I enjoyed the episode as it was, but I just found it odd decision to have no interaction between Tennant and piper. Even with her as the moment they could have been allowed a few lines. At the point where the tenth doctor hears the war doctor say 'bad wolf girl' and gets intrigued for example, the tenth doctor could have got a glimpse of her and then maybe hear her say a line or two before disappearing, which would have left him even more intrigued and confused, in a funny way.

I still enjoyed it as was though. Not saying it was something absolutely needed, just that their lack of interaction was, to me, simply strange by it's absence.



Apart from his use of captain Jack (where it was intentional), I don't agree myself, but I can see why someone else might have that viewpoint. I would point out though that the same can and frequently is said about Moffat creations such as Amy Pond, River, Missy, which again in those cases I think there is more to those particular characters that just that element, so I think it's all down to perception and whether someone can look past a rather strong 'flirty' type element to see the other traits a character has, which if they are a long term companion or long term returnee like Jack or River, they always will have more to them than just that one thing.



I'd agree with you that Martha wasn't particularly developed, but I don't see how she was 'there to further the relationship between Rose and Ten'. Ten only mentioned Rose in the first 2 episodes, in scenes that were done to show his rawness at losing someone whom he had such an intense and deep bond with, and it was realistic that he wouldn't just want to immediately replace such a person.

Since Moffat has tried to make a big deal about 12 and Clara's supposed bond, it wouldn't at all surprise me if he added some sort of sentimental mourning about her from 12 (if i understand correctly he remembers her but not what she looks like). If that were the case, I suspect you as someone who enjoyed that relationship would be happy to hear it's significance acknowledged and would likely bat away any suggestion of such a thing overshadowing Bill.



In contrast I found the Ten/rose relationship more relatable because they were both written as so down to earth, and like comfortable friends enjoying each others company whilst travelling the universe.

In contrast, to me Clara's position with the doctor seemed mostly as it was meant to be 'mean babysitter of an idiot' because she so often seemed to be telling him off, telling him what to do, and at least once physically being violent towards him, along with an attitude where she seemed like she wanted to prove she was better than him.

But again, it's all varying perception. We like what we like, no accounting for taste etc etc.

The one sort of 'blooper' type thing I find about that scene is how Rose and the doctor have to hold on for dear life to stop getting sucked in, but then pete can appear to catch her, standing a lot closer than they were, and it doesn't effect him.

I've seen it since suggested that maybe the materialisation from one dimension to another meant he had some sort of temporary force around him, but nothing to explain it was said in the episode itself, or by RTD since as far as I'm aware.

Remember being young and seeing this I was wondering what now that Rose is gone, but then Donna came bursting into the TARDIS asking where she was and The Doctor did his what routine, and then I heard that theme it got me so hyped.

RTD was good at keeping things interesting gotta admit even when one adventure was ending another one started. I mean we remember the Titanic over Buckingham palace on Christmas Day right?

That didn't occur to me til later either. I don't think Rose was bothered by it either.

"That's for saving my life not dad. Now let me baaaaack". Sob sob

Regarding Martha, what I found irritating was that it wasn't just a few early mentions of Rose, it was the fact that half way through the *series* she was still being treated as a temporary companion by the Doctor, despite what they had gone through, because he didn't want to get 'close' again. That scene in (I think) The Lazarus Experiment where he finally grants Martha a TARDIS key, and she holds her hands out so awed and grateful.....Arghhhh! This woman saved your life in her first story, you git!

The mention of Rose in 'Utopia' was obviously valid as Jack was 'catching up', but we have the sarky aside from Martha "Oh, she was blonde!" Give it a rest. (Wont go on about Series 4 and "I was here first!")

Said previously I liked Rose and rate Piper as an actress, but for me it was diminishing returns after 'Doomsday'.

Moffat's made some mistakes along the way, such as Amy trying to seduce the Doctor, but it doesn't come across as the same sort of archetype to me, particularly in the last few series where things seem to have settled into a slightly more serious mood. I think there's an archetype there, just not of the horny and flirty kind, at least not on RTD's level.


