We've Got Rubbish Companions, Haven't We?

[Jason Thompson]

Really? Genuinely offended? Even though I was talking about two fictional characters?

You said: 'I don't think you're giving marriage the commitment it so obviously deserves'. Even in the context of this discussion that reads like a comment on my views on marriage itself, not on the behaviour of those fictional characters, so yes I am genuinely offended

I was enjoying this but I thought you knew I was being flippant. You seem to suddenly be taking it seriously.

Only that one comment. I'm not taking the discussion about Amy and Rose any more seriously than it deserves.

[Si Hunt]

I was talking about your view of the marriage of Amy and Rory. I would have liked to have thought you'd know I wasn't criticising your own marriage.

But sorry if I offended you.

Si.

[Jason Thompson]

Apology accepted.

Let's see how the TARDIS's first married couple get on in the new series....

[Anthony Williams]

I'm glad someone else (Jason) shares my views on Rose and sees her for the f*#£ing selfish cow that she is! Hurrah for the anti-Rose brigade!

Ant x

[Jon Masters]

I've banged on about New Series companions before until everyone's probably bored - for me they made the mistake right at the start of making them equivalent to the Doctor (or superior even in some stories), and have the replaced the cliche 'clueless screaming assistant who always needs rescuing' with the equally cliched ' ballsy wisecracking heroine who solves problems by fantastical insight'. In fact, although she wasn't necessarily the best acted, I'd say I prefer Martha to any of the others as she was probably nearer a 'real person' than anyone else.

Amy and Rory are no better or worse than that, although I wouldn't have been unhappy if Amy had fallen into the crack and left Rory behind instead. I'd like to see a bit more 'wondrous delight at what we're doing' next series rather than more 'so what, i'm too cool for skool to be bothered or scared'.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

I'll throw in another vote for the "Rose was a horrible, ignorant chav" brigade. Tolerable at first, but increasingly very annoying and selfish.

[Mab]

All this is why Mickey is the best RTD era companion....

Mickey really redeems himself in Boom Town. For me, much as I HATED much of Boom Town, Mickey came out of it very well - and he's definitely the best "secondary companion" of the new series. He really develops across the series in a way that nobody else really does, and changes for the better. Martha achieves self confidence, Rose degenerates, Donna warms up and then gets reset-buttoned, but Mickey TRULY develops. Maybe that is because we barely see any of his family and it is all about Mickey.

Although I refuse to accept RTD's "Mickey/Martha" final ending - which IMO is absolute steaming donkey bollocks moulded out of dog crap, and I do not accept it.

[Rob McCow]

Although I refuse to accept RTD's "Mickey/Martha" final ending - which IMO is absolute steaming donkey bollocks moulded out of dog crap, and I do not accept it.

What we need is a moment in the new series of Torchwood where they admit that they were only pretending to be a couple so they could uh... infiltrate... something.

If it was for real, it would never last. They make a good team, but I can't imagine them falling in love.

[Mab]

Nor can I. And what happened to Martha's lovely Doctor Tom anyway? (Was he called Tom? I seem to think he was...)

And their coupling is right up there with Leela and Andred.

[Perry Vale]

Martha/Mickey was a superb ending, and one of the most believable moments of the RTD era, IMO. I have absolutely no idea why fans find it so hard to accept.

They're both young and good looking, Martha with a broken heart from The Doctor, and Mickey's broken by Rose. And they work in the same field. What's hard to believe about it?

[Mab]

Yes. but Martha's engaged to Tom(?) in Series 4 and suddenly at the end she and Mickey are together and - it's just, "Where the hell did that come from? What happened to Dr. Tom?"

Arbitrary bollocks.

[Perry Vale]

Dr.Tom was the classic rebound relationship, as often happens in real life.

He was also a dreadfully dull character.

[Darren]

I see Rose is a thorn in many people's sides.

[FlyingBeastie]

My issue with Amy and Rory is that I don't care about them.

When Rory died (twice) and Amy died (that one time) I didn't get teary eyed or anything. It was a big "Rolling of the Eyes" moment for me.

