jhumor: (Default)
Add MemoryShare This Entry
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 11:22am on 17/05/2011 under
So I just realized something that I haven't seen anyone mention anywhere:

I was actually disturbed that again the Doctor didn't give the bad guy a chance.  Nor did the TARDIS, oh yes, cool special effects.  And no, House and the TARDIS can't co-exist, but why not make it about them not being able to co-exist?  Why make it about 'killing House'?  I don't know, but this "Doctor is a bad-ass killing right and left" is getting to me.

As is all the Rory dying bits.  Why is the Doctor so into killing people and SM so into killing Rory?


Mood:: 'curious' curious
There are 49 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
jjhunter: Watercolor of daisy with blue dots zooming around it like Bohr model electrons (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jjhunter at 04:41pm on 17/05/2011
If House didn't try to kill them, the TARDIS's human body would not have been returned to the main console room and House would not have been destroyed; House did have an option even if the Doctor did not explicitly present it as such.

On the other hand, can you imagine any single other being as integral to the Doctor's identity as the TARDIS? I see him as being at his most ruthless in 'her' (if gender is at all relevant for an 11th dimensional being) defense.

As for the TARDIS, I suspect she had no scruples about killing House whatsoever, given what House did to so many of her 'sisters' and attempted to do to her. Does the TARDIS miss the other TARDIS's? What kind of a community, if any, did they have?

One interesting thing I saw mentioned in another review is that there's zero curiosity about or exploration of Idris-before-she-was-TARDIS in the episode; it's a horrific thing to happen to anyone, and a hole ripe for fans to fill in.

Just my two cents.
jhumor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 04:55pm on 17/05/2011
Actually, the TARDIS doesn't have a human body and it was made clear the body of Idris was dying. Which is why I phrased it as "House and TARDIS couldn't co-exist."

Some may say it was done before: But why couldn't have House and TARDIS change places. Yes, he would have been in Idris' dying body, but it worked for Cassandra.... She was able to accept her death.

TARDIS has always been a 'her' all the way back to the 70s ;) But you have a point about her missing her sisters. It was made clear when they looked over the TARDIS graveyard. My own head canon is that all TARDIS are linked at a level that is much deeper than a TARDIS and her Time Lord are linked (Any TARDIS/Any Time Lord). TARDIS has been my favorite character since the 70s, so I have quite a bit of head canon about her :P It's nice to see a healthy chunk of my head-canon is now 'official canon.' I digress. I still think she might have learned something from the Doctor in all those years together, and why not push House into the dying body of Idris?

I thought about that... didn't write about it, but the first time I watched the episode, I was quite upset with what happened to Idris. Nearly stopped watching the show that first time. But yes, the "Asteroid House before the Doctor's Arrival" leaves a lot for fans to toy with.
doyle: tardis (Default)
posted by [personal profile] doyle at 05:33pm on 17/05/2011
why not push House into the dying body of Idris?

Two reasons I can think of: (1) We'd had two episodes to get to know Cassandra; House is a horrific monster who's spent the entire episode torturing the main characters. I'd have zero interest in watching his death scene when I could be watching a goodbye scene between the Doctor and the TARDIS. (2) According to Gaiman in the Guardian yesterday, he wanted it to be ambiguous whether House did die (apparently in an early script it was obvious that he didn't).
jhumor: (TARDIS with new logo)
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 05:59pm on 17/05/2011
1) Can't we have both? My own evil side wanted to see him 'suffer' in his death :P

2) That's all well and good. It didn't seem that ambiguous when we could hear House screaming - and 'fade'... Yes, that may have been author intent at one point. But, unless you're willing to say the TARDIS and him CAN co-exist, or that he killed the TARDIS. I don't like either of those two options, so I go with the fact that he was killed, unless he shows up again.
jjhunter: Watercolor of daisy with blue dots zooming around it like Bohr model electrons (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jjhunter at 06:49pm on 17/05/2011
Actually, the TARDIS doesn't have a human body and it was made clear the body of Idris was dying.


Good point. It wasn't the TARDIS' body because she wasn't native to the body, and calling it hers makes it sound like a house or other possession that could be bought or sold. It's disrespectful to Idris's mortal coil and therefore to Idris, and that was not my intent.
Some may say it was done before: But why couldn't have House and TARDIS change places. Yes, he would have been in Idris' dying body, but it worked for Cassandra.... She was able to accept her death.


