All New Who

Nope. You are the one who can't see it, so you are the one who has to practice opening your eyes.

{{ Come off it that's silly- that like me telling someone I don't like PJ's LotR's an when they ask why replying 'go watch them yourselves and guess what my arguments are'- it seems far more likely to me that your reluctance to back up your claim with evidence, argument, or even the ability to point at any one episode and say 'there' tells me its far more a product of your Moffat-hate than it is any rational argument that can actually be debated.
Please though, prove me wrong, Id love to properly debate the issue with you, but first you have to come up with something that can actually be debated and not just a vague and undefined personal assertion insisted upon.}}

I don't even see how this is a subject for a debate. It's not hard to both compare and contrast any two companions you choose, male or female, new or old Who. There are obvious similarities and obvious differences with each of them.

So then does the debate come down to arguing about whether the similarities are somehow more or less important than the differences? Since that's purely subjective, that's a personal thing and any debate would eventually degenerate to "You're wrong because I say so." {{{ as it has once or twice before....}}}

{{{problem here Dave is I dont even understand the subject of the debate. I said earlier that all companions by definition have to have certain character traits- plucky, brave at a pinch, resilient, good initiative ect but beyond that comparing Rose and Clara, or Rose and Donna, or Amy and Martha is comparing apples and pears- I don't see what there is in Clara's personality or character that is Moffat 'doing a Rose'- they seem nothing alike to me in either character, personality, relationships and story arc- if Amarie could at least point out what these similarities are, which episodes or where in the plot they occur I would at least have some hope of seeing where she is coming from- as it is I haven't a clue what she is on about as she has so far not provided any of that information.}}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{{ I said earlier that all companions by definition have to have certain character traits- plucky, brave at a pinch, resilient, good initiative ect }}}

OK, that's a list of strengths. That's a good start!
Now then, all companion have some weakness or weaknesses too, or they wouldn't be well-written characters. Can you think of a list of a few of those?

{{{Of course I can, but I fail to see what that has to do with Amarie's claim that Clara is Moffat rewriting Rose. If its something obvious to the rest of you I would appreciate it if you would just say it rather than asking me to jump through a lot of hoops and play stupid bloody games trying to guess what you are on about}}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{{Of course I can, but I fail to see what that has to do with Amarie's claim that Clara is Moffat rewriting Rose. If its something obvious to the rest of you I would appreciate it if you would just say it rather than asking me to jump through a lot of hoops and play stupid bloody games trying to guess what you are on about}}}

Amarie's claim? That sounds suspiciously like she's on trial.  
If I recall correctly it was Amarie's opinion, and I think the obvious thing you're missing is that she doesn't seem to see the point of jumping through hoops and playing what you call "stupid bloody games" any more than you do, so at the very least you two agree on that much.

Edit: Yep. I went back and checked. She clearly labeled her thought as a personal opinion. What's to debate?

Clara has never seemed like a real person to me. Better than Amy, but never real. Even this recap screams "I am Rose Rewritten! I am a Donna Fix-it story with a dash of Whatsherface-daugherclone. Look how I do thing they did, just slightly different."

{{{Her opinion as you highlight it is not the part of contention- its the second part- 'this recap screams "I am Rose Rewritten! I am a Donna Fix-it story with a dash of Whatsherface-daugherclone. Look how I do thing they did, just slightly different.'

This a direct response to the recap I wrote- so I feel its perfectly justifiable to ask Amarie to clarify what she meant by 'Rose rewritten' or 'a Donna fix' or 'slightly different' or' daughterclone'- none of which she has, and her response to me asking has been to say go watch them all again and work it out yourself. Which given I am not one making the contentious claims, and nor do I see how you get any of those things from the recap I wrote, it seems to me that the person who is making the claims is the one who has to give some further explanation of what they mean and to cite their evidence for thinking so.
Those are not unusual things to request in a debate of a topic.
When we discuss PJ's films or GoT or in fact any other media topic we do so by citing the scenes or the incidents or character moments which we think support the argument and present them for debate- why should it be any different here? }}}}

,,or GoT or in fact any other media topic we do so by citing the scenes or the incidents or character moments which we think support the argument and present them for debate- why should it be any different here?,, Petty

yeah that happens!

