What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Characters/DoctorWhoRevivalSeriesCompanions

 

OldManHoOh
topic
07:39:18 AM Apr 15th 2014
  • Ms. Fanservice:
    • Wears low-cut, tight and/or short dresses at times, but also likes practical clothing. Even the Doctor notices, describing her as "a mystery wrapped in an enigma squeezed into a skirt that's just a little bit too... tight". Clara is not entirely amused by this remark...

So she SOMETIMES dresses like this? This seems to be reaching out. See also my comment below on the 11th about Clara hearing this remark.

  • Then there's Oswin, who takes the fanservice Up to Eleven with her flirty and mischievous Cloudcuckoolander quips, Carmen-inspired red dress and rose in her hair. Yeah... Subverted tragically when Oswin's true nature is revealed. Her manic girliness and flirtiness is immediately washed away as she comes to grips with what she's really become. Heartbroken and scared, she gives up on her previous facade and cheeky behaviour and does her best to help the Doctor, Amy and Rory get off the planet surface alive before it's too late.

...so, it's not a straight example, and it's played up to eleven, even though we haven't directly or properly SEEN Clara prior to her appearance as Oswin in Asylum of the Daleks...even if this is valid, it needs a hell of a rewrite.
ZemplinTemplar
04:56:46 PM May 10th 2014
Yeah, it needs one. But after the recent edits, I think the other entries explain this much better anyway, so I guess there's no need to put this previous entry back again. It's not like Clara is played up as some sort of major sexpot, given that she's also presented at times as being rather homely (in terms of dress, etc.). Isn't Ms. Fanservice a rather subjective trope anyway, even if it's not YMMV ? Personally, I don't think Ms. Fanservice is that intentional a trope with Clara's character. Her Oswin incarnation ? Maybe. But as you note, even that is a subversion and most of the flirting stuff and "sexiness" is Played for Laughs.
OldManHoOh
topic
07:42:05 PM Apr 11th 2014
edited by 151.230.135.86
Wasn't the "squeezed into a tight skirt" line stated after Clara exited the TARDIS? How could she have reacted if she wasn't there?
OldManHoOh
topic
01:05:00 PM Dec 20th 2013
edited by 151.230.137.60
Anyone else feel that the Author Avatar entry is incredibly tenuous, or an Alternative Character Interpretation at BEST? Much as I don't believe the Doctor was asexual up until McGann, romantic and "sexy" Doctors (in the way McGann and Tennant were) weren't even a thing when Russell was growing up on the show. From what I can recall, his first Doctor was either Hartnell or Troughton. It feels like a shoehorned "lol Russell T Davies writes official fanfic" more than anything.
OldManHoOh
01:32:32 PM Dec 20th 2013
Another thing. The companion is the frigging audience surrogate. If you were a child when you first watched the show (which Davies undoubtedly was), then you WOULD have loved the idea of travelling in the TARDIS and being the Doctor's companion. Sex has absolutely nothing to do with it. At the introduction of Rose Tyler, Russell was 41 years old. Just...why.
OldManHoOh
01:47:44 PM Dec 20th 2013
edited by 151.230.137.60
And even if there's an argument which validates Rose being "Davies in a dress", I'm not actually sure what, if any of this, has to do with the trope description of Author Avatar.

Edit: OK, removing that last sentence. The two tropes I previously mentioned seem to be self-contradictory regarding what an Author Avatar IS.
OldManHoOh
01:51:29 PM Dec 20th 2013
Removed entry:

  • Author Avatar: The Androzani Team claimed Rose Tyler was an Author Avatar of Russell T Davies, calling her 'Davies in a dress' in their review of The Stolen Earth/Journey's End. http://www.androzani.com/stolen.shtml They point out Davies said he wanted to be a companion rather then the Doctor, and so his fantasy stand-in has to have sex with the Doctor no matter what.
EMY3K
topic
08:09:28 AM Jul 26th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.45
Removed this from River Song's section:
  • Karma Houdini: Played straight and possibly subverted. After nearly tearing the universe apart during the Season 6 finale, claiming that her suffering will outweigh that of everyone else in the universe, the most she gets is a What the Hell, Hero? from the Doctor and a largely voluntary stay inside a Cardboard Prison. Possibly subverted in that they keep running into each other backwards, which means that eventually, the Doctor won't know her, but whether it's invoked as an actual punishment or simple coincidence is, as yet, unknown.

