The Doctor as Hero??

[Coyote]

Been watching the new Doctor Who series lately and enjoying the hell out of it. But I understand that the Doctor is supposed to be a person who is somewhat removed form human experience and tends to be a harsh commentator while also thrilled at humanity's capacity for potential greatness.

But is the Doctor a "Hero"? I think he is supposed to be a deeply flawed character, even though he carries out heroic feats. Bear in mind I am new to the Doctor Who experience so my apologies if this is the sort of thing that has gone over before.

I've seen recent episodes that caused me to wonder about the Doctor's role as a commentator on humanity, and at his own psychological blind spots. The most telling moment came to me in the David Tennant Episode "The Family of Blood", in which the Doctor goes "undercover" as "John Smith", a human professor at a military academy for boys in 1913 England. He does this to evade capture by aliens that are hunting him.

The aliens find him, and come to attack him with animated scarecrow minions. The Doctor is hiding at a military academy and he literally stands there, holding a rifle but completely passive, as he allows underage boys from the Academy to fire rifles and crew-served weapons in his defense. Admittedly, he wasn't really "himself", he was slowly remembering his role as the Doctor but still thought he was the persona "John Smith".

Later, in "The Sontaran Stratagem", the Doctor chews out a UNIT military officer for standing physically near him, based mainly because the officer has a gun and "anyone with a gun is the enemy", a particularly harsh condemnation considering it doesn't take into account that humans are not Time Lords, with time-travel, or thousands of years of teaching and memory and experience to draw from, but just ordinary people with just their hands and their minds and maybe 60-70 years to live and they have to do the best they can. It also doesn't take into account the people who bear arms in defense of the innocent against tyranny.

Then, in "the Doctor's Daughter", the Doctor is very cold and disdainful of his clone-daughter because she sees herself as a soldier, and seems perfectly willing to abandon her to her fate in a horrifying close-quarters war that, at that time, was thought to have been waged for hundreds of years and showed no sign of letting up.

The writers are not stupid by any means, and attention to detail and nuance, and continuity, are clearly important. They seem to be conscious of making the Doctor come across as, well... very prejudiced, really. Donna is critical of the Doctor for being so cold to his clone-daughter and at one point in the early part of the season she chided him for being perfectly willing to commit genocide against the Racnoss.

The Doctor doesn't seem to have a problem committing acts of genocide (Racnoss, multiple attempts on the Daleks) but is harshly critical of people who use physical force to defend themselves. I can only suppose this is an intentional character flaw written into the character. The only soldier he befriends is "Ross", the common UNIT soldier who is assigned to help the Doctor in "The Sontaran Stratagem" and "The Poison Sky".

So is the Doctor always so judgmental and, frankly, kinda arrogant in these regards?

Now I have gotten as far as "The Unicorn and the Wasp", the one with Agatha Christie so if there are any more interesting insights on this characterization that I have not yet encountered, I'm willing to endure some spoilers.

[Stark]

It's pretty lame to say a totally different person did something. It's not necessary to use such weak examples when the Doctor's moral cowardice is pretty easy to prove.

He's always disliked violence, but his hypocrisy has become far, far more prominent in the 10th era. Indeed, in the past while he has disliked WAR he has seldom shown distate for soldiers.

Turns out Doctor Who sucks now and is based on laughably stupid ethics.

[Stofsk]

I was really impressed with the way Chris Ecclestone approached the character, and how the character was approached with the writing in season 1 of NuWho. I loved that dynamic of someone who's committed what is basically genocide, albeit genocide against a genocidal race, and felt guilty about it, even after the Daleks had destroyed his own homeworld and people. That was a fascinating character study.

Then they, for whatever reason, got David Tennant in, and... yeah. EDIT: I should say it wasn't Tennant's fault that the writing sucked in later seasons, but it is Tennant's fault for being David Tennant.

[Dark Hellion]

I don't think the writers are stupid, but I do think that they possess a bit of short-sightedness, bias and the incompetence that comes with these traits. I think some writers want to use the Doctor as an unchanging medium through which to tell their sci-fi stories while others want a grand continuity moving the Doctor towards an ultimate end. I think this generally explains the scatterbrained displays that the Doctor has given throughout the seasons.

Some writers want the Doctor to be the hero. Others want him to be the dispassionate observer. Others want him to be the tragic broken figure. Rarely do they manage to get all three to work together. The rare examples that they do really shine. This is why people gush about episodes like Dalek, or the Doctor Dances, because he displays the full nature of his character.

