|
Daleks
Nov 12, 2008 22:15:30 GMT
Post by Aldebaran on Nov 12, 2008 22:15:30 GMT
But they came back... so... technically.
|
|
schrodinger
Cyberman
avatar amde by minami from deviantart
Posts: 299
|
Daleks
Nov 14, 2008 5:34:52 GMT
Post by schrodinger on Nov 14, 2008 5:34:52 GMT
I hope they come back. I miss them. I miss time lords, too.
|
|
|
Daleks
Nov 14, 2008 16:04:08 GMT
Post by merrythemad on Nov 14, 2008 16:04:08 GMT
I dunno about missing timelords Schro. I was never fond of any of the rest of that lot. As villians, sure, but aside from Romana and the Doctor the timelords seem pretty awful race (just as far as classic series goes they were mean snobby superficial and unable to see past their own greatness ewwwwww)
|
|
|
Daleks
Nov 19, 2008 5:35:55 GMT
Post by Frills in Flux on Nov 19, 2008 5:35:55 GMT
Yeah, well I sorta liked the timelord-doctor banter that went on. When they got too stuffy, you could always count on the Doctor to drop a mouse down their shorts. That's what made it good.
|
|
|
Daleks
Nov 19, 2008 5:50:17 GMT
Post by clocketpatch on Nov 19, 2008 5:50:17 GMT
I miss the planet of the silly hats. Perhaps the Time Lords were rather obnoxious, but their fashion sense was FANTASTIC!!!!
|
|
Captain Spats
UNIT Red Shirt
You don't understand regeneration, Mel. It's a lottery, and I've drawn the short plank.
Posts: 126
|
Daleks
Nov 19, 2008 5:54:37 GMT
Post by Captain Spats on Nov 19, 2008 5:54:37 GMT
Good call. I miss the planet of the silly hats. Perhaps the Time Lords were rather obnoxious, but their fashion sense was FANTASTIC!!!! Fashionable, yes. Practical, no. Their headgear looked heavy and uncomfortable. Course, the whole reason the Doctor renounced timelord society was because he was practical.
|
|
schrodinger
Cyberman
avatar amde by minami from deviantart
Posts: 299
|
Daleks
Nov 22, 2008 3:37:22 GMT
Post by schrodinger on Nov 22, 2008 3:37:22 GMT
The doctor is not always practical. Just watch four and Romana. "First thing first, but not necessarily in that order." I think the doctor left the timelords because he was tired of being practical. Romana was MUCH more practical that the doctor in a lot of ways. And she was a classic example of a timelord when she was starting.. Timelords' hats are great. They probably have timelord technology that makes them light weight and comfortable. They wouldn't wear them if hats didn't have timelord technology.
|
|
|
Daleks
Nov 22, 2008 15:47:12 GMT
Post by jjpor on Nov 22, 2008 15:47:12 GMT
I think the hats being impractical and uncomfortable may even be part of the point - I think they wear them because they always have, for ten million years or however long it is they've been ruling time. It's like those big furry bearskins the Guards wear outside Buckingham Palace, or, more precisely, like those Oxford dons parading in their gowns and mortarboards. I think what the Doctor disagrees with is pointless tradition and silly rules that everyone follows even though they don't understand the point of them - and he made Romana into a rebel just like him (as opposed to a rebel like the Master, who is even worse than the stuffy old Timelords, and who rebels not because it's right but for his own sick amusement).
|
|
|
Daleks
Nov 22, 2008 16:02:34 GMT
Post by Frills in Flux on Nov 22, 2008 16:02:34 GMT
So... is the message portrayed in doctor who to BE a rebel or is it to conform to tradition?
