What are your feelings on the Doctor using guns and violence?

As we all know New Who has become notorious for having the Doctor HATE guns and go on big sanctimonious speeches about why you should never use them.

In the old series however the Doctor regularly used guns and seemed to quite like them.

William Hartnell kept several collections of guns, and tried to use one on Koquillion. Patrick Troughton blew away several Ice Warriors and a Cyberman, and was happy to work alongside the Brig when he was shooting Yetis and Cybermen.

Pertwee used guns a lot. He blasted away two Ogrons in Day of the Daleks, got into a gun fight with an Ogron in Frontier in Space, shot at the Nestene consciousness, stole the gun from the dead Dalek in Death to the Daleks and nearly used it on Bellal, burned all of the Ice Warriors to death using the Spirit of Aggedor, and used fire extinguishers to kill multiple Primords. He also of course worked alongside the Brig and never minded when he shot badguys.

Tom Baker built a gun as a hobby in the Invasion of Time and used it to blow away the Sontarans, he also seemed to love the gun he used in Talons of Weng Chiang to blow away the rat, he blasted a Fendahleen, shot the anti matter man, had a pet Robot dog that always shot people, and attempted to shoot the President's assassin.

The Fifth and Sixth Doctors meanwhile shot plenty of bad guys, the Cyber leader, the uncased Dalek, the Borad, the Cyber controller, Omega etc, whilst the Seventh Doctor seemed perfectly willing to shoot the Destroyer in Battlefield until the Brig knocked him out, was happy for Ace to blow up a Dalek with a rocket launcher, and used his makeshift gun on the Daleks in Remembrance.

To me its a myth that the Doctor never uses guns. IMO it was better when he did. It goes without saying that the Doctor is going to have to use a gun in some situations, and I really see no reason why he wouldn't considering he kills his enemies all the time. I always liked the original Doctor because he was a very practical hero.

Unlike say Batman who is motivated solely by his emotion, the Doctor is a rational man in stories like Pyramids of Mars and will just see a gun as a tool, so he will pick it up and fire it without a seconds thought.

IMO giving him this irrational hatred of guns, when he uses weapons that are far more dangerous is just another example of how the New Who Doctor compared to the old is an irrational, emo character.

Also in terms of fighting I've noticed that the old Doctor used to beat the shit out of people all the time.

Well apart from Troughton I suppose. Hartnell whacked guys over the head with shovels, his stick and other blunt instruments, beat the monk up and sealed him up in a tomb, and then there is his famous fight in the Romans.

Pertwee as well know beats the shit out of people all the time, as did Tom Baker in stories like Talons of Weng Chiang, the Deadly Assassin, The Seeds of Doom, Genesis of the Daleks, Pyramids of Mars, Robot etc.

Even Davison kicked ass in stories like The Visitation and Kinda, whilst Colin curb stomps a homicidal and armed police man in Attack of the Cyberman.

Even McCoy knocks out guys using just his fingers and wins his fight with the Master and his motorcycle fight with Mitch.

The New Who Doctor however never gets into physical fights. Did Eccelston ever fight or hit anyone for instance? Tennant did have two sword fights, but again we never saw him hit anyone or fight with his bare hands.

Matt Smith hit the robot guy in Victory of the Daleks, but we never saw him beat people up. Peter Capaldi had a few moments, like the cringey punching the racist bit, and the Robin Hood spoon fight, but we never saw him in any real serious fights.

Question is why is the New Who Doctor so much less of an action hero than the old?









We never see scenes like this with the New Who Doctors where he really beats the shit out of someone. I genuinely wonder why they ditched that aspect of the character. I always rather liked it. It was like the original Sherlock Holmes. Obviously both were more cerebral heroes, but that didn't mean they couldn't take care of themselves, and even couldn't appreciate a good old bout of fisticuffs.

Because society has become emasculated and pussyfied.
Violence is sometimes necessary, especially when faced with violent opponents. This is something the "cry now" PC New Who audience (and makers) can't get their tiny little echo chamber minds around.

burrunjor wrote:As we all know New Who has become notorious for having the Doctor HATE guns and go on big sanctimonious speeches about why you should never use them.

In the old series however the Doctor regularly used guns and seemed to quite like them.

William Hartnell kept several collections of guns, and tried to use one on Koquillion. Patrick Troughton blew away several Ice Warriors and a Cyberman, and was happy to work alongside the Brig when he was shooting Yetis and Cybermen.

Pertwee used guns a lot. He blasted away two Ogrons in Day of the Daleks, got into a gun fight with an Ogron in Frontier in Space, shot at the Nestene consciousness, stole the gun from the dead Dalek in Death to the Daleks and nearly used it on Bellal, burned all of the Ice Warriors to death using the Spirit of Aggedor, and used fire extinguishers to kill multiple Primords. He also of course worked alongside the Brig and never minded when he shot badguys.

Tom Baker built a gun as a hobby in the Invasion of Time and used it to blow away the Sontarans, he also seemed to love the gun he used in Talons of Weng Chiang to blow away the rat, he blasted a Fendahleen, shot the anti matter man, had a pet Robot dog that always shot people, and attempted to shoot the President's assassin.

