told Ryan than he would be right behind him, he would be having some kind of last stand. 

I loved this interaction between the two of them. Their character arc was pretty enjoyable for me. 

On 12/11/2018 at 7:53 PM, starri said:

I guess I'm in the minority here.  I really liked the episode and the season.  While neither was by any means perfect, I think I enjoyed it as a gestalt more than I have any other season in a very long time.

I liked the season and really liked the frog episode that apparently was fairly polarizing. I did miss some overarching elements being brought through the season. It felt a bit disjointed.

 

16 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

I dont think that Doctor Who is a "kids" show as much as a family show. I think it was created as a semi educational show for the whole family to enjoy, and that has more or less been consistent. Its mostly appropriate for the whole family, with some dark episodes, and some lighter, more "kid friendly" episodes as well. I dont think the show has a real demographic that it solely focuses on, its for everyone. 

This season has been less kid friendly in our case than some of the prior seasons. My son LOVES Doctor Who, but he is only 5, so we vet what he gets to watch. He doesn't find the monsters on the screen scary (he actually loves the weeping angels), but scary onscreen deaths are a problem. Almost every episode this season included an onscreen death (as opposed to someone being dragged away or an implied death) or it had so much dialogue there was no real way to keep him engaged. Example: why show the missing dude's (Kevin's?) face in Arachnids? My kid loves the giant spiders, but the guy wrapped up and dead in the cocoon was a bit much for him. The explosion with Charlie in there might have gone over his head but the people soup and bubble wrap bomb definitely wouldn't. 

16 hours ago, DanaK said:

Well, this Doctor and previous ones claim to be a pacifist and against killing, but I’m sure Tim Shaw and Kerblam’s Charlie would dispute that, along with a whole host of others who have ended up dead or nearly so going up against the Doctor

The Doctor literally thought she had killed Tim Shaw (though it was more getting him to kill himself), so it was a bit inconsistent to think it was a-ok to leave him running around murdering planets. The resolution was good, but it wasn't the Doctor's and that was a little frustrating. 

 

Overall, I enjoyed the episode so I don't mean to sound negative about it. I would like to see a bit more cohesion in the story telling next series and agree that Yaz should get more to do. I love JW in the role, so I hope they can give her some good material to work with. 

[ganesh]

13 minutes ago, The Companion said:

It begs the question: Is there anyone who has wronged you so thoroughly that you would wait 3,407 years to try to get revenge? 

Probably the butthurt fanboys on social media crying about 'not my Doctor Who anymore' 1.5 seconds after JW was cast and then spent the ensuing 2 months griping about nonexistent "PC BS" in each episode. They would wait that long for revenge. 

[rur]

On 12/12/2018 at 2:07 PM, taanja said:

When did it become a kids show?

1963?

[supposebly]

On 12/12/2018 at 1:59 PM, Dobian said:

The problem with the season was that there was no real compelling story arc, and not much exploration into how the Doctor was actually handling being female for the first time.

I haven't seen all of it yet but I completely appreciate it that it isn't delved into too much. The constant winking comments about it by Missy were soo annoying.

So, while I think this season is somehow missing that little extra uumph, this is not something I miss.

And yes, it was conceived as a kids' show from the beginning in 1963. I think the original idea was to learn about history. They had teachers as travel companions at the beginning.

[Llywela]

4 hours ago, Eulipian 5k said:

Laying down the law is different , it has to do with authority. For instance, as a police officer the nineteen year old Yaz can lay down rules to an older person (her first scene) but if she starts a sentence, "You know, Graham, as you get older you realize...."  - No.

Again, this is why I specifically said 'discussion', not 'lecture'. We are talking about the Doctor, not Yaz. The Doctor is an ancient being who has been responsible for the deaths of others on numerous occasions, both directly and indirectly. What she actually did was lay down the law, in the manner of a schoolteacher instructing a recalcitrant child (don't do this, or else!), coming from her 30-something face to Graham's 60-something maturity, but I'm still not sure why you think that has better optics, as you put it, than the alternative I suggested of two adults having a nuanced discussion about something one has direct experience of and the other doesn't.

[ganesh]

5 minutes ago, supposebly said:

I haven't seen all of it yet but I completely appreciate it that it isn't delved into too much.

As for not having a story arc, they said at the outset that they weren't going to do it this time around. If they did, then other people would be like, "oh they're doing the same thing over and over again. I'm bored." So they were really in a no-win, and going in a different narrative direction I think was the right choice since this was such a 'break' from Doctor Who; i.e., the first female Doctor. 

