Stephen Fry on DW and the state of television
- Thread starter Cutter John
- Start date
But StCoop said that Moffatt said that it was a children's show and that it was all settled!
Shenanigans!
Shenanigans!
I would say that's nitpicking, though. Everything has come from something before it. There is genuinely very little original material out there. So, to dismiss those groundbreaking shows because they're similar to the past (and for LOST you were trying to think of The Prisoner) doesn't mean they're not groundbreaking in their own right, for their own era.
In fact, I'd say Doctor Who is a wholly original concept. I don't know ANYTHING like it that came before...
Exactly. Of COURSE those shows I mentioned were groundbreaking, as were Sophocles' and Shakespeare's plays, even though practically none of them were based on original material. Stories don't erupt fully-formed out of vacuums, they come from the pool of human stories that was there before, even the groundbreaking, original ones. My point is, shows that are successful at being unique and different tend to be much more popular than shows that are successful at repeating past formulas.
I would say that's nitpicking, though. Everything has come from something before it. There is genuinely very little original material out there. So, to dismiss those groundbreaking shows because they're similar to the past (and for LOST you were trying to think of The Prisoner
In fact, I'd say Doctor Who is a wholly original concept. I don't know ANYTHING like it that came before...
You're right I was thinking of The Prisoner but there were a couple of others too, I didn't think it was fair to just mention the prisoner...
Oh I'm not dismissing them as good shows or groundbreaking shows, they are really good shows and tried to do something different with the material, but I would argue they weren't particularly successful either, at least not The Wire, BSG,in terms of overall ratings, and Seinfeld and The X-Files were only hits after being given plenty of leeway to become hits.
Checkmate
Commodore
Ever since I watched a handful of episodes of Q.I., I can't take Stephen Fry seriously. Love the how, love the panel, hate him. Not only does he constantly get his facts wrong or only partially correct, but it's painfully obvious that he has an earpiece or video screen or some other means of having a staff of researchers look crap up for him so as to appear smart. The snobbery he displays when doing so just makes me want to kick him in the face, which certainly doesn't help.
He makes no secret of his QI 'elves'.
Regardless, there are plenty of instances where people have thrown him completely random questions that you would not expect an answer on (both on or off QI) and he really does know an astounding amount of stuff. Granted, his knowledge isn't perfect, but then neither are most peoples.
Often, errors are addressed in subsequent episodes anyway.
Regardless, there are plenty of instances where people have thrown him completely random questions that you would not expect an answer on (both on or off QI) and he really does know an astounding amount of stuff. Granted, his knowledge isn't perfect, but then neither are most peoples.
Often, errors are addressed in subsequent episodes anyway.
Last edited:
The only relation "The Time Machine" has with Doctor Who is that it's someone with a British accent traveling in a time machine.
Show me where we have an unknown alien time traveler, as much a mystery to the viewers as the characters on the show, who travels time and space in a time machine that's bigger on the inside, and looks like a British Police Box from the early-mid 20th century, and who can regenerate his physical form. Show me that outside of Doctor Who, and you'll sell me. 
Show me where we have an unknown alien time traveler, as much a mystery to the viewers as the characters on the show, who travels time and space in a time machine that's bigger on the inside, and looks like a British Police Box from the early-mid 20th century, and who can regenerate his physical form. Show me that outside of Doctor Who, and you'll sell me.
The only relation "The Time Machine" has with Doctor Who is that it's someone with a British accent traveling in a time machine.
Show me where we have an unknown alien time traveler, as much a mystery to the viewers as the characters on the show, who travels time and space in a time machine that's bigger on the inside, and looks like a British Police Box from the early-mid 20th century, and who can regenerate his physical form. Show me that outside of Doctor Who, and you'll sell me.
Just because I think it's interesting:
The basic concept of Doctor Who is somewhat similar to Gene Roddenberry's concept for Assignment: Earth, of which the second season finale of the original Star Trek was a backdoor pilot. Gary Seven isn't exactly an alien, but he is from an alien world, apparently raised in the distant future. He is mysterious, has wide knowledge of time and space, and travels around fighting evil. He even takes a young female companion, has a small cylindrical device resembling a pen that can do various astonishing feats, and has a door in his apartment that can teleport him to any place on Earth.
