Talk:List of Doctor Who henchmen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doctor Who WikiProject
Doctor Who Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
List This article has been rated as List-Class.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 23 April, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Adeola Oshodi

Why has Adeola Oshodi been classed as a henchman? Mark H Wilkinson 21:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well this whole list sits uncomfortably with me, because "henchman" is never defined. It's also kinda hard sometimes to differentiate between a villain and an "assistant villain", or henchman. But Adeola certainly would qualify, in that while alive she works for Torchwood One, and while dead she works for the Cybermen. Both are opposed to the Doctor, and therefore "villains", narratively. Techinically I'd call everyone who works for Torchwood One a henchman, because the main antagonist is the Crown. Every monarch from Victoria to QE2 is technically a "Doctor Who villain". CzechOut 07:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
No, they aren't, technically or otherwise. And Torchwood One aren't villains, they're merely misinformed. If we've got Yvonne Hartman classed as a villain, there's been a screw up along the way. Mark H Wilkinson 08:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd say the Doctor's reaction to Jack's employment with Torchwood is tellng in this regard. The Doctor sees them as the enemy who created the situation by which he lost Rose and countless innocents lost their lives. Not sure I see how the term "misinformed" applies to Torchwood or the monarchy. Queen Victoria took her measure of the Doctor, found him lacking, kicked him out of her Kingdom and formed a group to specifically thwart him should he return. That's not misinformed. That's deliberate. And you don't see a trace of doubt on Hartman's face; she firmly believes the Doctor's a threat. Just because she's a people person doesn't mean she hasn't the motive and opportunity to take the Doctor out. CzechOut 08:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Believing the Doctor may be a threat is not, in itself, an expression of villainy. It's unlikely many people would watch Army of Ghosts and Doomsday, brimming with Cybermen and Daleks, and think, "Crikey, those Torchwood blighters are the villains of the piece." Mark H Wilkinson 09:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. I certainly did. I thought the point of the story arc for that season, starting with "The Christmas Invasion", was to make you believe when you heard "Torchwood" that something wasn't right. And, indeeed, the arrival of the Cybermen and Daleks is the consequence of Torchwood's machinations. Worse, they have the explicit aim of thwarting the Doctor and restoring the British Empire, all while trying to cultivate a genial face display to employees and those who "neeed to know" about Torchwood. They're vaguely Hitlerian really, by turns smiling and plotting to restore Victorian British values. The topper, though is that they are directly responsible for Rose exiting the program and emotionally scarring the Doctor. So, I dunno. Maybe to some they're less villains and more antagonists. But to me, they're a more complex evil than the Daleks or the Cybermen precisely because they only seem like us. CzechOut 09:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
"Hitlerian"? I'm not sure being somewhat wrongheaded and screwing up can be validly compared with the Holocaust. Mark H Wilkinson 09:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to the Holocaust, per se, but merely to the application of advanced communication techniques—a modern "spin"—on retrograde ideals. This notion of re-establsihing a British Empire is quite a sinister thing, I think, much akin to the military goals of the Reich. It's really like Torchwood is trying to take Britain back to a point before World War II was fought, a point where colonialism and British racisim were in full swing. CzechOut 10:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
And you got all that from their insistence on using Imperial Measure? Blimey. Mark H Wilkinson 10:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, no, from two places. One is the repeated insistence on the strictly British goals of the organization, which has resulted in a stockpiling of what are essentially WMD without telling any other country about it. Second is this exchange in "Army of Ghosts":
Hartman: Torchwood Institute has a motto—'If It's Alien, It's Ours'. Anything that comes from the sky, we strip it down, and we use it, for the good of the British Empire.
Jackie: For the good of the what?
Hartman: The British Empire
Jackie: But there isn't a British Empire.
Hartman: Not yet.
It's fairly clear to me from that exchange, plus the amassed technology, that there is coming a tipping point where the leader of Torchwood could very easily see it as his or her patriotic duty to use those weapons against other countries, thereby annexing them to the UK. You put that much unverified firepower under the secret control of xenophobes, and nothing good can come of it. CzechOut 16:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lucy Saxon - Last Appearence

