I don't think Doctor Who has ever needed a romantic story angle tbh, but personally I find Peter Capaldi a lot more attractive than Matt Smith and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
They could do a Sherlock and have him as devotedly asexual (or obviously uninterested in sex) which of course would make some women go crazy mad over him.
I have no problem with romance but I don't think there has been a lot of it. A chaste romance would be quite sweet. I think it's the sexual nature of the romance that some viewers find off-putting.
Eccleston flirted with the tree lady, it was fantastic and one of his best bits, showed his humanity and helped him open up on the last of the tinelords story. I hope Capaldis characterisation retains some of that too.
RTD's characters were at least as bad as Moffat's for talking in speeches. The tone is slightly different; with Moffat the characters tend to speak pithily, as noted above; with RTD they tended to use unnaturalistic, dramatic speech: "that's the kind of man I am" etc.
As for 'complex' companions: I've never seen one in Doctor Who and never expect to.
You may have read that in a novel somewhere, or in an audio story or just made it up in your own head :P Nothing like that has ever been suggested in the show, which is the only canonical source in Doctor Who. As far as the show has ever intimated she is is his natural granddaughter.
Made it up in my head!! Flaming harming! I'm a grown woman with children. The only thing I make up in my head is Peter Capaldi leaving his wife and coming to live with me.
Made it up in my head!! Flaming harming! I'm a grown woman with children. The only thing I make up in my head is Peter Capaldi leaving his wife and coming to live with me.
Ha ha!
I think if they pitched the flirting right, it could be okay. After all, it's not like he's seventy. I'm sure there's life in the old dog yet Anyway, flirting can been seen as just a bit of banter and the show works with banter. I wasn't entirely convinced by the banter in Night of The Doctor. In fact, I thought it was out of place, as if they had to squeeze some quips in because it's Doctor Who. But there did feel like a little flirtiness; well, one-way flirtiness.
RTD's characters were at least as bad as Moffat's for talking in speeches. The tone is slightly different; with Moffat the characters tend to speak pithily, as noted above; with RTD they tended to use unnaturalistic, dramatic speech: "that's the kind of man I am" etc.
As for 'complex' companions: I've never seen one in Doctor Who and never expect to.
You may have read that in a novel somewhere, or in an audio story or just made it up in your own head :P Nothing like that has ever been suggested in the show, which is the only canonical source in Doctor Who. As far as the show has ever intimated she is is his natural granddaughter.
Rose was complex. She was fiesty, yet a little awkard at times, she had a real home life situation in which she had issue's and had experienced loss, she was independent and yet totally reluctant to leave the doctor's side, she was cool and yet a bit of a chav. You couldn't really say oh, yeah that's just your basic character template, because if you watched it properly, the character's motives and emotion's appeared so deep.
That's my opinion but even if people dont agree, I'm sure that there are many that could make the case for many other companion's being complex(from what I've seen, i'd say sarah jane smith was also), so for you to say you have never seen a complex companion, i'd have to guess you've never connected with a companion enough to notice.
No, sorry, it's not 1972 any more.
The Doctor is now a romantic lead, whether you like it or not
I don't think it's as clear-cut as that. Yes, Paul McGann and David Tennant are obviously cast because they can do 'romantic lead' but Matt Smith isn't anyone's idea of a romantic lead- or certainly wasn't at the time. Peter Capaldi is also someone you wouldn't cast if it was a romantic lead. Aside from the age, he doesn't look like a romantic lead.
Yes, romance is now a part of the programme so it will always appear in some form. I would say that the role is more of a Romantic lead (in the sense of chivalry and a sense of adventure) rather than a romantic lead (in the sense of smoochiness).
Comments
They could do a Sherlock and have him as devotedly asexual (or obviously uninterested in sex) which of course would make some women go crazy mad over him.
I have no problem with romance but I don't think there has been a lot of it. A chaste romance would be quite sweet. I think it's the sexual nature of the romance that some viewers find off-putting.
Made it up in my head!! Flaming harming! I'm a grown woman with children. The only thing I make up in my head is Peter Capaldi leaving his wife and coming to live with me.
Ha ha!
I think if they pitched the flirting right, it could be okay. After all, it's not like he's seventy. I'm sure there's life in the old dog yet
That's my opinion but even if people dont agree, I'm sure that there are many that could make the case for many other companion's being complex(from what I've seen, i'd say sarah jane smith was also), so for you to say you have never seen a complex companion, i'd have to guess you've never connected with a companion enough to notice.
No, sorry, it's not 1972 any more.
The Doctor is now a romantic lead, whether you like it or not
I don't think it's as clear-cut as that. Yes, Paul McGann and David Tennant are obviously cast because they can do 'romantic lead' but Matt Smith isn't anyone's idea of a romantic lead- or certainly wasn't at the time. Peter Capaldi is also someone you wouldn't cast if it was a romantic lead. Aside from the age, he doesn't look like a romantic lead.
Yes, romance is now a part of the programme so it will always appear in some form. I would say that the role is more of a Romantic lead (in the sense of chivalry and a sense of adventure) rather than a romantic lead (in the sense of smoochiness).