In soaps they have storylines that deal with some pretty serious stuff. Usually at the end of an episode they say something like "Anyone affect by so and sos storyline can get help /information" and give phone numbers or websites. Know Dr Who is slightly different being sci fi but it is also a drama and sometimes refrences or deals with topical and current issues. Sexuality,child abduction (AGMGTW),mental illness (Van Goughs manic depression, Rivers psychosis) ,divorce,infertiltiy(Night Terrors AOTD)) as a few examples. Some fans probably like that. Others probably think just stick to the alliens for a bit of light relief and entertainment.Real world can be a bit stressfull so DW can be a nice escape on saturday nights for 45 minutes. If they do mention stuff you could argue they need to deal with it responsibly. Think the next series will probably have both. Moments of serious drama but also a few light hearted ones. Going to be fun seeing the new doctor go on his adventures with Clara,Danny and who knows who else they might bump into along the way.

Which they actually did after the end of Vincent and the Doctor of course.

Pollution, over population, slavery, depression and a who raft of domestic issues has been done BUT not Imo no, I watch Doctor Who to escape all that stuff.

(puts on Pretentious Hat...which is a Fez, btw)

Thought 'Vincent and the Doctor' handled Van Gough's depression very well and can see why they had the number at the end, but it felt like a one-off. I think Doctor Who is at heart a Good v Evil (or certainly Good v Bad) tale and is about doing the right thing, righting wrongs, and, of course, beating the Monsters! Real world situations can and have been touched upon but at core this is family escapism.

As Pull2open states, the series has alluded to 'serious' subjects relating to 'real world' issues, and if done well, like IMO, The Green Death and, contentious one this!, The Happiness Patrol, it can add an extra layer of interest to the story. The rampant capitalistic Usurer of the Sunmakers is fun too, even if it was just Robert Holmes throwing a strop because of his tax bill.

Less successful again obviously IMO are stories like Monster of Peladon and Colony in Space, not so much because they are influenced by what was happening in society at the time, but because I find them overearnest and dull.

So, Who to me is about morality, kindness, defending the weak, celebrating the brave, recognising loss and love....but largely about an imperfect Hero who doesn't consider himself a hero usually triumphing against the darkness....And loads of Monsters.

(Removes Fez.)

Pretentious...moi?

DW - like a lot of sci-fi - deals with social issues in every story. It's the WAY it does it that makes it interesting.

Anyone could have commented on facism or communism in the early 60's - but DW did it with Daleks and Cybermen.

In the 2005+ series, one of the stand-out elements has been "integration" and "equality" - humanoid characters can be non-white without their skin colour playing any part in the role, for example. Although the handling of sexuality has been a bit clumsy at times (hard to be anything else in a show where there's really very little reason to even mention it in the first place) - at least they've tried.

(I'm still waiting to see an alien race in DW that actually has sex - I don't mean see as in "watch" - it's just that whenever they mention reproduction for aliens, it's always something non-sexual like cloning - never a simple shag. And why DID the humanoid tree have boobs?)

Sorry - where was I?

They've also dealt with a lot of smaller "issues" - which happen to be the ones that affect the most people - unemployment, broken families, affairs, bullying, death of a parent, splitting-up, crushes, lack of friends, animal cruelty, domestic violence, embarrassing parents, terminal illness - even masturbation (remember Jeff's browsing history in Eleventh Hour) -there's lots more - often several in one story.

They do need to be careful though. You only have to watch Star Trek TNG to see what happens when the writers spend too much time moralising. There's a point at which the audience says "Enough - we get it".

Overall, I'd say the fact that you barely notice most of the "issues" covered in DW is a sign that they're doing it right - for the most part.

It's not an either/or situation. You can have lighthearted fun that makes serious points about what it means to be human. Better yet, you can spin on a dime and go from comedy to tragedy in a single scene.

Yep, why limit yourself?

Nice post btw, Minkythedog. Agree about ST:TNG. Often felt like a Sledgehammer/nut situation in that series to me.

I'd say that Doctor Who is a bit more constrained when it comes to serious stuff than the soaps, as it is aiming to keep the kids happy as well as the adults. Getting too into serious, disturbing stuff, would probably not be appropriate for the intended audience.

I think they've struck a good balance, so far.

I think it would be interesting to see what kind of subjects they could use, so long as they handle it carefully, and aren't too soap boxy about it.

You can even add greed to the list. See what the Doctor did with Solomon the Trader in "Dinosaurs on a Spaceship" for an example.

... And why does Madame Vastra have mammary glands despite not being a mammal ?

Serious issues means a serious Doctor, should the companions be funny to counteract such seriousness?

Voiceover at the end of "Waters of Mars".