The season six finale is complicated, since it happened in a universe that technically doesn't exist anymore. Yes, it was caused by River's selfishness, but there's no evidence that anyone died because the nature of that universe is that time stopped. When she did the right thing, it was more like a reset button. Nobody died, because that universe never technically existed in the first place. And yes, the fact that she's meeting the Doctor backwards is not a coincidence, because she's pardoned when he erases himself from all records. Lastly, I think it's fair to say that being trapped in The Library forever without the man you love coming to visit you because it hurts "him" is effectively karma.
QueenofSwords
08:36:37 AM Jul 29th 2013
edited by 69.172.221.4
Karma is not simply based on anyone dying, it's based on any kind of harm, especially to the innocent. River Song's actions caused the universe to break, and only after the Doctor married her did said universe get mended; she was perfectly willing to leave it broken, condemning countless others to untold suffering, had he not stopped it. I get that you want to defend your favorite character, but this is a page for pointing out tropes, not taking away examples you simply happen to dislike. As stated on the trope page for Karma Houdini, "The character has done a number of things that deserve a karmic comeuppance, most importantly things that caused harm to the innocent." She did do this. Just because it was fixed, causing people to (mostly) forget the broken universe, does not mean it didn't happened - Amy even points out that she remembers killing someone and has guilt over it, despite said actions being "undone" (though she's thankfully able to move on from it, we haven't seen Madame Kovarian since, but I'm sure we'll learn what happened to her one way or the other). Also, it's pointed out in the example that we don't know whether meeting the Doctor out of order or the Library is an example of karma (she does seem at peace at the end, as well), as we still don't know whether or not it was an example of Redemption Equals Death or not, but it does leave it open s a possibility ("Played straight and possibly subverted").
EMY3K
06:08:27 AM Jul 31st 2013
Moved back again as discussion wasn't finished.

  • Karma Houdini: Played straight and possibly subverted. After nearly tearing the universe apart during the Season 6 finale, claiming that her suffering will outweigh that of everyone else in the universe, the most she gets is a What the Hell, Hero? from the Doctor and a largely voluntary stay inside a Cardboard Prison. Possibly subverted in that they keep running into each other backwards, which means that eventually, the Doctor won't know her, but whether it's invoked as an actual punishment or simple coincidence is, as yet, unknown.

This is not a matter of me defending my favorite character, especially since there are other characters I like more. This is me trying to use the tropes fairly and appropriately. I think you may be missing where I'm coming from given that you dislike the character so much. Death fits as Karma in a Karmic Death situation, which River wound up getting. She died saving a Doctor who had no idea who she was, which was canonically, her worst fear. He never visited her because of how much it hurt him. Yes, she refused to initially fix the universe she broke, but this trope was subverted when she did. From the perspective of non-time-sensitive people or time travelers, it meant that that universe technically never really happened in the first place. Even if she went to a Carboard Prison that she could easily escape from, she always escaped, right back in and indicated an interest in earning her parole.
Larkmarn
07:31:43 AM Jul 31st 2013
Qo S, it's bad form to move something back to an example before discussion is finished.

Anyhoo, seems like she's not an example. If she's inevitably moving towards a bad future, and sees it coming, that's actually a horrible fate, and directly caused by her actions.

Additionally, I think you're being too harsh on her. She almost broke reality... well who hasn't in the Doctor Who-verse? And while she's done some questionable things, her breaking reality is because of ignorance, not malice or even really selfishness. She tried to Take a Third Option to not kill a man she admired. It just so happened that it had terrible unforeseen consequences.
QueenofSwords
09:59:55 AM Aug 1st 2013
edited by 69.172.221.2
In that case, I apologize for doing so. I misunderstood; I thought it was frowned upon to remove such tropes before discussion.

But her timeline not being lined up with the Doctor's is not as a result of her own actions, as far as we know. It's just the way her timeline works. At this point, we have no idea as to whether or not Steven Moffat intended that as Laser-Guided Karma or as it appears at face value (I'm unfamiliar with the book "The Time Traveler's Wife", but didn't Moffat say he got the idea for River from that?). Furthermore, River's death in the Library was, (and still is) played as a Heroic Sacrifice in-universe, not as a Karmic Death. Again, until canon states otherwise, the nuances of the situation are still unclear.

Furthermore, people not remembering things and time-lines being re-written doesn't mean it didn't count. Rory's death and erasure in s5 still counted, and the universe got rebooted as of the s5 finale - does that mean the events that came before (some of which were explicitly erased) don't count? Naturally, it doesn't.