The Fifth and Sixth Doctors meanwhile shot plenty of bad guys, the Cyber leader, the uncased Dalek, the Borad, the Cyber controller, Omega etc, whilst the Seventh Doctor seemed perfectly willing to shoot the Destroyer in Battlefield until the Brig knocked him out, was happy for Ace to blow up a Dalek with a rocket launcher, and used his makeshift gun on the Daleks in Remembrance.

To me its a myth that the Doctor never uses guns. IMO it was better when he did. It goes without saying that the Doctor is going to have to use a gun in some situations, and I really see no reason why he wouldn't considering he kills his enemies all the time. I always liked the original Doctor because he was a very practical hero.

Unlike say Batman who is motivated solely by his emotion, the Doctor is a rational man in stories like Pyramids of Mars and will just see a gun as a tool, so he will pick it up and fire it without a seconds thought.

IMO giving him this irrational hatred of guns, when he uses weapons that are far more dangerous is just another example of how the New Who Doctor compared to the old is an irrational, emo character.

This is a good topic. I think an issue that has to be raised is how much we think of the Doctors as separate people. Their eras were very distinct, whereas, you have lumped them all together and I am not saying that it is wrong to do so but I think you lose something by doing so.
Hartnell’s Doctor was more alien and his character progressed massively by the time Troughton arrives and continues to do so through his era. Hartnell’s Doctor was only 30ish years after the war and many people probably still had old service revolvers in their possession. There were a couple of acts that tightened up gun laws in 1967/8.

If you look at the Dan Dare, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon type space operas they were westerns in space and guns were quite prevalent and the violence is desensitised when it’s against unhuman creatures. Daleks and Cybermen visually are robots, it’s easy to forget that they are supposed to be living and with the Cybermen even that is debatable.

Pertwee’s Doctor was a Bond cypher and the Venusian-Aikido is a bit contrary to the Buddhist themes that Letts like to insert in there. Pertwee’s Doctor was a very unique Doctor.

You missed out Seeds of Doom for Baker which again was very Bondish. He either thumps the Chauffer or uses a gun, doesn’t he? Again, the Rat is an animal and more equivalent to hunting than violence to resolve an adversarial conflict. What moral would the story have if he shot the Master between the eyes, though he let him die in Planet of Fire but that was through inaction. Omega in Arc of Infinity, he shot him to save the universe but did he definitely kill him? I thought there was a suggestion he snapped back into the other universe so it may not have resulted in death.

Going back a bit, Tom’s Doctor rigged the switch in The Sunmakers which caused a guard to get electrocuted while he thought he was tied up, that’s a bit grey as it was indirect. Just like him goading Davros at the end of Remembrance or the Borad. And Ace fired the Bazooka cos Sylvester thought it would have been wrong for him to do it.

Saward made Six unusually violent and callous, c.f Shockeye and the acid bath on Varos. This just shows how important context is, the joking or indifferent reactions upset some people.

The problem is who is he using the guns on, why is he using guns and how is that framed? The uncased Daleks was more of an animal because it could no longer talk. It was vicious, unreasonable and deadly. That’s not quite the same as putting a bullet between Sil’s eyes. Is it the end of the universe, real life or death stuff like Omega in Arc and can it be done like the Borad or Davros where he tricks them into doing it? If it’s direct and lazy it’s out of character. A sword fight in the middle of the story like in Sea Devils, no blood spilt, it’s choreography, not real violence. He gets drawn into a punch up then fine as long as it’s not happening all the time. Is it life or death? More is less; A light touch is best.

He also whacks someone with a chair and uses a gun in Seeds of Doom.



But then, you have this...



Maybe you just have to accept the Doctor is a complicated chap??

I'm not anti-gun at all. There's no reason to villainise an inanimate object, especially one that can do as much good as evil.

Guns are just an efficient means to an end. If you're threatened, or people your care about are threatened - a gun will likely the most effective means of eliminating that threat, even if just to maim.

I would say that you don't truly care about a person if you aren't willing to use violence to protect them. If the Doctor cares about his companions and those he encounters then he should be willing to use a gun to defend them - even where he is tethered to rather too-idealistic morality that would prevent him from using violence more often.

From the perspective of 'influence' I would prefer a Doctor that teaches that violence has a purpose à la Ian and the Thals in 'the Daleks' than one who is blindly pacifistic.
That said, for NuWho - the recent Doctor is more than willing to assault straw racists/misogynists etc. so it's rather hypocritical that жhe would then hesitate to shoot a Dalek.

So long as it's used fairly sparingly, then I have absolutely no issues whatsoever with the Doctor engaging in bouts of violence or lethal force. If anything it gives things a certain sense of realism. Not every situation you encounter in life can be solved with completely peaceful methods. Just like in the real world, sometimes violence IS the only real option.  

I think that's a relatively realistic and responsible way to present violence in a Sci-Fi adventure show for all ages.

TiberiusDidNothingWrong wrote:
That said, for NuWho - the recent Doctor is more than willing to assault straw racists/misogynists etc. so it's rather hypocritical that жhe would then hesitate to shoot a Dalek.

