Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Doctor Who Companion Announced

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the hanging-out-with-the-doctor dept.

Sci-Fi 255

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

cancel ×

255 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Male companion (5, Interesting)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 2 years ago | (#39436643)

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

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

Re:Male companion (4, Insightful)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39436671)

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

Re:Male companion (4, Interesting)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 2 years ago | (#39436691)

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

Re:Male companion (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39437153)

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

Re:Male companion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39437783)

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

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

Re:Male companion (3, Insightful)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39436941)

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

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

Re:Male companion (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39437255)

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

Re:Male companion (5, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438097)

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

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

Re:Male companion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39438591)

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

Re:Male companion (3, Interesting)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39437311)

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

Re:Male companion (2)

Nutria (679911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438387)

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

Re:Male companion (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39437523)

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

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

Re:Male companion (3, Funny)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438143)

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

Re:Male companion (5, Informative)

JosKarith (757063) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438573)

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

Re:Male companion (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39437001)

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

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

Re:Male companion (4, Interesting)

owlnation (858981) | more than 2 years ago | (#39437019)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Male companion (5, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#39437107)

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

Re:Doctor Donna! (1)

TemplePilot (2035400) | more than 2 years ago | (#39437283)

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

Re:Doctor Donna! (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438215)

meh, Martha Jones...

Re:Male companion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39438753)

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

Re:Male companion (2)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#39437501)

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

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

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

Re:Male companion (-1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438095)

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

A person can be forgiven for implying Canada when they say US... Smaller population than some US states, and 90% of them within a few miles of the US border. Canada is largely thought of as "North Wisconsin".

Australia and New Zeland have small populations, throw Canada in there too, and it's still nowhere close to the US population. It's not surprising companies tailor their products to the largest available secondary market, and the US simply has 75% of all native english speakers.

The EU is big, but there's several different languages to accommodate. India is also huge, and officially English speaking, but language is likely to be an issue there, too.

Of course you can settle this quickly... if you've got some sources that cite the profits from Dr Who DVDs and syndication in the US, the EU, other commonweath countries, etc., then you can prove everyone's assumptions wrong, but I don't expect so.

Re:Male companion (4, Informative)

Baron_Yam (643147) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438627)

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

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

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

Re:Male companion (2)

dintech (998802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438691)

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

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

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

Re:Male companion (1, Funny)

Patchw0rk F0g (663145) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438699)

Canada is largely thought of as "North Wisconsin".

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

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

Re:Male companion (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438263)

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

Re:Male companion (3, Insightful)

Malc (1751) | more than 2 years ago | (#39437865)

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

Re:Male companion (3, Informative)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39437193)

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

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

Re:Male companion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39437309)

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

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

Re:Male companion (4, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438713)

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

Re:Male companion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39437379)

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

Re:Male companion (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438219)

It's Romanadvoratrelundar, loserboy earthling nerd.

Re:Male companion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39437421)

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

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

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

Re:Male companion (3, Interesting)

morari (1080535) | more than 2 years ago | (#39437793)

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

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

Re:Male companion (2)

CarbonShell (1313583) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438367)

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

Re:Male companion (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438725)

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

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

Re:Male companion (2)

evilviper (135110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438055)

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

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

Re:Male companion (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438059)

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

Re:Male companion (2)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438253)

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

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

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

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

Re:Male companion (1)

BigZee (769371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438477)

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

Re:Male companion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39438593)

I vote for Hugh Laurie [wikipedia.org] . It would be freaking awesome :D

Hot stuff! (1)

blind monkey 3 (773904) | more than 2 years ago | (#39436651)

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

Too Bad (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39436655)

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

Re:Too Bad (5, Interesting)

apharmdq (219181) | more than 2 years ago | (#39436749)

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

Re:Too Bad (5, Interesting)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#39437615)

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

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

Re:Too Bad (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438731)

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

Re:Too Bad (2)

skine (1524819) | more than 2 years ago | (#39437299)

Tennant was a theatrical doctor.

