The Number of Times Doctor Who Died

[Mal12345]

Given such an awful show, it's about time that he finally stayed down permanently.

Times Doctor Who Was Ruined Forever | Who Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia

 

[magpie]

I used to love Doctor Who. I started watching it with the ninth doctor and continued to love it throughout the tenth. It really started going south with the eleventh doctor, which is when I gave up watching, and it appears to have just gotten worse and worse since. Moffat is a ridiculously awful and incompetent showrunner.

 

[Totenkindly]

It seems pretty resilient for a show that was Ruined Forever So Many Times.


... I tried to watch a few times but could never get into it.

 

[Population: 1]

Eh. Hard science types hate it because it's whimsical. If I want hard science I'll watch a documentary or something more like The Expanse. Which I do. When you really look at it Dr. Who is extremely tragic. If it displayed death in a manner like Game of Thrones you'd be mortified by the amount of death that occurs in it.

I agree Moffats tenure as show runner has been mostly garbage. Dave Tennant (Russel T Davies as show runner) was my favorite doctor closely followed by Tom Baker who I grew up watching as the Doctor and promptly stopped watching when he left and came back for the reboot with Christopher Eccleston. Matt Smith wasn't bad considering the material he had to work with but I've lost interest at this point.

 

[Totenkindly]

Eh. Hard science types hate it because it's whimsical. If I want hard science I'll watch a documentary or something more like The Expanse. Which I do. When you really look at it Dr. Who is extremely tragic. If it displayed death in a manner like Game of Thrones you'd be mortified by the amount of death that occurs in it.

I'm actually a soft-science person, I tend not to like cold sci-fi much; it's just that dramatically what I saw doesn't hit the beats that tend to interest me, although when I read some of the overall concepts (like the Angels), that stuff seems interesting. I like quirky stuff, but not necessarily something so casually put together from what I can tell. (Maybe that's what you mean by whimsical? I dunno.)

Whatever, different strokes and all that.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It's no less hard science than Star Trek, IMO. Star Trek writers have always done a good job of creating the illusion of a show that adheres closely to hard science but they're really just gifted at using terminology with origins in science as a way to explain otherwise "magic" technology and events--Dr Who writers don't seem to worry quite as much about appearing to be scientifically grounded/anchored. In Trek, Warp drive is just code for magic get-there-really-fast engines because space is huge but we still want to sound like we know how to overcome the hurdle of faster than light without actually travelling faster than light--there are theorists working on this stuff (see Alcubierre Drive) but we still don't know if it's even possible. Transporters/teleporters? Pure magic, regardless of whether it might be possible in the future, because I don't see us getting to a point of safely teleporting complex multicellular organisms any time soon and more than likely if we had that level of understanding and technology, we might be way the fuck past the point of handheld communicators and replicators. That's no less fantastical than a large spacetime ship contained within a small police box, to me anyway. either might be possible but they're a HUGE stretch in terms of our current technology

Dr. Who is closer to Star Wars than it is to Star Trek in terms of fantastical whimsy but Star Trek was never a hard science story, IMO.

The only reason I bring up Trek is because in debates in the past I've seen people bash Who or Wars and state how Star trek is so much more faithful and accurate to real science. That's a silly claim. There's so many instances of Trek going just as whimsical and fantastical.

So I second Population: 1 and Jennifer, I've never felt Sci-fi needed to religiously (what irony) follow hard science, after all there's a reason we call it science fiction, and when in the mood for hard science I usually watch documentaries on Space or other topics. To me, Sci-fi serves more as a vehicle to examine the human condition and explore topical or interesting issues, possibilities and themes set against an interesting backdrop whilst simultaneously allowing the reader or viewer to escape from the mundanity of modern life--so we can really tackle a lot of questions about ourselves and human nature by creating parallels between the real world and science fiction worlds. Now, Dr Who and similar franchises are a great way to hypothethize about potential scientific possibilities and technological advancements, so I'm not saying we should watch these sort of shows and be complete asshole skeptics either

Mal, are you butthurt because they chose a girl doc?

