What are the defining characteristics of Doctor Who?

Cross-Media Discussions
1

(Assuming people haven’t been asking this loads on here already!) Considering the programme is known for its ability to change settings, places, times and peoples, genres, sometimes quite a lot in one episode. If it jumps around so much, what can be said to be something that makes the programme, unique to others, its own mark? If it is those things which are most commonly shared between stories, is it simply the TARDIS, the Doctor and companions? Neither the TARDIS nor its inhabitants appear in every episode - Mission to the Unknown has none, granted that it a one-off, and yet a precursor to a longer story, and still credits Hartnell, but then how far can the programme change and retain the name? This accepted level of variety seems unique for each person. Or, is it the very fact that it does change so often what makes it unique? Is the fact that the programme changes settings/characters/morals so often relevant to the quality of those individual stories? Longevity was the leading principle in its creation, before even the genre was decided on. One must recall how swiftly the central ideas of historical education and the rule about there being no bug-eyed monsters were changed, meaning even if one takes the very first series as a guidance on how the programme ought to be, it is made under a constant sense of not enforcing its own rules.

Comparisons have been made to other often-retold stories of folklore, Robin Hood, King Arthur, et al. Unlike those stories, however, the programme on television is made to be one big adventure, as witnessed from the beginning back in the sixties, all the way to the present day, so it isn’t so much literally re-telling its own story as telling one ongoing story, leading to an inevitable degree of change - but must it always revert back to the Doctor travelling through time in the TARDIS? Seems simple, but maybe that’s all there really is.

As soon as you get into any kind of specificity beyond that, anything besides the apparent fundamentals, it opens up further and further room for discussion, disagreement and debate - maybe there’s no notable difference between asking what makes a good Doctor Who episode and what makes up Doctor Who itself, both equally subjective.

Whether Doctor Who is “political” is a similar kind of question - some claim it always has been, others say it hasn’t, it shouldn’t purport to be when escapism and adventure are what it provides best. Whatever any author writes can be seen how ever any audience desires, though. One person’s idea of what makes a good episode of Doctor Who may be fundamentally at odds with another person’s view. Anyway, this is just something I think about (mainly about the TV episodes), I wonder what other people would say.

6 Likes
2

On this broad sort of idea of what the show should be, I’m pretty easy to please. I’m happy as long as we’ve basically got an idiot in a box bouncing around time and space, stopping the monsters while always trying to be kind, and trying to be never cruel or cowardly

5 Likes
3

It’s a tall order to give a short answer, but I’ll try my best. Doctor Who changes with such frequency and in such significant ways that, beyond the patterns of narrative structure and character archetypes, it’s reasonable to argue that there is nothing beyond enduring superficial elements (the TARDIS being a blue box, the Daleks being relatively similarly designed, et cetera) that can meaningfully be pointed to as a defining quality. Everything else is a lot more subjective, something more often felt rather than seen.

In that regard, I would say it’s about three things, all of which overlap in big ways: life, death, and change.

Travelling throughout time and space and seeing such wonders through the TARDIS shows what life is all about, what humanity can achieve, and that there is always a future worth striving towards. Similarly, we’re exposed to the very real threats of the universe, with monsters and villains holding up mirrors to reflect our worst qualities, illuminating the negatives of life to balance out the positives but never to eliminate them entirely. Doctor Who shows us how life was, what life is, and everything life can still offer.

On the second point, it is uncompromising in depicting death. The main character dies quite regularly, and it’s uncommon for a story to not have at least one person die or be threatened with mortal peril. In showing that, Doctor Who reminds us that death, while tragic, is inevitable; in the finite time all creatures are allotted, we find opportunity to embrace that first quality: life. Through immortals, Eternals, and other primordial, cosmically existential entities, we see the beauty of mortality, how precious life is because of its fleeting nature.

And then, nestled between those two, that third and final point becomes apparent: change. Between birth and death, there is opportunity; life is nothing if not the study of change, and Doctor Who has endured precisely because of that capacity to adapt and reinvent itself, not despite it. Nothing lasts that does not change, and though there is an end guaranteed for everything, that is not justification to remain stuck in one’s ways. Change is always possible, too. Change for the better helps us improve ourselves, our lives, the lives of those around us, and so much more beyond that; change for the worse gives us cautionary tales warning against dangerous behaviours that cause more harm than good. There is always change—paradoxically, change is the only constant.

8 Likes
4

Doctor. Companion. TARDIS.

And I’m flexible on all three on occasion.

3 Likes
5

I honestly don’t know whether it’s even possible to define Doctor Who, because I don’t think there’s any single element that’s common to every story. Mission to the Unknown doesn’t have the Doctor, the TARDIS or a companion, so what makes it “Doctor Who”, beyond the fact it’s the title at the beginning of the programme? I don’t know the answer - if I were to try and sum it up, it’d probably be something to do with exploration, the unknown and combatting evil, but you can likely even find exceptions to those if you look hard enough. The other way of defining it would be by saying it’s about the fictional setting of the Whoniverse, although even then there are exceptions and you’re treading on the toes of the spin-offs.

4 Likes
6

I think Doctor Who is worse the more it’s defined and restricted to being any particular thing(s). Maybe its defining characteristic is its ability to pretty much do a little bit of anything, its variety of storytelling.

6 Likes
7

I’ll start by giving the only three things I can come up with as being a defining characteristic of DW that shouldn’t ever be changed.