At first I thought, Hmm, maybe it's cos they're not grounded enough- like how Rose, Martha, and Donna all had a strong bond to family and friends on Earth making them seem that much more human and relatable.

But then I thought, Well hang on- then why do I like Jamie and Zoe so much? Or Sarah Jane? Or Ace? Their backstories weren't so in depth like the New Series companions' have gotten.

That could still be it, but I think it's also that they're just not relatable as characters at all.

C'mon, who among you can relate with the "Kissogram"? (I'm still not even sure what the hell that is) Perhaps one could identify with Rory cos he's a nurse, but even then we're not given much else about him apart from what we get from Amy (did we even meet the Williams'?) What sort of place is Leadworth? Jeez, even Jeff had more going for him in that one episode where we got to meet him and his grandmother than Rory did the whole season (and counting)

I know, I know, Leadworth is supposed to be some dull, rural town and who among us haven't encountered or lived in or could imagine living in an enviornment like that- but frankly, "Shaun of the Dead" did it better and that was a movie. Not only that, but the establishing atmosphere of the film didn't last longer than five to ten minutes before everyone turned into an actual zombie.


I dunno what's happened to Moffat- he did such amazing work with the characters in "Coupling"- it was beautiful, they all had such depth and he really fleshed them and their relationships to one another out so wonderfully you really connected with them and felt for them.

Much like RTD did with The Tylers', The Jones', The Nobles'; you had a broken working class family, another rocky family where they tried to better themselves, and another family where every member was unfilled or failed at some point down the road and became stuck_ they were all very human characters with real struggles that the audience could actually feel and relate to.

What problems do Amy and Rory have? Apart from sitcom problems?

Jackie Tyler thought she had lost her only daughter, after losing her husband soon after she was born, for a whole year.

Mrs. Jones feared for her daughter's safety, My girl is traveling with some weirdo ALIEN to god knows where?!

During the Sontaran two-parter, Donna could've easily lost her family- the only people she has left in the world who love her, really.

These women had people who loved them, missed them, and in return the companions had families that could at any point be under threat of some alien invasion- or just missing life's little and big moments alike.


Do Amy and Rory even have any friends? How do you even begin to describe their characters?

Not only that, but how can one like Amy? Every time she's mean to Rory it doesn't come off as funny- she just comes across like a bitch and we're left to wonder why does Rory put up with her apart from the fact she's hot?

Again, the aforementioned companions from the classic series didn't have real world relatibility factors either, but there was still something about them that made them that much more human, and made us care that much more about what would happen to them.

They're both good actors (not the greatest) but pretty good. And definitely capable, but I just think they've been written very poorly.

And if my spoiler senses are any good, they'll definitely be out by the time the mid-season break comes along.

[Milky Tears]

Pond is a plank of wood and Rory is a walloper. Get rid.

[Jason Thompson]

C'mon, who among you can relate with the "Kissogram"?

You can't relate at all? Not to the child who had an imaginary friend? Not to anyone who grew up wishing the TARDIS would come and take them away? Not to someone who, as a child, repeatedly had adults telling her she was talking rubbish despite her knowing she was telling the truth?

(I'm still not even sure what the hell that is)

Amy explained that in The Eleventh Hour. A kissogram is someone paid to go to a party and kiss the person whose party it is. There's usually a bit more to it than that (as the slightness of Amy's skirt might suggest), but that's essentially it.

Perhaps one could identify with Rory cos he's a nurse,

So profession is the only identifiable characteristis? So you can't identify with a couple frmo present day Earth, but you can happily identify with a 21st century supergenius, a warrior woman from the tribe of the Sevateem, a Time Lady, a boy from Alzarius, a girl from Traken, an 18th century Scot?

but even then we're not given much else about him apart from what we get from Amy

We don't get much about a lot of the companions really. How much do we know about Jamie beyond 'he's a piper'? How about Leela? Ian and Barbara are teachers, but what else do we know about their lives before they came aboard the TARDIS?

