So...what did you all think of the new Dr. Who?

shamrock_uk · 04-18-2005, 01:30 PM

I've just seen the first episode and it really was quite good! Much better than I was expecting it to be!

Ecclestone may look like someone you'd see down the pub, but he has such an infectious smile and comes across as being mad enough to pull off the Doctor Who role!

Rose was acceptable, she got better as the ep went on, although there was the occasional cheesy line. The climax felt a little...wrong:

(Spoilers)
#
#
#
I was wondering if she was ever going to knock the test tube in!

Still, I must say I was impressed, its reinvented but not destroyed and I'm looking forward to seeing the rest!

[ 04-18-2005, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Thoran · 04-18-2005, 05:23 PM

hehe... we just got the old doctor who on DVD (The Key to Time episodes).

Great stuff! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Grojlach · 04-21-2005, 05:09 PM

Out of curiosity... As someone completely unfamiliar with any Dr. Who backstory and the 26 previous seasons, how fanboy-focused is this new Dr. Who? Can I watch and enjoy it relatively easy without feeling lost?

shamrock_uk · 04-21-2005, 05:16 PM

Yes, it's designed for the masses [img]smile.gif[/img] It's getting audiences of around 9 million in the UK which is very high for any programme.

You have to accept (especially with the first episode) that there is a certain amount of 'not taking itself seriously'. If you're the kind of person who can't suspend disbelief when you watch a programme then maybe don't bother, otherwise go for it!

The first ep is the worst of the three I've seen (although still quite enjoyable), number 2 is really quite sad and very well done. Number 3 has a 'Next Generation go back in time on away mission' feel to it which was great.

I'm loving it, and if you like that sort of thing then so will you [img]smile.gif[/img] No fanboy credentials required!

CerebroDragon · 04-23-2005, 01:50 PM

A close friend of mine sent me his review of the new Dr Who. He's an extremely passionate fan and actually got me into religiously watching the show. Its currently getting re-run on the ABC here at the moment and I'm quite overjoyed to say the least! We're up to the Key To Time season. Tom Baker well and truly in the swing of his humourous style now. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I think you'll find his thougthts in fairly direct contrast to yours, shamrock. But admittedly I'm still waiting to make up my own verdict.
I'll post it here in order to hopefully incite some more detailed discussion.

Doctor Who (2005) (Review by Stacy Livitsanis)

– Episode 01, "Rose", Written by Russel T. Davies

A new series of Doctor Who is what fans of the show have wanted for the last 16 years. Finally, there is something to give their lives meaning again, ever since the show was permanently 'rested' in 1989. As one of those lifelong nutbag fans, I had a surprisingly blasé reaction to the news of a new series. Knowing, as I so smugly and arrogantly did, that it couldn't be any good, I ignored all the information about the new show, dismissing it as a trifle, something I needn't be concerned with any more. But the old nerdy habits which I had been slowly trying to kill off for the past few years rose up and possessed me again. Thus I've downloaded the first episode of the new series, and watched it intently, desperately hoping to be intrigued and entertained on some level. Alas, it was not to be.

I didn't want it to be awful, I just knew that it would be. It didn't take long. Within the first 15 seconds I knew there was no possibility that this could be a good show. The opening titles are quite tolerable; there's a perfunctory CGI sequence of the Tardis flying through the time-space vortex, which looks exactly like the flying-through-the-Stargate effect on Stargate. But it does use the original theme music, with no souped-up, tricked-out remixing or pumping up – it's the original 1963 Delia Derbyshire arrangement of Ron Grainer's tune; and the Tardis is still a blue Police Box, with the same wheezing dematerialisation sound effect. All very good. But everything else about the show apart from that falls utterly flat. The first scene is a sequence where Rose (Billie Piper) wakes up and gets ready for work, in a series of quick edits and wacky angles and accompanied by some of the worst music I've ever heard. It really is like something from Degrassi High. No awe, mystery, dread, intrigue, atmosphere. Bubbly, cute and sickening.

What is most disappointing and depressing about this show is how bland, boring, and mediocre it is. It's light, breezy, forgettable, disposable, with no aspirations to be anything more. If it had been spectacularly bad, with moments of stunning awfulness which you can't quite believe you're seeing, it might have at least been enjoyable and memorable on that level. Unfortunately this is a totally unremarkable romp with nothing to distinguish it from any other bland, forgettable TV show. Without the collective memory and recognition of the name of the old series to rest on, this show would, and probably it will be, disregarded as just another shallow, empty kids show. It will pass away quietly, having made no impact whatsoever. I can't see it having much of an impact on people new to Doctor Who, it's so woefully uninspiring. Not the sort of thing upon which fanatical cults are based.