I don't want to put words in Amaries mouth, but the impression I got from what she said is that she thinks Clara was no better than a loose amalgum of various traits found in Amy, Donna, Rose and all the rest just bunched up into one person. maybe. Clara is very fragmented and you cant deny that we have seen many versions of her over her seasons with Smith and Capaldi, namely feisty Dalek Clara, winsome Victorian Clara, controlling Modern Clara, Romantic Clara, Doctor Clara, lesbo immortal Clara. She has more facets than a freeking diamond which makes her less than real.  Donna for example is always Donna, a Donna who becomes more confident but always the same person.

she thinks Clara was no better than a loose amalgum of various traits found in Amy, Donna, Rose and all the rest just bunched up into one person. maybe. Clara is very fragmented and you cant deny that we have seen many versions of her over her seasons with Smith and Capaldi, namely feisty Dalek Clara, winsome Victorian Clara, controlling Modern Clara, Romantic Clara, Doctor Clara, lesbo immortal Clara. She has more facets than a freeking diamond which makes her less than real.- Figg

{{ I half agree with you, sort of.
Clara began as more plot element for a Doctor story-line than as a normal companion- though she did get the usual companion intro once we get to modern Clara- intro followed by first full adventure where they show what they can do- for Rose that was End of the World, for Martha it was New Earth, Donna's was Fires of Pompei, Amy's was The Beast Below, and Clara was Rings of Akenaten- so she followed the new companion intro template. But after that the need to progress the build up for the 50th special and the finale and Matt's exit following it meant Clara remained a plot device more than a fully rounded companion for a series and a half.
It was not until 12 came along that Clara got the fuller treatment in fleshing out her personality traits.
So that much I agree on.
Where I dot see where Amarie is coming from is in this notion Clara is an amalgamation of what has gone before, and some sort of one-up game on RTD by Moffat (especially as hey are life long friends and champions of each others work this baffles me).
All the traits later fleshed out in Clara are clearly present from the start. just under developed. But she is consistent in them from start to finish. And her personality, her character, her actions and interaction with people, her story arc, her relationship with the Doctor and the outcome of her time with the Doctor are nothing like those who have gone before.
And if Amarie can see ways and places and times where she thinks Clara is just acting like a previous companion would, then I don't see its too much to ask she say where this occurs rather than expecting me to guess.

' feisty Dalek Clara, winsome Victorian Clara, controlling Modern Clara, Romantic Clara, Doctor Clara, lesbo immortal Clara.'- Figg

I don't get this either- Dalek Clara was in one episode half a series before her official debut- she was one of the echo Clara's that are a result of her jumping into the time-stream later. This is true of Victorian Clara also who appears in the xmas episode before we meet proper Clara. If we don't see these two versions we don't have the info we need when we meet proper Clara to understand the Doctors reaction- he has met her twice before, in different points in space and time and she dies both times saving him- its better to show us those than just tell us they happened..

There is no difference between modern Clara and romantic Clara, not sure why you separate them off. Her relationship is all about her personality- her and Danny are both too alike, just as she and the Doctor are- its a microcosm of that relationship, and in the end just as destructive- Danny tries to control Clara's life, she ends up lying to him so as not too, and he ends up dead as a result and she almost loses her time with the Doctor over it.
But its all about those three personalities. And Clara is consistent in her word and actions throughout, she does what she does, she tries to keep everything under control and in separate boxes, but all comes crashing down around her.
Doctor Clara is again the same underlying theme, of her and the Doctor being too alike because Missy hand-picked her for that reason, someone so perfect for him she would drive the Doctor on to extremes eventually not to lose her. The plot relies on Clara's personality and its consistency.
Clara's bisexuality goes back more than a series and a half with references to a relationship with Jane Eyre that crop up as a running thing from there on in (and at least one echo Clara out the two we saw made a bisexual reference, implying it was a basic trait of the original Clara that at least some of her echoes share, which takes it back right to her first appearance in the show as an echo Clara, so thats pretty consistent).
And she isn't immortal, she is going to Face the Raven and die, she has a little bit of 'wiggle room' for as long as she keep on the run from the Time Lords- but they will catch her in the end- they caught the Doctor by the end of his second regen, and she isn't as clever as him.}}

Petty, you're the only one I ever see using the D Word. For myself, I'll happily debate whether this is or ever was a debate.