  1. The Doctor - obviously the show Doctor Who can’t be without the character Doctor Who for long (although, for most of Blake’s 7’s run it was without Blake and/or 7 main characters, so what do I actually know?)
  2. The TARDIS’s chameleon circuit is broken — I’m perfectly fine with it being temporarily fixed if it makes sense for a particular story or if it was used humorously, or whatever, but at the end of the day, it needs to be a blue police box.
  3. The Doctor is never cowardly or cruel — again, there’s a bit of nuance here, maybe more than some would actually like to admit, but this is fundamentally who the Doctor is. They might faulter (within reason, of course), and that’s fine and expected, but this really is and needs to be a core part of the character.

Now, and here’s the problem answering this question… there are who knows how many other things I would object to and consider counter to what DW is, but would never consider until someone actually did it. Case in point, I think that there is only one Doctor of the primary universe is also fundamental - they are unique in the universe, supposedly. I never would have even considered that until RTD broke with it and introduced bigeneration. Starting with 15, it’s technically insufficient to refer to the character as “The Doctor” as they are “a Doctor” “one of the Doctors” or some other descriptor (the Gatwa Doctor, for example). To me, that change to DW was unwarranted and should have been shot down by the BBC on principle (to say nothing of the immense disrespect it showed Gatwa that is very much a different story). Not everyone agrees with me on this (I know, many of you have told me before), but my point is there are an infinite number of things that can be done with DW and I’m on board with almost all of it, but there are some that are so stupid or troublesome that I haven’t even considered that it shouldn’t be done.

Also worth pointing out is that nearly anything can be done on a temporary basis and be ok. I just watched “Turn Left” last night, and for most of that episode the Doctor didn’t exist in the primary universe. It was a necessary part of the story, and worked great, but obviously had to be undone - DW can’t exist in the absence of the Doctor.

3 Likes
8

Wow that is an extremely poetic way to describe Doctor Who, but I have to completely agree with you on all three points. Really well written!

1 Like
9

My elements of the show that are unwavering and that make up it’s core DNA are;

  • The Doctor; goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway. They have to be the main character of the show. There can be episodes with less Doctor like Turn Left or Blink or even no Doctor at all if it moves the plot forward and makes sense to the story, but ultimately this show is following The Doctor’s Adventures since leaving Gallifrey.
  • Britishness; I’m not going all Imperialistic or anything, but there is a fundamental Britishness to the show. It’s hard to put a finger on exactly what it is, but its there and its always been there. There is a reason the BBC put it in the recent tender guidelines, it reflects British culture, humour and story telling, in a way that few other shows have over the years. This is evidenced how it has become an essential part of British pop culture, everyone knows something about Doctor Who, even if its just who David Tennant, Tom Baker are and what a Dalek looks like.
  • Peril; again it might seem very obvious but The Doctor needs to be in danger of some description. This can take many forms, from small to impossibly huge in scale, but there always has to be some threat or danger to deal with. Imagine a story where they relax at some lovely alien retreat and nothing dangerous happens, it wouldn’t work. It’s why those stories don’t really come up and wouldn’t work if they did (not talking about EU stuff here btw).
  • Optimism; I think there is always a level of optimism in the show and specifically in The Doctor. This can manifest itself in numerous ways, but ultimately its one of the best thing about The Doctor, they’ll always try and get the ending that benefits everyone, to push for the good ending and the happy one, despite what is happening and how many odds are stacked against them. I just can’t imagine a pessimistic Doctor, never seeing the best in people and turning their back on flawed people in need. Even if the character does start down that path, they are always brought back to optimism by a companion or something else, because it is fundamental to the character.
  • Change; as people have already said, the show is constantly changing, both in universe and behind the scenes and it is ultimately what has lead it to be such an ever lasting show. Everyone of us has a favourite Doctor, era, story, writer, companion etc. These variations keep it fresh, relevant, exciting, but ultimately it’s still Doctor Who. Those who grew up with the classic series might dislike NuWho and vice versa, but it doesn’t matter because there is content for everyone, and we can all enjoy the bit of the show that resonates with us. It is why this show has such a solid fanbase and why it has lasted 63 (nearly) years and will no doubt last for a lot longer yet.
5 Likes
10

It’s basically this

1 Like
11

Interesting how that’s not exactly how the show started. It was more Ian and Barbara as the mains, with the Doctor rising more to the true lead a bit later. But yes, in essence I agree with you that the Doctor should usually be the main focal point.

3 Likes
12

Very true, but like I said I think it can deviate away from that a bit and have storylines that are for supporting characters, but ultimately this is The Doctor’s travels through time and space, we’re just living in it (watching/reading/listening to it).

13

Core tenets for me…

  • The Doctor. An explorer who excels as crusader. A renegade and rebel who still believes some laws need upholding. The right person in the wrong place at the right time. Or the right place at the wrong time. The personification of brains over brawn. The familiar stranger.

  • The TARDIS. The magic wardrobe. Temperamental…or should that be temporalmental…sorry, that went down a storm at the Type 40 repair shop. A time travelling bucking bronco. Powerful, unpredictable. I’m not so much a fan of the precision landings…short hops are acceptable.

  • Companion/Associate/Temporary Best Friend. Supposedly our on screen surrogates, but I never excelled at mathematics, not have I tried to bludgeon someone, and I can’t make explosives. Apart from that I’ve identified with every one of them. Except the robots of course. And the Time Lords.

  • Wronguns that need righting, mysteries that need solving, planets that need saving, disgruntled villagers that need organising.

That’s about it really. I’m a simple man.

1 Like