The makers of this show claimed, sensibly but ultimately unsuccessfully, to be forging a new path. They would certainly not slavishly adhere to the ludicrous demands of a handful of obsessive fans who wouldn't be happy no matter what they came up with. This will be a new show, where we don't have to stick to any inviolable established continuity, like on Star Trek, where the new shows must all perfectly fit in somewhere on the imaginary timeline. Doctor Who was never so strict with it's own internal continuity, even if the fans foolishly tried to make all of it fit in somewhere.

So forget about whether this Doctor follows on from Paul McGann in the 1996 TV movie and is therefore the ninth regeneration, or 'the ninth Doctor'. He's just an alien called the Doctor, travelling through time and space in his Tardis. That's all you need to make a really excellent and intriguing science-fiction TV show. Any further background information and references culled from the 26-year history of the show called Doctor Who which finished in 1989 are irrelevant. If you're going to start fresh, then bloody do so. Don't make the first episode a poor rehash of an old one. But that's what has happened here.

"Rose" is loosely a remake of Jon Pertwee's first story, Spearhead from Space. Spearhead from Space, you will recall, was the one with the Autons, the plastic mannequins with lasers in their hands who came to life in shop windows and rampaged through the streets killing everyone, indiscriminately. It's one of the most famous and terrifying scenes in Doctor Who's history, and it's been recreated here, but with none of the impact and genuine uncanny dread that made the original so memorable. And the original story had a perfectly ludicrous conclusion with the Doctor grappling with some rubber tentacles. But anyone who laughs at the dodgy effects on old episodes of Doctor Who, but takes the dodgy CGI in modern shows seriously is an idiot. The CGI here is painful to watch. How is that an improvement? The old, crappy effects had more impact. Unless used very skilfully, CGI is always awful. End of story.

In this episode, the alien threat, if it can be called that, is really an aside to establishing Rose Tyler as the companion. She has much more screen time than the Doctor in this episode. Billie Piper is notable in the role mainly because she's an incredibly gorgeous young woman whose clothes don't emphasise her voluptuous figure and who isn't presented solely as a sexy babe. Will that change in later episodes as she gets tarted up in more revealing outfits? Hopefully not. Yes, I said not. Okay, she's very beautiful but I'd much rather she be a real person, not a male fantasy figure. Either way, it doesn't matter, as her character isn't very interesting. She meets the Doctor in an unlikely way, gets inexorably involved in the plot, helps to solve it and by the end of the episode decides to join him in the Tardis. Her dialogue, like everyone's, is superficial and banal. At least she has a good enough voice, with a thick accent. Despite her looks, she's not some squeaking Barbie doll like Sarah Michelle Gellar or so many other disgusting preening pop princesses who can't even speak properly.

On the basis of this first episode, it's obvious that in trying to please a broader market, the makers have ensured the show's total blandness. It wouldn't be feasible to base the show around what the fans of the old show want, because that would alienate the larger potential audience who don't consider themselves fans, is the argument. Utter bollocks. Maybe doing something genuinely interesting, unusual, strange, esoteric, weird and different would make for more interesting and challenging viewing. Of course it would, and that's why it's not going to happen. Old school fans should realise this: there was no way this new Doctor Who was ever going to be any good. TV works too differently now. There is no risk, no room for experimentation, no reaching beyond what we think will sell. So of course this was always going to play it safe and be a tedious mess. Keep in mind I'm comparing this to the old series and not to other shows on TV right now. Compared to most shows, this isn't really that awful. But that's like saying, 'that piece of shit there doesn't smell quite as bad as the rest'. It's still shit.

One remarkable thing about the old Doctor Who was how it could be ridiculously camp and completely serious at the same time. This seems to be impossible now. The shifting between seemingly conflicting tones and moods, sometimes unconsciously, is a rare occurrence in TV today. You could be laughing at the blatant shortcomings of the production and still be totally enthralled and involved in the narrative, thanks to the show being staged with conviction and earnestness, if not with adequate resources, not to forget a young audience always willing to suspend disbelief. Kids today expect more is the mantra. They won't tolerate that kind of dodginess anymore. Again, horseshit. I don't believe audiences have really changed that much.

