Doctor Who [10]

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Not quite Blue- we have had dont blink, dont breath and dont think. But then in RTD era we had a repetition of ideas too. Companions who love the Doctor romantically? Check. Homosexual references in every other episode? Check. How often do we get the Doctor presented as a god- Oncoming Storm? The Fury of the Time Lord? The Lonely God. His Jesus turn rising up on the prayers of the world? The universe singing him to his death? Check.
They are all the same idea repeated in slightly different ways.
Moffat likes to play on basic primordial fears- the thing you cant quite see out the corner of your eye, the footstep behind you when no-one is there ect. Like RTD they are one idea utilised in different ways.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:So its ok for the original showrunners to create reoccuring monsters- but its banned for new showrunners. Thats silly. Just because it was a long time ago doesnt change anything- how do daleks and cybermen get to become iconic if you limit every monster to a single appearance? That doesnt make any sense.

'He brought Davros back and that was fantastic.'

The scene with Davros and the Doctor was excellent- the rest of that two parter- rather not thanks.

'Moffat has so many new monsters that they all blend into each other after a bit'

Even non Who fans are aware of the Weeping Angels, they caught the imagination and they caught on big style- I would say that was the mark of a successful monster. Which new monsters did RTD create that had a similar impact? None.

Apart from inventing super successful spin-off series of course.

'I am talking about the main female companions mainly'

No you are talking only about the ones you want to talk about and conveniently ignoring everyone else.
Why would a sexist writer write the female characters he just did in Last Christmas- why would he put the woman in charge? Why would he only kill off the male character and none of the women? Why would he write an episode with more female characters than male?
Why would he be so keen to try to get female writers,directors on board. Why would he have a female producer?
Your assertion about his sexism doesn't stand up to the actual facts- they just don't gel with the reality.

fan-service really. the added the Brigs daughter purely for fan-service, so he could squeeze in more derivatory stuff. and she was pretty useless. he did kill off a female character, he killed Osgood. He might say he is keen to get female writers but the result is strangely, zero, and you cant tell me all the female writers in the UK are unavailable? cos that's ludicrous. He probably got this new female director in to boost flagging storylines because he is all out of ideas. and it shows.

'he knows they are normal humans'

No he doesn't thats the whole point- Clara he has met twice before in different time zones and she died both times- not much normal about that. He suspects she is a trap -

CLARA: If you don't have a plan, we're dead.
DOCTOR: Yes, we are. So just tell me.
CLARA: Tell you what?
DOCTOR: Well, there's no point now. We're about to die. Just tell me who you are.
CLARA: You know who I am.
DOCTOR: No, I don't. I look at you every single day and I don't understand a thing about you. Why do I keep running into you?
CLARA: Doctor, you invited me. You said
DOCTOR: Before that. I met you in the Dalek Asylum. There was a girl in a shipwreck and she died saving my life, and she was you.
CLARA: She really wasn't.
DOCTOR: Victorian London. There was a governess who was really a barmaid, and we fought the Great Intelligence together. She died and it was my fault, and she was you.
CLARA: You're scaring me.
DOCTOR: What are you, eh? Are you a trick, a trap?

so let me get this straight. A TIME TRAVELLING Doctor cant go IN THE FUTURE, and find out WHO SHE REALLY IS? it would take him 5 minutes max.

So no, there is nothing creepy in him using his timemachine to go back in her life to make sure she is who she claims to be.

'she even breaks her bones or lets him do it, which is shocking.'

Her doing that has nothing to do with the Doctor- it sets up the importance of the rule that once you know an event from the future it cant be altered. The reason for her having to break her own wrist to escape is because Amy read ahead in the book and read thats what happened, for it not to now occur would cause a paradox- and causing a paradox is the main plot point of the episode- its there to set up the ending.
It has nothing to do with the Doctor at all. Its Amy's fault. He in fact is very annoyed at Amy for causing the situation.

its just more sadistic pleasure in pain.

RIVER: Well, I need a hand back, so which is it going to be? Are you going to break my wrist or hers? Oh, no. Really? Why do you have to break mine?
DOCTOR: Because Amy read it in a book, and now I have no choice.
(Amy is standing in the doorway.)
DOCTOR: You see?