Rarrggrrr what next a female 007

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Funny thing, science fiction fans. Science fiction is often about embracing change even when it's scary, yet the fans can sure be shits when presented with change

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

really want to get into uber nerd territory though? go spend some time on forums devoted to Kamen Rider. Those fans will frequently debate about how many times it's been ruined.

 

[Totenkindly]

It's no less hard science than Star Trek, IMO. Star Trek writers have always done a good job of creating the illusion of a show that adheres closely to hard science but they're really just gifted at using terminology with origins in science as a way to explain otherwise "magic" technology and events--Dr Who writers don't seem to worry quite as much about appearing to be scientifically grounded/anchored. In Trek, Warp drive is just code for magic get-there-really-fast engines because space is huge but we still want to sound like we know how to overcome the hurdle of faster than light without actually travelling faster than light--there are theorists working on this stuff (see Alcubierre Drive) but we still don't know if it's even possible. Transporters/teleporters? Pure magic, regardless of whether it might be possible in the future, because I don't see us getting to a point of safely teleporting complex multicellular organisms any time soon and more than likely if we had that level of understanding and technology, we might be way the fuck past the point of handheld communicators and replicators. That's no less fantastical than a large spacetime ship contained within a small police box, to me anyway. either might be possible but they're a HUGE stretch in terms of our current technology

Dr. Who is closer to Star Wars than it is to Star Trek in terms of fantastical whimsy but Star Trek was never a hard science story, IMO.

I don't disagree with that. The SW/ST dichotomy occurs simply because they are the two largest tech-fantasy franchises out there in USA culture, so they are naturally compared. Trek is more tech-based on the surface but it's all still gobbledygook under the surface. I think the deal with the old series is that it explores themes common to scifi writing at the time; there was always some focus on humanity. (Meanwhile, Star Wars seems to embody many FANTASY tropes -- the good/evil war, archetypical fantasy roles like wizard and warrior, magic expresses through the Force, psychological constructs, and so on.) But srsly, you know, Black Mirror actually seems to examine the interface of actual realistic technology + humanity more, at least in current shows?

The only reason I bring up Trek is because in debates in the past I've seen people bash Who or Wars and state how Star trek is so much more faithful and accurate to real science. That's a silly claim. There's so many instances of Trek going just as whimsical and fantastical.

Choke on a tribble and die, you miscreant.

Mal, are you butthurt because they chose a girl doc?
Rarrggrrr what next a female 007

It might have been safer if they had just picked a black/Asian male doctor. Of course a woman (even a white one) would get more backlash. I think Tilda Swinton would have been another great choice, but she's probably busy with film or stage work (does she do stage work?)

Personally, since we all come from the same body template, and Who is a freaking alien, what does it matter? S/He'll reincarnate however s/he'll reincarnate. I think another thing is that these shows created back in the 50's and 60's (and this goes for comics too), well, often they just went with the white male as the default lead. It reflected the culture at the time, it wasn't that the "character itself" was intrinsically a white male -- and these characters are typically some kind of archetype themselves. Now the culture has changed, and there are many more options on the table. Consider it an exploration or reinvention that is actually in line with preexisting concepts that have built into the show from the start -- the Doctor can reincarnate into whatever form he does, realistically. But I suspect it'll just be a one-off, and they'll do it for 1-3 seasons and explore what they can in that form, and then things will change again. Whatever.

 

[Population: 1]

I'm actually a soft-science person, I tend not to like cold sci-fi much; it's just that dramatically what I saw doesn't hit the beats that tend to interest me, although when I read some of the overall concepts (like the Angels), that stuff seems interesting. I like quirky stuff, but not necessarily something so casually put together from what I can tell. (Maybe that's what you mean by whimsical? I dunno.)

Whatever, different strokes and all that.