My personal response, don't try to analyze the Doctor too deeply. Headaches and sorrow lie down that path. The writers are of too many different minds and there are too many levels of skill involved for him to be consistent. Too often things that should be subtle nuance are used to bludgeon us with a message of "this is the Doctor" and most often these fail miserably. When these don't fail often the episode itself does on some other level. While the new seasons of Doctor Who may be above average sci-fi in terms of depth and sophistication they still reflect the woeful shallowness that most modern sci-fi is inflicted with.

[Johonebesus]

...
The writers are not stupid by any means, and attention to detail and nuance, and continuity, are clearly important....

And that right there is your problem. The writers have not been careful to keep the Doctor's personality and ethics consistent. In some episodes he specifically says, "no second chances," then he turns around and offers a tenth chance to Davros or the Master or anyone else he feels sorry for. That's not even counting his plain stupidity. Take The Family of Blood. He had to know there was a chance that the aliens would find him, and his little plan ended up costing the lives of several innocent humans. I don't recall his even addressing whether the human hosts could be saved. I sure hope their minds were completely destroyed before he sentenced their bodies to eternal torment.

It appears that the writers just try to come up with dialogue that seems cool and fits the particular story. It's easy to say that they've intentionally made the Doctor flawed, but some of his most glaring bits of hypocrisy or stupidity are never pointed out, like his destruction of the P.M.'s career, (which also involved an inconsistency with second chances). The best thing to do is not think critically about the writing and just try to enjoy the show. It is after all a children's program. The more you think about, the more confused and disgusted you will become.

[Stark]

I don't think the writers are stupid, but I do think that they possess a bit of short-sightedness, bias and the incompetence that comes with these traits. I think some writers want to use the Doctor as an unchanging medium through which to tell their sci-fi stories while others want a grand continuity moving the Doctor towards an ultimate end. I think this generally explains the scatterbrained displays that the Doctor has given throughout the seasons.

So they're not stupid, they're just short-sighted, selfish, unthinking, and incompetent? Almost like they're ... stupid.

Some writers want the Doctor to be the hero. Others want him to be the dispassionate observer. Others want him to be the tragic broken figure. Rarely do they manage to get all three to work together. The rare examples that they do really shine. This is why people gush about episodes like Dalek, or the Doctor Dances, because he displays the full nature of his character.

So you're saying episodes where the writing doesn't suck are good? It's almost as if the writing sucks!

My personal response, don't try to analyze the Doctor too deeply. Headaches and sorrow lie down that path. The writers are of too many different minds and there are too many levels of skill involved for him to be consistent. Too often things that should be subtle nuance are used to bludgeon us with a message of "this is the Doctor" and most often these fail miserably. When these don't fail often the episode itself does on some other level. While the new seasons of Doctor Who may be above average sci-fi in terms of depth and sophistication they still reflect the woeful shallowness that most modern sci-fi is inflicted with.

So if you can't do it, or you don't like the conclusion, don't do it?

PS, the writing sucks. That's why S1 and S2 are more consistent and effective. Who's fault IS it that the Doctor is now a contractory cowardly murderer on a moral high horse bigger than the moon?

THE WRITERS. Oops.

Since this is a new problem, and far far less pronounced even during pacific 5th Doctor period, I think we can safely blame the Doctor. But hey, we can't think about it because it's a children's show! That whole 'losing character consistency and potency' thing isn't anything to worry about, just turn off your brain, check your standards at the door and say 'whoa'. By that standard, watching paint dry = BEYOND ANALYSIS!!

[Dark Hellion]

So they're not stupid, they're just short-sighted, selfish, unthinking, and incompetent? Almost like they're ... stupid.

Stark, you do realize that many intelligent people possess all the traits you just described? This doesn't excuse the drek that they often produce, but it does explain how people who probably have the talent to write good sci-fi can fail as often and miserably as they do.

So you're saying episodes where the writing doesn't suck are good? It's almost as if the writing sucks!

Again, gross over-simplification. The episodes where the writing is good and the acting good are as expected good. But this is not always as black and white as you put it. A number of episodes are mediocre or subpar but not actually sucky. Now, there is always the trap of mediocrity (bad things are often more entertaining than the merely mediocre) to plague these kind of episodes but that doesn't mean they are necessarily bad. Gridlock is a good example of such a mediocre/subpar episode. It had many elements that could have been utilized to great effect but failed to do so. But even so, these elements are still present and if only slightly reworked the episode could be quite good. In many ways I feel this is actually the greatest failing of the new Doctor Who seasons. It is not that they suck but that they manage to tread in the awful zone between actually sucking and actually being good. So instead of a bunch of hits or misses you get a few hits, a few (big) misses and a lot of plodding mediocrity between.

