Talking Doctor Who 1

So I've wanted to talk about Doctor Who for about the last two weeks- and now I'm going to do just that. Let's see what I say.

So I got loaned the first three series of the modern Who show, and the first thing to know is that for the first two series the companion to the Doctor is Rose Tyler, and the third series has Martha Jones. This is key because the Doctor is a sort of set character, most of the development happens on the part of the companion. They are (like all good side-kicks) the viewer getting the chance to hang out with their hero (I forget what the word is I'd usually use to describe that phenomenon...), and the reason that things get constantly explained. The Doctor may know everything, but that companion is always asking what's going on, so we the audience get to hear it.

As with most big series, I was resistant to getting into it. It took me years before I got with the crowd and read a Potter book, for instance. Interestingly, even now, with me quite liking the Doctor Who stuff, I have far more reservations about the series than I usually associate with a series I like.

That last sentence was confusing: what I mean is that I can sit here and say "yes, I like this Doctor Who business, BUT there's a bunch of stuff that drives me crazy and comes close to breaking my willing suspension of disbelief."

That's a weird mix that doesn't usually come up with a property I like.

To get into specifics, the show drives me crazy with the fact that the bad guys can be shaking in their boots at the thought of the Doctor... even when they've got him surrounded, they each have some super disintegrator, and he has no weapoons.

Just shoot him! You want the universe? Just shoot him!!

The one time they actually DO shoot him, he happened to have a personal shield device that episode. That was awesome, I was good with that, but it just drives the point home that these villains are generally lacking in good sense where the Doctor is concerned.

To compare to another series, take Batman (particularly Adam West Batman). This was a constant complaint back in the day, the Joker or whomever never shooting him, but instead putting him in an elaborate death trap. However, I've never had a problem rationalizing this for Batman, because I was either too young to question it (now THIS stands as the best evidence that Doctor Who is a kids show), or, when I got older, there were always the suggestions of the villains various psychosis getting in the way. Joker loves having Batman around, he's not going to kill him. Two Face ALSO used to be friends with the guy, plus that coin has a habit of flipping good at the most inoppourtune times for him. Riddler wants to prove he's smarter than Batman, what's smart about firing a gun?

Oh, and to take the famous Harry Potter example: why does no one there grab a gun, since spells take longer and there's no real defence? I always assumed everyone in that story is kind of stupid about mundane solutions. It's a weird rationalization, but there you go.

The point is, I've never been bothered by this kind of thing before. Fortunately, the show has plenty to offer to redeem itself. The deep mythology, the limitless invention of setting, the great companion development (I love Rose, and will talk more about her in a later post), and some of the best techno babble I've ever heard.

I really do think that the best techno-babble eschews words that do mean something in a proper context, because with even a little bit of study the whole thing falls apart and becomes cheesy to the extreme.

Why does this happen? Time vortex.
How'd you open that? Sonic screwdriver.

It mostly avoids tellings us the impossible specifics of tech jargon- how else is a modern day writer supposed to go about describing the science of the billionth century? You can't really research that.