2005 replies to this topic

[Zorin Industries]

from my recollection of the time, the McGann incarnation was anticipated perhaps more than the RTD relaunch. Just had no back up or follow through.

Oh - it followed through all right. I saw it again last year and it is lacking in a lot of departments. Yes - McGann is solid enough, but it felt dated at the time and seems to pilfer the tenets of DOCTOR WHO without the attitude. It was also steered towards existing fans rather than trying to collect a few news ones along the way. It felt very bound by its lack of budget and lacks the confidence and resourcefulness of the later Davies era.

Just my thoughts...

[Sniperscope]

That said, I did enjoy the McGann 1996 relaunch attempt...

Indeed. I'm still quite sad that didn't pan out. I liked McGann a lot just from that telemovie, and he's been growing in my book thanks to the Big Finish audio series. And I probably would've gotten into Doctor Who a lot sooner (probably a few years down the line, possibly after Eight had regenerated depending upon how long McGann stuck around) than when I did.

Well, RTD and Co nicked - and developed on - a lot of the ideas established in the McGann movie.

Okay, so outwent the ludicrous Who "costume" in favour of contemporary clothing, but the idea was maintained of a "normal" man in his 30s, quirky looking but not unattractive (particularly as per Tennant) who could therefore also be more of an action man and consequently aspirational to non-tradtional Whovians. And the physical attractiveness and interaction as a consequence with the opposite sex all started with McGann. Similarly, the McGann movie was all set in familiar, contemporary San Fran, not some rubber monster alien planet; RTD has made much of the relationship between his Whos and Londoners.

Nor were there any brightly lit sets or plasticy console room, just dark, forboding photography.

Oh, and from my recollection of the time, the McGann incarnation was anticipated perhaps more than the RTD relaunch. Just had no back up or follow through.

All extremely well made observations DS!

The movie - despite it's general panning by many - it is the blueprint for the RTD era. That, and SURVIVAL!

Very interesting points you make about the Doctor becoming more accessible to Non-Who fans. When you put it that way if all of the original Doctors at their respective ages when they took on the role were to turn up at BBC Wales and audition only Peter Davison would get the role!!! That's a sobering thought!

You mentioned the costumes which in RTD's tenure I've found more than a little non-descript but your reasoning for it is spot on. Actually all the hooha people are making online about Matt Smith's costume seems wholly ludicrous to me... on BBC News they were actually asking fashion consultants if his costume was "on style" for the current fashion collections!?! I Seriously? Who cares coz Who shouldn't!

[Royal Dalton]

It was also steered towards existing fans rather than trying to collect a few news ones along the way.

I was an existing fan and I absolutely hated it. McGann was a good choice for the lead, though.

The stupidest thing is, the BBC could have made Doctor Who just as well, or better, than that themselves at the time.

[marktmurphy]

The movie - despite it's general panning by many - it is the blueprint for the RTD era. That, and SURVIVAL!

I'm not convinced when people say Survival is a blueprint for the RTD series. All it's got is some inner city locale; have a look at Delta and the Bannermen and that's much more RTD for me.

[Sniperscope]

It was also steered towards existing fans rather than trying to collect a few news ones along the way.
Just my thoughts...

Not sure about that. The movie suffered I think because it tried to be two things at once and ended up being neither. I tried to bring back existing fans by trotting out McCoy and giving us all an unnecessary continuity and then switched around to trying hook new viewers which ended up as McGann's unsubtle info-dumps. So many bizarre ideas in the film can't possibly have been aimed at existing fans - the half-human thing, the Eye of Harmony in the TARDIS and the Daleks (of all things) trying the Master for Crimes against I can't remember what!

[David Schofield]

It was also steered towards existing fans rather than trying to collect a few news ones along the way.
Just my thoughts...

Not sure about that. The movie suffered I think because it tried to be two things at once and ended up being neither. I tried to bring back existing fans by trotting out McCoy and giving us all an unnecessary continuity and then switched around to trying hook new viewers which ended up as McGann's unsubtle info-dumps. So many bizarre ideas in the film can't possibly have been aimed at existing fans - the half-human thing, the Eye of Harmony in the TARDIS and the Daleks (of all things) trying the Master for Crimes against I can't remember what!