So if you can't do it, or you don't like the conclusion, don't do it?

PS, the writing sucks. That's why S1 and S2 are more consistent and effective. Who's fault IS it that the Doctor is now a contractory cowardly murderer on a moral high horse bigger than the moon?

THE WRITERS. Oops.

Since this is a new problem, and far far less pronounced even during pacific 5th Doctor period, I think we can safely blame the Doctor. But hey, we can't think about it because it's a children's show! That whole 'losing character consistency and potency' thing isn't anything to worry about, just turn off your brain, check your standards at the door and say 'whoa'. By that standard, watching paint dry = BEYOND ANALYSIS!!

Analyzing the Doctor is a headache because the inconsistent writing means that there are a multitude of supported but contradictory positions one can take on who the Doctor is. The painful part is that there are a lot of dropped, aborted or retconned story elements that could have been used for development. I never said that it was impossible or that I disliked the conclusions drawn. I am dissatisfied with much of what has been done but I am also dissatisfied with the way the original Star Wars Trilogy handled certain things but that doesn't mean I still don't enjoy the movies on a level deeper than simple entertainment.

You are right that it is largely the writers fault. The lack of a singular narrative really hurts the franchise. But I don't think that is it solely the fault of writers. I think Seasons 2-4 suffered from Tennant's hamming it up and the general crap of the companions. I also think that the attitude of "Doctor Who=children's show/pulp/beyond analysis" that the fans portrayed hurt the show a lot. The show did not get held responsible for mistakes and the declining quality.

I wouldn't say that the new Doctor Who sucks but I will say that there is a disappointing amount of missed opportunity present in every season. Contrary to the popular notion, I don't think the first season is actually all that much better than the second, third or (from what I have seen) fifth seasons. While I think the first is indubitably superior in general quality, I don't think it is so much higher that it is on a different tier. I think its biggest strength had more to do with general consistency. It had several very good episodes and a lot of okay episodes that managed to not have too much bad in them. But if you look back, were episodes like The Unquiet Dead, Aliens in London/World War III, or The Long Game actually that good? Maybe others likes them but I found them very forgettable. I think the first two seasons are remembered more fondly because there has been much more time to forget the bland and uneventful episodes and only remember the good ones. Season four does just suck though. I won't argue with that.

Stark, in some ways I think this might be a good time to get you to address an odd thing I find about your general criticisms. It is quite clear you have a refined taste and a deep appreciation of storytelling, plot construction and the general nuance involved in such things. At the same time, your criticisms often lack such nuance and lack the subtlety that you clearly appreciate. Are you just a thumbs up or thumbs down kind of person or is there a deeper process at work? I often find that I agree with your views on story and many of your reviews but when I can't I sometimes find myself wondering why you rate things as you do.

[Stark]

Stark, you do realize that many intelligent people possess all the traits you just described? This doesn't excuse the drek that they often produce, but it does explain how people who probably have the talent to write good sci-fi can fail as often and miserably as they do.

So stop excusing the writing quality for being shit and saying we should just ignore it.

Again, gross over-simplification. The episodes where the writing is good and the acting good are as expected good. But this is not always as black and white as you put it. A number of episodes are mediocre or subpar but not actually sucky. Now, there is always the trap of mediocrity (bad things are often more entertaining than the merely mediocre) to plague these kind of episodes but that doesn't mean they are necessarily bad. Gridlock is a good example of such a mediocre/subpar episode. It had many elements that could have been utilized to great effect but failed to do so. But even so, these elements are still present and if only slightly reworked the episode could be quite good. In many ways I feel this is actually the greatest failing of the new Doctor Who seasons. It is not that they suck but that they manage to tread in the awful zone between actually sucking and actually being good. So instead of a bunch of hits or misses you get a few hits, a few (big) misses and a lot of plodding mediocrity between.

A simple metric for serial writing quality is consistency of character.

Oops.

[Starglider]

Long-running soap operas manage to have the same character for decades with consistent characterisation. It isn't fundamentally that hard. I agree that the Who writers just don't care, although ultimately I blame the producers for not laying down a policy and enforcing it.

[Stark]

Yeah, and that neatly explains why S1 was tighter. You don't need to deal with heaps of writers to make 13 episodes where you're basically reinventing a series. Once it was a continuing thing, they've just got any old fool to write episodes that are inconsistent within the space of a few episodes.