Make no mistake, while I wouldn't mind a few mentions or showing how the Doctor misses her, I'd certainly be annoyed if Bill was written as "Not Clara". There's no bias there.

For me, despite what it some perceive may have been a little unfair to Martha, I thought it was just so realistic.

After the relationship they had, and those emotional scenes at the end of doomsday, I would have thought it cartoonish and a bit silly for him to say for him to just dust himself off and say 'Rose gone, meh, wheres the next person'.

In real life if someone is widowed or maybe just breaks up after a long relationship, but then meets someone new, they are always going to take longer and be more dubious at letting that new person in than they were with the first person. It won't be the new persons fault, and it may be a little unfair to that new person, but at the same time it's also not the fault of the person who has experienced loss that they feel that way.


I still say it's only Jack that really stands out as an overly flirty character in RTD's time, and even then there is more to him than just that.

Real people have relationships and feelings, which is why I haven't minded the odd bit of flirty banter in either RTD or Moffat's time. To pretend that sort of stuff doesn't exist would be to write it as some sort of childrens show. If it gets in the way of the main plot, or waste's large chunks of episodes to no pay off, like the extremely dull Danny and Clara saga, then it becomes a problem, but a few lines here and there doesn't bother me.

Also, regarding your assertion that the last few series have 'settled into a slightly more serious mood' i'd say again thats more just your opinion because for me, the last few series have reflected a sense that Moffat wasn't sure what he wanted the series to be.

We've had constant format alterations, to a 12th doctor who has gone from being mostly a harsh cynical sort who people were comparing to Hartnell, to a guitar playing, hoodie wearing, sonic sunglasses owner.

Then there's the abrupt Clara changes.Clara has changed character every series she has been in, from the non personality plot device series 7 Clara, to the mean, demanding, bossy, series 8 Clara, to the toned down, more fitting the generic companion template but with a few hints of the previous bosiness series 9 Clara.

I mostly enjoyed series 9, but if anything it was due to it being one of the more fun series of the past few years, and when it was serious, made the serious stuff more streamlined, rather than the previous tangled, overly complicated stories we'd had previously. It felt some what a departure from series 7 and 8 (in a good way)rather than seeming like a natural progression of the series.




I don't feel Martha was written as 'not Rose' though. There were two mentions of Rose in Martha's first two episodes, reflecting the emotional pain the doctor was feeling at such a loss, then he moved past it, accepted Martha, and ultimately trusted that she was good enough to save the world when he was unable.

I don't feel it proves that Martha was badly written because she didn't have the same bond with the doctor that Rose did. If they'd shown the same sort of relationship they'd shown with Rose, people would have been complaining that RTD was just writing the same thing over again, and that it was the only way he could write a companion. The doctor travelling with, trusting and respecting, but not quite clicking on the same personal level as he had with previous companions is actually quite a different tact to take for a writer to what were used to.

Again, to use a real life example, if you end up spending a long amount of time with someone, either because you work with them, or perhaps through dating them, it's inevitable that you are going to form stronger bonds with some people rather than others.

The fact that his relationship with Martha didn't feel as cosy as it had with Rose, just seemed to make it all the more prominent how well he then got on with Donna, in what was again and entirely different relationship to what he had with the other two.

Martha herself suffers as a companion in her own right, and she was a little underdeveloped, but again I think it was all realistic writing, and the end result was when you look at the three of Tennant's companions overall, you see three completely different people, with different relationships and attitudes towards the doctor.

I agree. I've no problem at all with the choice of Billie.


Hmm. That's hardly a reasonable interpretation of SM's motives. To paraphrase another well known, space based science fiction series, "Really, Doctor. You must learn to govern your passions; they will be your undoing.".


It didn't work for me, especially because of all the other times the Doctor has managed to overcome difficulties to rescue people and because there was no emotional truth in Rose accepting 10.5. No way would she have accepted that. She was in love with Tennant's Doctor, not some substitute copycat half-clone.