The attitude is that today's kids can't appreciate something if it doesn't have rapid editing, super slick production values, CGI galore and in-your-face smartarse characters who talk solely in ironic references. Total twang. A good story's still a good story just the same as long ago. If the story and characters are interesting and engaging and it's played with conviction then whatever else the show has is immaterial. I didn't laugh at the poor effects on the old show, that was obvious. Why even remark on such a thing? Of course the effects are poor. Of course the sets are wobbly. So? That's not the point. I was watching it for the story and the characters. If the show falls down in those areas then it deserves criticism. If it has stunning special effects but is lacking in all other areas, particularly the dramatic ones, then it is worthless, by definition (like Star Wars). And just incidentally, Doctor Who often had amazingly good production design and quite innovative special effects, especially considering the limited time and budget available to the production team.

As I've already made obvious, it's quite impossible to have a reaction to this new show without constantly thinking of the original series and the fact that I grew up with it, which naturally means I can't look at the new show objectively. I tried to think of how this might be perceived by an audience unfamiliar with a show called Doctor Who made years before they were born. Couldn't do it. Too subjective. I'll work on it.

Christopher Eccleston doesn't capture the character of The Doctor very well. His dialogue, once again, is all self-consciously quirky one-liners, which don't make him endearing. He's not very convincing as a loveably eccentric but highly knowledgeable alien, as every aspect of the character is so obviously phoney and calculated. You don't believe in him because he's too cartoony, safe and tiresomely wacky. He's a very good actor, but he doesn't feel right in this role. And, unforgivably, there is not a single moment of genuine seriousness in the whole show. At one moment the Doctor starts to waffle on to Rose about his cosmic awareness of things greater than humans can know and experience, and the moment is desperately reaching for some kind of gravity and wonderment, but it doesn't get near it. There is no mystery, majesty, wonder, whimsy, subtlety, curiosity. It's dull and dreary. The music swells to let us know this bit is serious, but not really, as it moves quickly on to the next bit of silliness, any attempt at meaningfulness duly forgotten.

The incidental music throughout the show is quite awful. Lest we forget that Doctor Who in the sixties and seventies had some of the most extraordinary experimental electronic music heard anywhere. Strange, eerie ambient, analogue electric tonalities that had a mesmerising effect. The music here is gauche, over-bearing, with no character or spirit. It's distracting in the worst way, as you can't not notice it. It detracts and irritates.

The treatment of death is another big problem with this show, in that apparently there isn't any. You saw more death and killings in Doctor Who than in any other 'children's' show, sometimes controversially. That's changed. No on-screen deaths here, even though it's obvious people are getting killed. They didn't even kill off Rose's bloody idiot boyfriend. You think he's dead. He gets swallowed by a horrible CGI plastic wheelie bin. And just to make sure there's not even a hint of an actual threat or menace in that moment, the bin burps, in a grotesquely banal 'humourous' way, after eating him. And then there's a hasty and badly staged reveal towards the end and we see that oh, he wasn't dead after all. Pissweak is the word. Also gutless and poofy.

This is all in keeping with the insufferably cheery, facile tone of the whole show. Every line of dialogue is a throwaway one-liner, no one has an actual conversation, their lines are written as if they're in a commercial (which of course they are), and no one is ever serious about anything. Nothing's at stake, there is no threat and no consequences. You can keep saying the world will end in a few hours unless we stop these alien invaders all you like, but unless you really believe that and take it seriously, then why should we? What's the point? Even when Tom Baker as the Doctor was clowning around and being silly, you still knew he was taking the situation seriously. You see, we're not meant to take anything seriously. It's all just a bit of fun. No need to get really involved or concerned. Well, sorry but that's precisely what I want from dramatic narratives – I need to take it seriously on some level. That's not going to happen here.

But that 'no death' rule is what gets me. What is that saying about the portrayal of death and violence on TV today and on shows that are targeted to children? Ask people who saw Doctor Who when they were kids and they'll tell you how scary it was. Even if they dismiss it as rubbish when they reach puberty (except for those few nerds who, like me, remain inexplicably cast in it's spell throughout their adult lives), they remember being frightened of it as kids. I remember being terrified of the mummies in Pyramids of Mars, one of the best stories from Tom Baker's era. They had no faces, but they were relentless and kept coming. Scared the hell out of me as a six-year-old, for which I'm very glad and grateful. Good memories. But nowadays, no one wants the kids to get upset about anything, or be scared or frightened by the nasty TV shows. It's weak and pointless. [This point needs more elaboration]

This is not trying to scare anyone. Everyone's happy and frivolous, in a really annoying, stupid way that is horribly unnatural. None of the withering, biting cynicism or straightforward dramatic situations you got in the old series. Now it's all the standard hip, ironic, detached self-awareness that means no one can take anything seriously. There cannot be a real threat. You can't feel for the characters because everything they say is so boringly smartarse you just want them to piss off and for some real people to show up and do it properly.