[Coyote]

Interesting-- and unfortunate. Looking back I do see a pattern of inconsistent characterization; when it comes to "physical continuity" things seem really tight, but the Doctor drifts a lot.

I suppose he's expected to drift a bit in each regeneration, Eccleston's version of the Doctor seems much less judgemental. But there should be consistency within the seperate versions. Tennant's Doctor is all over the place with his ethical considerations.

I suppose it is my own fault that I thought this was "going somewhere"; I admit I just assumed that the 'do as I say not as I do' aspects of his values were being done on purpose and leading to a crisis that I was looking forward to as a interesting characterization moment. Donna in particular seems much more willing to notice these things and be critical of the Doctor's attitude, bringing up the Racnoss genocide (carried out against children, in fact) and chiding him for his attitude about Jenny.

While the Doctor literally hiding behind child soldiers in Family of the Blood was something I was willing to give only marginal value to, since he was undergoing a confusing personality change at the moment, his utter disdain of Jenny was jarring when compared to how willing he was to give the Sontarans an opportunity to correct themselves (and I had totally forgotten about the Christmas Invasion episode where he said "No second chances").

Is Russell T. Davies the chief writer? He seems to crop up the most both for DW and Torchwood. Wouldn't he logically be the go-to guy for such things? It seems they need some sort of character continuity guideline or something...

[DaveJB]

Yeah, Davies was in charge of Doctor Who until this year, when Steven Moffat took over. Notionally, he's been in charge of Torchwood since the beginning of that series, although Chris Chibnall did a lot of the head writer's job during that show's first two seasons.

I think part of the problem was that Davies himself changed his idea of what the Tenth Doctor was meant to be, halfway through his tenure. Initially, the Tenth Doctor's lighter and more manic personality was meant to hide the more ruthless streak that we saw in The Christmas Invasion and Human Nature/The Family of Blood. At some point between S2 and S3 however, Davies decided he had made a huge mistake with Ten's original personality and story arc (which he admitted in a Doctor Who Magazine interview, if memory serves), and instead went with the whole "Doctor as a messiah" thing that took root later in S3.

[Johonebesus]

Yeah, Davies penned a number of stories, and was personally responsible for the season finalés: the episode in which Rose absorbed the time energy and got rid of the Daleks, which the Timelords for some reason couldn't or wouldn't do, the little golem Doctor who was saved by the Tinkerbell strategy, the resurrection of Davros and the DoctorDonna shame, and finally the evil Timelords who wanted to destroy the universe and become vengeful gods, fear of which I believe was offered as a reason the Timelords didn't do what Rose did. Davies was responsible for the inconsistency.

[Lord Woodlouse]

He's always disliked guns, this is nothing new. But he does often come to the realisation that they're necessary. In the Sontaran Stratagem he even seemed to get something of a thrill at seeing the human race fight back with such determination. The bloke is definitely a hero, he's just guilty of extremely pacifist tendencies. Sometimes that means more people die than might have otherwise, but to me this seems to be because he's unwilling to take too many shortcuts, I think out of worry that he'll get too used to it and eventually give in to his darker side... a side I think we see plenty of evidence for.

[Stark]

He's jst a really cowardly hero.

[Temujin]

It's pretty lame to say a totally different person did something. It's not necessary to use such weak examples when the Doctor's moral cowardice is pretty easy to prove.

He's always disliked violence, but his hypocrisy has become far, far more prominent in the 10th era. Indeed, in the past while he has disliked WAR he has seldom shown distate for soldiers.

Turns out Doctor Who sucks now and is based on laughably stupid ethics.

Hell, I grew up watching Pertwee and T. Baker on PBS, and their interaction with Unit. While preferring a non-violent solution and disdaining knee-jerk militant reactions, they certainly didn't have a problem with military force being used when it was necessary. The Doctor even gave advice on how best to use their weapons and equipment at times.

Re-watching Tennant's old episodes, its really disappointing to see what could have been had RTD had not been such a twit. Of course, I would have preferred Ecclestone to stay on for a few more seasons. For me he embodied a lot more of what I had come to like in the some of the previous incarnations.

As for being a hero, I would say that comes down to which incarnation we're talking about.

[Rossum]

Me, I've never really thought of The Doctor as a hero. He's a really long-lived and inhumanly intelligent person that goes from place to place and 'fixes' whatever event he happens to run into.