It was a cop out and a contrivance. It was an attempt by RTD to move the story on from Rose without killing her off and without the Doctor seeming to be a complete and utter bastard towards Rose. The Doctor, essentially, ditched Rose.

The whole 'Bad Wolf Bay 2' stuff really didn't work for me at all. It just didn't feel right. 'Doomsday' had been an effective enough way to write out Rose and there could have been plenty of other ways to have her return in Series 4 but know that she would have to return to 'Pete's World' (fundamentally because Piper was only contracted for those episodes, obviously, but you know what I mean.) But to accept a 'version' of Ten who as mentioned in the story might have psychotic tendencies....nah.

I don't think I'm saying that just because my favourite C21 companion (Donna) had an 'oohhh!' cameo from Rose in her first 'proper' story as a companion (thought that scene worked pretty well in 'Partners in Crime' in fairness) *and* had another big 'goodbye' scene just before the sad 'mindwipe' in her last 'proper' story. It just felt way too overegged for my tastes. (and I like eggs.)

eta I can completely understand people who think of Rose as the best of the Doctor's many companions not being bothered about this, btw! Fair enough. But I admit the whole 'smiling and running towards each other' bit (after Donna gives him a knowing nod) in 'Stolen Earth' (an episode I enjoyed!) was only saved by the Dalek popping up out of nowhere and having a blast! (is that mean? )

Series 9 felt very much like 8 to me, but with more confidence and skill. They were still similar tonally and thematically in a way not shared with Matt Smith's tenure. I never noticed the Doctor's supposedly abrupt change from Series 8, just somebody who had settled into his own identity a little better which we'd been seeing hints of towards the end of the series.

The sex-driven attitude of RTD's characters never felt naturally to me. It was kind of like he was trying hard to make the show "sexy" but a lot of the time it just came across as a little overbearing for me. Take Love and Monsters, where we spend far too long seeing Jackie and what's-his-name seeing and trying to seduce each other, at the expense of actual plot. It kind of makes me wonder, was it even a sci-fi show about aliens and time travel here?


It just felt to me the show didn't want to move on from Billie, and it was trying to make us feel things from the Doctor's point of view with Martha not being as great as Rose. Unrequited love plots are tedious enough as it is, but that was essentially Martha's arc. I was never even convinced by the Doctor and Rose's relationship, or why he was so torn up over this one where other companions, arguably more important, didn't affect him in such a way. At best, the Third Doctor was reluctant in taking on Jo Grant because he missed Liz Shaw, but it wasn't dragged out to be Jo's defining arc and she was allowed to be her own character.

As for Donna not getting the same treatment, that just makes it worse for me. It just seems to be a "Click, different person who I'm not as distant from" sort of thing which made it look personal against Martha. It's just bad character writing to me that's lacking in motivations and real development.

Had it been gradual i'd agree with you, like maybe if it had only been towards the end of series 9 that the more jokey version of 12 emerged after a gradual softening over the 2 series, but as it was, it was a very abrupt and sudden change all at once.

Admittedly Love and monsters isn't one of the best episodes out there. I think it suffered from being a first attempt at being a doctor lite episode, and not really knowing how to do them effectively.

I find it strange how you say it spent far too long on Elton and Jackie though. For me the focus was his relationship with his gang, and more intimate relationship with the woman he fancied (who's name elludes me at this moment).

Also, when you say 'take love and monsters' as an example of how relationship stuff can get in the way of an episode, i'd say take the Caretaker as an equal example. There, Moffat not content with Danny and Clara's relationship taking 5-10 min chunks out of other episodes which could have been used on episode plot, he decides to dedicate this episode entirely to the Danny/Clara relationship with the main draw meant to be the supposedly exciting premise of the doctor meeting Danny. The monster of the story is mostly just background, and purely just an excuse for the episode to have the doctor stay at the school for the episode.



