And another thing…

I think there’s a clue in Donna’s to-be married name ( “Tempus Noble”). Mr Keith thinks that David Tennant won’t regenerate, that Donna will become the new Dr having ingested the eye of Horus or something. I’ll get out more in the new year.

,>>> only to resurrect them a few issues later. Superman and Captain America are two more recent examples.

Superman and Captain America were not resurrected a few issues later!! We’re still awaiting the last part of Captain America Reborn! I take the general point though. Remember when there was a comic fan motto that nobody stayed dead except Jason Todd (the second Robin) and Spider-Man’s uncle Ben- and they both, eventually, came back!

As for Doctor Who, the multiple masters reminded me (not in a good way) of the thousands of Agent Smiths in the Matrix sequel. If it was a writer *without* T.Davis’ stellar reputation I’d suspect that he came up with the ‘master race’ pun *first* and then worked backwards.Obama was odd. Maybe it seemed a great idea when it was being written/filmed (during the height of Obama-mania?).

I think the Doctor will solve the problem by flying the Tardis round the earth backwards and reversing time .

The only three words you need to sum up the episode are: OH MY GOD!!!

I think the idea of the time-war being a ‘non-event’ could be good if its done well. There’s the explaination of why and how the time-lords come back, how Gallifry manages to comeback to the skies. Or…even better…how it doesn’t. It could be like the doc’s non-regeneraton in series 4. RTD builds it up…cliff hanger…then…nothing.

Ok I shall watch the repeat.

It is NOT sci-fi though, it is science fantasy.

I cannot recall references to science which other than laughable, and certainly scientific principles are not pushed to logical conclusions as the bases for storylines in my watching of Dr Who.

Have a look at Theodore Sturgeon, Asimov, Arthur C Clarke (a true master) for work which is genuine sci-fi and Bradbury for science fantasy of the highest standard.

Whovians are keen space opera buffs, jolly good fun too . . .

Quietzapple: “Have a look at Theodore Sturgeon, Asimov, Arthur C Clarke (a true master) for work which is genuine sci-fi and Bradbury for science fantasy of the highest standard.”

How do I put this, QZ…? Don’t you think that sounds just a tad patronising? I started reading Asimov in my teens, hoovered up Clarke and Herbert, Bradbury and Heinlein, not to mention the woefully under-rated Bob Shaw. Please don’t assume that just because I’m a Doctor Who fan, I’m not familiar with other brands of science fiction.

I was regularly frustrated by the practice the writers had of killing off main characters, only to resurrect them a few issues later.

If it was good enough for Arthur Conan Doyle…

A pretty fair summary, Tom, I think, good not great but the ending shows promise that part 2 could be fantastic.

And, yes, the constant references to President Obama saving the world was begining to grate.

Tom: I am not at all surprised that you hoovered up Heilein & etc.

But Dr Who is not science fiction in my view and I sought to give some examples of stuff which is/was, for I too went through rather a lot of it aged 11 – 14. My Dad sold his pre-war Astounding mags then, or I might still be re-reading them.

True Dr Who is space/time opera, and, as I said great fun.

My fave comics were Plastic Man (and Woozey) – great nonsense!

I thought QZ’s point was that Doctor Who, like Star Wars, is space opera – not sci-fi – so we shouldn’t expect the same kind of hard science (or hard quasi-science)as the authors he mentions. Lets face it, when you can travel in time, it’s not difficult to undo apparent impossible situations (especially with the parallel universe schtick they used with Rose).

I reakon that those Time Lords are the equivilant to the “Cult of Skaro” Daleks, in other words the Celestial Intervention Agency.

I hate it, and I am neither an obsessive hater of the gifted RTD nor a nostalgia snob who thinks it went downhill after Patrick Troughton: but its annoying and ridiculous farrago.

So NOISY (that ubiquitous bloody awful music) and boring; emotionally incontinent, more politically correct than the NUT, over-produced, quite hilariously overacted, underscripted, gay imperialist (I can imagine the complaints if there was as much appreciation of the loveliness of teenage girls) and more in love with itself than a coven of right-wing bloggers.

