Americans, how popular is Doctor Who in America?
- Thread starter flux_29
- Start date
Well, since you declared yourself winner, I guess we would have to be done, wouldn't we?
I certainly agree that the prices for new Doctor Who DVDs are absolutely criminal. They charge twice as much for seasons that are only half as long. I can kinda understand the old series being so expensive since they require so much restoration work and because they are very thorough with the bonus features. Plus, I don't think that we can kid ourselves that old Doctor Who is anything more than niche entertainment, at least in the U.S. It's a great series but such an acquired taste that it's been nearly impossible to find converts. But considering the new series seems to be squarely aimed at the masses, I don't know how they manage to get away with such expensive DVDs. But then, they're just as expensive in the U.K. it seems.
It's not that difficult to put the classic DVDs in chronological order. On the back of the R1 packaging is a big while box with a big black number. That number tells you what number the story is. Although, I suppose for newbies it is really difficult trying to figure out why the series isn't available in chronological order, both because of the missing Hartnell & Troughton stories and because BBC Video doesn't release the stories in anything even remotely resembling chronological order. But then, even if the show were available in chronological order, I know lots of people who couldn't possibly make it past the 1st few William Hartnell episodes. Starting at the beginning is often not the best option for this series.
In some ways, the shift from the family orientation of the later seasons of TNG to the more teen/adult targeting of DS9, Voyager, & Enterprise reminds me of the shift that Doctor Who underwent in the early 1980s, going from Tom Baker's very family friendly approach to the JNT years that attempted to skew much older. (IIRC, that shift in tone was one of the main reasons why Tom Baker left the show.)
It sounds a bit judgmental to me. Otherwise, you would have said that Americans aren't "interested" in a hero like the Doctor, rather than saying they're not "ready," as if you're Captain Picard making some proclamation about a savage, backwater planet that wants to enter the Federation. You also call American heroes irrational & "superficial." Those sure sound like judgments to me.
Well, there's also shows on broadcast TV that deal with sexual themes without actually showing any sex or nudity. To use some slightly dated examples, Friends & Seinfeld dealt with sex all the time. Not to mention unscripted shows like Jerry Springer.
I see the confusion. My intended sentiments are that the fictional character stereotypes of normal American heroes in pop culture are the throwbacks, or evolution of, the cowboys of old. If I am making any judgments, it is towards the stereotypes we have favored in our heroes, not the people themselves. We the people are simply products of our environment and culture. It's not good or bad. It just is.
What I'm really finding strange is that anyone could take offense at my analysis. I mean, I would understand if it were American-bashing (something I, as an American myself, find distasteful for the most part) or an attack on our commercial-culture. But, it's neither. It's simply a broad personal opinion based on critical analysis of history and facts. It's one thing to cite a twenty-year-old television show as a contradiction to my conclusion (Quantum Leap). It shows that there is an audience to be found there. Or, at least was back in the late-80's/early-90's. But, that's not a case against a multitude of contradictory television show hero gunslingers from fifty-years of television.
When we get down to debating over the minutia of the facts, such as the definition and comparison of comic book characters to television heroes, or what constitutes "family viewing", I check-out from the debate. The short reason for that is I don't involve myself in areas akin to the nonsensical minutia of legality and politics. I'm not an attorney and don't have the patience or interest in a point-counter-point debate. To do so implies I am on a mission to sell my personal perspective to the opposing party. Not at all interested in that. My opinion is what it is, and is as I state it. If someone wants to get on board with it, cool. If not, cool. I'm good either way. No one should need me to validate their own opinions...
But then, it implies that the Doctor is an inherently more advanced form of hero because he does not evolve from the cowboy hero. I think that such an argument ignores the possibility of the "rational cowboy" archetype, of which I think Captain Kirk is the ideal example. Indeed, I would cite Captain Kirk as the ideal human hero, since he is able to embody both physical strength as well as the wisdom of when to use it.
In fact, Captain Kirk demonstrates the most sophisticated morality of any hero cited here so far. You condemn traditional cowboys as "throwbacks" that "rely on force over rationality." On the flip side of the coin, and just as primitive in many ways, is the knee-jerk pacifist that condemns violence against every juncture. The Doctor frequently falls into this category. Falling in between is Captain Kirk, a hero with the self-assurance to not need to apologize or angst over the justifiable use of force against an otherwise unstoppable evil. (It's ironic, since the Daleks & the Borg are both far more evil & pervasive than anything that Captain Kirk ever fought, and yet it's the Doctor & Captain Picard that do all the angsting.)