Which really should be considered a contradiction in character.

Re:Too Bad (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438273)

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

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

Re:Too Bad (2)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438391)

My wife is still pissed Tennant left.

I'm actually excited (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39436663)

should be fun to see someone new

Lucky Doctor (2)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 2 years ago | (#39436723)

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

Re:Lucky Doctor (4, Funny)

pseudofrog (570061) | more than 2 years ago | (#39436739)

I still miss Donna.

Are those torches I see over the horizon?

Re:Lucky Doctor (4, Insightful)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 2 years ago | (#39436845)

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

Re:Lucky Doctor (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438735)

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

Re:Lucky Doctor (4, Insightful)

FPhlyer (14433) | more than 2 years ago | (#39436881)

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

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

Donna and the Darleks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39438173)

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

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

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

Re:Lucky Doctor (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 2 years ago | (#39437009)

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

Re:Lucky Doctor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39437381)

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

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

  • our daughter

, she'll turn up eventually. huh?

Re:Lucky Doctor (2)

SilverJets (131916) | more than 2 years ago | (#39437639)

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

Re:Lucky Doctor (2)

type40 (310531) | more than 2 years ago | (#39437087)

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

Re:Lucky Doctor (4, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#39436957)

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

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

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

Now, for you slightly more normal readers... here is her IMDB page [imdb.com] .

Re:Lucky Doctor (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39437725)

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

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

Re:Lucky Doctor (3, Insightful)

cyclomedia (882859) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438461)

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

Re:Lucky Doctor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39438727)

she sucked worse than Tulisa did

Re:Lucky Doctor (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438755)

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

I hate to say it... (4, Interesting)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#39436811)

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

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

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

Re:I hate to say it... (5, Interesting)

FPhlyer (14433) | more than 2 years ago | (#39436965)

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

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

Re:I hate to say it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39437151)

Predestination paradoxes.

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

Re:I hate to say it... (2)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39437389)

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

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

Re:I hate to say it... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39437183)

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

Re:I hate to say it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39437475)

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

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

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

Grandfather paradox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39437695)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:I hate to say it... (1)

guttentag (313541) | more than 2 years ago | (#39437199)

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

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

Best Dr Who ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39437541)

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

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

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

Re:Best Dr Who ever (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438657)

he gave us plot threads that ran a whole series

...but went nowhere.

and characters with depth

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

and less men in rubber suits.

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

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

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

too much change! (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39436851)

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

Re:too much change! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39436929)

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

Re:too much change! (2)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 2 years ago | (#39437197)

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

Don't care until it is on Netflix (4, Interesting)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 2 years ago | (#39436873)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix (5, Funny)

pseudofrog (570061) | more than 2 years ago | (#39436919)

I "agree".

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39436961)

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

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39437323)

"This"

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39437357)

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

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

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

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39437705)

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

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix (1, Interesting)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438167)

Voyager was better than TOS.

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix (2)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#39437811)

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

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

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

Re:Don't care until it is on Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39438625)

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

New Doctor Who Companion Announced? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39436955)

So it has come to this.

I dislike the whole premise of the show. (4, Insightful)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39437263)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:I dislike the whole premise of the show. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39437453)

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

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

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

Re:I dislike the whole premise of the show. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39437463)

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

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

Re:I dislike the whole premise of the show. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39438093)

It's an inner child thing.

Re:I dislike the whole premise of the show. (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438413)

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

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

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

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

Re:I dislike the whole premise of the show. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39438517)

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

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

Hmmm... (1)

Panaflex (13191) | more than 2 years ago | (#39437507)

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

What is Doctor Who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39437681)

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

Spoilers (1)

areander (953182) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438233)

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

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

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

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

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

can't we just have interesting characters? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39438397)

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

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

she's hot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39438423)

an that's all that really matters...

Who cares about Doctor Who? (2, Funny)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39438571)

Answer the question we all want to know:

When is The Amy Pond Show coming back?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?