'He also lies to them a lot'

The Doctor has always lied, always. He nearly always knows more than he lets on, right back to the first Doctor when he lied in the very second episode about caving in someones head, or when he lies about needing mercury for the fluid link just so he can investigate the Dalek city- he has always been a liar. In fact the very first time we meet the Doctor in an Unearthly Child he is lying through is teeth about Susan.

he has never lied to a woman in a despicable way before, its one thing lying to save the world and quite another to lie because he is curious about what it means. TO HIM. it was a selfish lie, a cowardly lie, and not the thing that true friends do to each other. but Amy and Clara exist only to save him in the future, that's why he stalks them as kids, probably knows that they are useful tools.

'her job. Doctor stalker.'

Her job is an archeologist. Its what she is doing when we meet her on most occasions- and she does it all the time- yet she only calls in the Doctor four times in her entire career that we have seen so far.

nope she is an archaeologist to 'meet a man'.

'probably knows that the Doctor prefers younger women by now. and discards older versions of themselves as not being 'real' enough.'

That simply flies in the face of all the evidence- his marriage to River, how much he clearly cares for her, what she means to him and the time they do spend together.

RIVER: How are you even doing that? I'm not really here.
DOCTOR: You are always here to me. And I always listen, and I can always see you.
RIVER: Then why didn't you speak to me?
DOCTOR: Because I thought it would hurt too much.
RIVER: I believe I could have coped.
DOCTOR: No, I thought it would hurt me. And I was right.
(The Doctor kisses River.)

he doesn't seem to care for her, he always seems to be on the verge of backing off when she lunges at him and smarmes all over him. he keeps her on a tight leash. the Doctor loving River just doesn't ring true, its false and creepy and all coming from her.

Yup sound slike he hates older woman to me!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The homosexual agenda in RTD era is well established and admitted by the man himself- its not exactly a secret or subtle.  So in a conversation about showrunners repeating personal tropes during their tenor its completely valid

you seem to think homosexuality is a bad thing, so often you criticize RTD for including it. its not an agenda and its not shoved down your throat like Vastras tongue down Jenny

But on the subject I would compare the two on the basis of promiscuousness- the portrayal of homosexuality in RTD era is nearly always as a promiscuous life style- Jack's a good example, he sleeps with anything and anyone, but where are the couples? When do we ever see the portrayal of a stable long term relationships? Where are the married gay couples?

yet again with the judging. Jack is quite a liberated character, that's why people respond to him in a positive way


Vastra and Jenny and married. The two gay soldiers are married within their religion- and its also a commentary on religion of course. And Canton is the most realistic portrayal of homosexuality in a character in Who in my opinion, its not a big deal, it doesn't inform what he does or who he is, he just happens to be gay, and again his main problem is that he lives at a time when he cant marry the person he loves- and its marriage he wants.
In many ways Moffat is more conservative than RTD on homosexuality (and bringing sex into the show in general) and in my view presents it in a better light.

Moffat brings sex through the backdoor which is ironic. RTD has a far more healthy outlook. Vastra and Jenny? yeah Jenny is the 'little wifey' Vastra the 'husband' the head of the household. They are as stereotypical as any hetero couple. Jenny is even seen as a kind of servant servicing her mistress. nice.

The Doctor grandstanding is not at all the same as presenting him as the messiah, or giving him godlike titles like the Lonely God, or having him rise up on the prayers of the people of earth, its not even close and not at all comparable.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Yeah but my handbags bigger (never thought I'd say that!)


'The implication is that there is something not right about it instead of thinking its inclusive and modern, you think they are trying to preach gay rights against your will. plus its really subtle, its hardly Julian Clary pinching bums with leather chaps on and Jack doesn't screech that his mascara is running as he minces down a corridor. srsly'- Figg

Its not about being inclusive, I was talking about how each showrunner chooses to portray a gay lifestyle- Moffat presents it as equal to straight marriage- his gay characters are married, or trying to get married.
We never see a married gay couple in RTD era, his gay characters are promiscuous- even the old gay guy in the episode where the pensioners who try to track down the Doctor with Wilfrid is somewhat predatory in his presentation.
When WHo does deal with these issues it should reflect the struggles of social issues in our society- and I dont find RTD's presentation does that- it doesn't help.