Yeah, the McGann incarnation - the Regeneration apart - pisses on too many Who conventions to be considered slavish fanwankery, more than perhaps RTD.

Either that or it was written by someone who wasn't an expert on canon Who...

[Sniperscope]

The movie - despite it's general panning by many - it is the blueprint for the RTD era. That, and SURVIVAL!

I'm not convinced when people say Survival is a blueprint for the RTD series. All it's got is some inner city locale; have a look at Delta and the Bannermen and that's much more RTD for me.

Absolutely D&B is very RTD!
SURVIVAL shouldn't be discounted though. I remember when I first saw it on original transmission I was quite struck by just how odd it was. All those inner city locales, estates, local shops, old friends... it seemed very strange compared to anything else I had seen. I liked it very much.
Despite how much McCoy's era is (unfairly) maligned by some it has been influential n many ways to the RTD vision. Specifically in the way companions are now written since Ace, the arc ideas through the whole SILVER NEMESIS / FENRIC storyline, the sort of signs and portents thing that RTD is very fond of. I would list GREATEST SHOW IN THE GALAXY, DELTA, SURVIVAL, FENRIC and REMEMBRANCE OF THE DALEKS as being very significant influences on the show we have today.

Edited by Sniperscope, 23 September 2009 - 12:06 PM.

[Tybre]

It was also steered towards existing fans rather than trying to collect a few news ones along the way.
Just my thoughts...

Not sure about that. The movie suffered I think because it tried to be two things at once and ended up being neither. I tried to bring back existing fans by trotting out McCoy and giving us all an unnecessary continuity and then switched around to trying hook new viewers which ended up as McGann's unsubtle info-dumps. So many bizarre ideas in the film can't possibly have been aimed at existing fans - the half-human thing, the Eye of Harmony in the TARDIS and the Daleks (of all things) trying the Master for Crimes against I can't remember what!

Personally none of that has ever bothered me, and for the fans that it upsets so much, there have been a lot of retcons around some of it, even if most of them take place in spin-off/tie-in. For example, in The Forgotten, the Eighth Doctor states he used a chameleon arch to make himself half-human to fool the Master. And it's not as if that claim is impossible to tie to the film. In the opening narration, the Doctor states "even in death I couldn't trust him". Ergo, doesn't it make sense for him to have a Plan B?

Yeah, I admit, the TV movie was a mess. It tried to lure in old fans and at the same time with trying to bring in the new, it ends up pissing all over some of the old. And there's a lot more wrong with it, but I still really enjoy it. And regardless of what one thinks of the telemovie itself, McGann does do a brilliant job with the somewhat lackluster material he was given. I really am glad there's the EDA books and EDA audio. McGann being a one-off is a bit of a horrible notion.

Anyone else think the Eighth Doctor's TARDIS interior always looked coolest?

Despite how much McCoy's era is (unfairly) maligned by some

Unfairly indeed. I still vote McCoy as best of the ten Doctors so far. Even in the more pathetic episodes, like Time & Rani, I'm capable of finding a lot to like. Generally more than I can find to like in my least favorite stories featuring other Doctors.

[marktmurphy]

It was also steered towards existing fans rather than trying to collect a few news ones along the way.
Just my thoughts...

Not sure about that. The movie suffered I think because it tried to be two things at once and ended up being neither. I tried to bring back existing fans by trotting out McCoy and giving us all an unnecessary continuity and then switched around to trying hook new viewers which ended up as McGann's unsubtle info-dumps. So many bizarre ideas in the film can't possibly have been aimed at existing fans - the half-human thing, the Eye of Harmony in the TARDIS and the Daleks (of all things) trying the Master for Crimes against I can't remember what!

I think the way they did it made good sense; the regeneration was a decent way to introduce the Doctor: in the very first episode and 'Rose' we learn who he is through the eyes of the companion; in the TVM we learn who he is along with him himself!
All they needed to do was cut out that whole awkward opening scene and narration in the TARDIS: start it with Chang Lee being chased through San Fran and see the inside of the TARDIS for the first time when he does.

Seriously though: a whole load of McGann episodes to listen to for free here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...rammes/b009szrh
Get 'em before they've gone!