I don't think this was an option. TARDIS wasn't released until the body died, period. Sticking House in a dead body seems problematic if even possible (zombie!House, anyone?). The difference between sticking anyone in a about-to-die-within-five-minutes body and killing them outright seems like mere semantics to me: you're still condemning them to death and their death is still on your hands. Yes, one gives a less violent death than the other and a little time to come to terms (if you can do that fully in five minutes or less), but ultimately death is death and killing is killing.
jhumor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 07:03pm on 17/05/2011
but ultimately death is death and killing is killing.

Fair point. Just seemed less violent in my mind to put him back in Idris' Body. Sentencing House to experience what he had done to so many others? Not that it matters, what's canon is canon now :P It's just a preference I have.

SM has a much more 'willing to kill' Doctor than I have ever seen before - other than that one moment of Seven and Skaro, but that's another story :P - it's just not sitting well with me, especially when he touts "DW is a children's show." Well, if it IS? I don't want my kids learning that killing without remorse is okay.
owlboy: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] owlboy at 10:21am on 18/05/2011
The Doctor has always been willing to kill. He almost beat a caveman to death in the very first story. And there has been a lot of instances since then.
jhumor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 12:01pm on 18/05/2011
Ah, but did he enjoy it?

I guess that's my point. Kill, yes. As a last resort and usually when other avenues had been explored/exhausted. Not as a first option and not using hypnosis to turn others into killers for him (The Silents). Not telling others they should kill. If they make that choice, they make it.... It just doesn't sit right with me.
owlboy: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] owlboy at 12:46pm on 18/05/2011
>>Kill, yes. As a last resort and usually when other avenues had been explored/exhausted.

Nope, not always. And he's done far worse things than kick some aliens off the Earth.
jhumor: (Bad Wolf Translate)
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 01:07pm on 18/05/2011
What's he done worse than putting a post-hypnotic suggestion to the entire human race to kill another species?

Because THAT is pretty horrific in my book.
owlboy: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] owlboy at 01:16pm on 18/05/2011
He's committed outright genocide about four times now IIRC.
jhumor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 01:21pm on 18/05/2011
Yes he has. (More than that, if you take into account what 'The Moment' did in the Time War) Typically the Daleks and usually after giving the species a chance.

But with the Silents, he ENJOYED it. With the Silents, HE didn't do it: he hypnotized the humans into doing it FOR him. So I stand by my reasoning that the issue with the Silents is far more horrific than anything else he has done.
owlboy: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] owlboy at 01:28pm on 18/05/2011
>>But with the Silents, he ENJOYED it.

I see no evidence of that...

He turned a parasitic, sadistic species' own power against themselves in order to kick them off the planet and make sure they stayed away. Remember that these guys had been manipulating and slaughtering people for thousands of years, while humans were unaware of it. It's not like he had much choice in kicking their asses.
jhumor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 01:30pm on 18/05/2011
Then I suggest you watch the episode again. He rightly enjoyed it. He was giddy, excited and even falsely offered them 'a chance'. I'm not the only one who saw it that way.
owlboy: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] owlboy at 01:43pm on 18/05/2011
I've watched the episode several times, and to me he seems to be acting his normal, blustery "you've gone too far and now you're in for some trouble" self - in fact his whole speech at the end reminded me very much of Ten...

>>I'm not the only one who saw it that way

OK? I'm not the only person who saw it my way, either, but whether or not people agree doesn't make either of our points more valid.
jhumor: (Bad Wolf Translate)
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 02:20pm on 18/05/2011
It was not Ten at all, though. Ten was a 'no second chances' kind of man - but he gave a chance. Not the kind of man to taunt and put a front as if he was offering a choice, but then "Nope. Instead I'm going to blow every last one of you to bits... and for added fun, the entire human race will kill you at your own words and they won't even know it. Ohhh YAY!"

It really wasn't even clear what the Silents did to people, we saw what ONE did to Joy... but even that one seemed curious about her. Oh Amy yelled that he didn't have to kill her, but maybe he did, maybe that's how they worked. It might well be that death is a by-product of how they get to know people.

