What's so great about Doctor Who?

[poohcarrot]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... doctor-who

The above is a Guardian article from today.
The comments after are more interesting than the article.

 

[Bouncy Castle]

You on a Wind Up Q mission?

I do have to agree with this bit "It's like having a kid screaming, "I know something you don't know … but I'm not telling!" in your face non-stop for 45 minutes."

But I'll still watch it, and am excited for it's return next Saturday, though I'll probably be disappointed as I was for the return of the current series a few months ago.

But not as disappointed as in last year's series.

But I'll still watch it.

Did I mention I'll still watch it?

 

[poohcarrot]

I'm not winding up anyone.

There was an article in today's Guardian with a conversation between a Dr Who fan and somebody who isn't and I thought it was interesting. I thought people here might be interested.

If anybody wants to post a comment, please do.

I'm only keeping you all informed and there's absolutely no maliciousness intended whatsoever.

Should I not mention anything about Dr Who I see in my paper?

 

[Bouncy Castle]

Mention away, old sausage.

 

[poohcarrot]

 

[Tonyblack]

Dr Who is escapism to a degree. I don't think it tackles issues in the way that, for example, Star trek did. It is more a case of a fantastic (as in fantasy) story with an unconventional resolution.

It's more about 'wouldn't it be cool?' rather than 'what if?' In this respect I'd agree that it's not proper sci-fi. Star Trek isn't either, but at least it tries to keep to the laws of physics.

I watch Dr Who for the entertainment - for the escapism and to try and spot where in South Wales they filmed it.

 

[Quatermass]

Well, Chris Weston obviously has his head up his derriere. Yes, some elements of the series can be made much better than they currently are, particularly the storytelling. But committing genocide? The Silence were probably responsible for the near-destruction of the universe last year. So were the Time Lords and the Daleks in the Time War. I'd say that genocide of a race that wants to commit omnicide is justified, even if it would leave a bitter taste in the mouth.

And Weston's argument about the Ganger thing is false: Amy's consciousness wasn't in the Ganger, just linked to it. The Gangers that came to life were the results of a specific set of circumstances that cloned the personalities and memories of the originals.

I too enjoy the series for its escapism, but I also admire Doctor Who for its format that allows it to go anywhere, to any setting (why can't they take it out of London or Cardiff a little more, I dunno). Admittedly, its quality is debatable, but then again, as one of the comments showed, one or two people believe that the rot set in when Hartnell (the first actor to take the role).

One of the biggest problems with the programs nowadays is it seems to rely a little too much on deus ex machinas, even more than the original series. That's the major gripe I have about the new series. Some may argue that the relationships between the Doctor and his companions nowadays are more like a soap opera, but I would like to point out that in some multi-companion set-ups, it was worse (Nyssa-Adric-Tegan in particular) and that some character development is good.

I don't like Amy that much as a companion, though. She's a bit like Mel without the precociousness and ear-splitting scream. A bit too hypercompetent. Ace was competent, but she had psych issues, not to mention a tendency to be an action girl: "WHO'RE YOU CALLIN' SMALL?!", and was one of my favourite companions from the classic series because she was complex and believable.

In short, I would ask Chris Weston to eat sh** and die, but with his head already up where the sun don't shine, it's already half done, and I am satisfied with that much. :twisted:

 

[Joolz]

why can't they take it out of London or Cardiff a little more, I dunno)

London because thats where the power is Cardiff because thats where the aliens look like locals

Or possibly budget restraints

 

[Jan Van Quirm]

London because thats where the power is Cardiff because thats where the aliens look like locals

Baaaa!

For me Dr Who is just part of TV scenery - it's almost always been there and when it wasn't it didn't feel 'right'. I'm not sure about this new-fangled 'companion' concept rather than the old assistants, given that they are still there to scream and get in trouble half the time and look stunned and/or stupid, then delighted when the Doctor's being extra clever

I definitely did not like the David Tennant Dr mooning around after women the whole time - the 2 and 'bonus bits' Billie 'Blackroots' Piper series in particular, but I think he was a great doctor from the scripting perspective as I do like the interweaving storylines. My fave Who's have always been the mad/cranky ones ,Tom Baker's still No 1 and Colin Baker and Patrick Troughton too (loved the one they did together where Troughton was an alien with Servalan from Blake's 7 ). I would have like to see another series of David Eccleston actually because he had an edginess that was quite intriguing, but Matt Smith's mostly hitting all the right notes with me so far - he's certainly not too soppy with River Song at least, just nicely whimsical

 

[Quatermass]

Or possibly budget restraints

I meant in terms of settings. I don't mind them filming in and around the places, as long as they can BS them effectively to look like somewhere else...