So, a failure? I think so. Another great opportunity missed and wasted. So much potential and possibility thrown away. I will, like a fool, watch every single episode when it is shown on ABC, whenever that is. Maybe it will get better. Drop the cheesiness, get serious and stop being so shallow. Yeah, right.

shamrock_uk · 04-23-2005, 02:13 PM

Blimey! I'll post a detailed response in the next couple of days.

Just a few quick points - personally I rather like the one-liners and found some of them rather amusing. I will admit to finding Rose's lines very cheesy though - that was the biggest annoyance for me.

I certainly don't have your friends fan credentials - I was too late for Doctor Who on TV, but did read millions of the books. I recently began purchasing some of the DVDs but its kindof an expensive hobby so its going slowly [img]smile.gif[/img]

I also approached it with a healthy dose of scepticism yet was pleasantly surprised. Having watched the first two again, the pilot episode is definitely the 'introduce Rose' and the 'lets not turn off undecided viewers immediately' one. Episode 2 deals in more depth with the Doctor's past, although probably not in enough detail to satisfy your friend. The reason it did not feature in the first episode is made clear however and in a fairly satisfying way.

Is Chris Ecclestone ever going to be another Tom Baker, well no. But I honestly found that he grew on me, especially in episodes 2 and 3 - he's just genuinely funny in places. As the Doctor gets more screenplay he is able to give more time to developing both the serious side and the quirky side so it doesn't appear to be as disjointed.

I do think however that Ecclestone deliberately adds an element of disjointedness to his character though - he quite literally gives the Doctor what I would describe as mood swings in the second episode. He's making the Doctor his own, and I like it [img]smile.gif[/img] It just takes a couple of episodes to get used to it.

I think the new series has been put together by some people who loved and enjoyed the original Doctor Who but are keen to ensure it doesn't take itself too seriously. If that's the price for good audience figures and continuing episodes then I'm willing to pay it

CerebroDragon · 04-24-2005, 12:43 AM

I believe Christopher Ecclestone has already quit after only his first season, which is an unprecedented short period for any one playing the Dr. That's not including 'Dr 9', Paul McGann of course, who was only in the horribly hollywoodised telemovie. The lack of continuity as such to the old series doesn't meke this fact terribly relevant though.

I believe his replacement will be David Tennant, whom to be honest I haven't seen in action enough to know if he is suitable enough for the role. Apparently the makers were keen to get the concept of "regeneration" over to the 'new generation' of viewers very quickly. Pardon me for being cynical, but it seems to me as if its more like a way of coping with short attention spans.
I also rue the fact that Ecclestone feared being 'typecast' and that he found the going gruelling.

More info here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...io/4395849.stm

I'm still waiting for a friend to send me some episodes however, to make up my own mind.

Cheers,
CerebroDragon

P.S: Good job on the DVD collecting [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

shamrock_uk · 05-02-2005, 06:41 PM

A spoiler-free review of the fantastic episode entitled Dalek. Eps 4 and 5 were really good, but this one was amazing! It just keeps getting better and better on a nice curve [img]smile.gif[/img]

Telwyn · 05-03-2005, 08:32 AM

Dalek was certainly the best episode in the new series. Despite the numerous changes, it still felt like a Dalek, and yes, even after all these years, it still felt scary. Something about the way it just continued on slowly and unstoppable got my goosebumps up. It also hit all the emotional strings just right. If the rest of the series lives up to this quality, it will be pretty awesome.

PS: Any theories on this Bad Wolf theme? I just noticed that the second to last episode has been announced as being entitled Bad Wolf. All the subtle references have been intriguing.

[ 05-03-2005, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: Telwyn ]

shamrock_uk · 05-03-2005, 02:35 PM

Lol, I think i've completely missed these references! Although didn't the graffiti say 'wolf'?