We already knew the doctor, and had experienced what he had. We knew that he'd just lost someone important and how he must be feeling. It made sense to show how that was impacting on him.


The fact that you didn't like the doctor and rose's relationship goes a long way to why you felt the impact it had on the doctor was unnecessary, and why people like me who were convinced by it completely understood the importance of showing such a natural reaction to a big loss.

Also, when you talk about Classic who, i'd argue that Tv has evolved since then, and that audiences didn't tend to expect to see emotional resonance of a decision or departure in sci- fi the way they naturally do today with all dramas.


That's my whole point. It was a different person who through no fault of his own he got on with better on a personal level. It sort of was personal against Martha, but not in a mean way, just in him not getting along with her on a personal level as well as the other two. He still seemed to respect her though.

Do you seriously not think it's realistic to show that a person can meet different people and get on with some better than others?. I think if he acted like every single companion was the best friend he's ever had, then that would be entirely unrealistic.

No, The Caretaker wasn't the best of episodes. Humorous at some spots, but flawed. Although I don't understand your statement about the monster being an excuse for the episode to have the Doctor stay at the school for the episode. Aren't most monsters essentially an excuse to have the Doctor stay at a certain location for most episodes?

The whole subplot between Elton and Jackie was just a tedious distraction to me. This is where I often compare RTD's writing to Joss Whedon's, because I think, with the inspiration the former takes from the latter, it makes a good example. Joss Whedon was very talented at handling both the supernatural, dangerous plots as well as the more "soapy" side with the characters' personal lives, making both sides of the coin compelling enough without one detracting from the other. In my opinion, RTD simply doesn't have that writing tact, and merely creates a frustrating mesh where the characters' personal lives are uninteresting distractions that come at the expense of the sci-fi side of the plot.


But when the Doctor's point of view is that Martha wasn't as good as Rose, and it's almost trying to make us see things from that point of view, that's bad writing in my opinion. It really made her look like an inadequate character at times.


That's another point we'd have to disagree on, I don't think television has evolved so much as regressed, and RTD's modernisation and generic take on the show is a large part of why I didn't enjoy that era too well. :P


Of course I do, I just don't think it's very good when a character is intentionally overshadowed by their predecessor in a way that drags down their chance at true characterisation. Romana and the Fourth Doctor weren't exactly the best of friends, there was a lot of bickering and conflict, but Romana wasn't treated as "Not Leela" and instead the show was largely allowed to move forward.

What I meant by that was that the soap of Clara and Danny was supposed to be the main draw and the monster seemed almost thrown in as an afterthought by someone thinking 'how can we explain why the doctor would want to hang around Clara's school for an entire episode for long enough to get caught up in the Clara/Danny stuff'. The difference with a normal episode being that yes, the monster or threat is usually the reason he sticks around, but it is also usually the main plot also.


I didn't find the stuff with Elton and Jackie particularly interesting, so I won't defend that, but I absolutely have to disagree with you on the rest of the post, as I think balancing the family stuff perfectly with the sci - fi stuff is one of RTD's strengths. If you'd only watched 'Rose' then you'd know the basic's of the Doctor and the TARDIS, have witnessed an alien invasion, and met Rose's mum, Mickey, and have a good idea of her home life setting all in that first 45 minutes. Throughout his time, he gave all the companions a family, and throughout we got to see them and learn things about them bit by bit, without him ever spending too long with just the family element that it became boring.

I'd say it's Moffat who doesn't seem to be able to balance home life and relationships with the sci fi elements. Apart from a few fleeting glances each, he didn't try to show us anything of either Amy or Clara's family. Then, when he actually makes an attempt to show home life properly, in series 8, it's all heavy handed and over done, with large sections of episodes taken up by Clara and Dannys relationship, slowing the start of some episodes, ruining the momentum built up in some (listen) and even wasting an entire episode to dwell on there relationship.



I see it as an intended creative choice, to do something different and not repeat what was done with the previous companion.



Have to agree to disagree on that one then.