I'm not sure about this new-fangled 'companion' concept rather than the old assistants, given that they are still there to scream and get in trouble half the time and look stunned and/or stupid, then delighted when the Doctor's being extra clever

The term 'companion' has been around for longer than the new series. In fact, the first 'official' use of it was at least as far back as 1972, with the Malcom Hulke and Terrance Dicks-written The Making of Doctor Who.

And what about Ace? Or Nyssa? Or Romana? Not to mention Sarah Jane Smith, who seemed more sane than the Doctor at times (she was the one who first twigged to the fact that they were in a real quarry about to be blasted in The Hand of Fear, and she also pointed out how to open a magnetically-sealed window in Planet of Evil, not to mention her taking charge of an admittedly doomed rebellion against the Thals in Genesis of the Daleks).

I definitely did not like the David Tennant Dr mooning around after women the whole time - the 2 and 'bonus bits' Billie 'Blackroots' Piper series in particular, but I think he was a great doctor from the scripting perspective as I do like the interweaving storylines.

Agreed. He was the best new series Doctor, angsting notwithstanding, and his finest hours were in the fourth series and specials.

My fave Who's have always been the mad/cranky ones ,Tom Baker's still No 1 and Colin Baker and Patrick Troughton too (loved the one they did together where Troughton was an alien with Servalan from Blake's 7 ).

Uhh, my personal favourite was Sylvester McCoy, the seventh, with Patrick Troughton and David Tennant tying in second, and Tom Baker in third.

But I liked The Two Doctors (the story you mentioned), though it's a rather gruesome one. Jacqueline Perace (aka Servalan) was pretty damn good as Chessene, along with John Stratton as Shockeye.

The best one from that era IMO was Revelation of the Daleks.That story's only bad point is Jenny Tomasin as Tasambeker. Davros not only became subtle, but had a dark sense of humour as well ("It would have created what I believe is called 'consumer resistance'."), it balanced the humour and horror extremely well, and Alexei Sayle as the DJ killing Daleks with a rock 'n' roll beam....wonderful story!

I would have like to see another series of David Eccleston actually because he had an edginess that was quite intriguing, but Matt Smith's mostly hitting all the right notes with me so far - he's certainly not too soppy with River Song at least, just nicely whimsical

He wasn't quite right last year, but this year, he's better. Matt Smith isn't amongst the greats, but he's very competent. I think part of the problem was that the scripts were a bit weak at times, and Amy is a pretty crappy companion, character-wise. Hell, Rory is a better companion than she is, he has character. Captain Jack Harkness and Mickey may have been relatively competent companions, but they weren't on the TARDIS for long, so Rory is probably the best long-term male companion since...well, Turlough.

David Eccleston? Whut?

 

[Bouncy Castle]

David Eccleston? Whut?

PMSL! I was waiting for a response to that!!

 

[Tonyblack]

The main role of all the companions/assistants is so the doctor has someone to talk at. If he was on his own, we'd never know what he was thinking. The companion is like Dr Watson - someone to explain things to.

 

[poohcarrot]

I reckon a lot of people here complaining about Doctor Who just enjoy being misery-buckets.

It's really quite simple, if you don't like it, don't watch it.

 

[Tonyblack]

I reckon a lot of people here complaining about Doctor Who just enjoy being misery-buckets.

It's really quite simple, if you don't like it, don't watch it.

A while back, on the CA board, they were all getting really excited about each episode, only to pull it to pieces once they'd seen it. The same thought crossed my mind then.

In a way, I guess it means so much to people that they want it to be perfect. It's a bit like film adaptations of Discworld books. We expect so much from them that we get disappointed when they don't quite deliver.

