Yes, that was pretty embarassing sometimes. It felt so predicatable as though he decided to deliberately drop something in at various points because he thought that 'the kids' would like that sort of thing.
Just very obviously and predictably done.

Yes, I just saw David Tennant on that ITV drama 'Secret Smile'.

I think he's going to be a better Doctor than Chris Eccleston was.

He just does so much so well.

We can only hope RTD was receptive to what the viewers...young and old....did and did not appreciate in series one in order to make series two even stronger and more successful.

I hope so.
Because to be fair to the guy, maybe it would have been suicide to try and take all sorts of risks with the first series...
...maybe he was just testing the water to gauge what or what not he could get away with.
Possibly.

Because he must know that he is in a competitive market, and may even want to push himself more next time and not sit on his laurels thinking he's got it cushy and doesn't need to be adventurous or ambitious.

I am sure with the callibre of writers he has on board coupled with experienced directors (thankfully no Keith Boak this time around!) we will see a much stronger season. As much as I value and appreciate what RTD has done with Who I do hope one day he will hand over the reins to someone else and not linger as JNT did...we all know how that turned out in the end!

The thing about Doctor Who is that there has always been an element of morality in it. Our Good Doctor, even in his darkest hours, has always looked for the moral out. Genesis of The Daleks is a prime example, where he ponders as to whether he has the right to wipe out a complete race just because they are evil. It's only natural he'll take an anti war stance. If your entire family, species, race had been destroyed in a war, there's a good chance you might not be a big fan of any violent confrontation.
My perspective only.

That's true JosephG. And on the previous page that's what I said I like when morality is introduced into a story.

In the example you gave, which just happens to be a perfect example given the subject of the thread about an anti-war message, that's more of a moral dilemna.

It's not being simplistic by telling viewers that war is bad, war is stupid....it's raising the question of what you would do and gives moral arguments for both sides that The Doctor has to consider and think about.

It's not battering you over the head with a moral message, it's giving you a moral dilemna to face which you have to think about and consider the consequences of your actions to decide whether they be right or wrong.

Didn't RTD admit that he puts his own agenda into his Doctor Who writing in an interview in Doctor Who Monthly?

I found this a bit dangerous as, at the same time as talking about maximising the audience, he also brings in the potential to alienate a percentage of it.

Thankfully though, the agenda was only there if it was pointed out, or one looked really hard to see it. I believe that this will be the case with The Christmas Invasion. It will be there (as we have now been told) but I don't think that it will in our faces as much as we are led to believe. Okay, as in the series, one or two lines may be a little more blatant, but no more than that IMHO.

If similarities have to be pointed out with something that happened over twenty years ago, then that seems to back up my theory.

Remeber who blew up the weapons factory where Captain Jack got his wonderful gun from and who was it who replaced Captain Jack's wonderful gun with a banana.

And of course "you would make a good Dalek" & the reaction to it.

The anti-war stance of the Doctor has been pretty evident from the start of the "new" Doctor Who

The anti-war stance has been evident thoughout the classic series of Doctor Who as well. I'm not exactly sure why this is so shocking to some people.

It sounds like the scene in question is setting up a future plotline whilst at the same time posing a dilemma for Harriette Jones and the viewers.

At the end of World War Three, the Doctor did say that Harriette would be responsible for a new golden era - partly because of the Doctor's influence, I would wager.

Welcome back, BG.

Quite - and as for RTD's agenda being "dangerous" I don't think we can expect any intelligent writer not to use the things they feel strongly about in their work - whether it be issues, emotions, or people. If you write bland "one size fits all" drivel then you may as well be writing for a 4pm weekday slot. This is 7pm prime time family viewing. Something for everyone eh?

I quite agree.

Television is the most influential medium we have. If a writer uses it to put across messages along the lines of 'war is bad' and 'hating someone because of their sexuality is unnecessary' then as long as it's not sign-posted to death, it can only be to a good thing.

I wouldn't be sensationalist and call that dangerous, would you?

I do agree, but I meant 'dangerous' in the sense of damaging the show's popularity; if things alienate the viewers (about anything) then the viewers stop watching it, the show is no-more. I want it with us for years to come...

Ah right - gotcha.

I agree to an extent - I wouldn't want DW to disappear from our screens again. But I also think that providing thought-provoking elements to a programme is also essential to it's survival.

The so-called 'water-cooler topic*' - or for children, something they will discuss in the playground.

As long as it's not banged-on about ad infinitum I can't see how it would put people off.



*Is this really the only time that a bunch of grown adults working together in the same office actually have a conversation with each other?
Last edited by DenWatts : 14-12-2005 at 11:39

this changes in the christmas invasion


dont like this, I like harriet being an ally of the doctor

Oh, right. Where did that snippet come from, Kris?

I like Harriet being an ally as well - but I'm guessing that he manages to change her point of view in the end, hence my comment regarding him being partly responsible for a new golden era.

The Charachter of the Doctor has always been anti - violence,Anti - war.Cant see the big deal with it myself :yawn:

Perhaps there is more scope for the development of the Harriet Jones character if they take it in that direction?

I thought that after seeing Casanova - which I still regard as being an excellent showcase for his talents. (And I also have my suspicions regarding *that* being one of the main intentions of the programme - to showcase DT's talents. It's well-known that RTD does like to work with the same group of people whenever possible.)

I watched Casanova and thought that DT *must* win the role of the Doctor once it became available.

Either way - DT hasn't put a foot wrong so far, imo.

Where's this actually come from? It flies in the face of everything we've heard about Harriet Jones up to now?
Besides,
It's never really been the Doctor to condemn someone for their mistakes...

The dark side of DW was the best aspect of it last series. I'm all for the anti-war message provided he does it the right way and not ram it down our throats. Can't wait to see how David Tennant fares

Perhaps The Christmas Invasion is the springboard for the much touted

I know it's slightly contradicting my last post but that might actually make sense

Those were exactly the lines I was thinking along.