<![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man? - io9 Comments]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man? - io9 Comments]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> forgive me, Capt Jack must be pansexual. The reality between fact and fiction can get blurred at times. John Barrowman does appear with an unashamed frequency and UK TV judging various amatuer singing and dance shows (ughh) but he will return to true form in Torchwood starting soon - YEAH!

nha

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @nha: Captain Jack is bisexual or, frankly, pansexual, but yes. Very refreshing.

JennaW

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> seems like an excellent site!

I thought PM Harriet Jones was Labour. Infact, more of a iBlairite clone of New Labour. The New Labour Messiah, perhaps?
So the insidious instigation of Harriet's deserved overthrow can be seen as a comment on the rise and fall of new labour itself.

What has struck me as revolutionary was the introduction of Captain Jack (is he Dr Who's first openly gay character?) and the 9th Doctor as stunningly working class, Northern bloke was a stroke of genius. Doctor Who has always been Upper/middle class and obviously went to a Galafrian version of Eton. He got through by being quirky, having a stiff upper lip and all that. Also the Time Lords home planet seemed to be dialectically connected to Windsor. So to change the Dr so dramatically is a revolutionary act.

nha

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @BTGoss: I am totally humbled by your nerdling glory. Actually that's a really great point, which I'd totally forgotten. Although "Harold Saxon" probably would have gotten himself elected regardless, thanks to his mind-controlling satellites and his total disregard for the consequences of changing history.

Charlie Jane Anders

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> Wow. This post and comment thread just kind of made my weekend. Too bad I wasn't around on Wednesday.

A couple people made this point above, but, from a character analysis standpoint, I do think that this Doctor's status as "last of," and his role in the destruction of the Time Lords, has a great deal to do with his desire to maintain the status quo in the current series. I won't speak to the classic series, since I've yet to watch it, but this Doctor has a (necessarily) well-developed sense that "right" and "wrong" don't always present themselves so clearly. He still tends to ally himself with the down-and-out, but he's as likely to act in his own interest as not--for a rush of adrenaline (or Time Lord equivalent), or the chance not to be alone anymore.

Ultimately, I think that's why he was so blind to what needed to be done about the Master in the end. He couldn't admit his inability to save the Master because he couldn't face the prospect of being alone again.

Also, clearly, I've thought about this a little too much.

hence_the_name

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @btgoss: Oooo. Good point. Where were you Wednesday?

JennaW

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> I am swelling with full nerdling glory right now.
The "new" Doctor is neither a force of good or ill, he is just someone working his own agenda. Harriet Jones (yes we know), is the prime example of the "new" Doctors disregard for the flow of Time and History. Doctor 9 says she "brings England's Golden Age, serving for 5 terms." Doctor 10 gets his boxers in a bunch about her giving the order to wave her big stick, and he ousts her, opening the door for Mr. Saxon. And we all saw how well that turned out.
This Doctor just might be the most alien yet, since he obviously doesn't care about the course of history.
End my nerd rank for the day.

btgoss

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> I also feel as though the Doctor's current status as a "homeless," Gallifrey-less, last-of-the-Timelords might be the biggest factor in the current waning of his desire to overthrow any governments. His somewhat contentious relationship with his own race has now become a sort of endless wake for his people. The Doctor's biggest fear, these days? I believe it's genocide.

prizewinner

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> I think that the Doctor takes a slightly more existential view of things: he helps when he can, when he sees things he considers wrong (i.e. cruelty and subjugation). It's not his job to go fixing things for everybody. People have responsibility for their own lives, governments, and systems.

He also takes the long view of things. I mean, imagine if you had lived for the past 903 years. After a few Crusades and pogroms and genocides, how willing or capable would you be in trying to stop each and every one. It would be impossible. So -- if you're someone like the Doctor -- you try to see what's good and wonderful about any place and time, and you only really involve yourself when there's some sort of outside influence going on.

Of course, I might be overthinking this.

jzellis

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> Bring back Sally Sparrow!

Doug Nelson

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> Awesome. Though of course, it could just be that the number of stories were a lot less in the late 1980s...

And now this site made an immediate claim on my soul.

michaellorg

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @adanalyst: this will absolutely be something addressed in the next series, but i won't post any spoilers here.