 

[Jan Van Quirm]

Christopher Eccleston?

Doh! Getting old and forgetful

 

[Dotsie]

I'm not really sure what the big deal is here. It's just telly

I have noticed though that some people can't stand to have Dr Who slagged off, Q - yes, you're one of them. But why get so defensive about it? A lot of people don't like Star Trek, I do. But would telling them to "eat sh** and die" add anything to my argument, or invalidate it completely?

 

[Quatermass]

The main role of all the companions/assistants is so the doctor has someone to talk at. If he was on his own, we'd never know what he was thinking. The companion is like Dr Watson - someone to explain things to.

Agreed, though a companion is not strictly necessary. Witness The Deadly Assassin, partly written to give Tom Baker a chance to carry the show solo for once. Not to mention the 2009 specials. All those stories gave him 'companion'-like characters (Spandrell and Engin in The Deadly Assassin, 'the next Doctor' and Rosita in The Next Doctor, Lady Christina in Planet of the Dead, Adelaide in The Waters of Mars, and Wilfred Mott in The End of Time), though, for the purposes of story exposition.

Christopher Eccleston?

Doh! Getting old and forgetful

I just didn't know whether it was a mistake, or else you were talking about both eras. Sorry, JVQ.

I'm not really sure what the big deal is here. It's just telly

As the Doctor in my avatar would say, "Just telly? Just telly? JUST TELLY!?" The fact is, a good chunk of what British television puts on is far superior to whatever Hollywood can crank out in terms of story. I only wish Aussie TV was half as good, but most of it's soaps, crappy comedies, and kid's programs.

One of my life's ambitions is to write a really good science fiction series to be produced in Australia.

I have noticed though that some people can't stand to have Dr Who slagged off, Q - yes, you're one of them. But why get so defensive about it? A lot of people don't like Star Trek, I do. But would telling them to "eat sh** and die" add anything to my argument, or invalidate it completely?

Well, I'll be frank, Dotsie. Probably the biggest contributing factor to my defensiveness about the series was that I was bullied at school because of my enjoyment of the show. It was a guaranteed berserk button then, and age has only worsened my bitterness. I am willing to concede that the program has faults, especially now, but it does not detract too much from its greatness. Doctor Who is nearly as emotive an issue for me as, I am sure, religion is for fundies, only I am willing to concede that Doctor Who has flaws and isn't perfect. It's certainly not on as high a pedestal as I had erected it when I was younger.

So, no, telling someone to 'eat sh** and die' does not add to the argument at all, but it gives me enormous personal satisfaction. It's a rarity for me to use that turn of phrase, and I felt it tied in well with my earlier assertion that Weston had his head up his alimentary canal.

And while I may make fun of Star Trek on occasion, the truth be told, I actually did enjoy some episodes of it, particularly of the original series (and of The Next Generation: one of my earliest memories of Star Trek was watching The Skin of Evil), and the movies. Star Trek's impact on the world of science fiction television is undeniable. I'm just prejudiced towards British television, more often than not.

Plus, the Borg are SO much a ripoff of the Cybermen.

No offence meant at all (sincerely), Dotsie. Just a little jab.

 

[Dotsie]

When it comes to Star Trek, I'm untouchable

(just stay away from Captain Kirk )

 

[Quatermass]

When it comes to Star Trek, I'm untouchable

(just stay away from Captain Kirk )

I needn't do that at all. TV Tropes has already done so. In fact, the caption for the image once read "Only one of these hams is kosher, and only one of these hams can be cured."

In fact, both Doctor Who and Star Trek have their own Large Ham pages on TV Tropes. Goes to show.

 

[David Brown]

A while back, on the CA board, they were all getting really excited about each episode, only to pull it to pieces once they'd seen it. The same thought crossed my mind then.

In a way, I guess it means so much to people that they want it to be perfect. It's a bit like film adaptations of Discworld books. We expect so much from them that we get disappointed when they don't quite deliver.

I am a member of another forum, which specifically discusses Doctor Who. The membership is, in theory, made up of fans of the show, but there's a lot of negativity there.