I find your argument specious, RDT did have a policy of including gay people but it was so subtle blink and you miss it. It was never done just for effect and to cause controversy as the lesbian lizard kiss was. I can just imagine Moffat at a meeting asking them for something 'naughty'. yuck.

The other thing here is your own hypocrisy, you said above- 'its not shoved down your throat like Vastras tongue down Jenny'

For a start Vastra and Jenny have never kissed on screen- the closest its come was in Deep Breath when Vastra shared her spare oxygen with Jenny- and even that sadly got some complaints to the BBC- yet scenes like this can be found in RTD era-

ha ha nice try the lizard kiss was blatantly done for shock value, it was in the news it was so unsubtle. I also find your conservative views about gay people a bit worrying, ie they have to be married to be respectable, like its ok for them to have sex if its sanctified by an institution. do you even object to a man kissing another goodbye? because there was no sexual overtones there, it was simply a kiss of farewell.



at all- merely pointing out how hypocritical you are being. Same goes for the whole thing about the Doctor kissing River, when compared to RTD era and how often the Doctor kisses people or gets kissed by people it pales into insignificance-

I don't have a problem with the kiss either. If it was genuine, but its there to create a media buzz, its a marketing ploy. Jack Harkness being promiscuous?, because that wasn't his defining characteristic in Who, he was there to be a swashbuckling anti-Doctor, the eventual Face of Bo, and a time travelling adventurer and ally of the Doctor. He was so much more than your narrow view of him.Thats why he always tops the best companion charts along with Rose.



And again in Moffat era Who the Doctor kissing River is part of a long term relationship that culminates in marriage. Its not just flirting, or played for laughs, or played for shock value.

'you used it as a negative'

No I didnt, the only issues I have with it is how RTD choose to portray gay relationships as lacking stability and the way he shoehorned gay characters into episodes in a clumsy fashion just to have a gay character there.

like shoehorning in lesbian lizards you mean? actually that couple is so stereotypically hetero they might as well as not bothered. and as for the cringeworthy soldiers well  nuff said. that was embarrassing to watch it was so arbitrary.

'gays can only have sex if they are married. pshaw! come on dude its the 21st century.'

Yes it is the 21st century- in which homosexuals are fighting world wide for the equal right to marriage and fighting the image that the gay lifestyle is one of promiscuousness. And I don't think RTD's portrayal of gay life as solely promiscuous is very useful in that respect.

you seem to have no problem in judging Jacks lifestyle as being somehow wrong, you call him promiscuous with absolutely no evidence to back that up. Torchwood is another matter, but he is shown as having affairs and a pretty normal lifestyle for a hetero man let alone a gay one. tell me do gay men have to be monks? surely they can have sex when they want with who they want without being labelled promiscuous.

'its pretty chaste and innocent, because its a kids show remember.'

Its not a kids show its a family show, which is slightly different. But what I am highlighting is your hypocrisy on the matter. You condemn Moffat for sexualisation but ignore the huge amount of sexual references in the RTD era. There are no anecdotes about having threesomes in Moffat era Who.

show me the overtly sexual scenes in RTD. go on show me. because they don't exist that why.

Take these scenes for example (quality is rubbish but only version I could find on youtube of the scene where Rose feels herself up and bounces up and down to see how much her tits jiggle before commenting on it)



that's coming from your fevered imagination methinks because that's not Rose, its that 2 dimensional woman who has taken over Roses body, but the sound has conveniently been erased by noise. because it shows that its not Rose talking but still just look at the cringeworthy sexual innuendo here



or here where Amy gets her leg over whilst writhing on a bed. On a childrens tv show.



Nefertiti gagging for it. yes that's right another powerful female ruler who turns into a sex mad groupie, like Elizabeth 1. Moffat cant resist stripping off all dignity and agency when it comes to powerful female rulers. they are turned into bimbos, lessened, made non threatening, because strong women scare him, he likes the dominatrix because of his twisted attitude, but real historical women he cant abide, he degrades them. its funny real male rulers such as Churchill are never seen as sex mad. because it would be preposterous, as preposterous as Elizabeth 1 wanting to marry the Doctor.



or the scene where she kisses the Doctor-



Now I dont have a problem with this sort of stuff in Who- but you complain like nobodies business when something like it happens in Moffat era and forget all about the fact it was much more prominent in RTD era.