I removed this as it is unclear whether she will make any further her appearences in the future of the series. She could make a future appearence when the Master might return?--Brinstar 19:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this rather misses the point. The "last appearance" part of the info box is there to indicate the last time someone appeared (which, until further notice, will be "Last of the Time Lords"); it's not an indication that the character or characters will never appear again. I'll restore the old edit. Mark H Wilkinson 20:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The term ongoing is more appropriate than Unknown. Thanks.--Brinstar 11:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs renaming or merging

Many of the entries here aren't really henchmen in the traditional sense. Henchmen are completely loyal to the villain, and will often die carrying out their master's plans. Think of all those guys in the 1966 version of Batman whom the Dynamic Duo would encounter in a slanted-camera POW!-fest. Henchmen are nameless characters who generally never get a line to say. They're basically just extras, or stuntmen in costume.

Most of the people on this list are secondary characters or "featured players", who appear to lean towards the side of evil. But death or expendability is not always a part of the Doctor Who "second tier" villain's remit. For instance, Dalek Caan, though listed here, is hardly a henchman because he lacks true loyalty to Sec, and, indeed, ends up overthrowing Sec to become the last Dalek alive. He doesn't die; he ascends to a position of leadership.

Another problem with the list is that it makes false assumptions about the nature of the villainy depicted. Putting Mother Bloodtide here shows a lack of apppreciation of the classical (indeed, Shakespearian) use of a trio of witches; they each had a different functionality and they all met the same fate, together. Likewise, Mr. Crane wasn't a henchman; he was a business partner working towards his own agenda. Moreover, he was a longtime friend of Lumic's, which makes his betrayal all the more heroic and heartbreaking. Just saying that he's a henchman throws away most of what's important about the character.

Henchmen have no personal importance. They are generally non-notable background figures who obediently effect the villain's plans. The moment they get lines and and an independent character motivation is the moment they stop being henchmen.

In fairness, this thing really should be merged back with the general Doctor Who villains list. Alternately, we could kick around a more appropriate name for the list, such as "Doctor Who secondary villains" or "Doctor Who featured villains" or somesuch. Whatever we do, though, henchmen shouldn't be anywhere near the title or lead of this article. CzechOut 08:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't see that this article serves any useful purpose other than to repeat the names of some characters whom are better served in Wikipedia by the articles of the episodes in which they appear. How the hell did it escape deletion? Mark H Wilkinson 08:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see from the archived debate; it survived on a technicality. The three main points for keeping it were that a) it would stabilize other pages by giving people a place to shift all these characters of lesser importance b) the number of votes that were given for "keep" without any proper explanation and c) the popular theory that merging would be too difficult because of the number of entries in the list. Basically it didn't survive for any greater reason than that it had more votes to keep (or merge) than it did for delete. CzechOut 09:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
"List of minor Doctor Who villains", or "minor villains in Doctor Who"? "Doctor Who henchmen" also sounds like they're henchmen who word for the Doctor (even though Doctor Who isn't really his name). --68.44.13.236 18:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] gender neutral

why is the page called henchmen there are females like Lucy saxon in this page shouldnt it have a gender neutral name like sub-villain ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 22:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Henchmen is perfectly acceptable to refer to a large group consisting both genders, like postmen, firemen, and even men, in the sense that our species is "man"... † DBD 13:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tense

I had some edits reverted because I changed the tense to past tense - I've been informed that things like this should be written in present tense, but most of the entries are in past tense. David 18:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In which case, the appropriate thing to do is...? --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 04:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

The infoboxes should all be removed as vital information can be added to the short blurbs. They just make the page ugly when there's not much specific information on the characters.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It is looking a bit cluttered, I agree. I'll wait for further commentary before doing anything about it. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 06:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)