I mean, he travels in a Time Machine that randomly goes from place to place and various points in time either at random or in an attempt to sightsee or do various stuff, then it turns out that the exact place he is in is the focus of some alien races attempt at destroying humanity or messing up the timesteam or eating people in a library or whatever and then he uses his incredible ability to exploit obscure weaknesses in his enemies to save the day... or something.

I mean, the guy travels in time, goes to various points in time or history, and randomly gets stuck in events he wasn't actively looking for and solves the problems. I suppose that he's declared himself to be the "protector of humanity" or something because it looks like in the Doctor Who universe then Earth has been invaded by thousands of different aliens at all points in history.

I'm including the old series, there was one episode where an alien crash landed on Earth in prehistoric times before life even evolved, his ship exploded which in turn created life on Earth but he was blasted through time into eight different pieces and from that point manipulated all of human history in order to give his final piece the technology to go back in time and keep himself from crashing. The Doctor showed up when the alien stole the Mona Lisa that the aliens past self had asked Leonardo to paint for him so he could steal it and sell it for money to fund time travel experiments... so The Doctor found out and brought a punch-happy detective back in time so he could prevent the guy who is essentially the cause of all terrestrial life and civilization from preventing his own ship from crashing.

This is exactly the sort of causality punching garbage that The Doctor pulls off on a daily basis without even planning to do so. It seems that all of human history is simultaneously getting invaded or threatened with paradox-erasure constantly every year... every single possible year at all points in human history! And he doesn't even warn humanity of it, when he finds an egyptian sarcophagus that is actually an extra-dimensional prison for the martian god of Death then he has tea at the archologists house, goes to Mars, does puzzles, outruns robot mummies, and then reverses the polarity on the sarcopahgus so that the Death God gets stuck in some sort of reverse hallway that he'll totally never be able to escape from because its got exponential something in it. He just finishes his tea and goes on his way while the archologist figures out what to do with all of the bodies. UNIT might be doing something... who knows, maybe UNIT has a huge warehouse filled with loads and loads of world-destroying artifacts that the Doctor tossed in a ditch somewhere after he thwarded armageddon while on the way to a Beatles concert.

But, yeah, The Doctor is pretty weird and certainly distanced from humanity. In The Christmas Invasion, aliens show up and use a mind control device to force everyone with a certain blood type to climb up to the top of tall building and look like they will jump to their deaths. They also kill a few people who are trying to negotiate with them. Then magically it turns out the mind-control can't force people to kill themselves, The Doctor fights the leader in a swordfight (and gets his hand cut off which regenerates into a 'fighting hand') and wins which magically ensures that the aliens will totally obey their word and leave.

Harriet Jones has their military use a reverse engineered alien weapon blast the aliens out of the sky to ensure that they don't just return with reinforcements when the Doctor isn't around. Then the Doctor gets all pissed that she stole his thunder and destroys her career by saying 'doesn't she look tired' to a nearby person. I... I'm not really a fan of politics and stuff but when somebody actually DID THEIR JOB TO PROTECT HUMANITY and is looking 'a little tired' because she had a huge fraction of humanity look like they were about to jump off of buildings to to freaking mind control by aliens then don't slander them and destroy their careers for petty reasons!


Then in Age of Steel, John Lumic is converting humanity into Cybermen because he's dying and feels that eternal life in a metal body will cure the pains that afflict mankind. The Doctor then stalls Lumic by talking about how a world without pain or sickness or hunger would cause humanity to stop progressing... which frankly sounds like garbage to me. Really, this is an alternate universe so Lumics actions shouldn't change history in any way that affects the Doctor. Saying that the Cybermen will stop progressing is arguable but then again who says that's a bad thing? Would a planet full of a stable number of cyborgs be worse than a planet with an exponentially growing number of humans who will need more and more resources from the environment to survive?

But then, Doctor gives Mikey some instructions to deactivate an emotional inhibitor in the Cybermen that causes them all to scream in agony and explode. Did he just commit genocide against people who were being mind controlled at the time? Couldn't he have deactivated the part that mind controls them so they would just be normal people in metal bodies?


... I mean, yes the Doctor does regularly do things that save lives but he also does things that kill nonhumans and doesn't really work towards improving things. The technology to build Cybermen could have been really nice to help prolong the human lifespan and helped society, but he chose to basically commit genocide against them. Lumic was a crazy bastard, no argument here, but that doesn't necessarily mean the Cybermen themselves couldn't have been redeemed by reprogramming them or something.


So, Doctor is pretty cool in some ways and is obviously intelligent, but I don't think he's really a champion for any real cause.

