the beginning

[tlr3]

i recently watched rose and the end of the world again.

1. some things interpreted as "problems that will get fixed" in some corners of fandom at the time (e.g., jokiness/silliness, see: burping trashcan) were obviously never fixed. i was ambivalent about whether this stuff was problematic at the time. now, i can honestly say that it doesn't seem

Comments

[square_baker]

Like any show, there is more character development as time went on. Jackie is both sweet and money grubbing ("I don't care about that - How rich?" line from DOOMSDAY) is a good example. Mickey was a bit of a joke, but he did begin to think more and rise to the occasion in WORLD WAR 3.

I liked the character of Rose and her development. On many levels, there is tons more character development than most companions (especially with Mel). Ace becomes more rounded really only with her visit back to Perivale, and that was unfortunately the last story of "classic Who". The early years had much development with Ian and Barbara as they changed. Even Jo changed much from TERROR OF THE AUDTONS to THE GREEN DEATH. My only problem with Martha is that there is much less character development in the early stories.

BUT..I don't miss Rose at all. The whole point is that Doctor Who constantly changes, both with the companions and the Doctor.

[tlr3]

hmm. . . i'm not sure we're working with the same definition of character development, here. for example: i can see ian and barbara's *relationship* developing, but are they really very different when they leave vs. when we first see them?

Ian and Babs' development

[frankymole]

Yep. The Doctor said it himself (in The Sensorites): "What started out as a mild curiosity in a junkyard has now become quite a spirit of adventure". And they went from homesick and fearful, to plunging in and gung-ho (and Barbara had a couple of major stories where she went from believing in changing things for the better to disillusionment with the permanence of history, and then adventurous acceptance).

Also see the opening chapter of Whitaker's "Dr Who and the Crusaders" for a nice summary of their changes.

Re: Ian and Babs' development

[tlr3]

let me be a little clearer about what i mean by character development. this is kind of what i mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_character#Dynamic_vs._static... )

[astrogirl2]

IMHO, Mickey got more character development than any new-series character has so far (and more than most classic series characters, too). For a guy who started out as comic relief, he turned into a remarkably strong and likable person.

Rose, on the other had... Sadly, it seemed to me that, if anything, her character development went backward. She seemed much less emotionally mature to me by the time she left, rather than having grown.

[tlr3]

Rose, on the other had... Sadly, it seemed to me that, if anything, her character development went backward. She seemed much less emotionally mature to me by the time she left, rather than having grown.

yeah, i can see that. that's a pretty common outcome for doctor who companions, actually. susan and leela come to mind.

with rose, i'm not sure how much of it was less emotional maturity vs. increased stubbornness plus the same level of emotional maturity, if that makes any sense. her confidence was built up to the point that she just would not accept that she could fail to get what she wanted.

but, yeah, i'm not sure she was that much better off as a person, in terms of development, at the end. mickey looks like a pillar of strength in comparison.