Doctor Who [4]

Hah! You may notice none of the first 6 eps of Nuwho make my list (first ep is episode 8 Fathers Day)- I toyed with including Dalek as the first half is excellent- just less so the rest.


my own Who experience is quite limited- ELdo

And whose bloody fault is that?!!!

Dependingon your mother age maybe classic WHo would appeal- if so Id recommend-

Dalek Invasion of Earth (warning not short- its about 4 hours all in)
Tomb of the Cybermen (not the best 2nd doctorstory but one of the few where all the episdoes still exist)
Genesis of the Daleks (probably Bakers finest hour-and one of the shows finest stories)

I got to thinking what was the best way to introduce a newbie to the concepts of Who in as short and entertainng a manner as possible?
A written explanation would be too long and dull.
So here's three videos.

These two explains all the basic concepts in Who- the Doctor, regeneration and the Tardis, the monsters, the name, but hopefully in an entertaingly exciting fashion-





This video illustrate the side to Who I think is hardest to grasp perhaps for non-Brits. Who holds in the British psyche a place alongside Narnia, the Hobbit, Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland ect- it contains that same childhood magical quality, the fairytale touch I suppose.
The difference of course is the stories about the Doctor are still being told and have been all my lifetime.
So hopefully this video will get across this other side, the childlike, magical whimsical, eccentric side which is why Who never is and never has been a straightforward sci-fi show.



So, watch those and you should have a pretty good idea about what the show is about. Maybe.

I think Eldo's mom should start with "Rose" and go from there. When she gets hooked on Who she will want to see all the episodes anyway, so why waste time?

True Amarie- but thats a lot of episodes- 7 series worth ago now.

Norc- 4th Doctors Sherlock disguise-

yup I agree you have to start with Rose.
Its confusing to be just introduced willy nilly, especially all the Moffat/smith/Ponds episodes, they are far too tricksy and cold for newcomers. You need to start with RTD because he creates an emotional connection between the Doctor and the assistants.

Horse for courses there- I was much more emotionally invested in the Doctor/Amy/Rory grouping than the (inappropriate seeming to me) Doctor/Rose thing.

I did include more RTD era epsiodes on my recommended episode list than Moffat era however because of the less stand alone nature of Moffat Who episodes.

Worked out if Eldo's mum starts at Rose she has 87 episodes to catch up on!

You say that like it's a bad thing?
We've watched them all.

She has all the more to enjoy.

You say that like it's a bad thing?- Amarie

well it does mean having to watch Fear Her and anything with the bloody Slitheen in it, and that one with the big brother/weakest link stuff.

and quite frankly there is NOTHING as innapropriate as the River Song/Doctor thing. Its creepy. As a middle aged woman myself, the thought of me gushing and fawning over a MUCH younger man is quite sick making. Its like Demi Moore and Ashton wotsit.
River adores the Doctor, but he is like, 'Back off socker mom, you are not my type'.
It does a disservice to women and its creeeeeeepy.

Um he is older than her by at least several hundred years.

yes we know that. He is obviously just not that into her. He doesnt 'love' her like he 'loves' Rose. River follows him through space and time gushing and slobbering in a really undignified way.

So what was your point?

I dont think you can you can look at the age of the two actors and say its inappropriate based on that- you have to look at the characters in the show.

Rose was what?- early twenties? And a different species entirely.
He was over 800. And in his culture adulthood isn't reached till about the first century. What on earth did they have in common? She had20 years in London, eating chips doing dull jobs like the rest o us. He had 800 years of time travel.

River on the other hand is part Time-Lord, of unknown age but quite possibly a few hundred by the time of Silence in the Library and she has spent most of her life being adventurous and traveling in time. And her parents are the Doctors friends and traveled with him.

I know which of the two seems the more likely and appropriate partner to me.

I am talking about the use of actors, and its perfectly legitimate. Its creepy. Rose was a match for him, ok she was in her twenties and an ordinary human shop girl thats why she is fantastic. Thats why he loved her. River maybe is a Timelord but she acts less mature than Rose, less dignified. Rose never fangirled the Doctor, she was honest and brave, she never said he was 'cool' and waffled on and on about how sweet bow ties were. She would have laughed at all that smarmy rubbish. yes Rose was his equal in every way.

I never found that Rose was anything like his equal- and the series went by she got increasingly less likable.
That she would fall for the Doctor made complete sense- that he would fall for her no sense at all- Sarah jane was 100 times the companion to the Doctor Rose was and there was no hint of romance there.

Rose was awesome, but she's still a girl. River is a Woman and the relationship is all timey-wimey and crazy, which is why it works. (And she does comment om him having the face of a 12 year old in 'the Angels take Manhatten." )

How is older River and younger Doc (as in actors) less appropriate than older Doc and younger Rose?

Curious, not judging.

I find it odd that an older women and a younger man is viewed so 'unnaturally' yet tv and film is full of much older men with younger women and noone seems to bat an eyelid.

Why is it different when its reversed? (hah! I see you made more or less the same observation Kafria whilst I was typing!)

Amarie- I agree, for me its about compatibility- Rose was fine, a good companion, but no better or more important to the Doctor than many companions which came before her- she was nothing special as far as companions go, which made the Doctor falling in love with her seem out of place and not in character at all.

I find it creepy because River comes across as needy and fawning. Thats why I find it creepy, not because of the age difference as so much her attitude. For example I LOVE the Donna/Doctor relationship. Donna is obviously older (in terms of the actors) and any romantic element would in my opinion have seemed off. But Donna is his friend, she is not gushing and mooning over him, she wants adventure and thats it. So nobody can accuse me of being against the idea of an older woman being his assistant. I just find the love lorn bit hard to stomach, and as the romantic attachment doesnt seem to be returned by the Doctor makes it worse, its not like its the Great Romance of his life. Mostly he seems embarrased by it all. So in conclusion. Not against older women assistants. I am against needy gushing wimpy older women assistants.

I disagree.
Rose was something special as assistants go. She is the most significant assistant in all of NuWho. Far more significant to the Doctor than anyone who came after. Martha and Donna found that out. and Moffat conveniently 'forgot' that fact when he took over. Instead we got a series of insipid and empty shells, where Rose once stood.

and just to spell it out again unless I get accused of sexism/ageism again. Donna is my favourite assistant. I have NO PROBLEM with an older woman assistant.

as the romantic attachment doesnt seem to be returned by the Doctor - Mrs Figg

I dont know how you formed that opinion- the Doctor is just as flirty with her as she is with him.



As to the rest being 'empty shells'- again a matter of opinion- I think Amy is probably the most complex, interesting companion in the entire history of Who. And when you add the wonderful Rory into the mix its pure gold for me. It creates a brilliant dynamic, that River fits right into.

No problem with an older women assistant- unless she is romantically linked with the Doctor it seems however.