Second, they did kind of get into it in the witch episode, and the one with Trump when he said, 'who said she is in charge? We do!' I think that was entirely enough because I can't even imagine the infinity on infinity griping about it, given how whiny it was as it is. 

I think TPTBs did a good job anticipating how the first female Doctor would be received, and having an ensemble cast and staying away from the well known villains was the right narrative choice. Because then it would have been like, 'why is she saying that to the daleks? That's not how the Doctor talks to the daleks.' *eyeroll*

I do understand legit criticisms in some of the episodes; some people thought the Doctor herself should have shot the spider, ok, maybe. Which is much much much more reasonable that flying off the handle and saying 'giant spiders?! not in my Doctor Who.' But I think they were trying to reach back to bring things the Doctor used to do (learning about history, just traveling) to show that it's really the same Doctor there. 

I honestly would love to see Thirteen meet up with Jenny and the gang from Sherlock Holmes time for an adventure. 

[QuantumMechanic]

On 12/12/2018 at 7:55 PM, LoneHaranguer said:

IMU the phrase "children's show" just meant that it wasn't adult enough to have to kick the kiddies out when you watched it; and it did have an educational element when it started. But long before the reboot, you had things like "Genesis of the Daleks" that weren't very kid-friendly either, but did carry the same reluctance of the Doctor to kill the bad guy, if you're looking for that kind of moral statement.

Reluctance, yes, but not ruling it out out of hand.  After his original "Do I have the right?" angsting and then seeing again how bad Davros and the Daleks were, Four ultimately did decide to set off the bomb in the incubator room (though IIRC he had to abandon the wires before he could do it and the bomb was ultimately detonated by a Dalek running over the bare wires).

Edited December 14, 2018 by QuantumMechanic

[Dobian]

8 hours ago, ganesh said:

As for not having a story arc, they said at the outset that they weren't going to do it this time around. If they did, then other people would be like, "oh they're doing the same thing over and over again. I'm bored." So they were really in a no-win, and going in a different narrative direction I think was the right choice since this was such a 'break' from Doctor Who; i.e., the first female Doctor. 

Of course when you go with the strictly standalone episode route, it goes without saying that the success of the season is entirely dependent on you writing a lot of outstanding standalone episodes.  This season fell short of that.  I still wouldn't call it a bad season, it had a lot of good moments.  But for me it ranks low on the totem pole along with Peter Capaldi's first season.  There weren't many episodes where I feel like, I really have to watch that one again!

[Eulipian 5k]

18 hours ago, Llywela said:

What she actually did was lay down the law, in the manner of a schoolteacher instructing a recalcitrant child (don't do this, or else!), coming from her 30-something face to Graham's 60-something maturity, but I'm still not sure why you think that has better optics, as you put it

It's her TARDIS (sort of), she has to lecture anyone who rides with her about the rules. And she did it as an adult to an adult, (man to man , as they used to say), It would irk me if a 30 something "face" thinks they can instruct 60 something yr old Graham, about Life. He may learn new facts about pocket universes and such, but he's had a full 60 years of human (mooman) relations that the Doctor knows little about. (Capaldi's doctor was sad as a human being, and many objected to the "optics" of Clara lecturing him about humans and humanity).

Edited December 14, 2018 by Eulipian 5k

[benteen]

10 hours ago, Dobian said:

Of course when you go with the strictly standalone episode route, it goes without saying that the success of the season is entirely dependent on you writing a lot of outstanding standalone episodes.  This season fell short of that.  I still wouldn't call it a bad season, it had a lot of good moments.  But for me it ranks low on the totem pole along with Peter Capaldi's first season.  There weren't many episodes where I feel like, I really have to watch that one again!

I think that's a very good assessment of the season.  I didn't mind the idea of standalone episodes and new monsters.  But if you're going to do it, then do it well.  With exceptions, I don't think most of the episodes measured up and the monster sure as hell didn't.

That's why I'm looking forward to Season 2, though I am not high on Chibnall as a writer.

[Llywela]

7 minutes ago, Eulipian 5k said:

It's her TARDIS (sort of), she has to lecture anyone who rides with her about the rules. And she did it as an adult to an adult, (man to man , as they used to say), It would irk me if a 30 something "face" thinks they can instruct 60 something yr old Graham, about Life. He may learn new facts about pocket universes and such, but he's had a full 60 years of human (mooman) relations that the Doctor knows little about. (Capaldi's doctor was sad as a human being, and many objected to the "optics" of Clara lecturing him about humans and humanity).