The issue is: we were never given enough information to know. Which, admittedly is shoddy writing. But then, SM could have either 1) given us more information about the Silents or 2) not had Eleven go all giddy over killing them.

But since we were given neither. It is a disturbing trend that SM has begun and as I said elsewhere, these are not lessons I want my kids to learn.

Killing is killing and it should never be celebrated. Is it necessary sometimes? Yes... but I don't want my kids to think that killing is fun and cool. Which is the message that SM has sent us this Season.
evilawyer: young black-tailed prairie dog at SF Zoo (Default)
posted by [personal profile] evilawyer at 12:45am on 19/05/2011
But with the Silents, he ENJOYED it.

I think it's a matter of perception. One person's enjoyment is another person's expedient and successful solution.

What I note that Eleven does that his predecessors did not (or perhaps they did not; it's arguable, at any rate) is that he makes up his mind as to what needs to be done and executes on his decision without looking back. It's an interesting trait that been picked up from embryonic nuances. I think it harkens all the way back to One ready to bash the caveman's head in out of nothing more than fear for his personal safety; even Two once had enough chilling lack of respect for life --- and human, at that --- to say "They're just soldiers" when his companion commented on the horror of battlefield death. What Eleven does with it, though, is very interesting, and I'll be the first to admit that it's probably down to some brilliant acting rather than an intentionally written characterization. Eleven, young as the acting playing him is, comes across as an old man, one who's seen some serious, serious evil and has learned that you have to play evil's game at times for the "greater good", whatever that it. He may feel regret for things he's done, but that doesn't keep him from either owning the actions or from being ready to do them again if that's what it's going to take to take care of a problem. Not a nice old man, not even necessarily a good old man, but a solid old man who has done and remains ready to do arguably bad things if those things will correct the situation with any hope of permanency. (And now I'll stop, or my little essay I'm filling in gaps on will be totally redundant by the time I post it. And besides, I'm reminding myself of the two sergeants in the movie "Platoon".)
jhumor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 03:42pm on 19/05/2011
I guess the difference I'm seeing is that with the others, the Companions stepped up and questioned his actions. Here, it seems River especially, that they encourage him.

And once or twice I get. I don't like, but I get. This seems to be a direction Moff is taking the Doctor that just doesn't feel right. I don't know, I'm still trying to sort out the details as to WHY - hence the discussion :P But, honestly, if this keeps up, I might have to retract my statement of: "If I can learn to enjoy Six, I can learn to enjoy any Doctor." I really DON'T want to say that :(
telegramsam: Doctor Who in a library (5thdocbooks)
posted by [personal profile] telegramsam at 12:34pm on 19/05/2011
This.

The pacifist, anti-violence Doctor didn't show up until well into the 4th or 5th Doctor's tenure I think.

And even then sort of came-and-went according to script writer/editor whim.

I was just watching Seeds of Doom earlier and the Doctor punched out a few people. I recall Pertwee knocking heads a bit as well, with all his Venusuvian Aikido.

Colin Baker's Doctor was also pretty ruthless at times.

There's plenty of precident for this, actually.

Plus, I really don't think he "enjoyed" any of it. I don't see him being gleeful with the death of either House or the Silents (more just relieved the danger was past, if you ask me).

The Doctor has never exactly been Gandhi. He does what needs to be done to stop whatever needs to be stopped. Does that make him arrogant? Possibly. But he has a habit of being right in the end.
jhumor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 03:39pm on 19/05/2011
There was always some level of thought (or the companions stopping him and making him think).

Also, Venusuvian Aikido is more about self-defense than killing. If Eleven had punched the Silents out, fine. But out-right killing them? It doesn't sit well with me.

I don't expect people to agree with me. I usually hold to things that most people don't like: Love and Monsters - I don't think it was THAT bad. For what it was, I quite liked that episode (But then, I've always preferred Jackie to Rose :P)

I'm just trying to explain why I don't see it like everyone else. If this were a one-time thing, I wouldn't be pleased, but I could accept it. But this seems to be a direction that Moffett is taking Who that I am just not comfortable with at all. And to the Moff I have this to say: If there's a reason for it, fine, then give me a reason.
skywaterblue: (amy and the doctor)
posted by [personal profile] skywaterblue at 12:38am on 18/05/2011
No one says the TARDIS has to be merciful all the time. In fact, she is traditionally portrayed as a bit aggressive. I have no problem with her eating House.
jhumor: (8s console)
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 12:06pm on 18/05/2011
No, but you're kind of missing my point, which is that the Doctor is again telling others to kill. And it is a first option not a last. When she ate the Master, it was a tad accidental, since he fell into the Eye of Harmony. And it was after the Doctor had given the Master a chance.