Now, Roddenberry's concept for Assignment: Earth is about three or four years newer than the concept for Doctor Who, and there are certainly some differences. But it's interesting to note the similarities -- and also to note that, as no American television network or station had yet imported Doctor Who to the United States, it is exceedingly unlikely that Roddenberry had ever been exposed to the series or influenced by it when he began developing Assignment: Earth.
That's just a tangent, though -- it doesn't directly relate to the question of the originality of Doctor Who.
^ Assignment Earth was 1968. Who started in 1963, five years earlier. I think Roddenberry may have heard of it. Possibly not. Also worth noting that the proposed show didn't go ahead. I quite like that ep, though.
Okay, few quick thoughts.
Mr Fry's journey across America was entertaining, but it was fluffy and by no means deep. Glass houses, all that.
Good docos? Planet Earth. Breathtaking.
Good drama? Most things by Stephen Poliakoff, which are miniseries and one-offs. Deep but upbeat generally, that's why I like them.
Who a kid's show. As others have said, it's for kids, but it's really a family show. Take the scene of Vincent in the museum. Very few kids are going to get that, would be bored by it. But how many adults here teared up? Why? Because it was wonderful to see someone, after a lifetime of being ignored, living poor and rough, living with all manner of demons... suddenly find vindication. Just wonderful. But few kids are going to understand that (and if they do, it indicates something's going wrong in their lives and I feel sorry for them).
All those flavours Mr Fry describes. He's right, but only to a point. I read an interview with either Earl Klugh or George Benson, both jazz guitarists known for their smoothy styles. Whichever one it was (Klugh, I think) said that while their music isn't deep or challenging or progressive, at the end of a shitty day or a shitty week, you don't want to come home to deep or challenging or progressive, you want something laid back, chilled out, and that was a good thing to have around. And it's the same with Mr Fry's food, we like the challenging stuff, but we sure as hell like fish and chips or an uncomplicated salad, and so it goes with TV programmes.
There y'go.
Okay, few quick thoughts.
Mr Fry's journey across America was entertaining, but it was fluffy and by no means deep. Glass houses, all that.
Good docos? Planet Earth. Breathtaking.
Good drama? Most things by Stephen Poliakoff, which are miniseries and one-offs. Deep but upbeat generally, that's why I like them.
Who a kid's show. As others have said, it's for kids, but it's really a family show. Take the scene of Vincent in the museum. Very few kids are going to get that, would be bored by it. But how many adults here teared up? Why? Because it was wonderful to see someone, after a lifetime of being ignored, living poor and rough, living with all manner of demons... suddenly find vindication. Just wonderful. But few kids are going to understand that (and if they do, it indicates something's going wrong in their lives and I feel sorry for them).
All those flavours Mr Fry describes. He's right, but only to a point. I read an interview with either Earl Klugh or George Benson, both jazz guitarists known for their smoothy styles. Whichever one it was (Klugh, I think) said that while their music isn't deep or challenging or progressive, at the end of a shitty day or a shitty week, you don't want to come home to deep or challenging or progressive, you want something laid back, chilled out, and that was a good thing to have around. And it's the same with Mr Fry's food, we like the challenging stuff, but we sure as hell like fish and chips or an uncomplicated salad, and so it goes with TV programmes.
There y'go.
Re:Cyke101 & The The Quatermass and Andromeda serials made by the BBC were the spiritual predescessor to Doctor Who...
I am aware of (and in fact own) the entire Life.. series of documentaries (unfortunately not Life on Earth as it has not been released here and in the US. One reason given for omitting the US release of this superb program was that they did not want to upset the creationists and their warped view of things, which just makes me want to kick something, but anyway..) and most of his other stuff like Planet Earth and yes, they are breathtaking in their own ways. The Attenborough doccos are, in a way, the exception, not the rule. But even there, after The Living Planet the scope and scale of these doccos diminishes somewhat. And don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of Sir David (got all my books signed by him, even the old Zooquest series).