[Tybre]

Ah yes, the whole of series 1. I remember reading about that this morning. Tempted to give the remainder I haven't heard a listen, but I am quite dedicated to buying all of the CDs, and I kind of like hearing it on the CD first. Doesn't really make a difference, I suppose, but I'm a bit anal like that. I'm a bit curious, out of those who follow it, or are listening to these links, which is everyone's favorite out of Series 1? Out of what I've heard so far, I think Immortal Beloved was the best full story, and I think Phobos has the best promo.

[Safari Suit]

For what it's worth I was 9 when the McGann special came out, which is probably about what the general target audience for Who(despite a wide-ranging fanbase), and at the time I loved it, certainly far more than I did the current version, but then I was 18 when that started and not 9. I would disagree that it seemed dated at the time; for better or worse, I would say it felt far more contemporary than the current incarnation.

[dee-bee-five]

Oh, come now: RTD is surely the most accomplished and gifted writer currently writing for British television today. He virtually rewrote the drama rulebook with Queer As Folk ten years ago and has reinvented popular family drama with Doctor Who. He turned a national joke into must-see TV; trust me, that is no easy feat. His vision is utterly extraordinary.

Gifted or not I don't think RTD rewrote the TV drama rulebook - Dennis Potter did IMHO.


If ever there was a case of Emperor's new clothes, it was Dennis Potter in my book. Never enjoyed a word he wrote. And I do maintain that RTD's Queer As Folk rewrote the drama rulebook in 1999.


What I think RTD is very gifted at is reworking tried and true dramatic conventions in a new manner, which is no mean feat in modern television!
To me he seems to have been very successful in making DOCTOR WHO a bit of a soap opera, driven largely by the charisma of its lead. Season-long "arcs", love interests, love triangles, jealousy, returning companions, family dynamics, an angst-ridden protagonist, over-emotional, and stunt-casting are all hallmarks of the soaps and this is certainly RTD's vision of DW (by way of Joss Whedon). Sometimes it all works for me, sometimes it doesn't.
For example MIDNIGHT is one of his stories that is particularly admired, and although I very much like its concept, I just couldn't stand the manner in which it was executed, especially with the very contemporary English Stereotypes he whacks into the story (just in case we missed the point that this is a satire of Middle Class Morality).

You are aware of the nightmare conditions under which he wrote "Midnight", right...?



National joke? Hmmm... Fans who stuck with the show through the 80s and the empty decade that was the 90s don't take easily to such glibly tossed out remarks - I'd take the old series any day, warts and all. If I'm thinking PLANET OF THE DEAD or THE DEAD PLANET, I know which one's going in the DVD player! But then I've never been overly concerned about what the majority consider "must-see TV" - this is the same majority that think BRITAIN'S GOT TALENT is "must-see"!!! Cringe!

I followed Who from the 1960s. It began its long, sad decline in my opinion somewhere in Tom Baker's third season. And by the time the 80s came along, it was a pale parody of itself; an object lesson in why producers should never listen to what the fans want. The BBC did it - and us - a favour by putting it out of our misery. The revived series is better-written, better-produced and certainly better-acted than anything that went before it. This is the elephant in the room that die-hard fans of (so called) "classic" Who find hard to accept.



Fair dues to you if you think RTD's vision is "utterly extraordinary" but I can't really agree.
Based on last season and the run of specials so-far I think he's definitely run out of juice and he has tended to rehash himself an awful lot. Too much of what RTD thinks is DW doesn't fit with how I see it (which may account for it's broad mainstream appeal of course!), but that's individual tastes I suppose.

[Tybre]

The revived series is better-written, better-produced and certainly better-acted than anything that went before it. This is the elephant in the room that die-hard fans of (so called) "classic" Who find hard to accept.[/color]

Better written? Some episodes, yeah. I've also seen plenty of new series episodes I thought were inferior to some classic stories. Better acted? On the whole, yes, but moreso with other characters than the Doctor himself. A fair number of the classic series Doctors were far better actors than they tend to be given credit for, in my experience. And frankly, I still say I prefer the classic series, even though I started with the new series, back in 2005, and indeed held it up as my favorite of the two until this past January or so. Do I love them both? Certainly, but to me the new series has too many flaws with it that, while not irksome when it was "Ooh, new season" every spring, have been irking me more with repeat viewings. Flaws which I find to be much more detrimental to my enjoyment than the majority of flaws during the classic series, Colin Baker era withstanding.