Much like RTD did with The Tylers', The Jones', The Nobles'; you had a broken working class family, another rocky family where they tried to better themselves, and another family where every member was unfilled or failed at some point down the road and became stuck_ they were all very human characters with real struggles that the audience could actually feel and relate to.

And so Doctor Who became a soap, where every season we had a companion and her family issues. Isn't four whole seasons of that enough and time to move on?

What problems do Amy and Rory have? Apart from sitcom problems?

Why do they need to have 'problems'? This is a TV show about a man travelling through time and space battling monsters in a police box that's bigger inside than out. It's not bloody Eastenders!

Do Amy and Rory even have any friends?

Did any of the companions before? Who were Sarah Jane Smith's friends before she lied her way into a UNIT facility? Did Nyssa have any friends on Traken? Were there even any Trakenites her age? We certainly never saw any.

How do you even begin to describe their characters?

See further up this thread.

Again, the aforementioned companions from the classic series didn't have real world relatibility factors either,

In which case listing that as a major criticism of these companions seems a little double-standard-y, don't you think?

[SiHart]

Rory has friends, they were at his stag do. Lots of them too from the looks of it.

And they both seem to be well known in Leadworth.

[Jon Masters]

Rory is brilliant, and since he doesn't seem to love the Doctor, a breath of fresh air.

Amy needs a hefty slap - look at her sulking at the diner, when this is the THIRD time she's seen the Doctor snuff it, and she still wants to mope around. Does she really not get the whole 'time travel' thing yet ?

[FlyingBeastie]

You can't relate at all? Not to the child who had an imaginary friend? Not to anyone who grew up wishing the TARDIS would come and take them away? Not to someone who, as a child, repeatedly had adults telling her she was talking rubbish despite her knowing she was telling the truth?

Yes, I can relate to little Amy, but not big Amy Little Amelia should've been the companion, she's a much better character than older Amy.

So profession is the only identifiable characteristis? So you can't identify with a couple frmo present day Earth, but you can happily identify with a 21st century supergenius, a warrior woman from the tribe of the Sevateem, a Time Lady, a boy from Alzarius, a girl from Traken, an 18th century Scot?

Well later in my post I said that we couldn't relate to those characters, and that there must be some other reason for my not being able to care about Amy or Rory. I said that there was still a human element to the characters so you could care about what happens to them- they were just charismatic.

Amy and Rory... they have charisma, but they just haven't breached that added layer for me to really like them.

And so Doctor Who became a soap, where every season we had a companion and her family issues. Isn't four whole seasons of that enough and time to move on?


Why do they need to have 'problems'? This is a TV show about a man travelling through time and space battling monsters in a police box that's bigger inside than out. It's not bloody Eastenders!

No, because if you notice there's a big difference between the classic series and the new series.

There's a big difference between series made in the 21st century and the 20th century. You can't get away with a lot of things that were done back then, the audience demands more from its entertainment.

You can even see this with BSG- the original and the new series. We get way more depth with characters, and there's way more drama. And I don't mean soap drama, I think using the word soap cheapens what the show's actually become and doing- the essence of drama is conflict. If we don't have conflict, we have nothing. We have The Doctor and someone merrily gallivanting around in time and space with him.

You can't do that anymore- not only has it been done to death, but it's just not realistic and nowadays people want more realism (hence reality tv, I suppose- I'm not condoning it, but there you are- why is there such a demand for it?)

There's no harm in wanting to see realism in Doctor Who- seeing real people, real humans travelling with him. Humans with a past and lives of their own back home- real reactions:

Planet of the Ood, Donna, upon seeing the caged Ood and what Ood Operations have done to them, tells The Doctor she wants to go home. It's a small scene, but it holds a lot of truth. Much like Tegan's last scene with The Doctor.

You feel something in that moment.

You even feel something in that moment with The Doctor handing big Amy the apple during the Eleventh Hour- I just dunno where that's gone.

Cos--> Rory dying, Amy getting shot- nada. Couldn't give a toss.