Heres a vid of every time the Doctor has kissed a companion- for RTD era there are 10 examples of it, for 11 there are 7 and 3 of them are with River his wife, and two of them are not really kissing- Rory and Craig-





'he certainly put it around in Torchwood, but that's more adult tv anyway.'

And in Who, from sleeping with his jailers to trying to crack on to everyone he meets, to the Doctor setting him up with the guy of the Titanic.

'the messiah bit came in with Smiths Doctor.'

That's risible. Oncoming Storm, The Lonely God, the Doctor who rises up on the prayers of a planet, the Time Lord Victorious, the man who can trap people in every mirror everywhere for all eternity, the list goes on of times in RTD era when the Doctor is portrayed as being godlike.
It certainly didn't start in the Moffat era, in fact its been played down there with only one direct references to it in the entire Moffat run so far (In Angels Take Manhattan when River says 'When one's in love with an ageless god who insists on the face of a twelve year old, one does one's best to hide the damage.')
You are confusing the Doctor making bombastic speeches with RTD's claims of his godhood in deed and action. Lots of the Doctors regens have been prone to the big speech- 4 was quite keen on them, and 6 and 7. But it had nothing to do with him being some sort of God. He just likes making big grand speeches.

Moffats Doctor has the power to turn all humanity into killers of an entire species without their knowledge. if that's not godlike powers

no pretty embarrassingly bombastic actually.
Unless you are claiming that 4's speech about humanity, or 6's tirade against Time Lord ethics equate to the Doctor rising up on the power of prayer and being given God like titles- and I really don't see how those two things equate.
Its highly unlikely Moffat is going to promote the Doctor as God idea when religion in his version is usually there to be questioned and satirised.
Take the leader of the Cleric soldiers in Angels - where there are criticisms of the Church and the implication that in the future they go back to being a military as well as a spiritual force-

DOCTOR: Lovely species, the Aplans. We should visit them some time.
AMY: I thought they were all dead?
DOCTOR: So is Virginia Woolf. I'm on her bowling team. Very relaxed, sort of cheerful. Well, that's having two heads, of course. You're never short of a snog with an extra head.
RIVER: Doctor, there's something. I don't know what it is.
DOCTOR: Yeah, there's something wrong. Don't know what it is yet, either. Working on it. Of course, then they started having laws against self-marrying. I mean, what was that about? But that's the Church for you. Er, no offence, Bishop.
OCTAVIAN: Quite a lot taken, if that's all right, Doctor.

and then look also in the same episode at how the religious people turn that round on the Doctor and question his ethics -

DOCTOR: Sorry, but there's no way we could have rescued your men.
OCTAVIAN: I know that, sir. And when you've flown away in your little blue box, I'll explain that to their families.

Or the Headless Monks, a religious order of such zealots they literally don't need a head to think with any more.

Or 11's big speech about a would be God -



or his anti-religous speech about the nature of sacrifice in the same episode-

DOCTOR: It's not a god. It'll feed on your soul, but that doesn't make it a god. It is a vampire, and you don't need to give yourself to it. Hey, do you mind if I tell you a story? One you might not have heard. All the elements in your body were forged many, many millions of years ago, in the heart of a far away star that exploded and died. That explosion scattered those elements across the desolations of deep space. After so, so many millions of years, these elements came together to form new stars and new planets. And on and on it went. The elements came together and burst apart, forming shoes and ships and sealing wax, and cabbages and kings. Until eventually, they came together to make you. You are unique in the universe. There is only one Merry Gejelh. And there will never be another. Getting rid of that existence isn't a sacrifice. It is a waste.

So the idea Moffat invented the idea or presents his Doctor in the same godlike light that RTD did is ridiculous. Moffats approach to god and religion in the show is completely different and much more condemning than in RTD.