But what I'm talking about would simply be a conversation, an exchange of opinions between two adults based on personal experience and mutual respect. Why would anyone see that as patronising in any way? And even if the Doctor describing her personal experience with ending the life of another living being did somehow come across as 'instructing Graham about Life' (which is not what I am suggesting at all), how does the 2000-year-old Doctor have any less authority to do that than to lay down the law about the behaviour she is and is not willing to tolerate in her travelling companions, whatever face she happens to be wearing? Her not being human really wouldn't have any bearing on the matter. It is the experience that counts.

Let us agree to disagree, because this is a pointless argument anyway. The episode is what it is.

[Eulipian 5k]

50 minutes ago, Llywela said:

Let us agree to disagree, because this is a pointless argument anyway. The episode is what it is.

This is the place to discuss/argue the episode. I saw two adults have a mutual, respectful, disagreement, not a teacher lecturing a recalcitrant child. That was Clara telling the Doctor to "Do as you're told".

Pogba rules! See, I changed the subject...

[supposebly]

1 hour ago, Eulipian 5k said:

It's her TARDIS (sort of), she has to lecture anyone who rides with her about the rules.

I wonder if people are reacting to the optics of age and gender more than anything.

After all, Nine had some pretty strict ground rules on who was good enough to be traveling with him and he wasn't shy about enforcing them. Some of those rules weren't only about morality. He wouldn't take Mickey because he wasn't brave enough until he proved himself and asked for it and certainly not Jack Harkness until he proved he was more than a con man. He never wanted Jackie and kicked out Adam Mitchell. Eleven almost kicked out Amy after the second episode with that space whale.

Most of them looked younger or less experienced than the Doctor while Graham is a grandpa (sort of) and Thirteen looks like a fairly young woman. Or young Clara lecturing a Doctor who looks like an older man.

Often, I think it makes no difference that the Doctor now looks like a woman but I think I'm wrong there. It does affect how people interpret scenes. If this had been Twelve or Nine, I think that scene would have played differently for some of the audience.

My own reaction was that it's his decision since Tim Shaw killed his wife. After a moment of reflection, I thought, no, it isn't. It's her decision what kind of person gets to fly with her. I don't think I would have had that first reaction if that had been Nine and Jack Harkness.

[DanaK]

In regards to the Ux and what they did with Tim Shaw, it seems pretty evident that the younger one felt they were doing wrong (or had a growing feeling that it was wrong) and the older one pushed him into it

Is it me or did Jodie actually start skipping as the Doctor tried to figure out how to solve the big crisis? It also seemed like she did a few shoulder shrugs after that. I know Jodie said in at least one interview that she liked to show 13's energy in scenes, but those seemed like strange acting choices

[ElleryAnne]

Quote

I wonder if people are reacting to the optics of age and gender more than anything.

I wouldn't have thought age or gender in particular, but more about something in the way they carry themselves.  For instance, Matt Smith was young and played Eleven as rather frenetic on the surface, but with an old soul.  When I watch him, I feel that he's carrying a lot of sorrow in there somewhere.  JW plays Thirteen with a joyful, youthful excitement.  I like her as The Doctor, but I don't often see the weight of a thousand years of pain and wisdom in her eyes.  

[Eulipian 5k]

So, the event that caused the Ux to bow in amazement in the opening, was the arrival of Tim Shaw, 3407 years, before this episode's events. If they can move mountains, how could they accept a toothyfaced outcast as their creator. I'd sooner believe in the Grace's frog than that guy. The Ux must have a very confused cosmology!

[ganesh]

1 hour ago, ElleryAnne said:

I like her as The Doctor, but I don't often see the weight of a thousand years of pain and wisdom in her eyes.  

Presumably, regeneration can give one a fresh outlook and new lease on life. One could argue the change from Nine to Ten was because the Doctor finally shed some guilt about the time war and wanted to move on. Not everything has to be broody all the time. 

[supposebly]

1 hour ago, ganesh said:

Not everything has to be broody all the time. 

I agree. Also, all these thousands of years Moffat added to the Doctor's life (or Rory's) mostly off-screen to add some weight to some of his rather thin characterization.

At some point, such a character would always be "been there, done that... thousands of times". And I sit there wondering, why is he so upset? Why isn't he in a jar by now?