I get what you're saying. I think some things are merely using a genre as a backdrop and not the main focus. Dr. Who is more about the character than the theme of science fiction. I always found the idea of immortality interesting and I like to see what different actors bring to the role. Sometimes it doesn't work for me and you're out a few years of the show until a regeneration occurs.

I watch different sci-fi for different reasons. I like The Expanse, I like Dark Matter, I loved Farscape, I like Star Trek. It's no different than genres and sub-genres of music, I prefer different styles when in certain moods.

 

[Population: 1]

I had heard that they might pick a woman as the doctor. I heard Helena Bonham Carter's name was mentioned. I love her and think she would have been great. I like the actress they chose, Jodie Whittaker. She was very good as the grieving betrayed mother in Broadchurch. I think it'd be silly to shoot her down before a single frame of her as the doctor has aired.

Although I think 007 should remain a man. He's the same guy in every movie. No regenerations just different actors. I wouldn't want that anymore than a male Tomb Raider. Larry Croft? Some characters are gender specific.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I had heard that they might pick a woman as the doctor. I heard Helena Bonham Carter's name was mentioned. I love her and think she would have been great. I like the actress they chose, Jodie Whittaker. She was very good as the grieving betrayed mother in Broadchurch. I think it'd be silly to shoot her down before a single frame of her as the doctor has aired.

Although I think 007 should remain a man. He's the same guy in every movie. No regenerations just different actors. I wouldn't want that anymore than a male Tomb Raider. Larry Croft? Some characters are gender specific.

I actually have to agree on 007. I don't see an issue with female starship captains, ghostbusters, Jedi, etc but Bond has to be a chauvinistic dude, call me a traditionalist I suppose

That new Charlize Theron movie looks horrid. Maybe it will be good but it looks like they're just trying to put all of the Bond traits into her cut and paste style if the way they're marketing it is any indication. Want a good female spy/agent type, then I think Le Femme Nikita or Geena Davis in The Long Kiss Goodnight are better archetypes. They maintain a certain femininity while also appearing competent and deadly. Or even Trinity from The Matrix, there's a good vaguely spyish female badass.

 

[Population: 1]

I actually have to agree on 007. I don't see an issue with female starship captains, ghostbusters, Jedi, etc but Bond has to be a chauvinistic dude, call me a traditionalist I suppose

That new Charlize Theron movie looks horrid. Maybe it will be good but it looks like they're just trying to put all of the Bond traits into her cut and paste style if the way they're marketing it is any indication. Want a good female spy/agent type, then I think Le Femme Nikita or Geena Davis in The Long Kiss Goodnight are better archetypes. They maintain a certain femininity while also appearing competent and deadly. Or even Trinity from The Matrix, there's a good vaguely spyish female badass.

There are so many versions of Le Femme Nikita out there because it was an interesting angle on agent/assassins. Never saw the Geena Davis movie and I agree that Trinity was definitely a badass. Selene from the Underworld movies is pretty badass and kind of an agent/assassin, granted a vampiric one.

 

[Totenkindly]

There are so many versions of Le Femme Nikita out there because it was an interesting angle on agent/assassins. Never saw the Geena Davis movie and I agree that Trinity was definitely a badass. Selene from the Underworld movies is pretty badass and kind of an agent/assassin, granted a vampiric one.

Yeah, I wish they would have done better vehicles for Beckinsale AKA "Selene" ... great character, but just marginal movies after the first that continue to sink lower. Anne-Moss was great as Trinity. It should be obvious at this point that the female star has to actually be believable and a decent actress. [Heck, getting back to Underworld -- the best part about the movies, aside from the styling, are the quality actors that had put into them at first... Michael Sheen, Bill Nighy, Derek Jacobi. Heck, Charles Dance shows up in the 'second series' of movies. These are quality actors that can push the material, but they need something to work with.]