RTDs Doctor listens to his companions, when he decides someones fate Donna will say its wrong and he listens to her, respects her views and realises that's what a companion does for him. Moffats Doctor is told he is wonderful and godlike by River every time she meets him, she never questions him and tells others that the Doctor is pretty much infallible and to just trust him. this sounds a bit like religious fundamentalism to me. River Song views the Doctor as a god, she treats him like a god, and he acts like a god, he can decide when to tell a woman she is pregnant, he can decide to abandon a beloved companion because he can, he can kill, he can destroy without any of his companions stopping him

Pettytyrant101 wrote: RDT did have a policy of including gay people but it was so subtle blink and you miss it.- Figg

I didn't find it subtle at all, I found it was often forced and that characters who were gay seemed to have an odd habit of announcing it about themselves within a few minutes of meeting them. I don't know anyone who does that about their sexuality.
Compare that to say Canton, who we first only know was sacked from Nixons White House because of his relationship with someone, we then find out he wanted to marry the person, then we find out the person in question is black (playing into the racism prevalent in the Nixon White House) and then finally we find out the person is a man. But it takes two episodes to get to that bit of information, and meanwhile Canton doesn't spend the time making innuendos, sexual comments, or mincing. He is just an ordinary person.
I find that a much more realistic portrayal of someone who is gay than the forced RTD version.

actually I find Canton to be pure pandering. his boyfriend was gay AND Black, did he have one leg as well? you seem to be very selective and hypocritical when it comes to gay characters. Those two gay soldiers did a LOT of comedy mincing, they were so stereotypically queer they didn't need to mention it in the first two seconds. But they did.  'we are the fat thin married marines' so that blows your argument out the water.

'It was never done just for effect'

You just said in your own words-  'RDT did have a policy of including gay people'

If it was a policy then it was done for effect. And RTD has admitted he deliberately wanted to include gay characters- and that I have no problem with, but the quantity and quality of the characters he introduced as gay I do have an issue with. I don't think they were well written by and large, at least not their sexuality and for a period everywhere the Doctor goes someone is gay, and unnaturally announcing it.

no it was done for the right reasons, its only Moffat who uses gay issues as padding. Jacks sexuality was a pretty revolutionary thing for English tv to allude to, Moffats gays are lipservice.

'ha ha nice try the lizard kiss was blatantly done for shock value'

I dont agree at all- it served a story purpose, and Moffat knew it would be controversial so gave a secondary plot reason for it- the sharing of oxygen- I was disappointed in that and said so at the time- had it been a heterosexual couple kissing each other because they thought they were about to die no other excuse would be needed and no one would have raised an eyebrow.
The fact there will still some complaints about a same sex kiss (same as there were complaints made during the RTD years) shows that there is still, sadly, a a sizable resistance to portraying same sex couples on family television.
So I don't agree at all it was done to create controversy, the very fact Moffat and the BBC felt another reason for it had to be given rather than it just being a passionate kiss shows that they were concerned not to cause controversy- if they had wanted controversy there would have been no secondary excuse for the kiss.

'like shoehorning in lesbian lizards you mean?'

When I said shoehorning I was referring to RTD's tendency to just make random characters gay in one of episodes, thats what I mean by shoehorning in- I wouldn't count Jack as shoehorned in for example as he is a recurring established character- but many of the other one off, say they are gay for no reason other than promoting that agenda characters do feel shoehorned in just for the sake of having  a gay character.
Vastra and Jenny,like Jack, are not shoehorned in because they are long serving, recurring, developed character

Random. like having two gay characters shoehorned in just for exposition. they were plonked in with no reason other than to poke fun at stereotypical gay characteristics, ie funny voices and mincing.

'you seem to have no problem in judging Jacks lifestyle as being somehow wrong, you call him promiscuous with absolutely no evidence to back that up'

There is plenty of evidence of Jacks promiscuous-  he is trying to hit on Rose whilst at the same time he is trying to hit on Algy (and seems to have had some success there) for example. We never once see him a relationship, we only ever see him trying to chat up people and get them into bed.

judging again.

'tell me do gay men have to be monks? surely they can have sex when they want with who they want without being labelled promiscuous.'

The issue is not can they, but should they presented in a Who as only having a promiscuous life style.
The gay community has for years being trying to fight the image that gay= promiscuous. A stick often used to beat the gay movement with by its opponents. So yeah, I don't think RTD presenting homosexual characters as solely single and trying to sleep with anything that moves and never in a stable relationship is not helpful to the cause. It plays directly into  the hands of those who would like to portray all gays as being promiscuous. There is no counter balance in RTD to that portrayal.

so Moffat showing ALL gay couples as being married suddenly makes things legit? what a lazy way of being politically correct. how safe, that gives him the get out of jail card to use them in stereotypical ways because they have a ring on. Jack was controversial because it showed a gay man who lived by his own rules and not the rules of conservative people.