Punching the racist was more a fault of the writer or showrunner than the character. The alternative would be to let the racist bully his friend which would make him look extremely weak. It was wrong to put the character in that position. What alternatives are there? A lengthy debate on racism with vert moralising which would be done in an equally over the top manner. I can't see a better alternative for the character in *that* position. I think it was completely a wrong turn.

I am sure I have said this before but Troughton on trial at the end of the War Games said there are things that must be fought. McGann's Doctor in Night of the Doctor needed the elixir to make him the War Doctor and go out and fight Daleks. It's not the same character at that point. One of the quirks of a long-running show maybe, a daft narrative device to introduce and validate the unnecessary War Doctor more likely.

Punching the racist was more a fault of the writer or showrunner than the character. The alternative would be to let the racist bully his friend which would make him look extremely weak. It was wrong to put the character in that position. What alternatives are there? A lengthy debate on racism with vert moralising which would be done in an equally over the top manner. I can't see a better alternative for the character in *that* position. I think it was completely a wrong turn.

Umm... he could have just simply told him to back off and stop bullying his friend, maybe even call him a bigot without going into a lenghty monologue about how terrible racism is. That would have been considerably more Doctorish than just simply punching him right in the fucking face, and in no way would it make him look "extremely weak" as you say.  

It was a ridiculous moment that was completely out of character, no matter how you try and slice it.

DeadManRising wrote:

Punching the racist was more a fault of the writer or showrunner than the character. The alternative would be to let the racist bully his friend which would make him look extremely weak. It was wrong to put the character in that position. What alternatives are there? A lengthy debate on racism with vert moralising which would be done in an equally over the top manner. I can't see a better alternative for the character in *that* position. I think it was completely a wrong turn.

Umm... he could have just simply told him to back off and stop bullying his friend, maybe even call him a bigot without going into a lenghty monologue about how terrible racism is. That would have been considerably more Doctorish than just simply punching him right in the fucking face, and in no way would it make him look "extremely weak" as you say.  

It was a ridiculous moment that was completely out of character, no matter how you try and slice it.

I am not defending him punching the guy to the ground. I also wasn't suggesting that the lengthy monologue was desirable or that the moment wasn't ridiculous. I was saying it shouldn't have even been in there. "Oh look, here is a racist. How do we know he is a racist? Cos he is frothing at the mouth." There are subtler ways of characterisation which means the scene should go altogether and be replaced with something else.

You said: "So long as it's used fairly sparingly, then I have absolutely no issues whatsoever with the Doctor engaging in bouts of violence or lethal force. If anything it gives things a certain sense of realism."

So why is it OK to have violence sparingly (which according to your words you would have no issue with whatsoever) but not in this scene, it was one punch and it was the villain? You are now saying the Doctor should just say "back off" or similar, why? You have just made a contradictory assertion. How is it out of character?

There's a huge difference between using violence when your life is in danger, and when someone says something mean to one of your friends.

Can you seriously imagine either Tom Baker or Peter Davison's Doctors punching a guy in the face just for mocking one of his companions?

The Doctor should only use violence when he has a very good reason for doing so.

Quick Poll: Which is worse?

A. Capaldi's Doctor punching a racist

B. Colin's Doctor strangling Peri

C. Both are equally terrible

Mr. Happy wrote:Quick Poll: Which is worse?

A. Capaldi's Doctor punching a racist

B. Colin's Doctor strangling Peri

C. Both are equally terrible

Colin's Doctor was suffering from post regeneration trauma when he strangled Peri, and experienced a great deal of guilt and remorse when it finally wore off.

Capaldi's Doctor, as far as I'm aware, wasn't suffering from any kind of mental illness when he punched that racist square in the jaw when there was absolutely no need to do so.

You're grasping for straws here, dude.

I am not grasping for straws, I am trying to gauge opinion in general. Besides, the Doctor was the aggressor in both and he couldn't be shown to express remorse for the racists as you are not supposed to sympathise with the racist. The Doctor snapped in both situations. In fact, his regret was an overreaction and he wanted to make himself and Peri hermits for 1000 years on Titan 3. Odd way to apologise and probably insincere as he was still unbalanced.

Look at the final scene of the story:

[Tardis]

(The twins watch the Doctor set the coordinates.)
PERI: Did you have to be so rude?
DOCTOR: To whom?
PERI: Hugo. You could at least have said goodbye.
(The time rotor starts moving and the Doctor heads for the inner door, sighing.)
PERI: Are you having another of your fits?
DOCTOR: You may not believe this, but I have fully stabilised.
PERI: Then I suggest you take a crash course in manners.
DOCTOR: You seem to forget, Peri, I'm not only from another culture but another planet. I am, in your terms, an alien. I am therefore bound to different values and customs.
PERI: Your former self was polite enough.
DOCTOR: At such a cost. I was on the verge of becoming neurotic.
PERI: We all have to repress our feelings from time to time. I suggest you get back into the habit.
DOCTOR: And I would suggest, Peri, that you wait a little before criticising my new persona. You may well find it isn't quite as disagreeable as you think.
PERI: Well, I hope so.
DOCTOR: Whatever else happens, I am the Doctor, whether you like it or not.

Doesn't sound very regretful about anything there. He is actually saying to Peri to get over it cos he is from another planet, have you actually seen this story?