{{{{{{Damn! Now I'm saying it! }}}}}

{{{ Debate - a contention by words or arguments.

Looks like a debate to me }}

{{{"To take part in a formal discussion in which opposing sides of a question are argued."
I question both the taking part and the formality of the discussion. The rules seem to appear and disappear at will. ((((just like a DM ))) }}}

Petty, I think your problem is you keep seeing discussion as a competitive debate. Nobody's interested in that.

{{I dont see how this is competitive- its pretty simple and its not me thats makng it difficult- I wrote a piece about Clara, I asked at the end of it for others to comment- Amarie did so, I did not understand the point she was making and so naturally asked her for more information as I could not see the point she was trying to make in order to address it one way or the other- and she refused to do so and instead told me to go work it out myself.
I dont think asking for clarification because you don't understand someone point is a hostile act. Though I think the response was and is still.
But fuck it, Ive tried to raise several interesting points for debate around Who recently, and this all Ive got in return each time- more excuses to have a dig, not engage in the topic, and then accuse me for being hostile for trying to have a simple debate about the show. Given the considerable amount of time and effort and thought I have put into writing up these subjects for discussion I have put up recently its simply wasting my time that's clear enough- folk don't want to talk about the show anyway, they just want to use it as an excuse for their pet hate of the show and to bait me and take the piss. Fine I give up. I'll not bother in the future. }}

I think at the core of the Clara problem is the fact that she is born and lives just to save the Doctor, by her very essence she becomes fragmented into billions of pieces when she jumps into his timeline, therefore you could argue that she is a billion different Claras. and it really feels like she is a different Clara each time or very nearly we meet her. For a start the Danny Pink thing doesn't ring true, her character just wouldn't even try to settle down with one steady normal man, therefore its an echo of Amy and Rory, Amy being the ants in the pants type unwilling and unable to settle with one man, Amy needs the Doctor around for excitement, she is a moth to the flame, even though being with the Doctor damaging to her relationship with Rory, jealousies, so in this sense Clara/Danny is just a watered down Amy/Rory push pull relationship where the woman is less sure. this is just one small example of how Clara could be seen as an amalgam of past companions with no true sense of the real Clara.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ Come off it that's silly- that like me telling someone I don't like PJ's LotR's an when they ask why replying 'go watch them yourselves and guess what my arguments are'- it seems far more likely to me that your reluctance to back up your claim with evidence, argument, or even the ability to point at any one episode and say 'there' tells me its far more a product of your Moffat-hate than it is any rational argument that can actually be debated.
Please though, prove me wrong, Id love to properly debate the issue with you, but first you have to come up with something that can actually  be debated and not just a vague and undefined personal assertion insisted upon.}}

Hasty reply here, but that's all your getting. (edit: meaning that was all I had time for)

I'm not saying you should guess my arguments. You are to try and see if there are ANY arguments for this.

Here's what I think. You have already decided what you think about this, and refuse to even consider the alternative. You say you can, but you don't want to. You have already accused me of Moffat hate and you rage because I asked you to think on your own. You throw accusations at me, call me a hater, vague and then insist I defend myself. Unless I tell give you the list then your accusations are true. You're game is easy to see though. You're trying to get out of your homework and I'm not going to do it for you.

Mrs Figg wrote:I think at the core of the Clara problem is the fact that she is born and lives just to save the Doctor, by her very essence she becomes fragmented into billions of pieces when she jumps into his timeline, therefore you could argue that she is a billion different Claras. and it really feels like she is a different Clara each time or very nearly we meet her. For a start the Danny Pink thing doesn't ring true, her character just wouldn't even try to settle down with one steady normal man, therefore its an echo of Amy and Rory, Amy being the ants in the pants type unwilling and unable to settle with one man, Amy needs the Doctor around for excitement, she is a moth to the flame, even though being with the Doctor damaging to her relationship with Rory, jealousies, so in this sense Clara/Danny is just a watered down Amy/Rory push pull relationship where the woman is less sure. this is just one small example of how Clara could be seen as an amalgam of past companions with no true sense of the real Clara.