04-23-2005, 01:50 PM	#5
CerebroDragon Red Wizard of Thay Join Date: March 2, 2003 Location: Ballarat, Australia. Age: 45 Posts: 878	A close friend of mine sent me his review of the new Dr Who. He's an extremely passionate fan and actually got me into religiously watching the show. Its currently getting re-run on the ABC here at the moment and I'm quite overjoyed to say the least! We're up to the Key To Time season. Tom Baker well and truly in the swing of his humourous style now. [img]smile.gif[/img] I think you'll find his thougthts in fairly direct contrast to yours, shamrock. But admittedly I'm still waiting to make up my own verdict. I'll post it here in order to hopefully incite some more detailed discussion. Doctor Who (2005) (Review by Stacy Livitsanis) – Episode 01, "Rose", Written by Russel T. Davies A new series of Doctor Who is what fans of the show have wanted for the last 16 years. Finally, there is something to give their lives meaning again, ever since the show was permanently 'rested' in 1989. As one of those lifelong nutbag fans, I had a surprisingly blasé reaction to the news of a new series. Knowing, as I so smugly and arrogantly did, that it couldn't be any good, I ignored all the information about the new show, dismissing it as a trifle, something I needn't be concerned with any more. But the old nerdy habits which I had been slowly trying to kill off for the past few years rose up and possessed me again. Thus I've downloaded the first episode of the new series, and watched it intently, desperately hoping to be intrigued and entertained on some level. Alas, it was not to be. I didn't want it to be awful, I just knew that it would be. It didn't take long. Within the first 15 seconds I knew there was no possibility that this could be a good show. The opening titles are quite tolerable; there's a perfunctory CGI sequence of the Tardis flying through the time-space vortex, which looks exactly like the flying-through-the-Stargate effect on Stargate. But it does use the original theme music, with no souped-up, tricked-out remixing or pumping up – it's the original 1963 Delia Derbyshire arrangement of Ron Grainer's tune; and the Tardis is still a blue Police Box, with the same wheezing dematerialisation sound effect. All very good. But everything else about the show apart from that falls utterly flat. The first scene is a sequence where Rose (Billie Piper) wakes up and gets ready for work, in a series of quick edits and wacky angles and accompanied by some of the worst music I've ever heard. It really is like something from Degrassi High. No awe, mystery, dread, intrigue, atmosphere. Bubbly, cute and sickening. What is most disappointing and depressing about this show is how bland, boring, and mediocre it is. It's light, breezy, forgettable, disposable, with no aspirations to be anything more. If it had been spectacularly bad, with moments of stunning awfulness which you can't quite believe you're seeing, it might have at least been enjoyable and memorable on that level. Unfortunately this is a totally unremarkable romp with nothing to distinguish it from any other bland, forgettable TV show. Without the collective memory and recognition of the name of the old series to rest on, this show would, and probably it will be, disregarded as just another shallow, empty kids show. It will pass away quietly, having made no impact whatsoever. I can't see it having much of an impact on people new to Doctor Who, it's so woefully uninspiring. Not the sort of thing upon which fanatical cults are based. The makers of this show claimed, sensibly but ultimately unsuccessfully, to be forging a new path. They would certainly not slavishly adhere to the ludicrous demands of a handful of obsessive fans who wouldn't be happy no matter what they came up with. This will be a new show, where we don't have to stick to any inviolable established continuity, like on Star Trek, where the new shows must all perfectly fit in somewhere on the imaginary timeline. Doctor Who was never so strict with it's own internal continuity, even if the fans foolishly tried to make all of it fit in somewhere. So forget about whether this Doctor follows on from Paul McGann in the 1996 TV movie and is therefore the ninth regeneration, or 'the ninth Doctor'. He's just an alien called the Doctor, travelling through time and space in his Tardis. That's all you need to make a really excellent and intriguing science-fiction TV show. Any further background information and references culled from the 26-year history of the show called Doctor Who which finished in 1989 are irrelevant. If you're going to start fresh, then bloody do so. Don't make the first episode a poor rehash of an old one. But that's what has happened here. "Rose" is loosely a remake of Jon Pertwee's first story, Spearhead from Space. Spearhead from Space, you will recall, was the one with the Autons, the plastic mannequins with lasers in their hands who came to life in shop windows and rampaged through the streets killing everyone, indiscriminately. It's one of the most famous and terrifying scenes in Doctor Who's history, and it's been recreated here, but with none of the impact and genuine uncanny dread that made the original so memorable. And the original story had a perfectly ludicrous conclusion with the Doctor grappling with some rubber tentacles. But anyone who laughs at the dodgy effects on old episodes of Doctor Who, but takes the dodgy CGI in modern shows seriously is an idiot. The CGI here is painful to watch. How is that an improvement? The old, crappy effects had more impact. Unless used very skilfully, CGI is always awful. End of story. In this episode, the alien threat, if it can be called that, is really an aside to establishing Rose Tyler as the companion. She has much more screen time than the Doctor in this episode. Billie Piper is notable in the role mainly because she's an incredibly gorgeous young woman whose clothes don't emphasise her voluptuous figure and who isn't presented solely as a sexy babe. Will that change in later episodes as she gets tarted up in more revealing outfits? Hopefully not. Yes, I said not. Okay, she's very beautiful but I'd much rather she be a real person, not a male fantasy figure. Either way, it doesn't matter, as her character isn't very interesting. She meets the Doctor in an unlikely way, gets inexorably involved in the plot, helps to solve it and by the end of the episode decides to join him in the Tardis. Her dialogue, like everyone's, is superficial and banal. At least she has a good enough voice, with a thick accent. Despite her looks, she's not some squeaking Barbie doll like Sarah Michelle Gellar or so many other disgusting preening pop princesses who can't even speak properly. On the basis of this first episode, it's obvious that in trying to please a broader market, the makers have ensured the show's total blandness. It wouldn't be feasible to base the show around what the fans of the old show want, because that would alienate the larger potential audience who don't consider themselves fans, is the argument. Utter bollocks. Maybe doing something genuinely interesting, unusual, strange, esoteric, weird and different would make for more interesting and challenging viewing. Of course it would, and that's why it's not going to happen. Old school fans should realise this: there was no way this new Doctor Who was ever going to be any good. TV works too differently now. There is no risk, no room for experimentation, no reaching beyond what we think will sell. So of course this was always going to play it safe