There is very little difference between the two, you are just trying to justify your disliking for the nu who one cos it moralises.

I dunno... he seemed rather remorseful and shocked hearing what he tried to do to Peri in this exchange.

DOCTOR: What happened?
PERI: You had another of your fits.
DOCTOR: I don't have fits.
PERI: Whatever you call them.
DOCTOR: I told you, manic moments of no consequence. They become less dramatic and less and less frequent.
PERI: Well this was worse. Longer. It was horrible.
DOCTOR: Don't exaggerate.
PERI: Exaggerate? You don't remember what you did, do you?
DOCTOR: I must admit I am a little hazy.
PERI: You tried to kill me.
DOCTOR: Oh, don't be absurd.
PERI: I'm not.
DOCTOR: What you say is impossible. I have an inbuilt resistance to any form of violence, except in self-defence.
PERI: You don't!
DOCTOR: I don't? Upon my word, you really are frightened, aren't you.
PERI: Frightened half to death, and that's only because I'm not dead already.
DOCTOR: Something's wrong. Something's very wrong. Oh no, has it come to that? Regenerate, yet unregenerate. Oh, alas, poor Peri. Not for us the pleasures of Vesta Ninety Five.

I would choose option C: They are as bad as each other.

On a rational level, looking at the aggressor, Colin’s Doctor has the post-regeneration excuse, whereas, Capaldi’s Doctor just snaps. Personally, I would have preferred it if the Lord Xenophobe had given cold glares and cutting remarks, building tension, till Capaldi snapped, "Don't speak to my friend like that" or similar.

But on an emotional, looking at the victim, I don’t think it was written as a cypher for domestic abuse or spouse battering but the Twin Dilemma has those unfortunate connotations, whereas, Moffat/Pollard wrote their scene to manipulate you into cheering the Doctor on cos racism is bad and he is a racist so he is bad. You can’t really sympathise with him.

So I think they are both equally awful and neither should have happened. The thing they have in common is the Doctor as the aggressor.

Yes, I smell a major strawman. Colin was mentally ill in that scene, ffs, and it's a scene that's meant to illustrate that to the audience by shocking them with such action, not cheer him on.
That said, I'd have been cheering if Crapoldie had repeated it to more final effect with Clara. Justifiable homicide, I'd say.

This is a good topic. I think an issue that has to be raised is how much we think of the Doctors as separate people. Their eras were very distinct, whereas, you have lumped them all together and I am not saying that it is wrong to do so but I think you lose something by doing so.

UGH sorry but I hate the idea of the Doctors being different people. IMO that is where all of the New Who crap of "I don't want to go", lets throw everything that made the Doctor, the Doctor out, lets have a dickless Master and a dickless Doctor become lovers etc begins.

I don't get why DW fans have this idea that everything should change in the show? Yes its stupid for someone to say that NOTHING can change, but isn't it equally as stupid to say that there are no constants in the show, or character of the Doctor when that's demonstrably not true? I'm not saying you are saying this necessarily, but look at this quote from Paul Cornell. I remember when I posted it on Planet Mondas so many people said he was completely right and I'm just baffled by it.

It still amazes me that there’s a kind of Doctor Who fan  who like certainty above all things, who hate change, emotional conservatives whose first response to a development in Doctor Who that they like is to declare that there’s a precedent for it.  Or worse, who can’t deal with any development in Doctor Who until it’s a few years old.  They have, almost masochistically, opted to follow a show that changes all the time.  (I suspect they’re represented in the show itself by the creature Light in ‘Ghost Light’.)

The absolute worst extreme of that trait is the sort of fan that thinks there shouldn’t be a female Doctor.  They’re sure they’re good people, so there must, their reasoning goes, be a good reason why they feel that way.  They’re not bigots, after all.  They can’t be.  So they find some very awkward ‘reason’ that can just about be made to sound okay.  But it must be okay.  Because they’re good people.

And they are good people.  It’s just that good people sometimes express bigoted thoughts.  I had a fanzine article published about why the Doctor should always be ‘a fair-skinned being’.  I wasn’t a villain then, I was just infected by bigotry.  Because we all are.  It took many years, but I finally realised I didn’t have a good reason to think that.  (I also needed to realise that admitting I didn’t have a good reason didn’t mean I was suddenly a horrible person, a fear that, I think, lies behind a lot of entrenched fan opinion about this sort of thing.)  I was being a bigot when I said it, but I probably said something entirely sincere against bigotry a few minutes later.  That’s how the vast majority of people are.  These days the consensus is that it’s not okay to have any sort of reason why there shouldn’t be a Doctor Of Colour.  That’s only become the case in the last two or three years.  Though everyone is unconsciously pushing that date further and further back, to the point where soon nobody could ever have believed something as terrible as that.  In a few years, it’ll be the same with the possibility of a female Doctor.

