New Series of Doctor Who

[Dogg Thang]

Well I only watched the second episode and I have to admit to being pleasantly surprised. Unlike the Paul McGann thing, this didn't seem to be trying to be anything more than it is - Doctor Who. You guys who want a more serious Doctor Who in the vein of US sci-fi don't strike me as actually wanting Doctor Who. It is what it is and I applaud the makers for not attempting to americanise it or make it serious or, worse still, cool. I enjoyed it.

[Leon Retro]

The McGann Dr Who was a nasty cheap Hollywood made for tv pile of pap. It just had no substance or imagination; the whole thing was weak.

This new DW isn't perfect, but has enough quality to be watchable. I like the acting and scripting, though I have to agree that it does reek of CBBC in overall look.

I actually look forward to each episode; which proves in my mind that it's a decent effort.

[Kotatsu Neko]

Bring on the daleks I say. That's what I'm waiting for.

And will the cybermen make an appearance?

[E. Randy Dupre]

And this is clearly a different Dr. Who to the others. Much darker, much more troubled. Much more complex. The last one they tried to give some semblence of depth to was Colin Baker's portrayal and his version of the Doctor got axed before the character was allowed to develop (Colin Baker had been told when he started the plan was to create a richer, more complex Who. Having him strangle his assistant on day one, was too taboo for the existing audience however and it didn't do the show any favours).

Not quite true, imo. There's nothing shown so far that suggests that this Doctor is any more or less complex than any of his previous (re)incarnations. Davidson's version was a deeply flawed and naive man, who tended to win the day out of pure luck rather than judgement, and McCoy's was supposed to be hiding some big, dark secret (which, due to the cancellation, we never saw revealed in the TV series). The character's never been one-dimensional and has always had at least two contrasting emotions going on - check Hartnell's strict harshness balanced with a sort of grandfatherly love, Troughton's mix of bravery and cowardice, and so on. So far, Eccleston and RTD haven't really done anything to move away from this template (and, it could be argued, nor should they). The two conflicting emotions are still there, this time with the weird too-jolly jollity and the deep loneliness.

I'm also sure that this *is* in traditional Who continuity. It's just that RTD's letting the continuity freaks have the occasional small but tasty morsel, rather than relying on that continuity to become any sort of driving factor behind the show (which is where a lot of the stories from Davidson's version fell down - they were entirely unintelligable to people who didn't already know the show).

Colin Baker's version showed a fundamental lack of understanding on the part of everyone involved about exactly what it was that made the character and series appealing. You can suggest a deeper undercurrent without having to ham it up. You can create a complex character without underestimating the intelligence of your audience by effectively having him yell "LOOK HOW COMPLEX I AM!" every time he's on the screen.

Agree with Dogg on the repeated rubbish about US SF. It's like people don't understand that there are different types of SF, at least in terms of literature. I suppose you can shrink the genres of written SF down to three types: that which is basically people with a scientific background using their novels to theorise about the future in technological terms; that which is about spaceships shooting each other and robots with laser beam eyes; and that which uses the elements of the previous two as a cover for the author's philosophical musings on the human condition. The first of those three, to the best of my knowledge, has never been translated to film or television. The second is what makes up the vast majority of American TV and movie SF. The third is almost as rare as the first, only popping up in movies every now and again (definitely Gattica and the original Solaris, and things like Dark City and Strange Days at a stretch).

Sometimes TV will attempt a mix of 2 and 3, and that's where Doctor Who fits in. To be fair to the US, Star Trek also tries to do it, but it's ham-fisted, patronising and obvious. Who has equally simple moral points to make, but manages to make them without talking down to its primary audience (kids) or disappearing up its own arse.

[E. Randy Dupre]

The McGann Dr Who was a nasty cheap Hollywood made for tv pile of pap. It just had no substance or imagination; the whole thing was weak.

I get kind of fed up with everyone slagging the TV movie, I've got to admit. It did an awful lot of things wrong, for sure, but it also did some things very right. We got the regeneration sequence. McCoy got his own personalised TARDIS, and it fit in with his characterisation perfectly - the TARDIS interior can be whatever the character wants it to be, and I could completely believe that McCoy's Doc would have turned it into a leather and wood gentlemen's club. McGann was a good fit for the character.

It was bad, but it was far from all bad.

[Concept]

Interesting theory, Randy. Have you ever seen the series Firefly?

I recently came across it and found it superb, and it seemed to cover a variety of ideas. Shame it was cancelled.