@jennaw: you're my hero

modernboy

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> So, are we saying that they should do a GENESIS OF THE DALEKS style episode where The Doctor goes back and debates whether to kill Margaret Thatcher while she was still a scientist working on the formula for Mr Whippy ice cream?

Or what?

Mark Kardwell

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @TruculentandUnreliable: And in the midst of this wonderful bloggy timesuck, DHL just delivered my monthly box of comics and manga.

JennaW

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @TruculentandUnreliable: Oh, and I've gained 10 pounds.

I may have to download the leechblocker plug-in from Firefox.

TruculentandUnreliable

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @aspiringexpatriate: Christ, I know. My desk used to be immaculate and I used to have everything filed and all the crumbs cleaned up immediately and couldn't stand to have drink rings on it...now...you should see my desk. And with this site, my life's going to be about the same, too.

TruculentandUnreliable

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> Yes, like I said earlier this morning in the post-apocalyptic movies post. Dear god, and I thought Jezebel was sucking away my life.

aspiringexpatriate

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @aspiringexpatriate: Like in Twelve Monkeys.

braak

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @aspiringexpatriate: No, I agree. I was really impressed by whoever managed the story arc for that one, where just killing the monster that rules satellite five and then leaving, without bothering to fix anything ended up causing some serious problems.

braak

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> See, I love the historic episodes where nothing actually changes. I.E. the blitz ones, or Blink. Cause you go back in time, and you were already there, so everything you did winds up being what you had to do to make the 'future' play out in the way it does in the 'present.' If that made sense. Timey wimey whatsits.

aspiringexpatriate

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> See, I thought my one good point was about the consequences of his most recent overthrowing of the earth's gov't/regime/jagraephas.

aspiringexpatriate

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> Honestly, Braak, I don't know what I meant there. I'm going with the analysis of a fictional character. As that last clause in that sentence I wrote still doesn't make sense.

aspiringexpatriate

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @braak: Although that did happen in part with the 9th doctor and the Slitheen.
It will be interesting to see in the new series, minus the Tate factor, if anything similar is addressed - especially with the historic episodes.

adanalyst

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @braak: A bunch of *farting* aliens...

Which, y'know, is an... apt metaphor.

JennaW

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @Eric J: I don't think the Doctor has ever helped a government put down an indigenous rebellion. But I could be wrong...

Charlie Jane Anders

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @Chryss: Well, and that also leads us to an interesting questions. Namely, does it count as subversive if it turns out the government was a bunch of aliens? Because, on the one hand, the aliens are outed and the status quo is technically restored; on the other hand, there was a brief period in there in which the story likened the government to a bunch of aliens.

braak

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> Doesn't some credit/blame/responsibility have to go to the TARDIS itself? After all it's rarely The Doctor's choice to wind up in an oppressed alien society ripe for mischief and intervention.

And I'd like to see the flip side - how many times has The Doctor assisted the ruling government of a planet in putting down an indigenous rebellion? (Helping someplace defend itself against an invasion of Daleks, Cybermen, etc. is clearly a different matter.)

MongoLikeCandy

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @TruculentandUnreliable: Well, I do my best...

NefariousNewt

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> NefariousNewt: I don't think we can blame it all on the BBC. Didn't The Tomorrow People have a story arc about overthrowing the government (turns out they were evil aliens), and they were on BBC?

Granted I'm going on sketchy 20-year-old memories here...

Chryss

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @charliejane: Good point. Also perhaps he's matured a bit and realizes he can't simply rove around changing things willy-nilly without creating repercussions he's not equipped to handle.

NefariousNewt

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @NefariousNewt: TOS was pretty subversive, which also explains why it didn't get insanely popular until later on. The themes were anticipating the next cultural clime.

braak

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @aspiringexpatriate: Is that...wait...

Is that "right" in as much as it's possible for anyone to be right about analysis like this of a fictional character, or right in as much as it's possible for me, personally to be right?

Because I think I've been righter than this.

braak

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @jennaw: Agreed, but you have to remember, Doctor Who held on by a thin thread through much of its original run, so they could not afford to take too controversial a line at any time. They might put up with an overthrow-the-PM story line only if there's some twist to it (ala clones) or if the upshot is that The Doctor is ensuring that the PM rises to power. Also, I think The Doctor was written to be something of a gadfly, getting interested in something, then changing his mind, and generally mucking about.