As i've said repeatedly, I think it keeps things fresh for the doctor to not view all companions the same, and in a show where he mostly falls for the companions personality as well as there skills, it was quite different for a companion to be respected by the doctor for what they bring to the table, but not exactly completely clicking on a personal level with him.

I don't exactly disagree, it wasn't the best of episodes.


Moffat doesn't try to balance the sci-fi and soap elements, though: it's sci-fi first, and I find that the preferable route. I didn't fall in love with Doctor Who because I got to see someone's mum nagging, nor did I fall in love with it for it's realisation, and RTD's era didn't show me why I should start caring. Sure, it's more realistic to show these character's personal lives down to the very bone, but realistic and interesting are two different things. You could show the characters going to the toilet: realistic, sure, but not something to care about.

It never bothered me that Moffat doesn't show much of the character's home lives. It's a sci-fi, you don't need that stuff to make a character interesting or well-rounded. Doctor Who managed it with the classic companions. Adding almost carbon-copy families and a crush on the Doctor didn't make them any more layered for me.


And trying new things is fine, but execution is a different story. Love and Monsters was, ironically, a fantastic concept which was absolutely destroyed by terrible execution.


I agree, but it happened before Martha and with better results in my opinion.

Of course I agree that it should be sci fi first, and only family stuff if there is time, but I was responding to your statement that RTD wasn't tactful at achieving a good balance of the two by saying that I think he is very good at doing just that.



And i'd probably agree with Love and Monsters, but not with how Martha was handled. RTD went to lengths to show the awkwardness of The Doctor and Martha's relationship, and how she pined for him whilst he didn't notice, right up till the scene at the end of Last of the Time Lords where she makes her speech saying something along the lines of moving on from the person who doesn't notice you in the way you'd like, and the Doctor barely seems bothered that she's going.

What I'm saying is, to me, the Doctor/Martha relationship was written with intent. It wasn't a mistake, or an intended buddy relationship that ended up going wrong during the writing, but it was a relationship written exactly as RTD intended to write it.

That may not exactly seem 'fair' to that particular character, and you may not have personally enjoyed such a concept, but that doesn't mean it was bad writing.


Well, there are different reasons to feel uncomfortable about a characters time, from not liking the character to feeling awkward about how the things that happened to that character, but all I'll say is that to me, for one writer to come up with three people who basically fulfilled the same role and be able to make each so distinctive and with such unique relationships with the Doctor is pretty impressive.

To me, he failed to give any reason to care about the family stuff when the characters were very one-dimensional and grating. I spent many of his episodes feeling bored and wanting the sci-fi stuff to get underway.


It's bad writing in my opinion, when I find it difficult to invest in the bond between the two leads or to appreciate the story behind them. There was no chemistry there or any reason to want to keep seeing the two on screen together, it was just a very non-existant dynamic with a companion who simply wasn't written as a very strong or complete character to me. I think it's the perfect example of how not to do a companion.


Again, not to me as I'd say this was already done plenty before RTD. There was Jo, who was more like a niece; Sarah Jane, a best friend; Romana, a rival but also possible crush; Jamie, a mischievous young friend; and so forth. RTD went for a very basic trio of lover-rebound-best friend.

Your opinion is your opinion. I couldn't disagree more, but I think we've already established that.



Like I said before, when the writer specifically writes it with the intention to show they have no chemistry or bond, and then you as a viewer feel exactly that, that shows that it is good writing. You disliked it, fair enough, but the writer portrayed to you what they intended even if it wasn't to your taste exactly what they were portraying.

If he'd done that with bad writing then Martha would likely have come off as utterly useless, but instead we were shown that, although the doctor didn't quite connect with her on a personal level, there were plenty of reasons to respect her and her skills nevertheless, which the doctor did also, even if they weren't exactly 'buddies'.





It's easy to just list what he did with some hand waving, as though that is some sort of established trope of companion sequence, but it doesn't change the fact that he started off with nothing, and by the end of his time had created three completely unique characters each with there own unique relationship to the Doctor.