This emotional conservatism, expressed in smaller, less ethically important ways, is a trait I recognise in myself, something I have to fight against to keep myself going.  I think several creators of Doctor Who over the decades have instinctively realised that that particular fan gene is in opposition to creativity, and have therefore set their faces against it, sometimes too much.  There are also those who’ve gone too far the other way.  To be a good writer, you have to smash things up.  To make great Doctor Who, especially, you have to destroy something someone values with every step.  Those footsteps of destruction will, in a few years, be cast in bronze and put on a plinth for the next great story to destroy.  Doctor Who lives because of that process boiling away in its cells.  (Metaphors all over the place, fix it in the next draft please, love, internal Russell.)

All of the Doctors are meant to be the same person. Regeneration is simply where his body breaks down and repairs itself but in doing so, it takes on a new appearance. Its like a catterpillar changing into a butterfly.

His personality gets shaken up of course in the process, and living in a new body would alter your personality too. Imagine going from being an old guy with a stick, who needed people to look after him physically, to a young, dashing guy like Peter Davison?

Point is however its the same consciousness, same memories and same core personality. Hence why for the 26 years of Old Who his core persona never changed, and so many of the actors and writers outright said as much too.

Really making all of the Doctors different people like New Who does makes 0 sense. Why bother introducing regeneration in the first place? You could have easily just had another member of the Doctors race take over the TARDIS when Hartnell left.

As we knew nothing about his people, or why he ran away then, you could have had it that the Doctors people send one of their number out into the universe to protect it, and this person's title is the Doctor. Hartnell's version could have initially found the job too demanding and just wanted to explore, hence his callousness, but by this point had matured and in his final story would die saving the universe, after which the TARDIS would be recalled, and the new Doctor would be chosen, and when that actor wanted to leave then they would repeat the process and so on and so on.

I think viewers would have accepted that no problem, but the writers didn't make the Doctor a title, because they wanted to actually keep William Hartnell's character because it was a great character, so they found a genius way of keeping him around, yet reinventing him.

The New Who crowd however don't understand that, either because they just don't get the character, or for their own stupid SJW agenda, so now they have literally reduced the Doctor (and the Master too) to just a title that is carried on to separate characters with nothing in common with each other.

WILF: Yeah, but I thought, when I saw you before, you said your people could change, like, your whole body.
DOCTOR: I can still die. If I'm killed before regeneration, then I'm dead. Even then, even if I change, it feels like dying. Everything I am dies. Some new man goes sauntering away, and I'm dead.

Nothing makes sense with this in mind. Why does Peter Davison recall old times with the Brig? He never met him according to this. Similarly why does McCoy seem pleased to see the Brig and say "ah so you recognise me then". He's never met McCoy before Battlefield if we take Tennant's mopey self pitying shit as canon.

As for the Doctors willingness to use violence and guns in Old Who, well I always saw this as a defining trait of his character.

My favourite thing about the Classic series Doctor as a whole, was that he was a level headed, rational character. We never saw him (apart from when he was insane as Colin) completely lose his cool. He'd get angry sure, maybe even shout, but he'd never completely break down and sob and let his emotions get the better of him.

Look at his reaction to Adrics death. He's sad, but he doesn't sob and go NOOOOOOOOOOOO like Tennant would.

This made the Doctor stand out IMO from other heroes who were always so emotional. Like look at Buffy, Angel, Spider-Man, even Batman. They've always got stupid issues like relationship problems going on and they often let their emotions cloud their judgement. The Doctor doesn't.

You can imagine if there was a big crossover, the old Doctor would take charge as he would be the most mature one there. His willingness to use weapons is an example of that. Batman won't use a gun, (in most versions) even when he has no choice because he has an emotional response of "its the weapon that killed my family". The level headed, pragmatic Doctor however just sees a gun as a tool and uses it when he needs to like in Day of the Daleks and Death to the Daleks and Frontier in Space.

Sadly however as we know the New Who Doctor is a hysterical moron, so his hatred of guns fits into that. Why does he hate guns? He uses his sonic screwdriver as a projectile to blow up a Christmas tree! Also he chastises his clone for using a gun on the Daleks when they were about to blow up every universe FFS.

How is that pragmatic? If anything the New Who Doctor is less emotionally mature than Buffy's little sister Dawn.

I agree, it has always been clear to me that the Doctor's regenerations change him only to the same extent that an average person may change throughout their life: quirks, tastes, and some stronger items of personality change - but it's the same person. The Doctor's morality I think is especially important to the character and would not change. The idea that the Doctor becomes a literally new ‘person’ each time is the same rather ignorant argument that is used to justify the female Doctor

The 6th Doctor comparison is null. The Twin Dilemma was controversial for a reason, and yet I would defend the serial because he had good purpose for his personality change - it was the focus of the story to an extent. It's incomparable.

As for NuWho, it doesn't exactly offend me that the character is written so poorly in comparison: where I don't see NuWho as a meaningful continuation of the Classic Series.
Yet it's fairly clear that the character is a mess of dissonance and contradictions. It's absurd that he – for another analogy - is willing to be so vicious as he was in the conclusion of Family of Blood, sentencing people to a fair concept of hell – that then can't bring himself to apply the five rounds rapid when the situation calls for it.