'show me the overtly sexual scenes in RTD. go on show me. because they don't exist that why.'

They do exist- there is one right there in the post.

'that's coming from your fevered imagination methinks because that's not Rose, its that 2 dimensional woman who has taken over Roses body'

No its not my imagination, she clearly feels her body up and down, she clearly leaps up to see it jiggle and at the end of that clip she is caressing her own arse in a sexual manner.
That Rose is possessed makes no difference, its just an excuse to allow the viewer to be sexually titillated by Roses body. There was no need for her do that just because she is possessed beyond titillation.

hardly tittilation, its a bit of harmless seaside humour. only a prude would think it shocking

'but still just look at the cringeworthy sexual innuendo here'

Yes there is sexual innuendo in that- because its not from any episode- its a sketch written for Comic Relief and has to be taken in the context it was meant for- which was not a teatime family slot.

so kids wont be watching that I suppose? I think children watch comic relief, and there is their Doctor engaging in threesome jokes. nice.


'here where Amy gets her leg over whilst writhing on a bed.'

She doesn't get her leg over, she fails to get her leg over because the Doctor is horrified at the very idea- unlike 10 who couldn't wait to get his tongue down Rose's throat.

this is just rank hypocracy and you know it. the evidence is there in front of you.

11 reacts like how the Doctor should react to an advance  from  a 20 year old human- with disbelief, shock and with no desire for it to be happening. And he immediately puts an end to it and it never happens again.
10 is just morally wrong in what he does.
And its also very underhanded and misrepresentative of you to pick a clip of it in slow motion, it was not in slow motion in the episode and lasts a fraction of the time.

its evidence. you may not like it, but that's what happened.

'yes that's right another powerful female ruler who turns into a sex mad groupie, like Elizabeth 1....because it would be preposterous, as preposterous as Elizabeth 1 wanting to marry the Doctor.'

Firstly Elizabeth the 1st marrying the Doctor is from RTD not Moffat era - Moffat just took the opportunity to actually show it. It first comes up at the end of the Shakespeare Code with 10 and Martha.

that is one of the lamest excuses yet.

And whilst Nefrettiti is threatened with rape she is the one who overcomes her aggressors and she frees herself without needing the help of anyone else.
Also the threat Solomon presents has to be severe and awful enough to justify the Doctor sentencing him to death at the end, something he rarely does. So as I said at the time I think the threat is justified in the script.
Had she simply being weak and passive I would agree with you, but she is not presented that way at all.

so they used a rape threat as a plot device, it just gets better and better.

'Moffats Doctor has the power to turn all humanity into killers of an entire species without their knowledge'

No he doesn't. He just uses the Silence own power against them- a central pillar of how the Doctor acts and always has done as empahsised by Clara in Flatline-

'Rule number one of being the Doctor. Use your enemy's power against them.'

'pretty embarrassingly bombastic actually'

You might say so, I find the speeches rousing and often moving, in particular the Akenaten speech- but thats not the point, your original claim was not that it was bombastic but that it was the same as 10 being called The Oncoming Storm, a Lonely God and rising up on the prayers of a whole planet- its not.


'RTDs Doctor listens to his companions'

We only have to go back to the last series and 12 and Clara to see him listening to her. Listen is a good example-

The Doctor: Where are we? Have we moved? Where have we landed?
Clara: Don't look where we are. Take off and promise me you will never look where we've been.
The Doctor: Why?
Clara: Just take off, don't ask questions.
The Doctor: I don't take orders, Clara.
Clara: Do as you're told.

And of course he does exactly as he is told by Clara and leaves without further question completely trusting in her judgement.

this is ridiculous. firstly this happened at least once, max. its more like the Doctor is allowing a brattish child to have her own way, he just lets her have her own way in case she has a hissy fit. He doesn't ask for any more information, he doesn't know why, and he doesn't care to find out. When Donna or Rose asked him to do something there was a damn good reason, which they would explain, he would understand, and therefore grow and learn. just telling him to do something, or else, really doesn't count.


