Conflicting Roles Of Violence in Doctor Who: Pacifist or Violent Doctor? Key To Dr Who's Success?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- Welcome to Part One of our in-depth analysis of the hit television science fiction show, Doctor Who. In this debate, we delve into the fascinating clash between the Pacifist Doctor and the Violent Doctor, exploring the conflicting roles of implied and actual violence in the overall success of the series. Join us as we untangle the intricate web of violence woven throughout Doctor Who's storyline. Throughout its long history, Doctor Who has sparked countless debates among fans regarding the use of violence by our beloved Time Lord. On one side, we have the Pacifist Doctor, representing the more peaceful and non-confrontational approach towards solving conflicts across time and space. On the other side stands the Violent Doctor, who embraces a more forceful and direct manner to protect the universe and its inhabitants. During this captivating discussion, we dive deep into the series, examining key moments that exemplify these differing approaches. We analyse instances of implied violence, where the threat of harm lingers in the background, leaving viewers on the edge of their seats. Furthermore, we dissect those unforgettable scenes of actual physical violence, exploring how they impact both the narrative and the audience's perception of the Doctor's character. By dissecting the role of violence within Doctor Who, we aim to shed light on the creative choices made by the showrunners and the potential impacts on the series' popularity. Can the Pacifist Doctor's non-confrontational methods hold the same appeal as the Violent Doctor's fierce determination? Or do viewers crave the excitement and intensity that violence can bring to the story? Join us as we engage in this captivating debate, inviting fans and casual viewers alike to share their thoughts and perspectives. Let's navigate the fascinating spectrum between the Pacifist and Violent Doctors, discovering how their approaches have shaped the legacy of Doctor Who. So, subscribe to our channel now and hit that notification bell to stay up to date with all things Doctor Who-related. Prepare yourself to delve into the intricate discussion surrounding the conflicted role of violence in the sensational television phenomenon that is Doctor Who!
You can join us on Facebook as The Sense Sphere - Dr Who Fan Community forum
We are on X / Twitter as The SenseSphere @SensetheSphere
We are on instagram as The-Sense_Sphere
you can email us at sensethesphere@gmail.com with any feedback, questions or opinions or better than that you can offer to come and join us on a show.
We are a growing channel and we want you to join us on our journey of debate, fun and friendship
#DoctorWho #ThePacifistvsTheViolentDoctor #ViolenceinDoctorWho #DoctorWhoFans #Whovians #TVShows #BritishTV #ScienceFiction #FictionalCharacters #TimeTravel #Adventure #Action #Fantasy #Drama #BBC #Tardis #Companions #DoctorWhoUniverse #TheDoctor #Villains #doctorwho #twitchstreamers #newstreamer #bbcdoctorwho #doctorwhofandom #drwho #whovians #whoniverse #doctorwhocommunity #livestreaming #seadevils #doctorwhodebateshow #seacreatures #scifi #BBC #disneyplus #disney #badwolf #cybermen #daleks
It was "Just desserts" that Shockeye was killed using Oscar's cyanide, as it was he who had earlier killed Oscar as the restaurant. There was a pecking order of species. Shockeye saw humans as a lesser species, as food to be enjoyed, just as Oscar saw no wrong in killing butterflies with cyanide for his collection, for his own pleasure. The violence wasn't there for the sake of it, for shock value, for excitement.
And yet at the same time the stabbing of Oscar felt very wrong and unnecessary. But maybe that was the point that Robert Holmes, a vegetarian, was trying to make, that the deaths of lesser species for food on Earth are unnecessary.
sorry we glossed over that story and yet it has so much. Thanks for reminding me. We need another show!
Considering that the Doctor in Dalek Invasion of Earth did say he would kill in self-defense and had no other choice. Six responding to Shockeye certainly fits the condition, and Shockeye could be deemed "paychotic" as well.