TiberiusDidNothingWrong wrote:I agree, it has always been clear to me that the Doctor's regenerations change him only to the same extent that an average person may change throughout their life: quirks, tastes, and some stronger items of personality change - but it's the same person. The Doctor's morality I think is especially important to the character and would not change. The idea that the Doctor becomes a literally new ‘person’ each time is the same rather ignorant argument that is used to justify the female Doctor

The 6th Doctor comparison is null. The Twin Dilemma was controversial for a reason, and yet I would defend the serial because he had good purpose for his personality change - it was the focus of the story to an extent. It's incomparable.

As for NuWho, it doesn't exactly offend me that the character is written so poorly in comparison: where I don't see NuWho as a meaningful continuation of the Classic Series.
Yet it's fairly clear that the character is a mess of dissonance and contradictions. It's absurd that he – for another analogy - is willing to be so vicious as he was in the conclusion of Family of Blood, sentencing people to a fair concept of hell – that then can't bring himself to apply the five rounds rapid when the situation calls for it.

Yes Mr Happy's 6th Doctor comparison was wrong. In the Twin Dilemma the Doctor is meant to have gone insane. FFS when he finds out what he had done he wants to become a hermit! The poison that killed 5 was so severe that he wasn't sure if he would regenerate, and it was meant to leave him with unpleasant after effects that are worse than usual.

Even in Attack of the Cybermen it was implied his mind had not completely stabilised, hence why he calls Peri, Zoe, Jamie, Susan and even the terrible Zodin!

Everything about the Tenth Doctor's morality was hypocritical. He didn't just fit in with the previous Doctors, he was a hypocrite all around.

The reason for this was because RTD had this attitude where if you tried to keep up ANY form of continuity, you are a sad ming mong fan.

Obviously yes it is silly to obsess over tiny details being contradicted. Like for instance, the first Doctor hates booze in one story, but then Jon Pertwee loves wine in Day of the Daleks. Similarly Colin goes veggie in the Two Doctors, whilst Tennant eats meat in another story.

It would be silly to get upset over those contradictions, as they are so minor, and hey its bound to happen in a long running show.

With Tennant however his entire morality changed from episode to episode to the point where you didn't know what he was supposed to be. A Superman/Spider-Man style I never kill, or a Wolverine style I'm a badass that kills and even tortures my enemies.

Clearly Russell as always was just writing what he felt would be good in a moment, and not only never went over it, but clearly everyone else was too scared to say anything else.

Look at this quote from Russell.

I do worry about being surrounded by yes-men. You’re right, it happens. […] I don’t think it’s happened to me yet. In the end, just as good writers are hard to find, so are good script editors, good producers and good execs. When you find good people like Julie and Phil, their sheer talent cancels out the risk of them yes-ing. I suppose the danger is not RTD And The Yes-Men, but a triumverate of people who are so similar that contrary opinions don’t get a look-in.”

“I’ll tell you what pisses me off most of all […] It’s those internet message boards. The forums. […] That bastard internet voice gets into writers’ heads and destabilises them massively. […] I read that stuff and it doesn’t stop me, not ever. I’ve got quite high-flown and fancy beliefs about art that maybe put it all into perspective. Principally: it is not a democracy. Creating something is not a democracy. The people have no say. The artist does. It doesn’t matter what the people witter on about […] I think it’s right that they are excluded. […] It can mess writers up when they read that endlessly critical voice. It’s completely, completely destructive. I cannot see one iota of it that’s helpful.”

Here are the most notorious examples of Ten's hypocrisy.

He goes on a big pompous speech about genocide being wrong in The Doctors Daughter "Look up genocide in the dictionary and you'll see a picture of me that says over my dead body." He also condemns his clone for wiping out the Daleks in Journey's End.

However he wipes out his own people in The End of Time without a seconds thought "GET BACK INTO THE TIME WAR RASSILON, BACK INTO HELL!" and he also wipes out the Racnoss, and the Daleks AND the Cybermen in Doomsday.

He kills the leader of the Sycrocrax and says "NO SECOND CHANCES. I'M THAT SORT OF MAN!" yet he later says that he never would shoot someone in the Doctors daughter.

He famously hates guns, yet he uses his sonic screwdriver as a gun basically to blow up the living Christmas tree in The Christmas Invasion, and he uses a water pistol to knock out the Magma creature (it might seem harmless to us, but its poison to the Magma creature.) He also is proud of Jackson Lake for being able to turn an info stamp into a gun.

He even says "Only the Doctor would know how to do that." Furthermore whilst he refused to let Jack use a gun on the future kind, and never gave UNIT a moments peace for using guns against Sontarans, yet he was happy for Jackson to carry several info stamps as guns against the Cybermen.

He also boasted about being good with a cutlass, which hey is a lethal weapon like a gun too.

He famously as you pointed out condemns a group of aliens to an eternity of torture, yet goes easy on the Master and even offers to spar Davros and help him, after Davros tried to destroy all of reality.

He also yells at his clone not use the weapon on, and destroy the Daleks, when they are literally seconds away from wiping out every universe, and he says that he was evil for wiping them out. He also says that Rose should teach him to be a better man, by showing him that wiping out the Daleks was wrong.

Thing is Rose has herself wiped out the Daleks when she was Bad Wolf. I might add they were less powerful at that point, and also Rose was proud of it afterwards "GOD OF ALL DALEKS AND I DESTROYED HIM HA!"

