So, “Doctor Who” has reached its 43rd birthday. What condition it’s in depends on your point of view. For years, long-term fans hoped for its return, me included, and now it’s up-and-running some of us feel it would have been better left alone. I still don’t feel as though the programme, as I think of it, is actually back. It’s “Doctor Who”, Jim, but not as we know it! Anniversaries should be a time of celebration but not necessarily if the recipient is terminally ill. “Doctor Who” has rarely been more popular than it is now, maybe because it’s an altogether different beast from the show that ran between 1963 and 1989, in that it’s supposedly much slicker in its present state, or maybe because the marketing machine that persistently tells us it’s brilliant is simply better oiled than previously, even than what now seems like the halcyon days of John Nathan-Turner back in the Eighties.
Russell T Davies has produced nothing that remotely touches the quality of “The Caves of Androzani” or “Revelation of the Daleks” despite hiring the same director to work on Tennant’s opening year, presumably hoping that some of Graeme Harper’s magic would rub off on the new format. Even when RTD has got close, the executive producer seems intent on throwing a spanner in the works. In “The Empty Child”, for example, in an otherwise inventive two-part story, the only thing this supposedly creative production team could come up with, when Nancy blackmails the homeowner, was a homosexual extramarital affair with the butcher. Does Russell really think it’s hip to fill the minds of ten-year-old children with what boils down to indoctrination through crappy writing? Playing with fairies at the bottom of the garden, in amongst the prickly roses, is perhaps left better to shows that go out later, shows like “Torchwood”.
I suppose it could be argued that “Caves” goes over the top with its violence or that “Revelation” was too explicit in Jobel’s intentions towards Peri. If that is the case, why don’t these stories leave a bad taste in the mouth like some of the scenes in new “Doctor Who”? It doesn’t surprise me that Michael Grade has given the new series the thumbs up. I am surprised that Colin Baker is a fan. There are four serials I would much rather watch from season twenty-two than anything that has been produced in the last couple of years. Maybe I see “Doctor Who” in 1985 through rose-red ruby-tinted spectacles because these were the first serials I had the opportunity to video. But despite retaining these recordings, I’ve still purchased “Revelation”, “Vengeance on Varos” and “The Two Doctors” on DVD! Now, what I want to know is when is “Attack of the Cybermen” going to complete this quartet?!!
6 comments:
Interesting comments Tim. I agree with what you're saying about the classic series versus the new. I have felt disappointed by the new series as much as you I think. All the elements are there: money, energy, talent and passion - but somehow its not gelling (for me at least).
I'm far more excited by the prospect of the new Big Finish stuff on BBC7 than Season 3 of the new series!
For me, New Doctor Who is an action/adventure series, as opposed to the spooky, atmospheric sci-fi drama it once was.
Ah well...
Nice to hear from you again, Paul. I’m looking forward to listening to the new Paul McGann series too and the combination of him and Sheridan Smith certainly fills me with more optimistic enthusiasm than does the Tennant/Tate TV combo this coming Christmas!
I can see where you're coming from Time Warden, and as someone who is a fan of the original series (and remembers it first time round) it will always hold a special place in my heart. The Tom Baker years were a golden age for me. I love the original show, warts and all.
As to the new series, the style and formatting of the new series have undoubtedly altered but I think that's a necessity. And not entirely a bad thing. It just couldn't be made in the same way as before - it wouldn't hold an audience's attention otherwise. Dr Who in the 21st Century needs to be a more knowing and culturally aware programme. The dialogue needs to be zippier (even if some of the cultural references - e.g. the Kylie quote in "Idiot's Lantern" - are going a bit too far). Would viewers really accept a screaming, whining American girl in a bikini as a companion and equal to the Dr? Or a screaming, ultra-annoying ginger-haired computer programmer from Peas Pottage? With Rose we have someone genuine and real, an ordinary girl from a council estate working in a shop,who shares an equal relationship with the Dr and who is a person in her own right - inquistive, honest, brave and who doesn't go around screaming all the time.
And even if some of the old Who elements have changed, some of the most integral aspects remain, not least the eccentric and enigmatic qualities of the Dr. The show still manages to capture the sense of wonder felt by both the Dr and his companion (and audience) when encountering new life forms and worlds. There's drama and humour in equal parts. The TARDIS interior looks gorgeous and is a truly magnificent and alien design. The sonic screwdriver is still there to help out. And it's nice to see tributes to the past. The resurrection of both the Daleks and Cybermen was done extremely well I thought and both races were given an effective re-design whilst keeping them recognisable. And although some might argue that the return of Sarah-Jane was a big nostalgia trip, Lis Sladen was simply magnificent and slipped effortlessly back into her role, showing that she belongs as much in the Dr Who of today as of the past.
Okay, so I'll admit I'm not entirely sold on the 50 minute format, particularly with regard to the one-episode stories. There's something greatly appealing about having to wait the following week's installment to see what happens next. And it's hard to cram sufficient development of plot, ideas and character into a mere 50 minutes. I do think this says something about the short-attention span of the contemporary viewing public, and it would have been nice to see the production team having a bit more faith in our patience in this respect.
But on the plus side again, who can fail to agree that the production values have improved massively since the old days of cr*p special effects and cheap set designs? We now have decent special effects e.g. the Slitheen craft crashing into Big Ben; the Sycorax spaceship hovering menacingly over London on Xmas Day, the impossible planet orbiting the black hole; the Dalek/Cybermen battle. We have convincing-looking monsters, even the CGI ones e.g. the Gelth; the Dalek Emperor; the werewolf loose in Torchwood; the Satan monster in the pit. There are amazing sets e.g. the interior of Platform One; the hospital on New Earth; Torchwood tower.
Well I have rattled on for way too long - forgive me. But those are my main reasons for why the new version of "Who" appeals to me. As does the old. Both versions have to be taken in context to be fully appreciated, I feel. Thank you and good night!!
Thank you for leaving such an extensive comment. I hope I answer most, if not all, of your main points in my reply. I too remember “Doctor Who” first time round and almost from the beginning. My earliest memories are of an enormous matchbox and kitchen sink, eerie empty warehouses and a Dalek rising up out of the Thames. I’m told I watched it from the very beginning, though Season two is my earliest memory. Season five was my golden age probably because I was at that age when most impressionable! But I’ve rewatched what remains of it in adulthood and it feels as strong now as it was then.
Tom’s popularity is understandable as he completely captures the character of the Doctor. Watching the first half of “The Ark in Space” earlier this week, I was reminded just how brilliant the interaction between all three leads was back in 1975. Tom’s deeply sonorous voice and faux-bohemian charisma carry the show and more than compensate for any failings in the visual departments. Though he may at times have found his companions imbecilic, his comments to that effect, notably in “Revenge of the Cybermen”, never come across in the same unsavoury manner as the Doctor and Rose’s hurtful humiliation of Mickey at the beginning of “Rise of the Cybermen”. And, it actually pains me to say that, being a fan of the latter story’s director Graeme Harper!
Most of the new stories are one episode long so the problems you have outlined affect the bulk of the series. As you said, “there's something greatly appealing about having to wait until the following week's instalment to see what happens next. And it's hard to cram sufficient development of plot, ideas and character into a mere 45 minutes.” The original format wasn’t broken. Why should it be compromised other than to chase ratings? I don’t think enough of those “integral aspects” remain. Why can’t the Doctor be both eccentric and courteous instead of not remotely enigmatic but downright rude? It’s a deliberate rudeness too. It’s not as though he doesn’t know he’s doing it which makes him a bad role model at a time when children don’t need any negative encouragement. Even though the Doctor is now younger than I am, I still want to respect him.
You're welcome. Well, your memory stretches back considerably further than mine, Time Warden! Presumably because you are somewhat older than me (if you don't mind me saying!) The earliest thing I remember about "Who" was the scientists being exterminated by the Daleks in "Genesis" and being terrified by that. How wonderful that your first memory is the bit when the Dalek came out of the Thames ... an iconic moment!
True, Tom Baker has an amazing presence and you sum him up well.
I'm not totally sure about your comments about the new Dr and his rudeness. I did think the Christopher Eccleston incarnation was pretty abrupt and curt at times, with his constant "shut up" comments, which I didn't particularly like. But let's not forget that the very first incarnation of the Dr was a very tetchy, irascible old man who didn't tolerate fools gladly! So have things changed that much?
David Tennant doesn't seem as harsh, although he does have an annoying tendency to yell at times, in a rather unconvincing manner. His silly high-pitched whine can grate too. When he calms down and talks in a normal, serious tone, he can actually be quite compelling. We need to see more of that.
I guess the fact that the Dr can be less likeable at times and more critical of others eg Mickey, is a sign of the times. The Dr-Rose smugness was irritating, I agree, and I think RTD started to overplay their close relationship, at the expense of others, particularly in Series Two (this was when I started to like Rose less). But ultimately I don't think the Doc is some kind of monster. Deep down he respects Mickey and was proud of his decision to stay behind on the alternate Earth and close down the Cyber-factories. Although he can come across as rather brittle and abrupt at times, the Dr still has heart.(Sorry, make that two hearts...)
Just my thoughts anyway! Nice sharing them with you - thanks!
I’m afraid I’m old enough to have had a letter read out on “Junior Points of View” suggesting my Grandfather take over from William Hartnell when the actor went on holiday! Somehow, the first Doctor’s quick-tempered nature was endearing. When Ian warns him to mind his footing in “Dalek Invasion”, the Doctor replies “I’m not a halfwit” despite the warning having been for his own benefit, which is kind of amusing that he should so easily take offence. It’s easy to analyse this as an adult but as a child it was probably those lines that made him seem authoritative, likening him to older relatives whom one respected. I guess children just automatically looked up to adults more then.
After a very childish opening scene in “The Impossible Planet”, Tennant was actually at his most mature when he became reflective on religion in “The Satan Pit”, I think. Even here there was an attempt to undermine the seriousness of the debate giving daft names to alien belief systems (“Pash, pash” anyone?)! That whole repetition thing is irritating too (“Physics, physics, phy-sics” and “Mickety, Mick, Mickey”) but I suppose that’s their idea of entertainment. The problem is probably that we all have our own ideas about how “Doctor Who” should be made, who should play him and in what way and the beauty of the concept is that it is strong enough to survive long after Russell has moved on when someone else will, hopefully, revive the programme in another completely different way. I only hope I’m still alive to see it!!
Post a Comment