Doctor Who

Copperfox said:
But as far as I've seen on "Doctor Who," giving time to all viewpoints is exactly what they NEVER do. On "Doctor Who," private enterprise is ALWAYS clumsy or outright wrong, soldiers are ALWAYS fools at best, and faith in God is ALWAYS a fraud. Nor have I seen any view very far from these views in ANY of the BBC programs that have made it onto American TV screens, with exactly two exceptions, both made possible by the prestige of Mr. Lewis: the CoN, and "Shadowlands."
Click to expand...

As far as Doctor Who goes I can't really agree. Soldiers were not always fools at best. Look at the Brigadier and Unit in the Jon Pertwee days. The Doctor and the Brigadier may often have disagreed but they were clearly friends who greatly respected each other. Much of this was due to the acting skills of Nicholas Courtney who rounded out what could have been a rather cartoonish character with warmth and humanity.

As for corporations the only one I can think of in the old series was in the Tom Baker story the Sunmakers. The company there was a really bad lot, but the whole story was a satire on commercialism, which I happen to think is a quite legitimate target. Usually the Doctor was up against not corporations but individual megalomaniacs.

Religion is something the series has usually avoided. There have been a couple of stories (Face of Evil and Planet of Fire) where some "god" has been shown to have a natural explanation in terns of alien races but this is so much a part of pulp SF it really cannot be considered an argument for an antireligious bias.

One of the other charges you have levelled against the programme, that the good guys are always expected to reject violence is the easiest to refute.
In the second story of the original series, the first to introduce the Daleks, the evil pepperpots are plotting to destroy the peace loving Thals who are completely pacifist. The Doctor and his companiond persuade them that as horrible as war is, there are some things for which it is necessary to be prepared to fight, no matter how repugnant you find that. A similar theme is found in the 1969 story The Dominators. The evil Dominators are plotting to destroy the peaceful planet of Dulkis, which is a 60's style hippy culture, completely non violent. So they are sitting ducks when the inevitable Dr Who invasion arrives. Again the good Doctor persuades the younger Dulkians there are some things woth fighting for.

In a programme like Dr Who which has had many writers and producers in its history, it's very hard to identify any overaching moral theme, as different people in different eras have priorities which reflect both their own preoccupations and those of the times. If there is one common element. it is respect for individual liberty and the right of people to choose their own destiny irrespectivie of any political, religious, economic or military power that may wish to control them.
 
You had to go back to very early stories for those Dalek and Dominator examples. Lethbridge-Stewart was not so much respected as indulgently tolerated by the Doctor; and to the extent that UNIT was looked on favorably, this was precisely because it was a one-world international body, a cherished LEFT-wing concept, dismissing autonomous national patriotism as the show characteristically did. Those on the hard left who have any brains, know very well that a global-monopoly government will DECREASE individual liberty, and will be INTENDED to do so ("You can't eat meat anymore, because WE say it's not good for you").

"Sunmakers" was very far from being their only anti-free-enterprise episode. Remember the story with the sand-mining ship, on board which robots began killing people? That mining device belonged to a standard evil business corporation. And anti-religious? Leela was introduced in a story which made out religion to be stupid. At least two of the "Key of Time" stories (the "Ribos" and "Kroll" episodes) showed religion as stupid--while the last part of that saga viciously lampooned ANY concept of patriotism. More recently, you have the story with Agatha Christie, in which the alien sneered very specifically at Christianity as our "tribal deity."
 
Last edited:
I think that doctor who promotes, or attemtps to promote the importance of thinking for yourself rather than blindly following. It seems tp be the characters who consciously CHOOSE a course of action as opposed to being manipulated into it who succeed/ have a greater cahnce of being alive by the end of the episode.
 
Copperfox said:
. More recently, you have the story with Agatha Christie, in which the alien sneered very specifically at Christianity as our "tribal deity."
Click to expand...

actually the vespiform refers to the worshipping of 'your tribal sky gods' which could refer to pretty much any religion, not necessarily christianity.
And it doesn't exactly sneer, it's more the generic sci fi point of there is so much more out there, tribal is probably referring to the insular nature of humanity within the whoniverse.
 
No, he DID mean Christianity in particular, the religion to which he had been exposed. And this did NOT only mean "There's more out there;" it DID mean that the Christian faith had NOTHING to offer for a view of the universe.
 