If you own a time machine and were affected by the paradox issues raised in this programme, please zap forward 500 years and visit the telepathic subspace website: "I_interfered_with_a_fixed_point_in_time_and_now_my_planet_is_a_smouldering_ruin". .com

Interesting thread this.

I think the one thing that Doctor Who has done well over the years is too comment on topical events by alluding to things rather than addressing it directly. For racial hatred you have the Daleks, The Curse Of Peladon alluded to concerns over joining the European market, The Happiness Patrol the Thatcher government and so on.

That is where there's a nice balance without the show overstepping the mark but I do feel in the Pertwee years that mark was overstepped and we went into preaching territory. This little exchange in at the end of Invasion Of The Dinosaurs is a typical example:

DOCTOR: Yes, well, of course he was mad. But at least he realised the dangers this planet of yours is in, Brigadier. The danger of it becoming one vast garbage dump inhabited only by rats.
BRIGADIER: It'll never happen, Doctor.
DOCTOR: It's not the the oil and the filth and the poisonous chemicals that are the real cause of pollution, Brigadier. It's simply greed.

For me that exchange always makes me cringe, it's where the escapism you get from watching the show is blown away and suddenly it's like watching some eco-documentary where we're being taught the rights and wrongs of pollution. That is where it overstepped the line and one of the many reasons I dislike the Pertwee Era and the Third Doctor himself at times with the constant moralising.

I personally think the more personal issues like rape, teenage pregnancies and other such current issues should be left to soaps like EastEnders who have the screen time and real life nature of their shows to address such issues.

Doctor Who should never shy away from real life issues completely but alluding to them through entertainment and telling a good story is a far better way than preaching to us directly imo.

I think it's all about balance. You need a subtle touch of the real issues in the world, or else you make your characters too far removed from anything real and it's very hard to care about them. The character of The Doctor can, when utilised properly, be written in such a way to give analysis on humans without jumping to one-sided arguments. As a slight outsider who seems to be one step ahead of the game, it can be used now and then to deliver deeper messages or explore darker/maturer themes that some viewers will enjoy.

Vincent and the Doctor is often cited as the perfect example of this - it's a great episode, but then the monster side of the story is only adequate at best and so I feel there is a better example of an episode that pulls off the balance that Doctor Who needs. The Satan Pit offered a thrilling alien-themed outer-space adventure. It had action, thrills, scares and fun - some great effects, very decent soundtrack and decent actors as well. It was everything that a Doctor Who episode needed to be for its casual audience. It also offered up the ambiguous antagonist that could very well have been the Devil, and by doing so also struck up a load of questions about morality, religion, faith and belief in a greater being. There was a lot of dialogue between The Doctor and Ida Scott - a lot of character delving and thoughtful exploration...it was fantastic. Some dark themes were explored, but it remained adventurous and ambiguous enough to still deliver the escapism that Doctor Who should bring.

I don't think Doctor Who needs to be 'dealing' with serious issues. It's not a documentary or a political agenda, but at the same time there is an element of humanity that is crucial to the heart of the show and that does mean that the show will only be at its best if now and then, it is able to analyse, scutinise and explore the highs and lows of humanity and everything that makes up humanity. It gives the show so much more substance when it does, but it needs to be done right by competent writers who can ensure it doesn't overshadow the fun, adventure and exploration also on offer.

And by the same token "Aliens of London" with the Slitheen was clearly alluding to the dangers of voting in a load of in-bred fake political old farts who are only interested in satisfying their own greed. And despite that we voted them in anyway.

For me, the question is not so much 'should they' as 'how should they do it'.

If you start out with an idea for something you want to comment on and then try to build a Doctor Who story around that then I think that's wrong. This is what happened with 'The happiness Patrol' which I think is an absolutely terrible story. An embarrassing attempt at satire. Doctor Who doesn't really need soapboxing.

However, if the story concept has depth and naturally lends itself to serious subject matter then it is cheating the story and the audience to shy away from examining it.

Of course, 'serious subject matter' has not really been defined in this thread. Are we talking about specific issues: politics, religion etc or are we talking about sensitive and emotive subject matter: illness, death, abuse etc. Neither should be off limits per se, but a good producer will ensure that only a script where the writer dealt with the issues skillfully and intelligently will actually be filmed. Someone has to act as the discretionary voice to ensure no clumsy handling of sensitive matters.

My final point is that to make Doctor Who only escapist fiction would be really unfitting for the show. The show has never been 'in your face' about dealing with issues like politics or environmentalism (apart from 'The Happiness Patrol') but it has aways done it quietly. Going back as far as the first Daleks story they were talking about nuclear war, examining pacifism vs activism, and had the Daleks as a Nazi analogue. Writers like Barry Letts, Robert Holmes and Malcolm Hulke regularly had 'serious' themes. Many of Robert Holmes' stories were satirical. 'The Sunmakers' is an economic satire for instance. More latterly, Phillip Martin created two strongly satirical serials in the Colin Baker era.