|
|
|
Daleks
Nov 23, 2008 0:40:57 GMT
Post by jjpor on Nov 23, 2008 0:40:57 GMT
So... is the message portrayed in doctor who to BE a rebel or is it to conform to tradition? I think that, if Doctor Who has a message, it is to be yourself, to do your own thing and not worry about other people's rules - provided, of course, that you don't try to impose your own rules on anybody else. So, I suppose the Doctor was the right sort of rebel in that he also respected everybody else's right to do their own thing, while the Master, for example, was the wrong sort of rebel in that he wanted to make everyone else do as he said. The Time Lords, while they might not be as bad as, say, the Daleks, weren't necessarily the good guys; after all, the Doctor had run away from Gallifrey to get away from all of their rules and laws. As I think I might have posted on another thread some time ago, the real baddies in Who are those who want to make everybody else do as they say (like the Master), or make everyone else just like them (like the Cybermen), or stamp out everyone who is not like them (like the Daleks) - the Doctor stands for being an individual and doing what you yourself know is the right thing. That sounded pretty deep, huh? ;D
|
|
|
Daleks
Nov 23, 2008 1:15:41 GMT
Post by clocketpatch on Nov 23, 2008 1:15:41 GMT
It did indeed JJPOR, it did indeed.
|
|
|
Daleks
Nov 23, 2008 5:07:37 GMT
Post by Aldebaran on Nov 23, 2008 5:07:37 GMT
But it's very true.
Jjpor, I'm glad you see it that way as well. Life's morals need to be as balanced as our solar system's gravity. for it is only then that it can work smoothly.
|
|
Captain Spats
UNIT Red Shirt
You don't understand regeneration, Mel. It's a lottery, and I've drawn the short plank.
Posts: 126
|
Daleks
Nov 23, 2008 8:31:29 GMT
Post by Captain Spats on Nov 23, 2008 8:31:29 GMT
Took the words right out of my mouth, Jjpor. Couldn't have been said better.
|
|
|
Daleks
Nov 23, 2008 20:45:14 GMT
Post by merrythemad on Nov 23, 2008 20:45:14 GMT
JJ, I almost agree completely. To rebel without reason is, in itself, a form of conformity. I believe the message more than being yourself, is about acceptance. Accepting yourself for who you are and accepting others for who they are. Hence the Timelords are bad as they don't accept a p.o.v. other than their own same for daleks same for cybermen. Even the ninth and tenth Doctor, really. They are NOT portrayed as great people, just people trying to be great and neither of them was good at accepting himself and his actions, hence the not entirely lily white characters.
|
|
|
Daleks
Nov 23, 2008 21:54:01 GMT
Post by jjpor on Nov 23, 2008 21:54:01 GMT
Well said, Merry, and Aldy too - that's what I was trying to say. Of course, when the other guy's point of view is pure evil - and let's be honest, very occasionally it is - then you've got to fight it at all costs, and that's what the Doctor does.
Which brings us back on-topic to the subject of the Daleks; they're a classic creation, obviously, and it's for a number of reasons. First of all, it's their appearance - they are very alien, in a very low-budget sort of way - certainly, they knock knobbly-foreheaded humanoid aliens of the Trek variety into a cocked hat. Second, it's the fact that they've got great, mimicable, voices and a catchphrase: "EX-TER-MIN-ATE!". And thirdly, I think it's what they stand for - pure, uncompromising hatred and intolerance.
Terry Nation said that they were intended to represent Nazis etc., and it is very obvious when you think about them (never more so than in Genesis of the Daleks, which contains all of the good old war movie imagery in addition to the wonderful Davros). So, I suppose even though they are aliens, the Daleks represent all that is worst about human beings, and that such unpleasantness cannot be reasoned or bargained with, only opposed. And I think that's one reason why they have remained the Doctor's most iconic enemy, right up to the present day.
And I suppose this is especially appropriate on the 45th anniversary, because of course, while the Doctor may have managed without them for a few weeks, it wasn't until the Daleks came on the scene that the show became a massive success. So we have that to thank them for, at least.
|
|
|
Daleks
Nov 24, 2008 0:34:20 GMT
Post by merrythemad on Nov 24, 2008 0:34:20 GMT
My goodness! What an in-depth conversation, in such a seemingly all has already been said topic!