I am aware of (and in fact own) the entire Life.. series of documentaries (unfortunately not Life on Earth as it has not been released here and in the US. One reason given for omitting the US release of this superb program was that they did not want to upset the creationists and their warped view of things, which just makes me want to kick something, but anyway..) and most of his other stuff like Planet Earth and yes, they are breathtaking in their own ways. The Attenborough doccos are, in a way, the exception, not the rule. But even there, after The Living Planet the scope and scale of these doccos diminishes somewhat. And don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of Sir David (got all my books signed by him, even the old Zooquest series).
Last edited:
About the originality of Who:
Sydney Newman decided he wanted a sci-fi series for Saturday nights which would inspire intelligent children and be watchable for their parents.
A BBC committee (it's the BBC, there had to be a committee) headed by Alice Frick was told to read a lot of science fiction (including Poul Anderson's Guardians of Time) and report back, and sends back a list of basic themes (Time Machine, Flying Saucer, Computer, Telepathy and Scientific Troubleshooters) with yes/nos against them all (Yes, maybe, already done by A for Andromeda, possibly and possibly).
The Troubleshooters idea (which in hindsight sounds a lot like Doomwatch) was initial favourite, but eventually the Time Travel idea fuses with the Flying Saucer one, so long as the ship isn't a flying saucer.
A good dozen people have a hand in the mix, and there is NOTHING original in there (even the line-up of the four orginal characters comes from a previous sci-fi series Newman created for ITV, Pathfinders, where the suspicious old man character was played by George Couloris, who was in Citizen Kane).
What is original, and brilliant, is the way it's all put together. But then, there's nothing original in the ingredients of a good meal...
(Full details of the Alice Frick memoes are in The First Doctor Handbook, around page 150, and parts online at the BBC archive site).
Sydney Newman decided he wanted a sci-fi series for Saturday nights which would inspire intelligent children and be watchable for their parents.
A BBC committee (it's the BBC, there had to be a committee) headed by Alice Frick was told to read a lot of science fiction (including Poul Anderson's Guardians of Time) and report back, and sends back a list of basic themes (Time Machine, Flying Saucer, Computer, Telepathy and Scientific Troubleshooters) with yes/nos against them all (Yes, maybe, already done by A for Andromeda, possibly and possibly).
The Troubleshooters idea (which in hindsight sounds a lot like Doomwatch) was initial favourite, but eventually the Time Travel idea fuses with the Flying Saucer one, so long as the ship isn't a flying saucer.
A good dozen people have a hand in the mix, and there is NOTHING original in there (even the line-up of the four orginal characters comes from a previous sci-fi series Newman created for ITV, Pathfinders, where the suspicious old man character was played by George Couloris, who was in Citizen Kane).
What is original, and brilliant, is the way it's all put together. But then, there's nothing original in the ingredients of a good meal...
(Full details of the Alice Frick memoes are in The First Doctor Handbook, around page 150, and parts online at the BBC archive site).
Indeed, I noted that Doctor Who predated Assignment: Earth, but it's highly improbable that Roddenberry had heard of Doctor Who. The show had not been imported to America at that point, and Roddenberry had been living in Los Angeles, and from what I remember, there are no records of him making any trips to Great Britain. It's most probable that the parallels between the Doctor and Gary Seven are genuinely a matter of different writers on different continents generating similar ideas.
It's not really similar to the Doctor Who of 1968, though. We didn't yet explicitly know the Doctor was an alien then, he'd only just got the sonic screwdriver, and he was only beginning to shift into a character who actively pursued evil and destroyed it.The only relation "The Time Machine" has with Doctor Who is that it's someone with a British accent traveling in a time machine.
Show me where we have an unknown alien time traveler, as much a mystery to the viewers as the characters on the show, who travels time and space in a time machine that's bigger on the inside, and looks like a British Police Box from the early-mid 20th century, and who can regenerate his physical form. Show me that outside of Doctor Who, and you'll sell me.
Just because I think it's interesting:
The basic concept of Doctor Who is somewhat similar to Gene Roddenberry's concept for Assignment: Earth, of which the second season finale of the original Star Trek was a backdoor pilot. Gary Seven isn't exactly an alien, but he is from an alien world, apparently raised in the distant future. He is mysterious, has wide knowledge of time and space, and travels around fighting evil. He even takes a young female companion, has a small cylindrical device resembling a pen that can do various astonishing feats, and has a door in his apartment that can teleport him to any place on Earth.
