I never understood why that device turned people into little toys!
Wishing the Doc would become more of a Dirty Harry hero
3 of 3
Originally Posted by amos_brearley:
“I never understood why that device turned people into little toys!”
“I never understood why that device turned people into little toys!”
I think watching that as an adult, it did require a lot of suspension of belief that these were not dolls and were little dead people...
...but i can actually imagine the six year old in me being quite frieghtend with the idea of being turned into little dolls...as I wouldn't have understood the fact that they were little dead people.
The thing I love about the doctor is that he is presented as being able to solve problems without needing to resort to thuggishness, bullying and violence. Even 40 years after the start of the show, the lack of recourse to violence is hugely refreshing, and probably one of the shows unique selling points.
So no, I would hate to see the doctor reduced to the level of a macho, violent, "dirty harry"-esque galactic policeman.
So no, I would hate to see the doctor reduced to the level of a macho, violent, "dirty harry"-esque galactic policeman.
Back to the original question:
The Doctor isn't a pacifist but he doesn't like guns in any form. This was established way way back into the Troughton era (and maybe before, I don't recall). He will kill as a last resort (a pacifist would die rather than kill) but he'll rarely do it with a gun, the Eric Saward era is one of the few times that happens.
Even the Pertwee Doctor, arguably the most actively aggressive Doctor, used martial arts to fight back with rather than guns.
And I love this about the character. He's above such human failings like guns. This hero's greatest weapon should always be his mind. In my opinion of course
The Doctor isn't a pacifist but he doesn't like guns in any form. This was established way way back into the Troughton era (and maybe before, I don't recall). He will kill as a last resort (a pacifist would die rather than kill) but he'll rarely do it with a gun, the Eric Saward era is one of the few times that happens.
Even the Pertwee Doctor, arguably the most actively aggressive Doctor, used martial arts to fight back with rather than guns.
And I love this about the character. He's above such human failings like guns. This hero's greatest weapon should always be his mind. In my opinion of course
Originally Posted by Rooks:
“Back to the original question:
The Doctor isn't a pacifist but he doesn't like guns in any form. This was established way way back into the Troughton era (and maybe before, I don't recall). He will kill as a last resort (a pacifist would die rather than kill) but he'll rarely do it with a gun, the Eric Saward era is one of the few times that happens.
Even the Pertwee Doctor, arguably the most actively aggressive Doctor, used martial arts to fight back with rather than guns.
And I love this about the character. He's above such human failings like guns. This hero's greatest weapon should always be his mind. In my opinion of course”
“Back to the original question:
The Doctor isn't a pacifist but he doesn't like guns in any form. This was established way way back into the Troughton era (and maybe before, I don't recall). He will kill as a last resort (a pacifist would die rather than kill) but he'll rarely do it with a gun, the Eric Saward era is one of the few times that happens.
Even the Pertwee Doctor, arguably the most actively aggressive Doctor, used martial arts to fight back with rather than guns.
And I love this about the character. He's above such human failings like guns. This hero's greatest weapon should always be his mind. In my opinion of course
”
It was mentioned way back with the first Doctor in The Sensorites when he was given a weapon to use before going into the aqueduct. He said he didn't like weapons then. Can't remember the exact line, but he wasn't happy.
Originally Posted by poppycod:
“I found much of Tennant's (and to a lesser extent, Ecclestone's) pacifism to be nauseating and absurd.
This is a guy who was a warrior - descending from a nearly omnipotent race of beings, who countlessly destroyed worlds and aliens.
This guy has got more blood on his hands than any other long-running eponymous character. And yet he keeps (pathetically) shunning violence...!?
Hopefully the new Doc will have a lot more wise, and cold approach to monsters. He will be more pragmatic, depending less on dogmatic idealism and glibness.
Hopefully, like Pertwee, he will be a man's man, an action hero, tough and masculine, unlike the rather effete and effeminate Tennant's Doc.
The best analogy I can espouse is Dirty Harry the Policeman from the films. Mean, tough and takes no nonsense.
A Doctor Who for the new millenium.”
“I found much of Tennant's (and to a lesser extent, Ecclestone's) pacifism to be nauseating and absurd.
This is a guy who was a warrior - descending from a nearly omnipotent race of beings, who countlessly destroyed worlds and aliens.