One of the strengths of science fiction is that you can create analogues to the real world in which you can comment on the issues of the times without explicitly doing so. To ignore that and just write some shallow runaround, to willfully create a programme with no depth would be deplorable really.

The fact is, it has rarely just been a silly children's show with people running around fighting 'monsters' to no real consequence. It's actually one of the things that has set the show apart, by my reckoning. I think the people who say 'it's just a show about good vs evil with a magic man who comes and saves people' would be very surprised to sit and watch the show with me, where I can point out all of the themes they are presumably missing.

I thought the mickey/martha marriage was lazy stereotyping, its like the writers thought, hey lets just marry off the 2 Black characters, it still bugs me on repeats.

Yes, of course there was Sil, very much a similar character as the Usurer in The Sunmakers, yet even more repulsive. And we know Ms Hawes is playing a 'banker' next series...

Good post, but must admit your last sentence made me smile and think "That sounds like a fun night in."

By the same token, it's a little problematical if two black characters getting married is now seen as some sort of anti-political correctness taboo. Black people have to marry white people now else they're a 'stereotype'? How about we just don't worry about what colour people are? How about we say those two characters got married, not those two black characters got married or that black guy married that Chinese woman or whatever? Why does their race have to be relevant?

If I were to assume a reason in RTD's thinking as to why he did that I would think it was to bring the two characters effectively 'jilted' by Rose and the Doctor together, and give them a happy 'ending'. How terrible if a writer has to stop and think 'no wait, I can't do that. They're both black'. I personally never made the same assumption that it was about putting the two black characters together. In fact, it's not something I ever even thought of before now. Is the colour of people's skin the first thing you would think of when you were considering the relationships of characters as a writer? If yes, then that gives you something to think about yourself. If no, then what place do you have to assume it was in Russell T. Davies' thinking?

I agree, it was a very poor quick fix to a loose end.

I cant see Martha ever leaving her medical/UNIT career and Mickey would have simply have continued his freedom fighting work or would have more than likely joined Torchwood. Both would have been very happy in those choices I think!

If there were a few more Black characters to choose from then it wouldnt be a problem, the trouble is there have only ever been 2 Black companions, and those 2 people just happenned to get married, i dont buy it.

If mickey had married another black person, and martha another, it wouldnt raise an eyebrow, as in reallity, most black people and white people mix in different circles, however martha and mickey didnt fit together, they had no history together, the only thing seem to have in common was that they previously travelled with the doctor, at different times.

As i said, IMO it was lazy writing, the writers were tying up loose ends, and it was a obvious easy route to marry off the only 2 main Black characters.

It was lazy writing, but done for the sake of closure. RTD didn't want to leave any open threads from his main characters and so closed it all off in The End of Time.

Sure, it would have been more credible to actually see Martha and Mickey bond a bit before jumping into full-on marriage but with only a few episodes that year it was a luxury we weren't afforded. I don't think that race is something that played into it though in any regard - the two characters were a hypothetical fit (both jilted by The Doctor and Rose, as someone else pointed out), they were seen to leave together with Jack at the end of Journey's End, and so the ending does work for them even if it is a clichéd way of wrapping up loose ends. It's a creative decision you'll either appreciate for character coherency, or detest for its laziness.

I can't say I know RTD in the slightest but as a gay man, I highly doubt he ever intended to just marry off the two black characters because they were black - it'd be the same sort of insult you see in the media where two gay characters are automatically destined to be together just because they're gay. I'd imagine RTD has a bit more sensitivity and senibility than that to be honest, and I highly suspect that the racial element crossed his mind just as much as it crossed mine - which is not at all.

thats the point i was getting at, lots of soaps and dramas do this with gay people, a gay person turns up, and obviously as there is another gay character in the show, automatically they need to be involved in some sort of romance, because they are "gay", and gay people all atomatically find each other of interest.

When in reality, not every gay person will find every gay person attractive, just like hetrosexuals and bi-sexuals dont always find each other attractive, but as there is only 2 back characters in the main dr who cast, it seems RTD did the above with martha and mickey, and married them off.

they shouldnt have married each other, they should have both been with other people, their colour doesnt matter, but the fact that the two of them were shoved together screams of desperation to find some sort of resolution to the two characters.

Nah I don't think it was lazy or stereotypical, I just think, as someone else pointed out it was done for closure. It just happened that the two characters were black, however, if one was white I think he would have still got them together. Lol so maybe RTD is at fault for casting too many black characters. To be honest it never crossed my mind either, I just thought it was nice for them to have a happy ending to be honest. I guess some people concentrate on colour more than others

The gay characters in soap doesn't count either because generally you only have one or two gay characters at one time so therefore they have to get together to make a storyline.