JJ- your last post hit on what I think makes science fiction and fantasy such enduring genres. The good and bad guys are easily distinguishable. But the Master you say, he wore black the majority of the time I say in return. Not only is the general world of sci fi an idealised world, it is also highly cathartic.
As for daleks, aye! they are a large part, indeed of the iconography surrounding Doctor Who, and I agree the series' survival does, in part, rest on the survival of the daleks. It helps make the unknown less unknown, here is this scary killing machine, but we can name it, at least. It brings the battle of good vs evil to a less faceless arena.
|
|
|
Daleks
Nov 24, 2008 22:20:41 GMT
Post by jjpor on Nov 24, 2008 22:20:41 GMT
As for daleks, aye! they are a large part, indeed of the iconography surrounding Doctor Who, and I agree the series' survival does, in part, rest on the survival of the daleks. It helps make the unknown less unknown, here is this scary killing machine, but we can name it, at least. It brings the battle of good vs evil to a less faceless arena. Well, first and foremost, Doctor Who is great entertainment - good stories about interesting characters. The very best stories, though, the ones that stay with you, are the ones that have deeper concerns under the surface, even if we the viewers are not always consciously aware of them. And say what you like about Who, its heart is in the right place - it has good principles and it sticks to them. I don't know that the end of the Daleks really would mean the end of Who - as has been said, they scarcely appeared at all for most of Tom Baker's stint, and their appearances during the 80s were few and far between. As much as I love them, their recurring appearances in the new series have been so frequent as to maybe reduce their novelty value a bit. So I wouldn't necessarily be devastated if they got rested for a bit, but I do hope they reappear at some point.
|
|
|
Daleks
Nov 25, 2008 1:44:44 GMT
Post by Aldebaran on Nov 25, 2008 1:44:44 GMT
You know? I had that same feeling.
And I can almost imperatively say that they daleks WILL return. They're a DW icon, and not only for plotline and symbolic reason, but also for economic reasons. Do you REALLY think the BBC would be cool with loosing all that cash flow from selling inflatable daleks and dalek mugs and dalek toys and dalek breakfast cereals, etc. if they were to cut them from the show?
I think not.
Not only do you have to approach the death of the daleks with the mind of a psychologist, but also as a marketeer.
|
|
|
Daleks
Nov 25, 2008 20:13:19 GMT
Post by merrythemad on Nov 25, 2008 20:13:19 GMT
*applauds* Well said, JJ and Aldy.
I certainly did not mean to imply that Doctor Who could not survive as a series without the Daleks (though at this point one does wonder if there was anything the show could do to alienate its fanbase). I only meant they were certainly a factor in its longevity.
Nor did I mean to blatantly overlook the marketability of those deadly over-sized pepper-pots. I imagine the royalties from Dalek merchandise will keep the BBC rolling in it for years to come. I d tend to wax philosophical when real world factors loom much more obviously.
|
|
|
Daleks
Nov 25, 2008 20:49:32 GMT
Post by jjpor on Nov 25, 2008 20:49:32 GMT
(though at this point one does wonder if there was anything the show could do to alienate its fanbase) Well...let me think...they could make me the showrunner, for one thing; with my at times idiosyncratic taste in Who (the Happiness Patrol - work of genius!), I'd be the only person watching after about half a season... More seriously, I agree completely with Merry that while the show could survive without the Daleks, they were a big factor in making it the success it was the first time around (I'm talking the Dalekmania of the 60s - the show may not have been so "cool" again until the new series took off), and have remained very much its public face ever since. And it's not just because they're so merchandisable, but also because they are a great concept all round. Having said that, Aldy is dead right about the marketability of them. In the runup to xmas, I see Daleks plastered on just about every item of merchandise you could imagine. The one thing that would prevent the Daleks from appearing again on Who would be if the Terry Nation estate pulled the plug, and they do like to make threatening noises now and again (mainly, I assume, to keep the BBC conscious of the power they hold), but seriously, how much money must they be making off the current Who revival? It would be a case of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, and as long as Who is popular and profitable, I can't imagine anyone involved being so stupid.
|
|