Despite the often low-budget sets and locations, you had to admire the original Doctor Who for the writing of compelling stories without a lot of the sanctimonious preaching that came up in Trek. I admire the new Doctor Who for updating the series and giving it some new life, though I think they've sacrificed some quality in the process.

NefariousNewt

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> Well 24 started in 'contemporary' period, which I guess was 2000 at the time, and every series since has jumped forward years at a time. So they should be in 2020 with flying cars by now. And Bauer should be 50, but he's perennially 40.

aspiringexpatriate

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @charliejane: Survivor guilt. I think he's self-editing now more than ever due to the consequences of his actions in the Time War.

JennaW

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @NefariousNewt: I wonder if that's really much of a factor; I think all media SF reflects its time and origins more than a single agenda, and I doubt the producers would approve an overthrow Gordon Brown plotline in teh first place, let alone it going all the way up the line to the BBC editorial whatever.

The Doctor has an Earth-bias, clearly, and he is protective of the 20th/21st Century time period -- where the vast majority of his companions have come from. That being said, he *did* overthrow/undermine a sitting PM which was a very ballsy thing to do storywise regardless of whether she was a Tony-clone.

We have no corollary show in the U.S. (Heroes maybe? Probably 24 does it all the time, but I don't watch that) but that would be a shocking story development, especially since she was built up to be so sympathetic prior to this power-corrupts moment.

JennaW

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> This is really interesting. I wish I had a cool comment to drop. But yeah, Braak seems 'right' in as much as he can be. The Doctor tends not to go out of his way to overthrow oppressive regimes, but when they're attempting to stop him or a companion from traveling about willy nilly, he's all about toppling it. Also, he doesn't mess with the Earth's history or our 'current' time period. At least not in any noticeable way. And another interesting thing of note, in the current incarnation of the doctor (or more like the previous one) when he does topple the government of Satellite 5, it winds up having disastrous consequences. I.E. Daleks and half the world destroyed. That's the best thing about The Doctor (and Farscape and good Sci-Fi, no matter how good and noble the 'good' guys intentions. People die. Sometimes lots of people. I find that's normally left out of your traditional Flash Gordon styled sci-fi.

aspiringexpatriate

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @Nefariousnewt: You would think that the Doctor would have more freedom to meddle than ever, now that the Time Lords can't look over his shoulder any more. But he's been fairly well behaved since then. Maybe because the Time Lords can't clean up his messes now?

Charlie Jane Anders

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @Braak: Definitely one major factor in the Doctor's lack of apple-cart-upsetting is the amount of time he spends on 20th./21st. century Earth. No matter how many alien races invade, he always manages to return our "present day" setting to a simulacrum of its original state.

Charlie Jane Anders

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @braak: Not to beat a dead horse, but look at ST:TOS. It reflected the times and I think the reason it didn't do so well is that conservative TV execs didn't necessarily get its messages and looked at them as a bit subversive, hence consigning the show to a time slot where it was destined to die.

NefariousNewt

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @NefariousNewt: Okay, your comment just made me think, "OMG OMG OMG I love this site!" Seriously almost brought tears to my eyes.

TruculentandUnreliable

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @jennaw: You have to take into account that the BBC isn't exactly an independent organization. I'm sure the British government was not exactly keen to have The Doctor constantly upsetting the apple cart and thereby giving people ideas. Or it simply could be coincidence. I'm not sure it was always necessary for The Doctor to do much meddling and his ability to move freely was compromised at one time because of his interference in the time stream.

NefariousNewt

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> This is kind of interesting, actually. Obviously, part of the deal is that he preserves the status quo on Earth so that the history and culture of 20th and 21st century Earth will remain identifiable to those of us who live here.

But it also suggests that the Doctor is the least conservative when the government and culture that is writing him is at its most conservative.

braak

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> @jennaw: mmmmmmmm...sooo hot.

TruculentandUnreliable

]]> <![CDATA[Doctor Who: Revolutionary Or Tool Of The Man?]]> I honestly think it has a lot to do with his companions, too. Current Doctor is (hot) scary with the vengeance sometimes.

"No second chances. That's the kind of man I am."

JennaW

]]>