The killing for killing's sake in this new series bothers me.
skywaterblue: (adventuring in time and space)
posted by [personal profile] skywaterblue at 03:50pm on 18/05/2011
I see. I am one of those people who don't think he ordered the complete genocide of the Silence, since they have spaceships. It's a big galaxy and they can leave.
telegramsam: Doctor Who in a library (5thdocbooks)
posted by [personal profile] telegramsam at 12:37pm on 19/05/2011
"It's a big galaxy and they can leave."

This. It's implied in the previous season that the Silents are on several planets, harassing several different species at different points in time.

I doubt they were all killed, or even most of them. They have the option of pulling up stakes and going off to find greener pastures, and probably did so.
jhumor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 03:34pm on 19/05/2011
It's implied in the previous season that the Silents are on several planets, harassing several different species at different points in time.

Can you cite your references, please? I admit that since I have not been impressed with Moff's era that I haven't watched most of the episodes more than twice. So, if it was there, I just want to know.
skywaterblue: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] skywaterblue at 04:28pm on 19/05/2011
Just off the top of my head:

We know the Silence killed Rosanna's people. We have a strong hint that they're behind the Alliance which imprisons the Doctor. River and the Doctor identify the technology in the suit as belonging to dozens of species. And that their underground TARDISes stretch across the entire planet.

Shooting twelve of them hardly seems like genocide when they clearly have an intergalactic empire.
jhumor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 03:32pm on 19/05/2011
As with so many things during Moff's time: We don't know that. It was never shown, never told to us. What we had was all the humans aiming guns at them and River going "GI Jane" all over them. Which leads me to believe that they are all being killed "You should kill us all on sight".
skywaterblue: (shakespeare)
posted by [personal profile] skywaterblue at 04:31pm on 19/05/2011
Let me be strong on this: we DO know. Moffat just didn't spell it out for you and you haven't been paying attention.
jhumor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 04:40pm on 19/05/2011
Rather than being a jerk about it... why don't you explain it?
skywaterblue: (Romana)
posted by [personal profile] skywaterblue at 05:50pm on 19/05/2011
I replied upthread to [personal profile] telegramsam.
ed_rex: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] ed_rex at 12:52pm on 18/05/2011
As I've posted elsewhere, Moffat's penchant for turning the Doctor into a killer who loves killing is a major problem for me.

But this time, I thought it worked. I didn't get the sense that the Doctor enjoyed killing House (or rather, enjoyed watching the TARDIS kill house), but rather that he was incredibly relieved that the TARDIS was able to survive.

It's a subtle difference in tone (as others have pointed out in reply to your post, the Doctor has always been willing to kill, what's weird with 11 is that he so often enjoys it), but I think Gaiman's script stays true to the spirit of Who, where Moffat keeps betraying it.

Similarly, I thought Rory's "death" scene for once, wasn't a cheat. Gaiman made sure we knew that Amy (and Rory) were being mentally tortured and so we weren't supposed to believe that Rory was dead, but only that Amy thought he was.

For the first time since "Vincent and the Doctor", I'm happy with an episode of Doctor Who!
jhumor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 01:05pm on 18/05/2011
Seeing as these are the only things I could see wrong with it, I think this was a very good episode. Like you, the first I've really enjoyed since Vincent and the Doctor.

My point, is that there are still those elements that seem to be obviously Moff's influence. And while the rest of you aren't bothered by it, I am within my right to continue to be.
evilawyer: young black-tailed prairie dog at SF Zoo (Default)
posted by [personal profile] evilawyer at 09:56pm on 18/05/2011
Your observation ties into something I'm writing, and I am curious --- Do you perceive Eleven as being more bloodthirsty about killing or simply killing more?
jhumor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 10:05pm on 18/05/2011
He kills about as much as he always did, so it's not that

I don't know that it's 'bloodthirsty'. Ten, Nine, Seven (Minus Skaro), even Six (and the rest) all had "What have I done" moments when it came to killing. Killing was always the last result and with Eleven it certainly appears to be a 'first choice'. And in "Day of the Moon" he certainly seems to enjoy blasting them all to bits.