How many thousands of years was he trapped in that tower before he got through to Gallifrey? Why did it have to be so many? The plot would have worked if he had been stuck there for 50 years or 100 years just as well.

So, I am very happy to forget all that and have a doctor who has put all that away. It makes for a more relatable and thus more interesting character. This one, I can still believe is affected by what happens to her or her companions.

[starri]

3 hours ago, ElleryAnne said:

I like her as The Doctor, but I don't often see the weight of a thousand years of pain and wisdom in her eyes.  

I actually like that Jodie has been playing her as cheerful and excited all the time.  You'd think after Eleven managed to save Gallifrey, even if he couldn't find it at first, he'd have been happier.  But no, we actually had an entire season of Twelve wondering if he was a good person or not.  Thirteen is a nice change from that.  And she even says that at one point, "All this is new to me." 

[ElleryAnne]

Oh, I don't mind that Thirteen has a lighter soul than some of the previous Doctor incarnations.  I just think it's that difference, rather than difference in the actor's age or gender, that creates the "optics" mentioned upthread.

[Ceindreadh]

On 12/14/2018 at 5:32 PM, supposebly said:

My own reaction was that it's his decision since Tim Shaw killed his wife. After a moment of reflection, I thought, no, it isn't. It's her decision what kind of person gets to fly with her. I don't think I would have had that first reaction if that had been Nine and Jack Harkness.

It's both though, isn't it? 

It's the Doctor's choice as to who gets to travel in her TARDIS and she can set out whatever rules of conduct she wishes, but it's Graham's choice as to whether to live by her rules or not.   I'm curious though as to whether there'd have been any leniency from the Doctor if say Graham had had to kill Tim Shaw to prevent him from killing Ryan or destroying the planet.  Or would she have felt that there was always another option.

[LoneHaranguer]

On 12/14/2018 at 2:27 PM, ElleryAnne said:

I like her as The Doctor, but I don't often see the weight of a thousand years of pain and wisdom in her eyes. 

Something tp do with being on a new set of regenerations?

[gonzosgirrl]

I enjoyed this one, and on the whole I think Jody makes a great Doctor.  In fact I'd rank her third of the New Who, after 10 and 9 (in that order). I could do without Yaz. My only real gripe is the weird new powers of the sonic screwdriver. It's more of a magic wand these days. 

Edited December 17, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[libgirl2]

12 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I enjoyed this one, and on the whole I think Jody makes a great Doctor.  In fact I'd rank her third of the New Who, after 10 and 9 (in that order). I could do without Yaz. My only real gripe is the weird new powers of the sonic screwdriver. It's more of a magic wand these days. 

The sonic has really changed in the last few years! 

[snarktini]

On 12/13/2018 at 6:46 AM, Enigma X said:

I reluctantly give my opinion that I overall did not enjoy the new season. I proudly call myself a "SJW" and am glad that many issues in that vein were openly addressed on the show, but the execution is falling flat for me. I can't pinpoint what it is. I adore the companions.  

I feel similarly. I like Jodie in the role. I like the companions. The "messages" are fine. Yet none of the episodes really held my attention. I don't know why.

[RobertDeSneero]

On 12/12/2018 at 1:59 PM, Dobian said:

The Doctor might usually be a pacifist, reflecting the sixties mores from the early years of the show, but we have had the War Doctor, so I think it would be nice to see the Doctor vacillate between the two extremes in different incarnations rather than always be just a slightly different version of the same Doctor.  And this isn't really for social or political message reasons, it's just better when you have this character take different sides of the same argument.  I know this season people jumped on the show for being a little bit Doctor SJW with the female Doctor and some of the episode themes, but I thought they balanced things alright and had plenty of pure sci fi, especially in the last two episodes.  The problem with the season was that there was no real compelling story arc, and not much exploration into how the Doctor was actually handling being female for the first time.

There have to be core values that are constant throughout all of the Doctor's incarnations.  There is a reason for choosing that name that a regeneration does not change.  And we have seen a swing from a curmudgeon who seemed like a misanthrope to someone who seems to have picked strangers to serve as a surrogate family.  Isn't an angst-free Doctor enough of a change?

I feel like the story arc is coming.  This season was about establishing themes and characters.

Maybe the point is that gender-fluid regenerations are completely natural and aren't something that needs to be "handled".  Do you need an episode where the Doctor dismisses any question about difficulty by saying that it was no problem at all?