Sorry. I hope the very smart Mr Moffat gets it into shape or kills it.

Oh, and what’s with this nonsense of the whole of Britain talking excitedly about a broadcast from President Obama on Christmas evening?

RTD just doesn’t understand politics. Remember the episode where the PM is assassinated so that the chair of the all-party parliamentary committee on sugar standards could step into the breach?

Another Richard seems to have summed it up, and since I only caught 20 second bits of it while doing something else (clearing up after my kids)I suppose I should shut up. But yes, the bits I saw were absurdly politically correct, John Sim certainly did a lot of acting – in fact he acted really hard, some would say too hard and it looked as if the props department had some money left over from the last Who and decided to buy in a lot of hardware.

Who has lost it. It lost it when they decided to export a London Bus to the desert, just because they had enough of our money and several lines of Charlie to inspire them, by the looks of it.

Mr Moffat may be able to salvage it, given his splendid writing credits on the show.

Otherwise, since Arthur C has been mentioned, the writers on Dr Who would do well to read The Sentinel. It is not a story you can film, hence the fact that it became something completely other when it did hit the screen, but the genius of juxtaposing the single most discovery in the history of mankind with something as mundane as burning sausages was pure genius and quite Wellsian in its conception. It is pared down, and so focused upon its theme that it leaves you shivering with wonder.

Does Dr Who do that?

I think Ryan’s right in his suspicion that RTD thought up the pun ‘Master Race’ and then worked back. The ending, with Sim doing his diabolical laugh, with his head on other people’s bodies, was technically very clever, but the effect was more comedic than scary – particularly his head on women’s bodies. That was very camp. It would have worked better if it had just been him and his own body replicated. Or is the idea that he is he planning to breed with himself? (Yeah, that makes sense.) I must say that John Sim’s a brilliant and energetic actor, but even his sterling skills can’t salvage such a daft script. The same applies to David Tennant. And I bet RTD does go for one of those cop-out scenarios.

It’s a shame because RTD obviously loves Who and wants to make a high quality programme, but it’s not convincing. What the shows in the 70s (for example) lacked in terms of production values, they made up for in spades in great scripts (eg Terry Nation, Douglas Adams, et al), and a pervasive atmosphere of Gothic creepiness. The Master, as played by * Roger Delgado, really did seem evil incarnate – without recourse to any kind of histrionics.

Matt Smith has a Gothic look about him – it would be great if the tone of Who shifted down some gears and went for a more subtle, menacing, creepy approach – rather than the in-your-face assault on the senses that it is now.

* Roger Delgado sounds like a stage name, but was his real name. Delgado’s father was Spanish and his mother Belgian. His full name was Roger Caesar Marius Bernard de Delgado Torres Castillo Roberto.

anotherrichard and wrinkled weasel: what exactly do you mean by Doctor Who being “politically correct”?

I nearly stopped reading sci-fi about 1964 so am grateful for Tom’s advice and have purchased BOB SHAW – ONE MILLION TOMORROWS.

Anyone else think that Alfred Bester’s “The Demolished Man” (“The Stars My Destination”) and his other novel of 1950/2 were the best Space Opera and also superb science fiction?

In fact they would make superb films, film technology has, perhaps, caught up with his imagination.

Part of the charm of Dr Who is its diverse Britishness. Bester’s work reads like a New Yorker’s mind at work to me.

Have to agree with Nicky that Roger Delgado really did personify the Master’s evil.

I was disappointed that Soutec’s series was so short, Egyptian God of Death wasn’t he?

I wonder which school he went to . . .

To be honest I don’t watch it anymore, but just Google “Dr Who” and “Politically Correct” (in one line) and you get nearly 20,000 entries.

It’s not me, it’s a lot of people.

Any further comment would involve me in accusations of racism and prejudice against David (Mastermind) Lammy as a paradigm.

Ware Wrinkled Weasels words . . .

I found this:

Results 1 – 7 of 7 for “wrinkled weasel” “Dr Who” “Politically Correct”.