[Sniperscope]

I followed Who from the 1960s. It began its long, sad decline in my opinion somewhere in Tom Baker's third season. And by the time the 80s came along, it was a pale parody of itself; an object lesson in why producers should never listen to what the fans want. The BBC did it - and us - a favour by putting it out of our misery. The revived series is better-written, better-produced and certainly better-acted than anything that went before it. This is the elephant in the room that die-hard fans of (so called) "classic" Who find hard to accept.

Well it's all opinions but the "misery" we were put out of was McCoy's final season which (IMHO of course) was the single best series put out by JNT - who by then had finally worked out how to produce DW properly - but decisions had already been made and the rest is history... A "pale parody" it certainly was not - the series actually seemed to be going somewhere before they pulled the plug don't you think?

Not sure about the notion of "producers should never listen to what the fans want" being exclusive to JNT's era (which I think you may be implying)... frankly RTD's series is more fanwankish and mired in its own mythology than the original series ever was - to the point of claustrophobia. Every second story set on Earth (or its synecdoche - London), the tedious inevitability of yet another end of season kitchen-sinker after more hokey signs and portents, the ridiculous amount of returning companions, characters or villains per season (Rose -again! Huge Dalek armies at season's end - again! Sarah-Jane! Captain Jack! Martha!), stunt-casting (Kylie! Lee Evans!) - it's not WHO it's CORONATION STREET!!! Apparently the Doctor's TARDIS doesn't really explore time and space it's actually stuck on the coordinates of one contemporary London postcode! No wonder he needs a hammer to get it moving!

The revived series is generally not better written or acted for me - but really it's far too different a beast both dramatically and structurally to the previous incarnation to make a fully objective comparison. To judge it by the standards of tv drama however too much of the acting and plotting veers ludicrously towards over-the-top hyperbole. David Tennant's acting has unfortunately deteriorated considerably since his debut to the point where he appears to gurn or goggle in every second scene. It's a real shame that his range has not always been well handled by certain directors.
Although one of the cleverest episodes ever written is in the new series - LOVE & MONSTERS - which ironically is Doctor Lite and is a genuine self-parody the likes of which even JNT himself would never have dared.

It is better produced - I'll give you that - but DR WHO has always been about the imagination so I couldn't give two tosses if a wall shakes or a hand is holding down Sutekh's whooppee cushion - I'm watching fantasy so my suspension of disbelief is quite able to cope with Davros bumping into a wall or Billy Hartnell fluffing a line or ten!

Still, it's only discussion and we're probably not going to sway each other either way so I'll leave it there!

Edited by Sniperscope, 24 September 2009 - 02:16 PM.

[marktmurphy]

Ah yes, the whole of series 1. I remember reading about that this morning. Tempted to give the remainder I haven't heard a listen, but I am quite dedicated to buying all of the CDs, and I kind of like hearing it on the CD first. Doesn't really make a difference, I suppose, but I'm a bit anal like that. I'm a bit curious, out of those who follow it, or are listening to these links, which is everyone's favorite out of Series 1? Out of what I've heard so far, I think Immortal Beloved was the best full story, and I think Phobos has the best promo.

Human Resources is a great story; probably one of my all time favourites, actually.

No sign of the third series making it to Radio 7 which is a crying shame: I think Sheridan Smith is pretty much the best companion the audios have had. I'd really like her to join the TV Doctor, to be honest; but she's Jonathan Creek's companion now

[dee-bee-five]

I followed Who from the 1960s. It began its long, sad decline in my opinion somewhere in Tom Baker's third season. And by the time the 80s came along, it was a pale parody of itself; an object lesson in why producers should never listen to what the fans want. The BBC did it - and us - a favour by putting it out of our misery. The revived series is better-written, better-produced and certainly better-acted than anything that went before it. This is the elephant in the room that die-hard fans of (so called) "classic" Who find hard to accept.

Well it's all opinions but the "misery" we were put out of was McCoy's final season which (IMHO of course) was the single best series put out by JNT - who by then had finally worked out how to produce DW properly - but decisions had already been made and the rest is history... A "pale parody" it certainly was not - the series actually seemed to be going somewhere before they pulled the plug don't you think?