and be a tedious mess. Keep in mind I'm comparing this to the old series and not to other shows on TV right now. Compared to most shows, this isn't really that awful. But that's like saying, 'that piece of shit there doesn't smell quite as bad as the rest'. It's still shit. One remarkable thing about the old Doctor Who was how it could be ridiculously camp and completely serious at the same time. This seems to be impossible now. The shifting between seemingly conflicting tones and moods, sometimes unconsciously, is a rare occurrence in TV today. You could be laughing at the blatant shortcomings of the production and still be totally enthralled and involved in the narrative, thanks to the show being staged with conviction and earnestness, if not with adequate resources, not to forget a young audience always willing to suspend disbelief. Kids today expect more is the mantra. They won't tolerate that kind of dodginess anymore. Again, horseshit. I don't believe audiences have really changed that much. The attitude is that today's kids can't appreciate something if it doesn't have rapid editing, super slick production values, CGI galore and in-your-face smartarse characters who talk solely in ironic references. Total twang. A good story's still a good story just the same as long ago. If the story and characters are interesting and engaging and it's played with conviction then whatever else the show has is immaterial. I didn't laugh at the poor effects on the old show, that was obvious. Why even remark on such a thing? Of course the effects are poor. Of course the sets are wobbly. So? That's not the point. I was watching it for the story and the characters. If the show falls down in those areas then it deserves criticism. If it has stunning special effects but is lacking in all other areas, particularly the dramatic ones, then it is worthless, by definition (like Star Wars). And just incidentally, Doctor Who often had amazingly good production design and quite innovative special effects, especially considering the limited time and budget available to the production team. As I've already made obvious, it's quite impossible to have a reaction to this new show without constantly thinking of the original series and the fact that I grew up with it, which naturally means I can't look at the new show objectively. I tried to think of how this might be perceived by an audience unfamiliar with a show called Doctor Who made years before they were born. Couldn't do it. Too subjective. I'll work on it. Christopher Eccleston doesn't capture the character of The Doctor very well. His dialogue, once again, is all self-consciously quirky one-liners, which don't make him endearing. He's not very convincing as a loveably eccentric but highly knowledgeable alien, as every aspect of the character is so obviously phoney and calculated. You don't believe in him because he's too cartoony, safe and tiresomely wacky. He's a very good actor, but he doesn't feel right in this role. And, unforgivably, there is not a single moment of genuine seriousness in the whole show. At one moment the Doctor starts to waffle on to Rose about his cosmic awareness of things greater than humans can know and experience, and the moment is desperately reaching for some kind of gravity and wonderment, but it doesn't get near it. There is no mystery, majesty, wonder, whimsy, subtlety, curiosity. It's dull and dreary. The music swells to let us know this bit is serious, but not really, as it moves quickly on to the next bit of silliness, any attempt at meaningfulness duly forgotten. The incidental music throughout the show is quite awful. Lest we forget that Doctor Who in the sixties and seventies had some of the most extraordinary experimental electronic music heard anywhere. Strange, eerie ambient, analogue electric tonalities that had a mesmerising effect. The music here is gauche, over-bearing, with no character or spirit. It's distracting in the worst way, as you can't not notice it. It detracts and irritates. The treatment of death is another big problem with this show, in that apparently there isn't any. You saw more death and killings in Doctor Who than in any other 'children's' show, sometimes controversially. That's changed. No on-screen deaths here, even though it's obvious people are getting killed. They didn't even kill off Rose's bloody idiot boyfriend. You think he's dead. He gets swallowed by a horrible CGI plastic wheelie bin. And just to make sure there's not even a hint of an actual threat or menace in that moment, the bin burps, in a grotesquely banal 'humourous' way, after eating him. And then there's a hasty and badly staged reveal towards the end and we see that oh, he wasn't dead after all. Pissweak is the word. Also gutless and poofy. This is all in keeping with the insufferably cheery, facile tone of the whole show. Every line of dialogue is a throwaway one-liner, no one has an actual conversation, their lines are written as if they're in a commercial (which of course they are), and no one is ever serious about anything. Nothing's at stake, there is no threat and no consequences. You can keep saying the world will end in a few hours unless we stop these alien invaders all you like, but unless you really believe that and take it seriously, then why should we? What's the point? Even when Tom Baker as the Doctor was clowning around and being silly, you still knew he was taking the situation seriously. You see, we're not meant to take anything seriously. It's all just a bit of fun. No need to get really involved or concerned. Well, sorry but that's precisely what I want from dramatic narratives – I need to take it seriously on some level. That's not going to happen here. But that 'no death' rule is what gets me. What is that saying about the portrayal of death and violence on TV today and on shows that are targeted to children? Ask people who saw Doctor Who when they were kids and they'll tell you how scary it was. Even if they dismiss it as rubbish when they reach puberty (except for those few nerds who, like me, remain inexplicably cast in it's spell throughout their adult lives), they remember being frightened of it as kids. I remember being terrified of the mummies in Pyramids of Mars, one of the best stories from Tom Baker's era. They had no faces, but they were relentless and kept coming. Scared the hell out of me as a six-year-old, for which I'm very glad and grateful. Good memories. But nowadays, no one wants the kids to get upset about anything, or be scared or frightened by the nasty TV shows. It's weak and pointless. [This point needs more elaboration] This is not trying to scare anyone. Everyone's happy and frivolous, in a really annoying, stupid way that is horribly unnatural. None of the withering, biting cynicism or straightforward dramatic situations you got in the old series. Now it's all the standard hip, ironic, detached self-awareness that means no one can take anything seriously. There cannot be a real threat. You can't feel for the characters because everything they say is so boringly smartarse you just want them to piss off and for some real people to show up and do it properly. So, a failure? I think so. Another great opportunity missed and wasted. So much potential and possibility thrown away. I will, like a fool, watch every single episode when it is shown on ABC, whenever that is. Maybe it will get better. Drop the cheesiness, get serious and stop being so shallow. Yeah, right. __________________ Diddledy High, Diddledy Low, Come Brave Blood Sheep, You've a goodly way to go. - Brilhasti Ap Tarj