Also the last time 10 and Rose were together, they both pulled the Daleks and the Cybermen into the void and basically wiped out both races. Again Rose didn't discourage the Doctor from it "PULLING EM ALL IN!

So why is the Clone being condemned for killing a race of Daleks who were more powerful than the ones he and Rose wiped out earlier?

burrunjor wrote:

TiberiusDidNothingWrong wrote:I agree, it has always been clear to me that the Doctor's regenerations change him only to the same extent that an average person may change throughout their life: quirks, tastes, and some stronger items of personality change - but it's the same person. The Doctor's morality I think is especially important to the character and would not change. The idea that the Doctor becomes a literally new ‘person’ each time is the same rather ignorant argument that is used to justify the female Doctor

The 6th Doctor comparison is null. The Twin Dilemma was controversial for a reason, and yet I would defend the serial because he had good purpose for his personality change - it was the focus of the story to an extent. It's incomparable.

As for NuWho, it doesn't exactly offend me that the character is written so poorly in comparison: where I don't see NuWho as a meaningful continuation of the Classic Series.
Yet it's fairly clear that the character is a mess of dissonance and contradictions. It's absurd that he – for another analogy - is willing to be so vicious as he was in the conclusion of Family of Blood, sentencing people to a fair concept of hell – that then can't bring himself to apply the five rounds rapid when the situation calls for it.

Yes Mr Happy's 6th Doctor comparison was wrong. In the Twin Dilemma the Doctor is meant to have gone insane. FFS when he finds out what he had done he wants to become a hermit! The poison that killed 5 was so severe that he wasn't sure if he would regenerate, and it was meant to leave him with unpleasant after effects that are worse than usual.

If he can be excused from strangling someone cos he was unstable (and didn't mean) then that also casts doubt on the regret shown. Plus he wants to take Peri

DOCTOR: I am a living peril to the universe. If this poor hive is to be cleansed, there's only one recourse. Contemplation. Self-abnegation in some hellish wilderness. Ten days, ten years, a thousand years! Of what consequence is time to me? I shall become a hermit, and you, child, shall be my disciple. I know the very place. An asteroid so desolate. Titan Three is where I shall repent!

While not giving a care what she thinks or if she wants to.


Let's also take his later strangling of Azmael. He thinks he has tried to blow him up so leaps at him. Would the Doctor normally do that? If you answer no then you have to admit everything he does in that story is suspect.

Capaldi's Doctor wasn't exactly unprovoked either. But he isn't allowed to get flustered, make a mistake? Capaldi's Doctor also had a troubled regeneration and had been characterised as difficult and unpredictable from the first season. You have the scene before he punches that guy where he is telling Bill not to act out what would be considered the norm for the time and then blows it.

As for being continuations of the same character, the change between Davison and Colin is night and day, and then what about McCoy? I don't think the permanent change to a more irascible Doctor for Baker can be called an after effect. He was still cantankerous and brash by The Ultimate Foe

When Troughton regenerated he spent the first third of Power playing silly buggers in a way Hartnell wouldn't have. Pertwee was very different from Troughton and that's why the Three Doctor is so enjoyable cos of the rapport between their clash of personalities. Tom, very different from Pertwee. Pertwee stands out like a sore thumb between those two. It's the shared memories that make them the same person. Why else would Ten be so sad to regenerate, "I don't want to go" and I already pointed the inconsistency between Troughton and McGann and the fucking War Doctor,

It's harder to stick to ethical behaviour than non-ethical, so the Doctor is held to a higher standard. I think that's why we should be a bit more forgiving of him and it was not some Rambo punch to show the Doctor's machismo against a racist guy. It was set up to be a joke, how the Doctor gets into trouble by going against his own advice.



The Doctor could argue against the racist, but, are they the sort to, for example, feed unknown numbers of people to a giant carnivorous fish, and keep said fish chained up forever, all for their own profits? Because if so, it may be a smidgen late to argue with them.

When we're supposed to cheer at the Doctor brainwashing humanity to assassinate the Silents, I wonder why Moffat ever thought these things were Doctorish and engineered his scripts to get to these moments. But Nu Who for you

If he can be excused from strangling someone cos he was unstable (and didn't mean) then that also casts doubt on the regret shown. Plus he wants to take Peri

DOCTOR: I am a living peril to the universe. If this poor hive is to be cleansed, there's only one recourse. Contemplation. Self-abnegation in some hellish wilderness. Ten days, ten years, a thousand years! Of what consequence is time to me? I shall become a hermit, and you, child, shall be my disciple. I know the very place. An asteroid so desolate. Titan Three is where I shall repent!

While not giving a care what she thinks or if she wants to.


Let's also take his later strangling of Azmael. He thinks he has tried to blow him up so leaps at him. Would the Doctor normally do that? If you answer no then you have to admit everything he does in that story is suspect.

Capaldi's Doctor wasn't exactly unprovoked either. But he isn't allowed to get flustered, make a mistake? Capaldi's Doctor also had a troubled regeneration and had been characterised as difficult and unpredictable from the first season. You have the scene before he punches that guy where he is telling Bill not to act out what would be considered the norm for the time and then blows it.