I'll grant you that McCoy's final season wasn't quite the disaster that the previous one had been. But given that that season included the atrociously bad The Happiness Patrol, that really isn't saying much, is it? But, yes, the series was heading somewhere in that final season: for the rocks. And it had been for many years beforehand.



...Every second story set on Earth (or its synecdoche - London), the tedious inevitability of yet another end of season kitchen-sinker after more hokey signs and portents, the ridiculous amount of returning companions, characters or villains per season (Rose -again! Huge Dalek armies at season's end - again! Sarah-Jane! Captain Jack! Martha!), stunt-casting (Kylie! Lee Evans!

You've pretty much summed-up why I prefer the new series. And quite what is wrong with sopa-opera storytelling - the most successful storytelling in television - in Who is beyond me.

David Tennant's acting has unfortunately deteriorated considerably since his debut to the point where he appears to gurn or goggle in every second scene. It's a real shame that his range has not always been well handled by certain directors.

I simply cannot agree. I find Tennant an extraordinarily accomplished actor and will be very sorry to see him go.

[Tybre]

I partially agree with Sniperscope about Tennant. Acting-wise, he certainly hasn't gotten worse, but imo, the character has gotten worse as time goes on. The writing of the character is devolving, though. The Runaway Bride is the last episode where I think he was brilliant. There are flashes of brilliance throughout Series 4, but for the most part, in Series 3 and Series 4 he's just progressively turning into a manic caricature of himself. That said, I am still going to miss the fellow when he's gone, but I am just as eagerly looking forward to Matt Smith.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I partially agree with Sniperscope about Tennant. Acting-wise, he certainly hasn't gotten worse, but imo, the character has gotten worse as time goes on. The writing of the character is devolving, though. The Runaway Bride is the last episode where I think he was brilliant. There are flashes of brilliance throughout Series 4, but for the most part, in Series 3 and Series 4 he's just progressively turning into a manic caricature of himself.

I've got to agree, here, and that's why I wish Eccleston could have stayed on longer; he was pleasant without being manic.

[Zorin Industries]

I couldn't agree less - especially if you are claiming THE RUNAWAY BRIDE was the last good Tennent performance. I would add HUMAN NATURE - which emerged later.

And I think folk sometimes forget what the DOCTOR's character is meant to be manic, playful, eccentric and deadly. Tennent has done quite well on those fronts, I would say. And he's still got a few episodes left to go.

[Tybre]

I couldn't agree less - especially if you are claiming THE RUNAWAY BRIDE was the last good Tennent performance. I would add HUMAN NATURE - which emerged later.

And I think folk sometimes forget what the DOCTOR's character is meant to be manic, playful, eccentric and deadly. Tennent has done quite well on those fronts, I would say. And he's still got a few episodes left to go.

I didn't say he wasn't good post-Bride, but, at least in my recollection of things (I admit it has been a while since I've seen some episodes), Series 2 & Bride were where he was at his best. I also don't have a problem with the Doctor being manic, eccentric, etc. He was all that in Series 2, wasn't he? But in the last two series, it's really played up to points where often times if I see it while channel surfing I'd rather pass than sit down and watch it just as excitedly as when the episode first aired. I mean, the Doctor's always been a bit of an oddball. I have no problems with him acting like a nutter. But a lot of times when I watch episodes from Series 3 and Series 4, I feel like I'm watching a Doctor who's had a few too many, to put it as best as I can in my own not-quite-right state of mind. And now don't get me wrong. I love David Tennant's portrayal. I think he has the capacity to make my top three. I just feel after one series the writers and everyone else involved lacked the ability to make that happen. Bit of wasted potential, I suppose.

[Zorin Industries]

I just feel after one series the writers and everyone else involved lacked the ability to make that happen. Bit of wasted potential, I suppose.

Couldn't agree any less.

I think Davies et al did very well with a very difficult mandate.

[Tybre]

Well I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree then.

Edit:

Slight old news perhaps, but have just stumbled upon the following, John Simm on Jonathan Ross.

[Sniperscope]

I followed Who from the 1960s. It began its long, sad decline in my opinion somewhere in Tom Baker's third season. And by the time the 80s came along, it was a pale parody of itself; an object lesson in why producers should never listen to what the fans want. The BBC did it - and us - a favour by putting it out of our misery. The revived series is better-written, better-produced and certainly better-acted than anything that went before it. This is the elephant in the room that die-hard fans of (so called) "classic" Who find hard to accept.