In comparison, since series 5 we've had
-Amy Pond - Strong female who treats the Doctor as a bit of an idiot, and tends to think she's in charge of the relationship.

- Clara Oswald - Strong female who really treats the Doctor like a foolish child and acts like she's definitely in charge of the relationship.

Oh, and not to mention River song, the strong female who treats the doctor like an idiot and acts like she's in charge of their relationship.

Now I know those characters aren't actually exactly the same, but there relationships to the Doctor and how they interact with him are extremely similar. Just goes to show it's not actually that easy to vary things, and why I think it's admiral that RTD managed to do so.

Like I said, I found she often came across as inadequate the way she was being sold as a poor man's Rose, coupled with how she felt like half a character. How does writing her as a rebound on purpose make it any better, though? It just came across to me as a poor concept troubled by bad writing. Colin Baker was intentionally written as a narcissistic bully, but that didn't automatically give it merit because of it being on purpose.


It seems a little dismissive to claim my views as "handwaving" as though I haven't actually thought about it at all. Unfortunately for me the three RTD companions don't come across as all that unique to me at all, particularly not in comparison to many Classic Who ones. I pretty much draw the line at the whole "lover-rebound-best friend" role filling, but apart from that Donna is the only one who could remotely stand out, merely because she wasn't written with a schoolgirl crush on the Doctor. It's not very stimulating writing when each companion essentially differs just in how the main character feels about them.

I'm not going to defend the similarities between Moffat's companions as they are there, though it could be argued as "handwaving" (and it's worth pointing out, everyone has treated the Doctor like an idiot for a long time), but for me they all take on different journeys that represent much more thought-provoking themes. Amy's story is about growing up and meeting your childhood hero, and in a funny sort of way she's an allegory for Doctor Who fans who grew up with the show. Clara is more about self-reflection, grief and conflict, and a loyalty to a dear friend that stands whatever comes in her way. River didn't come across quite as deep to me, admittedly, though she wasn't a full-time companion... she was more of a "perfect tragedy" for the Doctor, being his counterpart in many ways but consequently always being stuck in a bizarre and disordered relationship with him. For Amy and Clara though, there's actual development there.

In my opinion, that's much more stimulating and thought-provoking writing than a story about more star-crossed lovers, or an unrequited love subplot, that don't particularly stand out when they're often shoehorned into most television shows as it is.

Well I'd say it makes it better because that was what the writer wanted you to think, and the fact that you did shows a skill in the writing.

As I said before, you not liking the concept of how they handled Martha doesn't equate to bad writing.

Again though, it's just difference of perception.



I personally don't see how Clara had 'development' when they completely and abruptly overhauled the character each series.

Anyway, I think we can go round and round with this saying similar things back and forth, but it really is just a huge difference of opinion where neither of us is going to to ever going to feel the way the other does.

Doing something on purpose doesn't automatically merit is as skillful writing. Again, Colin Baker was intended to be less likable and that's exactly what was achieved, but I don't think there are many people who would put that down to skill. Writing a lead character as an underdeveloped shoe-in certainly isn't my idea of skillful writing.


I only ever saw an overhaul from the 50th Anniversary onwards, from then she started to feel like the same character that said goodbye in Hell Bent, but someone who's clearly been through a lot and changed.

If that's what was intended and what was achieved then I would. Think I'm in a minority, but I kind of like Colin's brash doctor personally, despite the fact that I prefer the series 9 version of 12 to the series 8 version. Funny how it works with different people.



I feel that there must have been negative feedback about her extreme bosiness, stropiness, and all round personality in series 8, because when she returned in series 9 she was a way more toned down, fitting-the-basic-companion-template type character in series 9. Thats what I perceived anyway.

Then that's your opinion, but I think both the TV Sixth Doctor and Martha are examples of poorly realised ideas and clumsy writing.


Maybe, but I didn't notice anything radically different beyond the two characters becoming increasingly reckless and careless.