We also don't really meet Rory's friends- I dunno, I just find it very weird. I get the sense Moffat is trying to do things the way the Classic Series did, but RTD realized that, well, you gotta make things "domestic" at least a tiny bit cos while Moffat likes making Who a big ol' fairytale, it just all feels very far away and unimportant for some reason.

Even fairytales have their moments of reality.

[Jason Thompson]

No, because if you notice there's a big difference between the classic series and the new series.

Of course I had noticed. That doesn't mean we have to keep on slavishly following that formula that RTD gave us of families and constant visits to 'home' and so on.

There's a big difference between series made in the 21st century and the 20th century. You can't get away with a lot of things that were done back then, the audience demands more from its entertainment.

Not sure I agree with that. I think it also rather unfairly characterises previous audiences and entertainment as rather simplistic.

If we don't have conflict, we have nothing. We have The Doctor and someone merrily gallivanting around in time and space with him.

Are you seriously suggesting that until we had the companions' families in the show it was devoid on conflict and drama? For 26 whole seasons?

There's no harm in wanting to see realism in Doctor Who- seeing real people, real humans travelling with him. Humans with a past and lives of their own back home- real reactions:

Of course not. I just think it's rather unfair to dismiss anything that doesn't have that in it. There's no harm in wanting some simple stories now and again, and no harm in wanting, after four years, to get away from companions who keep popping home to visit their mum.

[FlyingBeastie]

Of course I had noticed. That doesn't mean we have to keep on slavishly following that formula that RTD gave us of families and constant visits to 'home' and so on.


Not sure I agree with that. I think it also rather unfairly characterises previous audiences and entertainment as rather simplistic.

I just feel there's no real depth going on with Amy and Rory, and much preferred RTD's companions. They were just better defined and better written.

Previous entertainment was rather simplistic, reserved, and conservative- doesn't mean the audience was, they just weren't given many options. Nowadays, shows are exploring more situations and taking more risks. Archie Bunker was a one in a million character back in the 70's- now? Let's see, Hugh Laurie in House, Tim Roth in Lie to Me, Kathy Bates in Harry's Law, and there a couple of other curmudgeon, sour puss protagonists out there in television. Even in film- we see that with the new Batman.


But hey, if you're not a fan of the whole "domestic" thing, that's your personal taste. If we were to take out that equation, we still need a well defined character with clear motives that makes sense with their character- and seeing as Amy and (sort of) Rory don't really have characters...

Are you seriously suggesting that until we had the companions' families in the show it was devoid on conflict and drama? For 26 whole seasons?

We did have drama, just a different kind.

Of course not. I just think it's rather unfair to dismiss anything that doesn't have that in it. There's no harm in wanting some simple stories now and again, and no harm in wanting, after four years, to get away from companions who keep popping home to visit their mum.

What kind of simple stories?

[Si Hunt]

I'm delighted that Amy has been significantly improved this year, if the opening two episodes are anything to go by - we both remarked on it. She's now doing proper companion things like being scared, infusing some tension and acting logically/realistically. Compare this to the new scenes on the season box set (the last thing we saw with her in it) and in that she's cocky, overly "kooky" and every other line is a sarcastic put-down of the Doctor. The contrast with her most recent episode was significant.

So good!

Si.

[Paul Monk]

I really like Rory and totally identify with him in loads of ways. And because I can identify with some aspects of Rory, I can also identify with Amy because, and I need to phrase this delicately, I know what its like to be married to a strong woman.
So this is the first set of companions that married couples can relate to. Its brilliant, refreshing and the humourous moments Rory and Amy have are very funny, because I can identify with them.
Its all very subjective at the end of the day and I think its sometimes down to what stage of life you are at. As a 9 year old I completely identified with Adric. As an adult he's a pain in teh backside. I could reel off a load of other companions I've never identified with but it'd be pointless because other people may love them. *cough Nyssa cough*

[Awesome Wells]

I love Nyssa. She is HOT. But I've never identified with her, except when I took off my skirt before saving a race of people about to die on a massive spaceship.

[FlyingBeastie]

But I've never identified with her, except when I took off my skirt before saving a race of people about to die on a massive spaceship.

LOL