Whatever you need to sleep at night, Sci... 
Quantum Leap had a bizarre religious tilt to it, so it can't really be a good example. Sam Beckett was like an angel in that respect, so he couldn't go around actively doing harm.
And yes, we are a culture of cowboys and conquistadors. America was always about exploring and colonization. That's why we created Star Trek.
The British on the other hand seem to have their science fiction defined by the ordinary becoming extraordinary: Alice in Wonderland, Narnia and of course Doctor Who.
We do have The Wizard of Oz, but a Kansas farmhouse is a poor substitute for a TARDIS.
And yes, we are a culture of cowboys and conquistadors. America was always about exploring and colonization. That's why we created Star Trek.
The British on the other hand seem to have their science fiction defined by the ordinary becoming extraordinary: Alice in Wonderland, Narnia and of course Doctor Who.
We do have The Wizard of Oz, but a Kansas farmhouse is a poor substitute for a TARDIS.
So what? It's still an utterly non-violent hero. More non-violent than the Doctor, really. That it contains other storytelling elements does not invalidate that fact.
1. Odd that you'd call America a nation of cowboys and conquistadors when it was the British who established the largest empire in human history.
2. America is a nation of cowboys and conquistadors... and of ordinary becoming extraordinary. You can't stereotype American culture like that; it has too many competing strands for any such characterization to be accurate.
3. I'm sorry, but as much as I love Doctor Who, Dorothy's farmhouse and the Land of Oz will always beat out a TARDIS and Skaro. The Wizard of Oz is a far more powerful, far more widespread, far more elemental, far more important story than Doctor Who.
I quite like The Wizard of Oz and I can't say I totally disagree with you, but I think you should know that in most countries, neither the film nor the book has become the institution that it is in the United States. Most people around here have neither read the book nor seen the movie.
Right.
Er...
Forgot about that bit.
Should change that, shouldn't I?
Ah. I ain't bovvered.
No, it's the story of a girl named Dorothy who must traverse the Land of Oz to return to Kansas -- a story that has been told in some form or another to almost every single child in America for over one hundred years.
Way I figure, Doctor Who has another fifty years to go (or seventy, if we want to be picky and point out that it wasn't on the air for almost twenty years) before it can lay claim to having been a continuous children's classic for a century.
No, it's the story of a girl named Dorothy who must traverse the Land of Oz to return to Kansas -- a story that has been told in some form or another to almost every single child in America for over one hundred years.
Way I figure, Doctor Who has another fifty years to go (or seventy, if we want to be picky and point out that it wasn't on the air for almost twenty years) before it can lay claim to having been a continuous children's classic for a century.
Oh yes, I have heard of it. Personally I think Peter Pan or Alice in Wonderland are both far better stories than some colonial dirt farmer wanting to go back home.
No, it's the story of a girl named Dorothy who must traverse the Land of Oz to return to Kansas -- a story that has been told in some form or another to almost every single child in America for over one hundred years.
Way I figure, Doctor Who has another fifty years to go (or seventy, if we want to be picky and point out that it wasn't on the air for almost twenty years) before it can lay claim to having been a continuous children's classic for a century.
Oh yes, I have heard of it. Personally I think Peter Pan or Alice in Wonderland are both far better stories than some colonial dirt farmer wanting to go back home.
Well, I'm sorry to hear that. Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland are certainly both as beloved in America as The Wizard of Oz and have been for about as long, too, and I don't know any American who values them less because they happen to be British stories.
But it really is a children's classic. It began as a children's novel that was already almost 40 years old and considered a classic when the Judy Garland film was made. There were numerous sequels to the original published for decades afterwards, and now there have been numerous adaptations and variations of the story published besides the original and the Garland film. It's really been a children's classic for a century now; Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland are really the only two children's stories I can think of that can be called its equals.
No, no, I know it's a Children's Classic book (I've read them all). I was just saying that, after the 20th century and the advent of entertainment and media technology, I just think of Wizard of Oz as, primarily, a film. And, I imagine that is how a lot of people see it, as well. But, there's no denying the fact it started as a children's tale...
Similar threads