Results 1 – 10 of about 11,300 for “Dr Who” “Politically Correct”.

Results 1 – 10 of about 2,470 for “wrinkled weasel” “Politically Correct”.

I suspect there may be 4 of them . . .

(Never forgot the bravest cat we ever had clearing the neighbourhood of stoats. I still greatly admire the beasts, and polecats are awesome.)

QZ, I find your “tenacity” a bit creepy.

@WW: That is what the stoats’ ghosts whispered, as they lay in state on a hedge.

If you piece together all of the stuff said over 5 years [I know you can Mr Harris, don't fib] neither the Daleks or Timelords were “killed” as first hinted. Rather, the Doctor “put them away” somewhere and locked the door.

The Doctor hasn’t been operating in a Dalek-Timelord “Free” universe, but one where they were locked away in their own short space of time. [Called "The Moment" reffered to a few times]in which the loop of war and death never ended, but instead simply played out again and again.

Every so often, people would sneak through, or had fled before that moment in time [Cult of Skaro, "Survivor Dalek" Davros....]

A groundhog day on a truly grand scale.

Wot abaht the missing Who episodes now being reviewed etc on Radio 4? Eh???

Apologies for inaccuracies in my comment re the great Alfred Bester:

“the winner of the first Hugo Award in 1953 for his novel The Demolished Man” and author of “The Stars My Destination aka Tiger, Tiger (1955)” (Wiki)

Great work, would make a film or two, hope more people enjoy the novels.

Since you ask Tom and without wishing to fall into your lightly disguised “oooh look its a mad Mel type going on about Gramsci” trap – In this context PC means the representation of characters and situations in a manner more consistent with the prejudices (or elite mannerism and group-think) of the author than the realistic (even for scifi) requirements of plot or narrative. It is a formal decadent style characteristic of bureaucratic, centralised and even authoritarian artforms.

Popularity is a complex measure of its success. In a few years time it will be excruciating to watch.

If you want something from the same Arts Bureaucracy that addresses these themes try Adam Curtis’ genius blog.

Merry Christmas

But you still haven’t explained what specific aspect of The End of Time was politically correct…

“But you still haven’t explained what specific aspect of The End of Time was politically correct…”

But Tom, I think he has.

Not only that, I agree that it will look like a creaker in ten years time.

RTD works on a sort of Gene Roddenberry principle, except that Gene Roddenberry was ten or twenty years ahead of his time and RTD is ten years behind. Roddenberry also allowed the plot to lead the stories, not his political prejudices. In many ways Star Trek was politically naive,and certainly the polemic was subordinate to the narrative. Star Trek asked questions about the status quo, Dr Who not only takes the status quo as read, but attempts to stuff it down our throats.

When Uhura kissed Kirk it was a spectacular statement about modernity and the future. The bi-racial element was intensely political and yet sublimely right in the context of a fictive world in which colour of skin was irrelevant. In effect, it was saying “we can hope for a better future”.

What RTD is doing is merely being a sop to current and very ephemeral ideas about race, for example, by showing ridiculously positive images of black people (and other minorities), in numbers that do not reflect the demographic. RTD is uncritically reflecting a very left-wing liberal bias – coincidentally the same kind that the BBC does – rather than attempting to ask a question about social attitudes that may prevail in the future.

Roddenberry was brave and curious. RTD is not. Roddenberry boldly went where no man had gone before. Davies merely repeats what he has heard over dinner in Islington.

If Sci Fi is about anything, it is about asking questions about the future. It is about humanity and it’s desire to evolve.

Show me these aspirations in Dr Who.

Ah, well, you have done what you wanted me to do, and nearly write a dissertation and, accordingly, look like a nit wit. Never mind.

I think what you meant to say, WW, was “Too many blacks.”

I don’t think the depiction of the characters was in line with their ideology.

If Dr Who is a liberal minded gent most likely they expect him to have some sort of tax fiddle on his Tardis lightyearage and the Daleks to show real Direct Local Authitarianism.

Best you hazard your own answer, obviously . . . .