This is not an example of being too harsh. She flat-out said she believed she would suffer more than everyone in the universe. Furthermore, it wasn't until, again, the Doctor stepped in that things were put back. It was ignorance, at first, but once things were explained to her, she consciously chose to allow it to continue. That may not have been malice, but it was undeniably selfish. This isn't a matter of disliking the character (for the record, I rather like her, but I find certain matters about her backstory to be written in a problematic fashion, but that's neither here nor that), but in pointing out tropes in her story. Tropes Are Not Good, and Tropes Are Not Bad.
Larkmarn
06:17:21 AM Aug 8th 2013
I'm not certain what you would consider karma then.

She did some questionable things, she doesn't get a happy ending. To be perfectly honest, I don't think her actions warrant karmic comeuppance, but in the end, she gets it anyway.
QueenofSwords
12:04:31 PM Aug 14th 2013
edited by 69.172.221.4
There is a difference between "karma" and "coincidence". The entry for Karma Houdini on her specifically said tht it was possibly subverted, but it's unknown as to whether or not the Library and the skewed timeline are a result of her actions, not simply the way the storyline goes, thus it's only a possible subversion until and unless Moffat states otherwise.

Also, given that the Library was a Bittersweet Ending of sorts with River (yes, she sacrifices herself, but when last seen in the Library two-parter, she seems content with the outcome), I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, here. Also, I'm quite certain that destroying the universe is not merely "questionable".
QueenofSwords
01:11:46 PM Oct 25th 2013
I checked with Ask The Tropers some time ago, and due to lack of continued discussion, I am restoring this trope.
Fighteer
moderator
01:54:32 PM Oct 25th 2013
The Karma Houdini entry is invalid. River does suffer punishment for her actions. It is not up to us to judge whether it is sufficient.
OldManHoOh
topic
08:54:26 AM Jul 5th 2013
Removed this. Even if she's a valid example, the example in question is under scrutiny and almost making her a scapegoat. This isn't saying the opinion of whether or not Rose is a good or bad companion is wrong, mind. That's up to the individual.

  • Bitch in Sheep's Clothing: Despite often being treated as a perfect companion she can be very unpleasant. She abandoned her boyfriend Mickey for a year (accidentally making him a murder suspect). This was due to the TARDIS coming back at the wrong time, but she doesn't act sorry for this. She kept disappearing for months at a time, and got mad when she heard that Mickey was dating someone else. This quote from when she first leaves with the Doctor illustrates this:
    Rose: Thanks.
    Mickey: For what?
    Rose: Exactly.

No, the months at a time thing is probably the fault of the driver, especially as it's a time machine that can theoretically arrive 12 hours after their last stop off (and I think in The Lazarus Experiment, it DID). Plus, as much of a burn the "exactly" quote is, a lot of characters treat him that way. I think even his parallel universe double does that.
Larkmarn
02:59:43 PM Jul 5th 2013
Yeah. I don't really care for Rose, but calling that Bitch in Sheep's Clothing isn't right. Really more Protagonist-Centered Morality.
OldManHoOh
12:10:13 PM Sep 23rd 2013
edited by 151.230.199.78
Another point: complaining when Mickey has a girlfriend? Picking the scene line-by-line, it's not as clear-cut as that.

She got mad because Mickey was dating someone she called "nice", and also knew was completely incompatible. When Rose says that he doesn't even like the woman, Mickey says "At least I know where she is" and that he can't be with a "stupid woman from a shop" because of how he runs for Rose every time she returns to present-day Earth. From this, along with only mentioning the "other woman" after Rose catches Mickey up on where she's travelled to and after Mickey suggests a hotel room, it's very strongly implied that Mickey isn't seeing someone.

Mickey is far more unpleasant, conclusion-jumping, not to mention clingier than the worst of Rose's moments, at least here. Regardless of how to take the "exactly" line from the episode "Rose", it was a messy breakup, and when Mickey walks off at the end of "Boom Town", she basically lets him go.
Larkmarn
01:23:04 PM Sep 23rd 2013
The thing about the cut reason I disagreed with was the Psychic Paper bit... well, specifically that the Psychic Paper says what she wants the person to know, so even if she didn't consider herself single, she wanted the handsome stranger to think she was. Which is a little skeevy. And exactly what a 19 year old girl would do.

Still nowhere near enough to qualify for BISC, though. Just something I wanted to comment on.
OldManHoOh
topic
12:28:34 AM May 21st 2012
Someone explain to me how a Dalek, with clear fear in its voice, repeating "MERCYYYYYY" isn't supposed to be intended as begging for mercy, when it looked up River and realised she was something of a killer?
EMY3K
02:30:24 PM Aug 8th 2012
I have no idea. Since no one commented, I added it back.
back to Characters/DoctorWhoRevivalSeriesCompanions

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy