229,566
edits
Talk:Victoria Waterfield: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
m
Bot: Automated text replacement (-Downtime +Downtime (home video))
No edit summary |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-Downtime +Downtime (home video))) Tag: apiedit |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== Age == | == Age == | ||
1852? I don't know about anyone else, but I really don't believe that Victoria was only 14 years old in Evil. [[User:Leda74|Leda74]] [[User talk:Leda74|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 04:51, June 14, 2013 (UTC) | 1852? I don't know about anyone else, but I really don't believe that Victoria was only 14 years old in Evil. [[User:Leda74|Leda74]] [[User talk:Leda74|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 04:51, June 14, 2013 (UTC) | ||
:And yet that's the way the math works. If you combine ''[[Downtime]]'' with ''[[The Evil of the Daleks (TV story)|The Evil of the Daleks]]'', she's the youngest companion ever seen on television. Although it kinda doesn't make sense in terms of apparent visual age — [[Deborah Watling]] does appear to be in her late teens rather than her early ones — it really does make sense to the way she was performed. Watling's oft-criticised screaming and general fear makes sense if she's only 14-15. Now it maybe that some members of the modern audience recoils from thinking of Victoria as quite that young because of Jamie's flirtation with her. But remember, these are both companions from about 150 and 250 years ago, respectively. Jamie making passes at her isn't "inappropriate" since, to a man of the [[18th century]], that's kinda "marrying age". In fact, even for her time of the mid-19th century, it's perfectly fine that he's a little flirty with a 14-15 year old. Let's face it, the most he ever does is suggest that she wear a slightly higher-cut dress. Big deal. | :And yet that's the way the math works. If you combine ''[[Downtime (home video)|Downtime]]'' with ''[[The Evil of the Daleks (TV story)|The Evil of the Daleks]]'', she's the youngest companion ever seen on television. Although it kinda doesn't make sense in terms of apparent visual age — [[Deborah Watling]] does appear to be in her late teens rather than her early ones — it really does make sense to the way she was performed. Watling's oft-criticised screaming and general fear makes sense if she's only 14-15. Now it maybe that some members of the modern audience recoils from thinking of Victoria as quite that young because of Jamie's flirtation with her. But remember, these are both companions from about 150 and 250 years ago, respectively. Jamie making passes at her isn't "inappropriate" since, to a man of the [[18th century]], that's kinda "marrying age". In fact, even for her time of the mid-19th century, it's perfectly fine that he's a little flirty with a 14-15 year old. Let's face it, the most he ever does is suggest that she wear a slightly higher-cut dress. Big deal. | ||
:If you look at the mild season arc of [[season 5]] — and, yeah, there actually is one — it's really about helping Victoria cope with her father's death and move on to a new familial situation. She's meant to be an actual orphan, not a twenty-something whose parents died too soon. She's the only companion who leaves in order to be effectively adopted by a new mother and father figure. If she weren't actually a minor, her departure in ''[[Fury from the Deep (TV story)|Fury from the Deep]]'' wouldn't ring true at all. | :If you look at the mild season arc of [[season 5]] — and, yeah, there actually is one — it's really about helping Victoria cope with her father's death and move on to a new familial situation. She's meant to be an actual orphan, not a twenty-something whose parents died too soon. She's the only companion who leaves in order to be effectively adopted by a new mother and father figure. If she weren't actually a minor, her departure in ''[[Fury from the Deep (TV story)|Fury from the Deep]]'' wouldn't ring true at all. | ||