Well it's all opinions but the "misery" we were put out of was McCoy's final season which (IMHO of course) was the single best series put out by JNT - who by then had finally worked out how to produce DW properly - but decisions had already been made and the rest is history... A "pale parody" it certainly was not - the series actually seemed to be going somewhere before they pulled the plug don't you think?

I'll grant you that McCoy's final season wasn't quite the disaster that the previous one had been. But given that that season included the atrociously bad The Happiness Patrol, that really isn't saying much, is it? But, yes, the series was heading somewhere in that final season: for the rocks. And it had been for many years beforehand.



...Every second story set on Earth (or its synecdoche - London), the tedious inevitability of yet another end of season kitchen-sinker after more hokey signs and portents, the ridiculous amount of returning companions, characters or villains per season (Rose -again! Huge Dalek armies at season's end - again! Sarah-Jane! Captain Jack! Martha!), stunt-casting (Kylie! Lee Evans!

You've pretty much summed-up why I prefer the new series. And quite what is wrong with sopa-opera storytelling - the most successful storytelling in television - in Who is beyond me.

David Tennant's acting has unfortunately deteriorated considerably since his debut to the point where he appears to gurn or goggle in every second scene. It's a real shame that his range has not always been well handled by certain directors.

I simply cannot agree. I find Tennant an extraordinarily accomplished actor and will be very sorry to see him go.

LOL! Well I guess we'll never reach agreement! McCoy's last season for me was brilliant and made the cancellation all the more gutting and - well - soap opera is soap opera- it's not Who to me, but fair enough if that gels with you.
I very much agree with Tybre's assessment of where his character has gone but I also acknowledge that Tennant will be a long shadow to step out from under.
I'm more than a little worried for Matt Smith in this regard...

On other topics... what do people think of Tom Baker's return in HORNETS' NEST?
After a bit of a dodgy start I loved Part One! Tom gradually re-warmed to the part and delivered some memorable moments, exhibiting that characteristic veering between mad-cap flippancy and deadly seriousness that defined his Doctor. I found it an interesting audio style overall - perhaps inferior to Big Finish's approach - in that the whole thing revolves around a lengthy series of monologues but the dialogue by Magrs was extremely well crafted. Absolutely shouted for joy when Noggins described the Doc as a nutter and he responded with "Wonderful isn't it?" Instant Classic Line!
Found the whole Mike Yates as Watson to Tom's Holmes interesting (the Doctor even has his own Mrs Hudson) although it became a little Bulldog Drummondish with the Doctor's dog (real, not tin!)... Still I found it to be a great listen.

Edited by Sniperscope, 02 October 2009 - 05:49 PM.

[Ernst Stavro Blofeld Jr.]

And The New Era Begins

Per the BBC website, the new logo will be released tomorrow at 8am tomorrow. I personally can't wait, as I've grown tired of the one they've been using since 2005.

[DamnCoffee]

Wow, fantastic.

I can't wait.

[Tybre]

And I am now doubly giddy. New titles being unveiled, can't wait! And as to the other half of my double giddiness, Big Finish is apparently considering doing a continuing EDA-ish sort of thing with the Seventh Doctor & the episodes that were written but never produced for seasons meant to follow Survival, pending results of how well their Tom Baker project goes (and who's expecting that to tank?). Just completely made my night, that bit of news.

[Zorin Industries]

As I suggested a while back...

DOCTOR WHO 2010 will have a fresh new titles, music and overall branding...



http://www.bbc.co.uk...ogo/index.shtml

[sharpshooter]

I love the new logo. Simple and effective. I'm glad they went ahead and did it.

[DamnCoffee]

Yeah I agree. The logo looks brilliant. So simple, but so effective. It reminds me of the 60's & 70's logos. I like the 'TARDIS' logo, too.

[sharpshooter]

The logo is a sign that they're going back to basics. It's sleek, retro and modern at the same time. I think it's definitely one of the best.

There's also pictures going around of Karen Gillan's Amy Pond looking very arresting in a police uniform. Smith is on location with her, wearing the 10th Doctor's battered clothing - so it's obviously taking place after his regeneration.