This guy has got more blood on his hands than any other long-running eponymous character. And yet he keeps (pathetically) shunning violence...!?
Hopefully the new Doc will have a lot more wise, and cold approach to monsters. He will be more pragmatic, depending less on dogmatic idealism and glibness.
Hopefully, like Pertwee, he will be a man's man, an action hero, tough and masculine, unlike the rather effete and effeminate Tennant's Doc.
The best analogy I can espouse is Dirty Harry the Policeman from the films. Mean, tough and takes no nonsense.
A Doctor Who for the new millenium.”
You are Eric Saward and I claim my £5 cash prize!
Originally Posted by Tigger-Roo:
“It was mentioned way back with the first Doctor in The Sensorites when he was given a weapon to use before going into the aqueduct. He said he didn't like weapons then. Can't remember the exact line, but he wasn't happy.”
“It was mentioned way back with the first Doctor in The Sensorites when he was given a weapon to use before going into the aqueduct. He said he didn't like weapons then. Can't remember the exact line, but he wasn't happy.”
I thought it might have been, it's been years since I watched some Hartnell episodes. But I'm a big fan of the Troughton era of the show so the scene's from the War Games always quantify the Doctor's belief system for me, especially in regard to guns. In fact, the War Games pretty much puts down the blueprint of the character, especially with the trial scenes. Who is he, what he does and why he does it are all stated in those scenes and that's been pretty much followed for the rest of the series. Now as much as I hate RTD's version of the show, I will give him credit for retaining the core values of the Doctor in a society that's far more violent than it was in the 60s.
Originally Posted by Rooks:
“I thought it might have been, it's been years since I watched some Hartnell episodes. But I'm a big fan of the Troughton era of the show so the scene's from the War Games always quantify the Doctor's belief system for me, especially in regard to guns. In fact, the War Games pretty much puts down the blueprint of the character, especially with the trial scenes. Who is he, what he does and why he does it are all stated in those scenes and that's been pretty much followed for the rest of the series. Now as much as I hate RTD's version of the show, I will give him credit for retaining the core values of the Doctor in a society that's far more violent than it was in the 60s.”
“I thought it might have been, it's been years since I watched some Hartnell episodes. But I'm a big fan of the Troughton era of the show so the scene's from the War Games always quantify the Doctor's belief system for me, especially in regard to guns. In fact, the War Games pretty much puts down the blueprint of the character, especially with the trial scenes. Who is he, what he does and why he does it are all stated in those scenes and that's been pretty much followed for the rest of the series. Now as much as I hate RTD's version of the show, I will give him credit for retaining the core values of the Doctor in a society that's far more violent than it was in the 60s.”
It's only that I watched The Sensorites last week and it kinda stuck in my mind that line. The War Games is a great story too and yes those trial scenes really got to the core of who the Doctor was. I think it took a while for me to understand that, as in the beginning (new series), I also wished that the Doctor had a bit more fight in him. I don't think it was until Human Nature/Family of Blood that I realised there was a deep seated element of anger/danger to him. Touching on that now and again is good, it shakes things up a bit, but the general persona of a TimeLord who abhors violence should always be there.
Originally Posted by Rooks:
“
The Doctor isn't a pacifist but he doesn't like guns in any form. This was established way way back into the Troughton era (and maybe before, I don't recall). He will kill as a last resort (a pacifist would die rather than kill) but he'll rarely do it with a gun, the Eric Saward era is one of the few times that happens.
Even the Pertwee Doctor, arguably the most actively aggressive Doctor, used martial arts to fight back with rather than guns.
And I love this about the character. He's above such human failings like guns. This hero's greatest weapon should always be his mind. In my opinion of course”
“
The Doctor isn't a pacifist but he doesn't like guns in any form. This was established way way back into the Troughton era (and maybe before, I don't recall). He will kill as a last resort (a pacifist would die rather than kill) but he'll rarely do it with a gun, the Eric Saward era is one of the few times that happens.
Even the Pertwee Doctor, arguably the most actively aggressive Doctor, used martial arts to fight back with rather than guns.
And I love this about the character. He's above such human failings like guns. This hero's greatest weapon should always be his mind. In my opinion of course
”
Yes Pacifist is the wrong word for the Doctor definitely....