As for being continuations of the same character, the change between Davison and Colin is night and day, and then what about McCoy? I don't think the permanent change to a more irascible Doctor for Baker can be called an after effect. He was still cantankerous and brash by The Ultimate Foe

When Troughton regenerated he spent the first third of Power playing silly buggers in a way Hartnell wouldn't have. Pertwee was very different from Troughton and that's why the Three Doctor is so enjoyable cos of the rapport between their clash of personalities. Tom, very different from Pertwee. Pertwee stands out like a sore thumb between those two. It's the shared memories that make them the same person. Why else would Ten be so sad to regenerate, "I don't want to go" and I already pointed the inconsistency between Troughton and McGann and the fucking War Doctor,

Sorry but that's nonsense. When you make out that the Doctors are different people then you have just destroyed the Doctor as a character.

He's just a title now. You can't complain about things like 10 being in love with Rose as hey its not out of character, there is no character.

Hell you could argue that the Doctors are no different to the Slayers in Buffy. Both are now lines of heroes who inherit the memories of the previous one but their consciousnesses are different and they are different people with no similiarities.

(PS isn't it funny that nobody had any problems with the Slayers always being female?)

Its obvious that the Doctor has the same consciousness and core personality from Doctor to Doctor in Classic Who, and that that was always the intent of the actors and the people making the show.

Hence why Terrance Dicks said the single most important thing was not to change the Doctors personality, why Tom Baker himself said that there were so many things he couldn't do as then he wouldn't be the Doctor anymore. If he was playing a totally different character why bother?

Also you're exaggerating the differences and not acknowledging the similarities.

All Doctors never tell us their real name. Why do that if they are not the same person?

All Doctors in Classic Who have the same moral code. IE they are more than willing to kill, willing to use any kind of weapon, but obviously prefer to find peaceful solutions, and have trouble killing someone who is unarmed or helpless ( Pertwee didn't want to shoot an unarmed Master in Frontier in Space, Tom couldn't kill the Daleks in Genesis, as they were helpless and at the point of birth, and Davison couldn't shoot Davros in Resurrection.)

All are brilliant fighters ( well I'll give you Troughton wasn't, but we can chalk that up to being in a particularly out of shape body. The rest all regularly kick ass and beat up scores of armed guys, and have a similar style of fighting too, pretending to be friendly then whack a guy when he's not looking, throw people over their shoulders, apply pressure points etc.)

All are brilliant fencers and marksman too.

All of course want to travel and explore the universe. They are scientists who want to discover new things and can't stand being forced to settle down. They also all are willing to go to great lengths to find out new things, like Hartnell exploring the city in the Daleks, or Davison in Caves of Androzani.

All are more mature, level headed characters. Think about it when does the Doctors emotions ever cloud his judgement, apart from when wanting to explore? Do we see a story where saw the Doctors hatred for the Master or the Daleks cause him to put everybody in danger, and do something really stupid?

No the character is always fairly practical, and generally tends to keep a level head. He's not emotionless. We'll see him get angry, sad, happy, but you never see the Doctor completely loose his cool. Like look at Davison's reaction to Adric's death? He's sad but he doesn't burst into tears and shout NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, like most heroes would do when their loved one dies.

He also has a fondness for earth, as it was Susan's favourite world, and he often travels with young women who remind him of Susan, who he takes on a fatherly role too.

He is also an asexual character who never shows any romantic interest in his female companions apart from possibly Romana who is a Time Lord.

All Doctors can be petty and childish if they don't get their way too.

Even physically he always tends to have long or big hair, and dresses in old fashioned, Victorian, Edwardian era clothing.

Finally almost all of his incarnations save 1 and 3 LOVE jelly babies.

So really if they are not the same guy why all these similarities? Why did they go to such lengths, including even forcing the actors to grow their hair out?

Simple because he was meant to be the same character. His outer personality changed as a result of his body changing. Hell the same is true of all of us.

As our bodies change, then our personalities change in some ways with them, but with the Doctor its more jarring as it happens in a flash. Also obviously the dramatic effects of the change do alter his outer persona to some extent, but he is essentially the same man.

As for Colin he was meant to be unstable throughout the Twin Dilemma. Its hinted that he is still unstable in later stories. Hence his calling Peri different names in Attack of the Cybermen. It was a neat idea that his regeneration never really went right in principle, but not really one that could be done in theory, which is why it was slowly phased out.

Its not until New Who that we get drastic changes to the Doctors CORE personality.

Like Eccelston for instance doesn't fit in with the previous 7 in ANY way. He is extremely over emotional, always lets his emotions cloud his judgement, bursts into tears, scream. He falls in love with someone 4 years older than Susan, dresses in a jumper, jeans and black coat, has shaved hair, and doesn't even travel because he wants to.

He says to Rose that he travels because his planet is gone! He also isn't a great fighter, is opposed to using guns and weapons "as if I would ever shoot." Yet at the same time he also is willing to kill for anger like Cassandra and the Dalek in Dalek.

The New Who crowd threw everything about the character out because they just weren't interested in writing him, and so they retconned it to being all of the Doctors are different people (though even then they couldn't keep it consistent like all of New Who.)