Gene Roddenbury’s liberalism was mildly old fashioned I thought, and Star Trek was space opera insufficiently leavened by much else – sorry, sorry . . . I’m glad so many enjoyed it – ok?

Yes, and it perpetuates a myth of a multi-cultural Britain that does not exist and never did exist. And it is clearly deliberately applied in Dr Who – in shovelfuls.

In ten or twenty years time it will be spoofed as being exactly what it is; outrageous indoctrination and propaganda.

What makes it so deeply unpleasant is that it perpetuates a very big lie – that we are all very jolly and have black people as our best mates.

Prejudice, real prejudice, cannot be tackled by anodyne appeals to the lumpenproletariat. This is Soma. It’s a soothing bowl of pap to make the stark reality of ethnic strife go away.

>>To be honest I don’t watch it anymore, but just Google “Dr Who” and “Politically Correct” (in one line) and you get nearly 20,000 entries.

That just means that lots of people *call* DW politically correct not that it necessarily is! I remember getting into a debate on the primacy or otherwise of being a detective to Batman’s character/iconic appeal (I know, I know) that made much of google results, until someone pointed out that ‘Batman and Robin gay’getting more results (often slash fiction) than (e.g.) ‘Batman, detective’ proves very little. And what constitutes ‘gay imperialist’? DW having gay characters and not (always) making a fuss about it is hardly propaganda (unless one agrees with American Family Association types who think having homosexual characters who aren’t portrayed as evil degenerates on TV is furthering the ‘Gay Agenda’). It could be argued that contemporary Britain in DW (under Davis) has more visible black/gay/whatever characters that might be statistically justified, but so what? It’s not a gritty documentary, and Davis certainly shouldn’t have to work from an assumption that characters should be white and heterosexual unless there’s a ‘good’ reason for them not to be.

Too many blacks and whites behaving like mates . . . -WW

Try telling that to those brought up in areas where blacks and whites get along fine.

Or try telling Uhura and Kirk about micegenation presumably, although that was ok because it was in the future?

Roddenbury & co were proselyting for their present, using Star Trek as a political vehicle.

Dr Who tends to stylise society naively perhaps, but there are many more friendly interactions between blacks and whites in Britain from my experiences here.

WW:
>>>
…by showing ridiculously positive images of black people in numbers that do not reflect the demographic.
<<<

If that is being "PC", is the baddie in this episode being black an example of RTD being racist??

If you see the colour of the actor playing the baddie as more relevant to the story than him being a rich megalomaniac, then it says more about you than RTD. The same issue was raised about a black Friar Tuck in Robin Hood, and a black servant in Merlin. Just watch it as entertainment – why over-analyse.

Tom: anotherrichard and wrinkled weasel: what exactly do you mean by Doctor Who being “politically correct”?

Taraxacum: “Just watch it as entertainment – why over-analyse.”

You see? I can’t win!

Nicky: ‘particularly his head on women’s bodies.’

If you’d looked a little more closely, you’d have seen that it wasn’t The Master’s head on womens’ bodies, but John Simm in womens’ clothes (and occasionally with earings). Which my daughter thought was VERY comedic. And The Master probably isn’t worried about breeding on Earth.

How they’re going to ‘fix’ this is a quandary, though. Something along the lines of ‘The Empty Child’, maybe. But looking at it from a Star Trek way, to restore everyone, either there has to be some kind of persistence of identity, so everyone can just ’snap’ back, or the healing machine has to retain the original DNA of each person (or creature?), as well as their age, and any trauma, like missing limbs or PTSD, even old scars (the ‘Snip’, IUDs?). Then there’s memories, and even sexual orientation. The simplest solution is to just go back in time and stop it happening, but that is the cop-out, and The Doctor spelled out to Wilf that he couldn’t do it.

Whatever the solution is, it had better be good, but I fear it won’t be.

And I’d go with Julian May’s ‘Saga Of The Exiles’ and it’s prequel series as the best sci-fi, but I suppose even that’s a little space opera-y…

I wonder if “Time must have a stop” by Aldous Huxley holds the clues to all this?