I really liked "Salt" a lot although they never seemed to figure out how to make it a franchise and released multiple endings. Jolie was good in the role, esp with it being unclear of what her real background was for much of the movie and the subplot about her husband (which humanized her).

Did you ever see Haywire? Gina Carano was great and capable with the moves, she's kind of intimidating and makes it look easier to crush an opponent in the quickest amount of time possible. Unfortunately, she couldn't act well (better than Keanu, but that is not saying much) and the plot is kind of "cold" versus emotionally engaging, so the movie never went anywhere really. Maybe proves the point? Or maybe it's important to somehow have a female action star who still feels "feminine" in some way -- and what does that mean exactly?

That new Charlize Theron movie looks horrid. Maybe it will be good but it looks like they're just trying to put all of the Bond traits into her cut and paste style if the way they're marketing it is any indication. Want a good female spy/agent type, then I think Le Femme Nikita or Geena Davis in The Long Kiss Goodnight are better archetypes. They maintain a certain femininity while also appearing competent and deadly. Or even Trinity from The Matrix, there's a good vaguely spyish female badass.

I can't guess the quality from the trailers. Theron fits the bill in being a great actress and can handle physically challenging roles, so I guess it comes down to the writing and directing. I would like it to work; I fear it won't.

Anyway, female spins on previously male-oriented concepts can work and allow exploration of differences.

I lean more with you guys on a female James Bond, I kinda don't see the point. Just create a new franchise, everyone will "get it" if you want to go that route.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I actually have to agree on 007. I don't see an issue with female starship captains, ghostbusters, Jedi, etc but Bond has to be
a chauvinistic dude, call me a traditionalist I suppose

So you support ruining my childhood?

In all seriousness, there were already female Jedi in the prequels. They were just in the background.

 

[Population: 1]

Yeah, I wish they would have done better vehicles for Beckinsale AKA "Selene" ... great character, but just marginal movies after the first that continue to sink lower. Anne-Moss was great as Trinity. It should be obvious at this point that the female star has to actually be believable and a decent actress. [Heck, getting back to Underworld -- the best part about the movies, aside from the styling, are the quality actors that had put into them at first... Michael Sheen, Bill Nighy, Derek Jacobi. Heck, Charles Dance shows up in the 'second series' of movies. These are quality actors that can push the material, but they need something to work with.]

I really liked "Salt" a lot although they never seemed to figure out how to make it a franchise and released multiple endings. Jolie was good in the role, esp with it being unclear of what her real background was for much of the movie and the subplot about her husband (which humanized her).

Did you ever see Haywire? Gina Carano was great and capable with the moves, she's kind of intimidating and makes it look easier to crush an opponent in the quickest amount of time possible. Unfortunately, she couldn't act well (better than Keanu, but that is not saying much) and the plot is kind of "cold" versus emotionally engaging, so the movie never went anywhere really. Maybe proves the point? Or maybe it's important to somehow have a female action star who still feels "feminine" in some way -- and what does that mean exactly?



I can't guess the quality from the trailers. Theron fits the bill in being a great actress and can handle physically challenging roles, so I guess it comes down to the writing and directing. I would like it to work; I fear it won't.

Anyway, female spins on previously male-oriented concepts can work and allow exploration of differences.

I lean more with you guys on a female James Bond, I kinda don't see the point. Just create a new franchise, everyone will "get it" if you want to go that route.

The Underworld films definitely slipped and the last two were rubbish but I love Selene and her role as a Death Dealer I just wish they had fleshed her out with more of a backstory. I love Kate Beckinsale in the role too. The other names you mentioned are definitely excellent actors I've seen and enjoyed many times before in other things.

I never saw Haywire.

As for believable female action heros I think they can suffer the same fate as the men in trying to make them invincible instead of badass but vulnerable to things. I like to see my heros/heroines bleed and make mistakes and become flustered at times and tired. The human element that is missing so often from the action protagonist. I loved Indiana Jones or Mad Max because they got the piss beaten out of them and winced and bled and their injuries hindered them.