04-24-2005, 12:43 AM	#7
CerebroDragon Red Wizard of Thay Join Date: March 2, 2003 Location: Ballarat, Australia. Age: 45 Posts: 878	I believe Christopher Ecclestone has already quit after only his first season, which is an unprecedented short period for any one playing the Dr. That's not including 'Dr 9', Paul McGann of course, who was only in the horribly hollywoodised telemovie. The lack of continuity as such to the old series doesn't meke this fact terribly relevant though. I believe his replacement will be David Tennant, whom to be honest I haven't seen in action enough to know if he is suitable enough for the role. Apparently the makers were keen to get the concept of "regeneration" over to the 'new generation' of viewers very quickly. Pardon me for being cynical, but it seems to me as if its more like a way of coping with short attention spans. I also rue the fact that Ecclestone feared being 'typecast' and that he found the going gruelling. More info here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...io/4395849.stm I'm still waiting for a friend to send me some episodes however, to make up my own mind. Cheers, CerebroDragon P.S: Good job on the DVD collecting [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] __________________ Diddledy High, Diddledy Low, Come Brave Blood Sheep, You've a goodly way to go. - Brilhasti Ap Tarj

04-18-2005, 01:30 PM	#1
shamrock_uk Dracolich Join Date: January 24, 2004 Location: UK Age: 41 Posts: 3,092	I've just seen the first episode and it really was quite good! Much better than I was expecting it to be! Ecclestone may look like someone you'd see down the pub, but he has such an infectious smile and comes across as being mad enough to pull off the Doctor Who role! Rose was acceptable, she got better as the ep went on, although there was the occasional cheesy line. The climax felt a little...wrong: (Spoilers) # # # I was wondering if she was ever going to knock the test tube in! Still, I must say I was impressed, its reinvented but not destroyed and I'm looking forward to seeing the rest! [ 04-18-2005, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