Now, Roddenberry's concept for Assignment: Earth is about three or four years newer than the concept for Doctor Who, and there are certainly some differences. But it's interesting to note the similarities -- and also to note that, as no American television network or station had yet imported Doctor Who to the United States, it is exceedingly unlikely that Roddenberry had ever been exposed to the series or influenced by it when he began developing Assignment: Earth.
That's just a tangent, though -- it doesn't directly relate to the question of the originality of Doctor Who.
It's not really similar to the Doctor Who of 1968, though. We didn't yet explicitly know the Doctor was an alien then, he'd only just got the sonic screwdriver, and he was only beginning to shift into a character who actively pursued evil and destroyed it.The only relation "The Time Machine" has with Doctor Who is that it's someone with a British accent traveling in a time machine.
Show me where we have an unknown alien time traveler, as much a mystery to the viewers as the characters on the show, who travels time and space in a time machine that's bigger on the inside, and looks like a British Police Box from the early-mid 20th century, and who can regenerate his physical form. Show me that outside of Doctor Who, and you'll sell me.
Just because I think it's interesting:
The basic concept of Doctor Who is somewhat similar to Gene Roddenberry's concept for Assignment: Earth, of which the second season finale of the original Star Trek was a backdoor pilot. Gary Seven isn't exactly an alien, but he is from an alien world, apparently raised in the distant future. He is mysterious, has wide knowledge of time and space, and travels around fighting evil. He even takes a young female companion, has a small cylindrical device resembling a pen that can do various astonishing feats, and has a door in his apartment that can teleport him to any place on Earth.
Now, Roddenberry's concept for Assignment: Earth is about three or four years newer than the concept for Doctor Who, and there are certainly some differences. But it's interesting to note the similarities -- and also to note that, as no American television network or station had yet imported Doctor Who to the United States, it is exceedingly unlikely that Roddenberry had ever been exposed to the series or influenced by it when he began developing Assignment: Earth.
That's just a tangent, though -- it doesn't directly relate to the question of the originality of Doctor Who.
Which, to me, makes the parallels all the more interesting -- it's just as unlikely that the producers of Doctor Who were influenced by this single episode of Star Trek, after all, as that Roddenberry would be influenced by Doctor Who. So there's this instance of two TV shows separated by enormous distances moving in very similar directions, with no evidence of influence from one to the other.
To me, it helps illustrate both the limits of originality -- and the ways in which similar ideas can be reached wholly independently.
All I keep thinking is Was Kingdom exactly the height of adult, intelligent and ground breaking TV? I mean Stephen Fry starred in, executive produced and runs the production company, and it didn't seem to be really any of those things, dull, boring moving wallpaper type TV from what I've seen and heard.
There are quite a few of those that rumble and rant here, and I think you know who they are.
Just do what I do: laugh at them. People that interested in trying prove something....consciously or not....are to be pitied or mocked, depending your flavor of emotions. The moment StCoop started saying things like "Love & Monsters" was the greatest DW ever was the moment I realized there's no point in trying to debate a child. He, and others like him, aren't interested in debate. They're just here for the attention... (*cough*bones*cough*)
Thanks, The. I know I shouldn't rise to things, its just been a crappy year and I find my patience wearing incresingly thin towards some of the BS that flies around on here.
At least Bones puts some thoughtful arguments down (even if he usually ruins it by tossing in an 'of course its all shit cos RTD is the worst writer in the world ever' at the end) so I do give him credit for that.
I must admit I was surprise to see fry involved with kingdom then there is bones which is a ok show to chill out to but not really hard hitting drama.
Yeah, you'd think, considering the shows he's done, that he'd understand things don't necessarily need to be hard hitting or ground breaking to be fun, entertaining or even thought provoking.
To be fair, I still think this is a storm in a teacup - there is no need to denigrate Fry or to rush to the defence of Doctor Who. Fry is a fan of the show, has fond memories of watching it as a child and feels that it continues a fine tradition. He also kinda, sorta has a point about television in general. Cut him some slack..