Great to have you on board as the channel grows
That was an interesting show Mr.Stroker, thanks to you and the family and the panel. For me violence in artforms is fine as long as it isn't gratuious and certainly does not romanticise, promote, or celebrate it à la Hollowood. Whilst the violence against women Peri Doctor thing was repulsive, clumsy and inappropriate, the Not Who zero consequences violence and moral signalling is far more troubling.
Retrospective views and hindsight are interesting when at the time my teenage self was totally absorbed with the unpredictability of it
Great show. Thanks, Brendan, Michelle, Hugh and John.
There needs to be some violence in Doctor Who to show that the baddies are a threat that needs to be quelled, to convey that this is a dangerous world into which the Doctor has arrived to create the tension for the viewer, and to create the relief and sense of achievement when all is well at the end when the Doctor has been victorious.
The violence needs to be harsh and, to an extent, real. It can't be too safe and cartoony, where violence doesn't hurt, because then the viewer would be less invested in that threat being nullified, the baddies being defeated. But there has to be a balance.
The violence shouldn't be too real world; it shouldn't be something that people may have experienced themselves, either in their own lives or on the news. A difficult balance. Machine guns might be fine directed at monsters, whereas only ray guns should be directed at people.
But cleverer people than myself ought to be deciding this. And it should be considered story by story, moment by moment. What might be appropriate for one story could well be inappropriate for another, depending on differing tone and setting and characters. Tricky.
So much to discuss, so much to uncover and explore. I like it when we get behind the more obvious examples and really delve into the topic. Very complex
I never believed cyber conversion in Tennant's era because it looked cartoony. Tomb of the Cybermen told the point for sure, but Attack definitely showed the truest horror of it.
Another interesting show. Re topic of violence in the show over the years. A mindful insight from the panel.
Kind words much appreciated
The Doctor says he is a man of peace, who never uses guns. But perhaps that is not really him saying that as a definite, but him having something to aspire to, to want to be a better man than he really is. His first incarnation picked up a rock to kill a wounded caveman. His second killed several Cybermen and Ice Warriors. His third disintegrated an Ogron, yet he says he abhors violence. It might be put down to him kidding himself, or differebt writers. But what if it is not? A Time Lord is an incredibly powerful being, he is perhaps in a constant battle with his dark side, who uses the guns, it is his lighter side that struggles to win the battle, by saying he abhors violence and seeks peace
Then the valeyard concept of him
Being the darker side fits
The idea the Doctor is a Pacifist doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. It struck me some time ago after watching The Seeds of Death that my own preconceptions of the Second Doctor as a man of peace was incompatable with what he was actually seen to be doing... he is quite willing to use heat lamps to vaporise Ice Warriors for example, he is quite willing to misdirect the Martian fleet to take a course that takes it into the Sun's gravity field and will deliver a hellish fate to thousands(?) of Martians. Elsewhere he is equally willing to take the fight to the Daleks and engineer their disasterous Civil War. He is quite open to dropping the Dominators bomb onto their own departing ship. And on and on we go...
The Doctor as a Pacisist does not stand up, even in the fanatically 'PC' modern series we have many examples of a dark, brutal, side to him where he can and does rain down brutal treatment to his adversaries, and even puts his companions into situations that end up 'killing' them... that behaviour is made more disturbing when you think through his almost certain lack of courage or care in informing their relatives as to what became of their sons and daughters - does anyone really believe he went back to Rory's dad, Brian, to break the bad news...? No.
That lack of foresight, the repeated failure in his duty of care to those he lets travel with him, is all still there even today. What happened with Bill Potts, Clara, Rory and Amy, can still happen to any of these youngsters he lets travel with him.
So a Pacifist? A 'Space-Jesus'? No. That's just your own preconceptions and idealism being transferred to what you think the character is, and should be...
I wasn’t imposing my own perceptions- merely positing a binary debate question. In remembrance the 7th dr sent a bomb to commit genocide on all who lived on Skaro. But there is often a lot made of the doctor not using a weapon etc which is often misconstrued