I think what it reminds me of is a 11 year-old who just got the newest GI Joe (yah, dating myself - shush) action figure and is having all kinds of fun blowing up all the other action figures (and Barbie dolls) he can get his hands on.

I don't know what you call it when it's 'real' and quite a bit ooc for him.
evilawyer: young black-tailed prairie dog at SF Zoo (Default)
posted by [personal profile] evilawyer at 01:51am on 19/05/2011
Ah...G.I. Joe. We called them "dolls" and not "action figures" in my day, which means I'm carbon dating myself.
jhumor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 03:30pm on 19/05/2011
hahaha! So did we, I was trying to not date myself too much :P
owlboy: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] owlboy at 12:39pm on 19/05/2011
>>And in "Day of the Moon" he certainly seems to enjoy blasting them all to bits.

He did no such thing! River was the one shooting them o_O
jhumor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 03:21pm on 19/05/2011
He was shooting them with his sonic and seemed to rightly enjoy River's method of disposing of them.
owlboy: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] owlboy at 03:24pm on 19/05/2011
River rightly pointed out that his sonic was useless for defending them, then made a point of telling Rory that the Doctor would have been angry if he'd seen what she'd done. He wasn't even in the room when River dispatched all of them.
jhumor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 03:30pm on 19/05/2011
But he was in the room as it all began, and seemed to be having a bit of fun while she was killing them. I'm just saying, it seems quite out of character.
xtricks: color snail picture w/ xtricks (Default)
posted by [personal profile] xtricks at 10:44pm on 18/05/2011
Well, Nine is the only (nu) Doctor offhand I can think of who balked at killing people -- 10 wiped out the Rancoss and waved his hands and looked megalomaniac while he did it and he's allowed companions/events and circumstances to kill quite a few folks, as have many of the old Doctors as well.

Dr. Who isn't actually as light, fluffy and gentle as people seem to think and Eleven has made it clear from the beginning that pissing him off results in Very Bad Things.
jhumor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 10:51pm on 18/05/2011
Ten had his dark times. Yes. But if you noticed, there was usually a "What the hell have I done?" that accompanied it. Or a "Is every living creature about to be wiped out by you." Making it pretty obvious it was a 'lesser of two evils choice.

I've been watching DW for the past 30 years, so I know it's not light. It always asked the hard questions - and no simple solutions. I'm pretty aware that it's chuck full of dark-times. But the only time I recall the Doctor ENJOYING killing others was when Seven blew up Skaro. And even then, it was a bit of 'last resort.'

That's what bothers me: Eleven seems to LIKE and ENJOY it. That's just not the Doctor to me.
xtricks: He refused to let common sense cloud his judgement: Jack Harkness (Common_Jack)
posted by [personal profile] xtricks at 11:19pm on 18/05/2011
I guess I kind of feel that if a 900 year old super-genius alien that can travel time can't 'figure out' how to save x, y or z aliens from death there must be failure of will as well as failure of ability (plus, the writers like the angst).

As to 11s liking of that sort of thing ...11 very much seems to be a person determined not to regret, or angst or otherwise feel bad for actions he takes. After 10s over-the-top emo, I'm rather glad of that.

I've always seen the Doctor as a very morally gray person -- he's basically controlling human history and sometimes even to our detriment (Former Prime Minister Jones, for example -- remember, Nine said she'd bring about a new golden age and what is almost the first thing 10 does? Undermine her). There's a lot of thinky stuff about colonialism and gender relations and etc that goes on in Dr. Who and the Doctor is often on the not as sympathetic side of that as we might all wish.
jhumor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 03:28pm on 19/05/2011
But I'm not talking about any of those things. Yes, the Doctor has been morally 'grey' in some situations. But, where is the Doctor who debated about ending the Daleks when he had the chance (and ultimately deciding against genocide?) where is the Doctor who THOUGHT about his actions before making them? Where is the Doctor who thought about what impacts his actions might ultimately have? Being morally grey doesn't mean you never think things through.

