The Next Companion?

Sid Seadevil wrote:What the duce are you feeling jealous about, Minor?

Your amazing avatar.



I was just pointing out that two companions could lead to jealousy as they compete for the Doctor's attention.

Lucy McGough wrote:

Sid Seadevil wrote:What the duce are you feeling jealous about, Minor?

Your amazing avatar.



I was just pointing out that two companions could lead to jealousy as they compete for the Doctor's attention.

Good point. Both of them.

Sid Seadevil wrote:Good point. Both of them.

I am always happy to dispense my words of wisdom among lesser mortals.

Lucy McGough wrote:

Sid Seadevil wrote:Good point. Both of them.

I am always happy to dispense my words of wisdom among lesser mortals.

OK - let's not allow yourself to get too carried away. It's early yet.

Now, getting this thread back on topic...

Do you think a period companion is the way to go? Is it workable for a modern audience?

Sid Seadevil wrote:
Now, getting this thread back on topic...

Do you think a period companion is the way to go? Is it workable for a modern audience?

Obviously depends which period...

The whole Victorian thing has been done to death. I'd love to see a companion from Ancient Rome - a young girl in a toga called Flavia or Calpurnia or something.

[quote="Lucy McGough"]

Sid Seadevil wrote:Obviously depends which period...

The whole Victorian thing has been done to death. I'd love to see a companion from Ancient Rome - a young girl in a toga called Flavia or Calpurnia or something.

<exasperated teacher mode>silly girl - a toga is an item of male apparel.</exasperated teacher mode>

I'd agree the Victorian idea is done to death. But as for any companion from a much earlier historical period of course will always be the same as they had with Katrina - you constantly have to waste time having the Doctor or somebody else explaining to them what ordinary everyday items are for.

My ideal choice would be somebody from at earliest the 40's, and at latest the 70's. They'd be familiar enough with the basics of modern technology that they'd be able to grasp modern day variants with relative ease. Saves time and gives the audience an easily identifiable with character.

Sid Seadevil wrote:
I'd agree the Victorian idea is done to death. But as for any companion from a much earlier historical period of course will always be the same as they had with Katrina - you constantly have to waste time having the Doctor or somebody else explaining to them what ordinary everyday items are for.

My ideal choice would be somebody from at earliest the 40's, and at latest the 70's. They'd be familiar enough with the basics of modern technology that they'd be able to grasp modern day variants with relative ease. Saves time and gives the audience an easily identifiable with character.

I disagree. I'd like the wide-eyed innocence of an Ancient Roman. They'd just think it was all magic and monsters - or gods - but it wouldn't stop them being intelligent enough to work out solutions to the mysteries.

Besides, it IS all magic and monsters.

And we could have a story arc with them falling in love with a 21st century man, which would give a plot reason for the TARDIS to keep returning to the 21st century.

Lucy McGough wrote:I disagree. I'd like the wide-eyed innocence of an Ancient Roman. They'd just think it was all magic and monsters - or gods - but it wouldn't stop them being intelligent enough to work out solutions to the mysteries.

Besides, it IS all magic and monsters.

And we could have a story arc with them falling in love with a 21st century man, which would give a plot reason for the TARDIS to keep returning to the 21st century.

Look back on your Who history, Minor. Katrina was introduced with all of those ideas specifically in mind. She failed - and failed quickly as a character because she was too difficult to write. Too much time was being wasted on all the points I mentioned in my earlier post. Such a character isn't impossible to write, for sure. But they simply aren't worth the amount of effort expanded on writing them unless they were designed from the outset to be a very short-lived character in terms of series life.

Sid Seadevil wrote:Look back on your Who history, Minor. Katrina was introduced with all of those ideas specifically in mind. She failed - and failed quickly as a character because she was too difficult to write. Too much time was being wasted on all the points I mentioned in my earlier post. Such a character isn't impossible to write, for sure. But they simply aren't worth the amount of effort expanded on writing them unless they were designed from the outset to be a very short-lived character in terms of series life.

Okay, okay. I had a dream, but the dream is dead. C'est la vie.

Lucy McGough wrote:Okay, okay. I had a dream, but the dream is dead. C'est la vie.

Sid "Goddamned Dream-Killer" That's me.

Sid Seadevil wrote:Sid "Goddamned Dream-Killer" That's me.

I prefer to think of you as the Nightmare Child.

Lucy McGough wrote:I prefer to think of you as the Nightmare Child.

I'm everybody's worst nightmare.

Sid Seadevil wrote:I'm everybody's worst nightmare.

So, who do you see as the next companion?

Lucy McGough wrote:So, who do you see as the next companion?

Have no idea. I'm waiting to be surprised.

Sid Seadevil wrote:Have no idea. I'm waiting to be surprised.

If you have no idea, what on earth are you doing in this thread?

Lucy McGough wrote:If you have no idea, what on earth are you doing in this thread?

Keeping you company.

Or Policing it.

Takes your choice.

Thank-you.



Come on, you must have some daydreams about the next companion floating around your noggin.

Lucy McGough wrote:Thank-you.



Come on, you must have some daydreams about the next companion floating around your noggin.

Honestly no. I have enough problems managing my own characters without imagining characters somebody else might come up with.

I'll take them as they come.

Sid Seadevil wrote:I'd agree the Victorian idea is done to death. But as for any companion from a much earlier historical period of course will always be the same as they had with Katrina - you constantly have to waste time having the Doctor or somebody else explaining to them what ordinary everyday items are for.

My ideal choice would be somebody from at earliest the 40's, and at latest the 70's. They'd be familiar enough with the basics of modern technology that they'd be able to grasp modern day variants with relative ease. Saves time and gives the audience an easily identifiable with character.

I agree with both of you, a Victorian or even an Edwardian character (as a certain fantasist now banned from the Other Place has been suggesting) is a bit passe. However, Sid is correct, anyone from before 1940 would not work in the modern series, especially as single part stories do tend to gallop along.

The Browncoat Cat wrote:I agree with both of you, a Victorian or even an Edwardian character (as a certain fantasist now banned from the Other Place has been suggesting) is a bit passe. However, Sid is correct, anyone from before 1940 would not work in the modern series, especially as single part stories do tend to gallop along.

Exactly. Even with the relative luxury of the story length of the classic series it was neigh on impossible. Just look at how quickly they had to drop Leela's "Eliza Dolittle", development simply because it was taking up otherwise precious time needed for the development of actual story.

No, 1940 maximum for a viable historical companion.

Sid Seadevil wrote:
No, 1940 maximum for a viable historical companion.

*cough*Nancy*cough*

Doc Filth wrote:*cough*Nancy*cough*

Indeed. A perfect example of how well a character from that period would work as an on-going companion.

Sid Seadevil wrote:

Doc Filth wrote:*cough*Nancy*cough*

Indeed. A perfect example of how well a character from that period would work as an on-going companion.

How busy is Florence Hoath these days...?

Doc Filth wrote:How busy is Florence Hoath these days...?

Last time I saw her was in the recent Lost in Austin. But however much I'd love Florrie as companion, they'd need to do something awful to her former gasmask-headed sprog to enable the character to successfully join the Doctor.

Sid Seadevil wrote:

Doc Filth wrote:How busy is Florence Hoath these days...?

Last time I saw her was in the recent Lost in Austin. But however much I'd love Florrie as companion, they'd need to do something awful to her former gasmask-headed sprog to enable the character to successfully join the Doctor.

...or just engineeer a situation wherein she's forcibly removed from the 1940s and can't get back there; we know the kid is safe and being looked after by someone else, and Nancy gets a whole bucket of angst to carry around.

Sorted.