Copperfox said:
Narnian Princess, Alan Rickman did make his name by playing the villain in "Die Hard." Then he was the evil Sheriff in "Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves"--were it was he, not Robin, who did the stealing, stealing focus from the wooden Kevin Costner with his great line delivery. ("I'll cut out your heart with a spoon!") Next he played the villain in "Quigley Down Under," but this time with a hero--Tom Selleck--who could match him in acting. So by the time they let him play a good guy, Rickman must have really found it a refreshing switch.
Click to expand...
Wow! You really like this guy don't you?
I haven't seen any of those other moives, except maybe Die Hard (I think that I've seen all but the most recent). I'm glad that he finally got to play a good guy! :)

Speaking of the very idea of being a good guy: at almost the VERY start of the revived Doctor Who series, the writers, who are somewhere light-years to the left of Karl Marx, got right into their heavy-handed moral-equivalence nonsense, the kind of tripe that ALWAYS ends up making the GOOD guys out to be MORE at fault. Thus they insisted that even THE DOCTOR HIMSELF, regardless of his centuries of pacifist credentials, must be made to feel ashamed of himself for wanting to kill a cute, charming, cuddly little Dalek--whom Rose indignantly DEFENDED against the "warmongering" Doctor! That the writers would thus beat their anti-militaristic dead horse PROVES, to me, that they are among those who want the whole free world to go round-heeled and fall down under the feet of tyrants and terrorists. THIS is the political correctness I said annoyed me in the recent season finale--with armed forces of the Earth made to look stupid and wrong even for trying to fight back when the Daleks were violently attacking the whole human race!
Click to expand...
Great Scot!! I'm pretty sure that I haven't seen that episode yet!
I had noticed some definate world views that I strongly oppose. I just don't make it a point to take it seriously.
Have you seen the episode 'The Satan Pit' (second season with Rose) yet Copperfox?
 
Copperfox said:
You had to go back to very early stories for those Dalek and Dominator examples. Lethbridge-Stewart was not so much respected as indulgently tolerated by the Doctor; and to the extent that UNIT was looked on favorably, this was precisely because it was a one-world international body, a cherished LEFT-wing concept, dismissing autonomous national patriotism as the show characteristically did. Those on the hard left who have any brains, know very well that a global-monopoly government will DECREASE individual liberty, and will be INTENDED to do so ("You can't eat meat anymore, because WE say it's not good for you").

"Sunmakers" was very far from being their only anti-free-enterprise episode. Remember the story with the sand-mining ship, on board which robots began killing people? That mining device belonged to a standard evil business corporation. And anti-religious? Leela was introduced in a story which made out religion to be stupid. At least two of the "Key of Time" stories (the "Ribos" and "Kroll" episodes) showed religion as stupid--while the last part of that saga viciously lampooned ANY concept of patriotism. More recently, you have the story with Agatha Christie, in which the alien sneered very specifically at Christianity as our "tribal deity."
Click to expand...

I do remember The Robots of Death. The enemy there was not the mining company, exploitative as it might have been but a lone madman. And The Face of Evil that introduced Leela showed the sevateem religion as misguided, but it's rather a stretch to think that implies ALL religion is stupid, unless you're determined to see atheist left wing plots behind every shadow.

I must disagree about the Brigadier. In my view he and the Doctor did have a genuibe liking and respect for each other despite their different viewpoints. And yes the series HAS often mocked patriotism, at least the narrow blinkered sort that puts country or clan above every other consideration, And quite rightly so! That attitude deserves mockery.
 
Except that the BBC writers are reluctant to admit that ANY patriotism EVER is anything BUT the narrow, blinkered sort. (Sure, Pertwee's Doctor liked the Brigadier, but hardly as an equal; and refer to my remark about UNIT being given a "humanist dispensation" for being transnational.) This is an example of the Screwtapian phenomenon of "crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under."

The company in "Robots of Death" did not have to be the direct cause of the murders to be shown as morally bad, which it was. Try to find any Doctor Who episode in which a privately-owned corporation is depicted as positively GOOD for humanity!

To be sure, if "Face of Evil" were the only episode ever to address a religion, we could call it a fluke. But as with industry, try to find one episode in which a Christian character, BECAUSE OF being a Christian, is depicted as especially wise and good AND accurate in his understanding of things.

Gair: what evidence? Try the fact that the vespiform had lived AS A CLERGYMAN in a Christian church; WHAT ELSE, then, would he be mocking but Christianity??
 
Last edited:
Of course the Brigadier was not shown as the Doctors equal. the only ones who were are fellow Time Lords like the Master, the Rani or Romana II (Romana I was a bit inexperienced to really match the Doctor)

The only actual character I can think of who was identified as a Christian was the vicar played by Parsons in Curse of Fenric, who seemed a rather nice man, although he came to a sticky end. Oh and there was a blind priest in Remembrance of the Daleks.

I honestly don't watch TV series ticking off chechboxes to see how many times I agree or disagree with whatever political or philosophical view can be squeezed out of it. I would enjoy very little if I did that.
 