Certainly I think we have seen the Doc moving in the right direction here, not afraid to use violence to achieve his ends.
It is definitely tme for both the producers and the character to eschew pacifism and fight fire with fire.
After all we heard the Doc saying clearly that this was a time to get rid of the Daleks once and for all - genocide.
It is definitely tme for both the producers and the character to eschew pacifism and fight fire with fire.
After all we heard the Doc saying clearly that this was a time to get rid of the Daleks once and for all - genocide.
Originally Posted by poppycod:
“Certainly I think we have seen the Doc moving in the right direction here, not afraid to use violence to achieve his ends.
It is definitely tme for both the producers and the character to eschew pacifism and fight fire with fire.
After all we heard the Doc saying clearly that this was a time to get rid of the Daleks once and for all - genocide.”
“Certainly I think we have seen the Doc moving in the right direction here, not afraid to use violence to achieve his ends.
It is definitely tme for both the producers and the character to eschew pacifism and fight fire with fire.
After all we heard the Doc saying clearly that this was a time to get rid of the Daleks once and for all - genocide.”
Yes...let's take a role model and have him teach more children how to kill, how right that would be
Originally Posted by JohnFlawbod:
“Yes...let's take a role model and have him teach more children how to kill, how right that would be”
“Yes...let's take a role model and have him teach more children how to kill, how right that would be
”
Is genocide a good achievement in a role model's resumé?
That is what Dr Who was attempting.
Sometimes violence is needed, in self-defence to stop an enemy from gaining power, to rescue people etc.
Plenty of admirable figures from real history have their hands soaked in blood but they remain heroes and role models
* Mandela
* Churchill
* Nelson
* The previous Pope (he fought in the war)
* Simon Weston
* Obama did national service too.
Originally Posted by poppycod:
“Is genocide a good achievement in a role model's resumé?
That is what Dr Who was attempting.
Sometimes violence is needed, in self-defence to stop an enemy from gaining power, to rescue people etc.
Plenty of admirable figures from real history have their hands soaked in blood but they remain heroes and role models
* Mandela
* Churchill
* Nelson
* The previous Pope (he fought in the war)
* Simon Weston
* Obama did national service too.”
“Is genocide a good achievement in a role model's resumé?
That is what Dr Who was attempting.
Sometimes violence is needed, in self-defence to stop an enemy from gaining power, to rescue people etc.
Plenty of admirable figures from real history have their hands soaked in blood but they remain heroes and role models
* Mandela
* Churchill
* Nelson
* The previous Pope (he fought in the war)
* Simon Weston
* Obama did national service too.”
You are aware that DW is fiction, aren't you?
Simon Weston I am sure would love you for the term "soaked in blood" as for Obama...which "national service" are you talking about, Mandela, Churchill and Nelson? Sorry...are you teetering on the brink of lunacy?
As for...John Paul II (I believe you were looking for) he may have fought in the war but he also turned both blind eyes to catastrophic child abuse by his Priests...
...now...keep going poppycod, I'm sure you have a point to make, it's just unclear what it is as yet.
Originally Posted by poppycod:
“Is genocide a good achievement in a role model's resumé?
That is what Dr Who was attempting.
Sometimes violence is needed, in self-defence to stop an enemy from gaining power, to rescue people etc.
Plenty of admirable figures from real history have their hands soaked in blood but they remain heroes and role models
* Mandela
* Churchill
* Nelson
* The previous Pope (he fought in the war)
* Simon Weston
* Obama did national service too.”
“Is genocide a good achievement in a role model's resumé?
That is what Dr Who was attempting.
Sometimes violence is needed, in self-defence to stop an enemy from gaining power, to rescue people etc.
Plenty of admirable figures from real history have their hands soaked in blood but they remain heroes and role models
* Mandela
* Churchill
* Nelson
* The previous Pope (he fought in the war)
* Simon Weston
* Obama did national service too.”
Yet pacifists are equal role models too!!!
Gandhi, Einstein, Mother Teresa, to name a few
Anyway the Doctor isn't a pacifist, which has been more than apparent in the last five years....the Eleventh Doctor isn't the first....
But niether are any dirty harry and neither will they be...
3 of 3