And who's to say Nine and Ten weren't BOTH right about PM Jones? Remember, if it hadn't been for her, the sub-wave network would have never worked. I happen to think the Daleks invading Earth and England being the location of the sub-wave, might have lead to Jones leading in a Golden Age for England, don't you? Might not have been the way she expected, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
evilawyer: young black-tailed prairie dog at SF Zoo (Default)
posted by [personal profile] evilawyer at 01:54am on 19/05/2011
Oops...I meant to send this reply to you, but I can't tell who it went to from looking at my screen:

But if you noticed, there was usually a "What the hell have I done?" that accompanied it.

Also a matter of perception, both in terms of exactly what was being said/shown (was it "What the hell have I done?" or was it "What the hell just happened?") and why it was being felt in terms of external or internal direction (e.g. "I've done a terrible thing and I feel awful about that terrible thing because it caused harm to others" versus "I've done a terrible thing and I feel awful about that terrible thing because I was the one who did it and I don't having to admit to myself that I'm capable of doing terrible things").

Interesting point about Seven. I've always seen him as being more caught up in and loving the plotting and the game --- rather than loving the killing itself --- to the point of not caring about the killing at all. I find that even more disturbing than loving the killing frankly. Even so, the Doctor's always been a bit of a sociopath, which makes sense since that seems to be a trait of Time Lords when looked at through human sensibilities.

Ah, differing opinions and all their nuances. They are the spice of life! (And my hat goes off to everybody in this entire discussion thread for keeping it so polite and friendly. Can't say I see that elsewhere anymore. Sadly.)
jhumor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] jhumor at 03:48pm on 19/05/2011
Also a matter of perception, both in terms of exactly what was being said/shown (was it "What the hell have I done?" or was it "What the hell just happened?")

Specifically with regard to the Racnoss, David Tennant himself said it was a "What have I done" moment of realization.

As to the others, that is one of those personality traits that seems to shift slightly from incarnation to incarnation (and writer to writer). But then, when the Doctor was swinging more towards the realm of "screw it and kill them all", the companions typically stopped him - or at least begged him to think before he took action. They didn't encourage him - which River certainly does. And Amy and Rose to varying degrees do/did as well.

I still say that the Doctor's downward spiral started with Adric's death - but that's another discussion altogether :P
evilawyer: young black-tailed prairie dog at SF Zoo (Default)
posted by [personal profile] evilawyer at 01:41am on 20/05/2011
David Tennant himself said it was a "What have I done" moment of realization

Ah, well, if he says that he meant to do, then it I guess that what it was supposed to be. I'm a little different than many TV show fans ---- I never listen to or read anything but the most surficial comments by actors as to what they were trying to do (which is why I won't watch those Confidential things that are on the New Who DVDs, even though I love the commentaries and special features about the productions on the Classic Who DVDs). Trusting my own instinct isn't something easily shaken, not even for fun TV watching.

I do agree that there is a difference in Classic and New companions and precisely what they do in terms of acting as a catalyst or enabler for the Doctor. Classic companions largely did not, as their function was to be instructed by or serve as a sounding board for the Doctor. New Who companions quite often exert influence, though not necessarily consciously, on the Doctor to act or behave in particular ways. Maybe it's supposed to be because there are no other Time Lords (mostly), I don't know. Sometimes it and the companion doing it bother me ***cough, Rose, cough***, other times I don't find it so egregious. However, whatever it is, it does seem to be something RTD felt was necessary to put in and, (and not making apologies for Moff here, just stating what I see to be a fact) it can't be dropped now or legions of New Who fans will not tune in because they've never seen (or aren't inclined to look for character continuity between Classic and New) any Classic Doctors and don't want to get used to anything other than what they've been treated to since 2005.

Poor Adric! Not a good day for the Doctor, that was for sure. (Even worse for Adric!) Not sure if that's where it all started to spiral out of control for Five, but I agree that he started off positive in outlook and shifted to darker by the end of his run, so much so that he wasn't really equipped for it. Not dark like Seven or Eleven (who are equipped for it), but life caught up with him. (Which is a theme I've already visited in essay form for Nine and Ten as well as Five, hence my hankering to finish up on the one I'm working on now; whether it ever sees the light of my computer screen is another story).

May

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7 8
 
9
 
10 11
 
12
 
13
14 15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21 22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31