I didn't even consider the Amy/Rory thing. Interesting thought this.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{I dont see how this is competitive- its pretty simple and its not me thats makng it difficult- I wrote a piece about Clara, I asked at the end of it for others to comment- Amarie did so, I did not understand the point she was making and so naturally asked her for more information as I could not see the point she was trying to make in order to address it one way or the other- and she refused to do so and instead told me to go work it out myself.
I dont think asking for clarification because you don't understand someone point is a hostile act. Though I think the response was and is still.
But fuck it, Ive tried to raise several interesting points for debate around Who recently, and this all Ive got in return each time- more excuses to have a dig, not engage in the topic, and then accuse me for being hostile for trying to have a simple debate about the show. Given the considerable amount of time and effort and thought I have put into writing up these subjects for discussion I have put up recently its simply wasting my time that's clear enough- folk don't want to talk about the show anyway, they just want to use it as an excuse for their pet hate of the show and to bait me and take the piss. Fine I give up. I'll not bother in the future. }}

ok simmer down and continue the debate. That's an order.
I think this is about you kind of demanding Amarie explain herself when she was just expressing an opinion. But she is under no obligation to do so and I think you were pushing it a bit too forcefully, that's all. Its one thing debating and another feeling obliged to justify ones own subjective statements. I know you put a lot of effort into writing your critiques, but not everyone is going to agree with you and that should be fine too.  I think people debate Who because they like it not because they want to pick holes in it or call it a load of crap, because its got good and bad points, we should give credit where its due but talk about the things we don't like, its about balance. If people came to this thread determined to hate it would become toxic, but we DO like Who, but there are things that are annoying about it.

ok its a bit like GOT its got good and bad points but fundamentally its great entertainment, like Who is great entertainment so its a bit depressing to have just negative comments, but I personally do like to give credit where its due when Who does something great I say so, admittedly I dislike Moffats run but I have never given up on it. The show will outlive him anyway.

I'm happy to discuss Who whenever I feel I have anything constructive to contribute, but I'm extremely careful not to get drawn into any debates with anybody who knows 100 times more than me. My Dad taught me as a kid never to get in a head-butting or tug-of-war competition with our bull.

For now I'm on hiatus from Who for a bit. My girlfriend and I had watched series 8 together. She'd never been exposed to Doctor Who except for a Tom Baker episode or two several decades ago that she hadn't been able to make heads or tails of. To this day the names of Moffat and RTD are meaningless to her.

At first she was a bit put off by the characters of 12 and Clara but she warmed to them as the series progressed, eventually becoming fond of both (I carefully didn't muddy the waters by giving her any of the backstory from the previous series, as I'm sure it would have worked against the characters in her eyes.)

As we progressed through the series I noticed her getting increasingly put off by the greater arc of the story, and particularly by the character of Missy. At the end of Death in Heaven she said, "I think we need to take a break from this for a while." So we have. I'm hoping by next winter we can come back and enjoy series 9, but my sense is that if I were to forge ahead now I'd loose her interest forever (at least in Dr Who.)

For the record; I am open for suggestion on how to get this thread and everybody - myself* included - back on track. You can PM if you prefer. I can't promise an immediate reply, but I'm sure I can get some reading and thinking done. Or you can talk with Orwell about it** for a more objective view.




*I'll try to take criticism with grace.

**I'll try to be graceful about that too.

The Who thread strikes again. we don't seem to have much luck with it do we?. we rebooted the thread but we couldn't reboot ourselves. which is annoying.

I can't figure out why you knuckleheads get so passionate about this Who wheeze anyway. It's not a cult.

This is knucklehead sex, don't knock it.

When you put it that way, I begin to see the perspective.