[E. Randy Dupre]

I haven't, no. Stuck with terrestrial telly, unfortunately. What I know of the basic synopsis for it had a whiff of the generic - the insectoid ship populated with rebels has now been done three times in recent years, with Lexx, Farscape and this - but I know Whedon likes his analogies, so I presume he used the template to pull off the mix of philosophy and robot chicks, yeah?

[anephric]

Firefly's magnificent. And I'm a certified Whedon-hater. And I still loved it.

And it's easier to distill SF down to two types: "hard" and "soft" (or if you really want to piss Star Wars fanboys off, "real" and "fake").

And I could list for days "hard" SF films beyond Gattaca (which I found to be a hodge-podge of many better artists' work) and the like... Phase IV? 2001? The Andromeda Strain?

Strange Days is, to me, a perfect example of a "fake" SF film.

[anephric]

I haven't, no. Stuck with terrestrial telly, unfortunately. What I know of the basic synopsis for it had a whiff of the generic - the insectoid ship populated with rebels has now been done three times in recent years, with Lexx, Farscape and this - but I know Whedon likes his analogies, so I presume he used the template to pull off the mix of philosophy and robot chicks, yeah?

Actually, it's not terribly SF (it's an antebellum American Civil War scenario in space) but the characterisations are superb - leagues away from Buffy.

[Concept]

You're right.The characterisation is what made it work. That and the fact, stylistically, it combined a whole cross-reference of cultures and ages into the mix for its identity.

I'm hoping the current series of Doctor Who will expand on its central characters too.

[E. Randy Dupre]

And it's easier to distill SF down to two types: "hard" and "soft" (or if you really want to piss Star Wars fanboys off, "real" and "fake").

I suppose, and I was going to use the 'hard' moniker for the first of those three distinctions I made, but that doesn't leave any room to distinguish between, say, Phil K Dick and Alastair Reynolds. Both would have to be classed as soft SF, even though their work does markedly different things.

And I could list for days "hard" SF films beyond Gattaca (which I found to be a hodge-podge of many better artists' work) and the like... Phase IV? 2001? The Andromeda Strain?

Now that you mention it, 2001's an odd one. There's no doubt that as far as Clarke was concerned it was hard SF, with the guff about things like having a ship slingshot around a moon for extra boost being the story's driving force, but Kubrick came at the same material from a completely different, completely humanistic and 'soft' angle. When I say 'hard', I think I mean things which almost completely ignore (or fudge over) the importance of anything other than the details of the tech - Stephen Baxter's a good fit.

[E. Randy Dupre]

Sorry, I think I'm probably making this discussion a bit messy by talking about written SF and televised/filmed SF at the same time. I'd agree that the black and white/hard and soft distinction is one that's pretty accurate as far as television and movies are concerned.

[Ian(not Ian)]

I think the new Doctor Who is enjoyable hokum, Which it could be argued all the Doctors have been in the past.
The 'acting' is ok, the plots and scripts average. Typical Doctor Who really.

Particular mention in my opinion must go the second episode's rip-off of the Restaurant at the end of the Universe, and the below average attempts at ironic humour such as the i-Pod gag. Douglas Adams must be de-materialising in his grave.

I must agree with earlier posts regarding the length of the episodes, the BBC must make them multi-part (and not just 2-part) to get the best results.

Finally....Once again the BBC's website is touting the same old faces for the part of the next Doctor....E-Grant, Nighy and co....Why on Earth dont they just open it to all-comers?
I'm willing to bet there are fine actors out there who would jump at the chance to play the Time Lord and indeed The Master*. If only the BBC would desist from forcing the viewing millions to choose the 'best' from a 'shortlist' of rubbish.

* Never dead. Not in a million years.

[cassidy]

Firefly's magnificent. And I'm a certified Whedon-hater. And I still loved it.

And it's easier to distill SF down to two types: "hard" and "soft" (or if you really want to piss Star Wars fanboys off, "real" and "fake").

And I could list for days "hard" SF films beyond Gattaca (which I found to be a hodge-podge of many better artists' work) and the like... Phase IV? 2001? The Andromeda Strain?

Strange Days is, to me, a perfect example of a "fake" SF film.

I love Firefly and Doctor Who

Oh anephric. I cant watch Phase IV it freaks me out. Ants theres too many already.

[Concept]

Saw the second episode of this yesterday.

Better, much better than the first. Greater visual inventiveness, and in terms of direction and editing, it gelled together more fluently