04-18-2005, 05:23 PM	#2
Thoran Galvatron Join Date: January 10, 2002 Location: Upstate NY Age: 56 Posts: 2,109	hehe... we just got the old doctor who on DVD (The Key to Time episodes). Great stuff! [img]smile.gif[/img]

04-21-2005, 05:09 PM	#3
Grojlach Zartan Join Date: May 2, 2001 Location: Ulpia Noviomagus Batavorum Age: 43 Posts: 5,281	Out of curiosity... As someone completely unfamiliar with any Dr. Who backstory and the 26 previous seasons, how fanboy-focused is this new Dr. Who? Can I watch and enjoy it relatively easy without feeling lost?

04-21-2005, 05:16 PM	#4
shamrock_uk Dracolich Join Date: January 24, 2004 Location: UK Age: 41 Posts: 3,092	Yes, it's designed for the masses [img]smile.gif[/img] It's getting audiences of around 9 million in the UK which is very high for any programme. You have to accept (especially with the first episode) that there is a certain amount of 'not taking itself seriously'. If you're the kind of person who can't suspend disbelief when you watch a programme then maybe don't bother, otherwise go for it! The first ep is the worst of the three I've seen (although still quite enjoyable), number 2 is really quite sad and very well done. Number 3 has a 'Next Generation go back in time on away mission' feel to it which was great. I'm loving it, and if you like that sort of thing then so will you [img]smile.gif[/img] No fanboy credentials required!

04-23-2005, 02:13 PM	#6
shamrock_uk Dracolich Join Date: January 24, 2004 Location: UK Age: 41 Posts: 3,092	Blimey! I'll post a detailed response in the next couple of days. Just a few quick points - personally I rather like the one-liners and found some of them rather amusing. I will admit to finding Rose's lines very cheesy though - that was the biggest annoyance for me. I certainly don't have your friends fan credentials - I was too late for Doctor Who on TV, but did read millions of the books. I recently began purchasing some of the DVDs but its kindof an expensive hobby so its going slowly [img]smile.gif[/img] I also approached it with a healthy dose of scepticism yet was pleasantly surprised. Having watched the first two again, the pilot episode is definitely the 'introduce Rose' and the 'lets not turn off undecided viewers immediately' one. Episode 2 deals in more depth with the Doctor's past, although probably not in enough detail to satisfy your friend. The reason it did not feature in the first episode is made clear however and in a fairly satisfying way. Is Chris Ecclestone ever going to be another Tom Baker, well no. But I honestly found that he grew on me, especially in episodes 2 and 3 - he's just genuinely funny in places. As the Doctor gets more screenplay he is able to give more time to developing both the serious side and the quirky side so it doesn't appear to be as disjointed. I do think however that Ecclestone deliberately adds an element of disjointedness to his character though - he quite literally gives the Doctor what I would describe as mood swings in the second episode. He's making the Doctor his own, and I like it [img]smile.gif[/img] It just takes a couple of episodes to get used to it. I think the new series has been put together by some people who loved and enjoyed the original Doctor Who but are keen to ensure it doesn't take itself too seriously. If that's the price for good audience figures and continuing episodes then I'm willing to pay it

05-02-2005, 06:41 PM	#8
shamrock_uk Dracolich Join Date: January 24, 2004 Location: UK Age: 41 Posts: 3,092	A spoiler-free review of the fantastic episode entitled Dalek. Eps 4 and 5 were really good, but this one was amazing! It just keeps getting better and better on a nice curve [img]smile.gif[/img]

05-03-2005, 08:32 AM	#9
Telwyn Dungeon Master Join Date: March 12, 2005 Location: UK Age: 46 Posts: 53	Dalek was certainly the best episode in the new series. Despite the numerous changes, it still felt like a Dalek, and yes, even after all these years, it still felt scary. Something about the way it just continued on slowly and unstoppable got my goosebumps up. It also hit all the emotional strings just right. If the rest of the series lives up to this quality, it will be pretty awesome. PS: Any theories on this Bad Wolf theme? I just noticed that the second to last episode has been announced as being entitled Bad Wolf. All the subtle references have been intriguing. [ 05-03-2005, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: Telwyn ]

05-03-2005, 02:35 PM	#10
shamrock_uk Dracolich Join Date: January 24, 2004 Location: UK Age: 41 Posts: 3,092	Lol, I think i've completely missed these references! Although didn't the graffiti say 'wolf'?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)