[Stark]

Anyone who says MILITARY PEOPLE SICKEN ME when they're the poor sods who die to buy time for his outrageous moralising plans is a cunt.

Did Nine tell all the station 5 guys who fought the Daleks with G36s that they were disgusting for dying to allow him time to build something he didn't even use?

[Ugolino]

So the Doctor's flawed. Surprise.

The way Ten was written, he had serious mental issues, ending in the shambles that was the S4-S5 bridge episodes.

Waters of Mars he basically lost his mind and decided he was more or less a god. End of Time, he committed genocide against his own people...again. Without Daleks involved this time.

Then again, considering his regeneration was caused by swallowing the heart of the tardis, is his instability any surprise? Look what poisoning did to Six...

[NecronLord]

Then in Age of Steel, John Lumic is converting humanity into Cybermen because he's dying and feels that eternal life in a metal body will cure the pains that afflict mankind. The Doctor then stalls Lumic by talking about how a world without pain or sickness or hunger would cause humanity to stop progressing... which frankly sounds like garbage to me. Really, this is an alternate universe so Lumics actions shouldn't change history in any way that affects the Doctor. Saying that the Cybermen will stop progressing is arguable but then again who says that's a bad thing? Would a planet full of a stable number of cyborgs be worse than a planet with an exponentially growing number of humans who will need more and more resources from the environment to survive?

Given the original cybermen's abysmal military record (give you a clue; humanity not only kicks their ass offscreen, they do so several times, and an entire starfleet is shot down by the USSR's weapons of the 1960s in one episode) I think that it's a fair guess.

But then, Doctor gives Mikey some instructions to deactivate an emotional inhibitor in the Cybermen that causes them all to scream in agony and explode. Did he just commit genocide against people who were being mind controlled at the time? Couldn't he have deactivated the part that mind controls them so they would just be normal people in metal bodies?

No. The assumption of the writers was that the cybermen would immediately commit suicide knowing they'd become metal monsters. Mind you, given that they'd previously written that being a cybermen is perpetually cold and unpleasant, that's not so far fetched as it otherwise would be.

[NecronLord]

So the Doctor's flawed. Surprise.

The way Ten was written, he had serious mental issues, ending in the shambles that was the S4-S5 bridge episodes.

Waters of Mars he basically lost his mind and decided he was more or less a god. End of Time, he committed genocide against his own people...again. Without Daleks involved this time.

Did you not watch that? The entire Dalek Empire was going to get out as well as the supposedly fearsome Skaro Degradations, The Horde of Travesties, and The Could-Have-Been King and his army of Mean-Whiles and Never-Weres. The Time Lords planned to destroy everything else too. Everything would have died but the Time Lords.

[Stark]

The USSR never shoots down any cyberman fleet; a USSR heavy lifter blows up a mothership. The space invasion is thwarted by Broadsword 2-stage 60s SAMs.

[NecronLord]

The USSR never shoots down any cyberman fleet; a USSR heavy lifter blows up a mothership. The space invasion is thwarted by Broadsword 2-stage 60s SAMs.

I honestly don't recall details. IIRC They're clearly stated to belong to the USSR. Which trumps whatever stock footage they actually used as far as I'm concerned.

[Stark]

No, they really aren't. You obviously haven't seen the story, which I own. The missiles are a) fired by British personel b) in Britan and c) look exactly like Broadswords and take out invasion transports on final approach. They have to send a team to Russia via hypersonic jet to get them on-side for the heavy lifter to take out the mothership in high orbit, which obviously takes longer to get up and is impractical to take out a fleet.

Honestly, just admit you don't know what you're talking about. That you stupidly pretend Invasion takes place in the real 60s reinforces that.

[NecronLord]

No, they really aren't. You obviously haven't seen the story, which I own.

Fuck off, Stark. So do I.

The missiles are a) fired by British personel b) in Britan and c) look exactly like Broadswords and take out invasion transports on final approach. They have to send a team to Russia via hypersonic jet to get them on-side for the heavy lifter to take out the mothership in high orbit, which obviously takes longer to get up and is impractical to take out a fleet.

Honestly, just admit you don't know what you're talking about. That you stupidly pretend Invasion takes place in the real 60s reinforces that.

I have no time for UNIT Dating crap.

EDIT: Plus one actual re-watch later, and yes. A Cyberman mothership is obliterated by a Russian rocket, the Cyberman fleet is obliterated by the UK's air defence capacity (which is even less impressive). And obliterate really is the word for it, which is rather humiliating.