'Moffats Doctor is told he is wonderful and godlike by River every time she meets him, she never questions him and tells others that the Doctor is pretty much infallible and to just trust him. '

Well thats a pile of invented nonsense easily disproved in one speech-

don't think so. River tells Amy to basically put up and shut up because the Doctor is an all knowing super being. she says all the assistants have to do is trust him. yeah right.

'This was exactly you. All this. All of it! You make them so afraid. When you began all those years ago, sailing off to see the universe, did you ever think you'd become this? The man who can turn an army around at the mention of his name. "Doctor": the word for "healer" and "wise man", throughout the universe. We get that word from you, y'know. But if you carry on the way you are, what might that word come to mean? To the people of the Gamma Forests, the word "doctor" means "mighty warrior". How far you've come. And now they've taken a child, the child of your best friends, and they're going to turn her into a weapon, just to bring you down. And all this, my love, in fear of you. '

cant be bothered trawling the internet for examples but I stick to my opinion. Moffat had the Doctor as the centre of the universe, he is an unpleasant little god.

'he can decide when to tell a woman she is pregnant'

No he doesn't decide, he doesn't know what is going on and its not until the Flesh two parter he works it all out, at which point he tells both her and Rory what is going on.

how nice of him

'he can decide to abandon a beloved companion because he can'

This is so out there I cant even work out what its supposed to be in reference too.


''he can kill.....he can destroy without any of his companions stopping him'

JEX: No!
(The Doctor pushes Jex along the street.)
DOCTOR: Go on.
(The townsfolk follow Isaac to see the Doctor push Jex over the boundary.)
DOCTOR: Get over, and don't come back.
(The Doctor takes a gun from a man's holster and points it at Jex as he tries to return.)
JEX: You wouldn't.
DOCTOR: I genuinely don't know.
ISAAC: Doctor. Doctor.
(Amy gets another gun and fires in the air.)
AMY: Let him come back, Doctor.
DOCTOR: Or what? You won't shoot me, Amy.
AMY: How do you know? Maybe I've changed. I mean, you've clearly been taking stupid lessons since I saw you last.....
...DOCTOR: We can end this right now. We could save everyone right now.
AMY: This is not how we roll, and you know it. What happened to you, Doctor? When did killing someone become an option?

azriel wrote:Brilliant pictures there, love 'em Great aren't they? Some really talented people on Deviantart there is plenty more I could post but the search function isn't too user friendly...
Am also enjoying the cut & thrust of this 'debate' between Petty & the figgster I was, but I've kinda lost track of things (though I'm more inclined to support Figgs, I'm not a massive fan of RTD's but I think Moffat's flaws (or at least the way he approaches the series) are more open to debate

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Malick- like those, well except the dodgy looking 10 one, and of course the Doctor snogging Rose!   Particularly like the War Doctor one.  

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
If you look back through my posts you will find a vid showing every snog of the Doctor 10 and 11- 10 has 10 funnily enough, 11 has 7- 3 of them with River and two aren't really kisses- Craig is one, they don't actually kiss and it just to distract him from seeing the cybermen, an the other is when he gleefully kisses Rory in Dinosaurs for having a good idea. Whch means other than his wife 11 actually only kisses 2 other people. And one of them is Clara, and she kisses him.
There is no doubt which Doctor does more snogging- its 10 every time.

My mistake, I guess that's what you get for mostly skipping a doctors tenure and relying on elements of the fanbases recollection of things, I suppose I'm biased though, 10 looked (and acted) more like a kissy Doctor, so when 11 did it it seemed more out of character

'in the first one he looks about 25, must have been a bloody long war...'

In Night of the Doctor when 8 regens and you see the reflection of the War Doctor they use a young image of Hurt, so he did fight in the war for decades, possibly centuriesThe concept of a timewar kinda throws the idea of a straight time progression out of the window for me personally, how would the Doctor keep track of his age? (maybe that could explain the discrepancy between Classic and New Who? He resets his age to Zero when he becomes 'War' and rounds things up to 800 on a guess?). As much as I like the idea of (hearing most likely) more Hurt, it's probably best left as a mystery I suppose though