I don't have to mark any checkboxes; the attitudes come SCREAMING out at me. Like the FALSE use of the term "genocide" for the absolutely necessary killing of the Daleks. Real genocide entails killing defenseless noncombatants; but there WERE NO noncombatant Daleks (apart from Dalek-Con perhaps). All of them were an active threat, and had already shown they would not be reasoned with. Thus, using the term "genocide" for destroying Daleks was a smear against all real-world soldiers who have legitimately fought against real threats--soldiers without whom the BBC would not even exist to be acting so peacefuller-than-thou at the expense of actual heroes.
 
Dear Copperfox: As always, the brilliance of you debating intellect shows through.
I knew there was something wrong with this episode. My son (14) and I were watching it when that old dude told the Doctor he had commited "genocide". My son's reaction was: "What? That man is unbelievable!"
I was totally confused. Wasn't he and all the other Daleks going to destroy not only earth but the entire universe? So now someone who fights evil and destroys it is equalled to a murderer? Where do those folks at BBC get off?
 
Last edited:
Copperfox said:
I don't have to mark any checkboxes; the attitudes come SCREAMING out at me. Like the FALSE use of the term "genocide" for the absolutely necessary killing of the Daleks. Real genocide entails killing defenseless noncombatants; but there WERE NO noncombatant Daleks (apart from Dalek-Con perhaps). All of them were an active threat, and had already shown they would not be reasoned with. Thus, using the term "genocide" for destroying Daleks was a smear against all real-world soldiers who have legitimately fought against real threats--soldiers without whom the BBC would not even exist to be acting so peacefuller-than-thou at the expense of actual heroes.
Click to expand...

Sorry? I really have trouble understanding what you mean. If the Doctor has indeed destroyed all the Daleks (and of course we can be sure he hasn't) then technically it IS genocide, he has wiped out an entire species or kind, that is literally what the word means, and in the fantasy world of Dr Who with a multitude of intelligent life forms it's a perfectly valid use of the word. The fact that it is justified genocide does not make it any less genocide.

Another example was the verviod story in the Trial of a Timelord season. By destroying all the vervoids the Doctor commited genocide and was tried for it, but as they would have destroyed all human life if they reached Earth his actions were justified.

However just because those acts of genocide were justified does not mean they should be matters of rejoicing. Taking even a single life is a terrible thing and taking lives in such a scale is ghastly. No matter how justified it may be it's still a reason for great sadness. That's why I regard the programme as a fundamentaly good moral influence. Even when the Doctor is forced to take life he is never casual about it, it is always seen to cause him distress.

I really can't understand the thinking of someone who can take something like this and twist it into some sort of left wing cospiracy, and it's a bit too early in the morning here for me to try. I'm off for breakfast!
 
Copperfox: Note it is godS. Plural. Referring to more than one deity, thus not solely a criticism of christianity, if indeed, it ever was.
And if doctor who offends your sensibilities so much DON'T WATCH IT!!
 
From what I saw of it when my brother watched it at my house yesterday, it is not a show I will watch of my own fruition.
 
I watch it precisely because I am able to filter out the kowa-DUNGA. But I believe, Gair, that I know rather more history than you do; and I have never seen any time in the history of the real world when it was called genocide if someone killed NOBODY EXCEPT armed and dangerous enemy troops who were actively engaged in hostilities which they themselves had started on purpose.
 
I wasn't talking about genocide. I was talking about tribal sky gods from the unicorn and the wasp.
BUT
according to the oxford english dictionary, genocide is " The deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group."
It makes no difference as to whether they are armed or not.
 
Surely the Doctor's anger at the Doctor-Donna commiting genocide is because the Doctor is merciful, a quality the human part of Doctor-Donna is lacking in. Is this not why it is viewed as bad. One thing that makes the Doctor different is his merciful attitude?
 
What makes the Doctor's WRITERS stupid is their refusal to admit that even the merciful--no, ESPECIALLY the merciful--can have a duty to CHOOSE SIDES. In that story, there WAS NO SUCH THING as an available option in which everybody just kissed and made up. The Daleks, by THEIR OWN CHOICE, had eliminated any possibility of diplomacy or friendliness. Therefore, for anyone having power to destroy the Daleks, a FAILURE to destroy them would NOT merely be "impartial neutrality;" it would be exactly and identically the SAME thing as POSITIVELY DESIRING AND PREFERRING success for the Daleks in wiping out everyone else everywhere.

And I repeat, the term "genocide" has NEVER (as in "not ever at all") meant killing a group of active enemies, EVERY ONE of whom was a current threat, and NOT ONE of whom was an innocent civilian.
 
Copperfox said:
And I repeat, the term "genocide" has NEVER (as in "not ever at all") meant killing a group of active enemies, EVERY ONE of whom was a current threat, and NOT ONE of whom was an innocent civilian.
Click to expand...

There's a first for everything.

A whole (albeit entirely fictional) race was wiped out. It was genocide.

genocide: from the greek genos, meaning race/people; and the latin cedere, to kill.
 
Back
Top