"DOCTOR? DOCTOR WHO?"
If there is one
thing that I wanted to do before I graduate is take a class where I got the chance
to discuss Doctor Who. For me, Doctor Who has a type of “Happy Potter”
nalstagia because I started watching the show as it was airing on BBC America.
My sister found this show when I was 12 and she was 15. Unlike the shows that
we have watched with the family, this show was first a show that only Kim and I
enjoyed. It holds a special place in my heart first as a sister-bonding show.
Secondly, this show might have it’s cheesy elements like Leah so graciously
pointed out, but this television show has a type of “brilliance” and “wonder”
that a lot of shows don’t have (Like the United States of Tara).
The first
Episode that was chosen for us to watch in class is an excellent example of an
untraditional episode of Doctor Who, where the doctor isn’t the center stage
for the action. He had a supporting roll to the text instead of the other way
around. At the beginning of this course, we watched a Simpson Episode that was
untraditional in its execution. I have seen Simpson casually before, and I didn’t
enjoy it, but I really liked this episode.
I wonder if that
is why some people that have never experienced Doctor who found that they liked
this episode because it was untraditional, and almost like a short story than
it was a part of a large episode. This might also explain why people didn’t
like the following episode in the series—it was unexpected because they didn’t
know what a traditional episode looked like.
Do I think that
experiencing this show in such a drastically different way changed/ influences
the way that my classmates understood the piece? Yes I do.
I think that
there is so many technical “rules” to the show, that unless they are learning
the rules with Rose (from the first episode) then they will be confused on how
all this “generation business” works. The show was new again with the companion
Rose, and the audience was mostly new, so the writers had to explain things
like they were world building, unlike what they were doing later on in the
series becasue they already had the world rebulilt for the audience. I feel
that for that reason a lot of what the class was seeing was jumping into a book
series on book five/seven without the proper explanation (or for some people
interest).
Now today the
world of Doctor Who is HUGE, it’s like the star trek of our generation. (oh
wait it is exactly like star trek). What I mean is that it always comes back in
different ways and other shows and generations. (technically its older than
star trek).
Doctor who has television
shows that have shot off from them—my favorite being Torchwoord with Captian
Jack (no not Sparrow!)
They both follow the same type of "save earth/ great britian" mentality, but they go about it differently.
Part of the reason that Doctor Who is so important to me is because it also points out the flaws of humanity. For example one of the girls in class mentioned that in one episode of Doctor Who Britian retaliated even after the doctor had gotten the aliens to leave. The humans blew up the retrating ship.
In that episode the Doctor got upset with the humans that had made that order, Torchwood did the "blowing up", but the woman that set the order got a short "talking to" from the doctor where he said that they didn't have to blow up that ship. This episode depicts the doctor as a more level handed savior/protector of species.
There is so much more that could be said about the televison show, but i also want to show you a few of my favorite things when it comes to Doctor Who. This is something that i have been compiling since the beginning of the semester as a multimodal things i love.
Personally, i think that this is "Bloody Brilliant" because it allows two sci-fi shows to be put onto the same playing field. Firefly is an american produced show by Fox, that was cancelled under one season. (which a lot of people get upset about) whereas Doctor Who has been around for a very longtime. Yet, the audience, the fans watch both and can take moments from both and can compare then, and incorporate them together to create a piece that ads hilarity to a serious moment.
As far as the rest of this course, there was a lot of other short story readings that i really would have enjoyed being in class for. (I have been sick) Flannery O'Conner for one, i have a book of short stories from her, and i really enjoy the author.
I especially liked her veiws on her own works. I guess what i liked was what i disagreed with. O'Connor said that a sign of a good work makes in un-quotable. I feel the complete opposite. Works of literature that i can parrot back in conversation to prove a point is what i like about being so well read. Part of the reason i love literature is because there are books that make me take quotes and expand on them with my own "passions". These texts could be as simple as a song, or as big as a quote from a novel. As a reader you stumble upon sentences and ideas that you want to keep with you so you highlight them, and try to keep them as a part of you as a reader, experience, and explorer.
Anyway, thank you Professor T for a fun class. Let me know if i need to expand my ideas more.
No comments:
Post a Comment