Has this happened to any of you...?

[Count Zero]

How so?

 

[Sci]

The new Dr Who also reflects a society which is both faster paced and more emotional. I mean we have Tom Barker death scene lasting only a fraction of the melodrama of David Tennant's departure.

This is one of my key problems with DW TOS, actually. So often, even when there's the germ of real emotion there, it gets buried beneath emotionally shallow plots and characters. More often than not, it has no soul.

 

[DWF]

The new Dr Who also reflects a society which is both faster paced and more emotional. I mean we have Tom Barker death scene lasting only a fraction of the melodrama of David Tennant's departure.

This is one of my key problems with DW TOS, actually. So often, even when there's the germ of real emotion there, it gets buried beneath emotionally shallow plots and characters. More often than not, it has no soul.

The old series has a soul IMO more of a one than the new series does, it's one thing to have an emotional scene but it's another to milk it.

 

[Shatnertage]

This thread is in bad taste considering Nicholas Courtney's death.

I don't get it.

 

[Guartho]

I'm with your wife. No, not like that. I am watching a lot of old Who and having the same reaction. I liked City of Death though.

 

[DWF]

I've been going back and watching Old Who recently (which I loved as a kid) and it is soooooooooo long and boring. It really is just a different time and way of doing things. So much filler, so much running around, so much getting captured... I still have nostalgic love for Old Who but it's definitely something I can't sit down and watch without doing anything else.

I can't understand a complaint about filler on the old series since story arcs on shows nowadays last much longer than the serials did on the old show.

There's telling a story slowly over the course of a season, and then there's padding. Old Who tended to have a lot of the latter, with lots of running about from place to place and the like which had very little to do with the actual story. And I honestly just find it dull.

I mean, there are occasional serials that I enjoy, like "Spearhead from Space" and "City of Death," but I can't enjoy a mediocre or poor episode of Old Who the same way I can enjoy a mediocre or poor episode of nuWho.

Dr. Who also had season long storyarcs. And both Spearhead From Space and City Of Death had plenty of running around in them.

 

[Ubik]

See, that's the thing - even the "better" episodes, the ones with a small handful of - let's say - entertaining ideas in them, are still full of hammy scenes, mediocre acting, undeveloped villains, and slow pace. My wife kept pointing this out, over and over, even during the so-called best episodes of the classic series. And yet - I still enjoy a great deal of those episodes. But, the more I think about this, and read these responses, the more I begin to believe that my wife is right, and my enjoyment of the show is pure nostalgia.

Someone up here said the show seems to have no soul - and I feel that, yes. There's no emotion. Nyssa loses her father to the Master, and from then on, the Master looks exactly like her father, and yet they NEVER again play with this. The writers don't seem to find that an interesting avenue for storytelling. Why? That's just one recent example I noticed. Why does the show seem to deliberately sidestep all human inner conflict? All the conflict is OUTER, good guy vs. bad guy. Why weren't the Doctor Who writers, over the course of over 20 years, ever interested in internal human conflict, which is, indeed, the primary human experience? Weird.

 

[DWF]

Nyssa talked about losing her father, her step mother and her planet in Logopolis, but she only encountered him in two more stories. And while the Doctor isn't human there's been plenty of talk about human conflict on the show, for more so than on the new series.

The Doctor: If someone who knew the future, pointed out a child to you and told you that that child would grow up totally evil, to be a ruthless dictator who would destroy millions of lives... could you then kill that child?
Sarah: We're talking about the Daleks; the most evil creatures ever invented! You must destroy them! You must complete your mission for the Time Lords!
The Doctor: Do I have the right? Simply touch one wire against the other, and that's it. The Daleks cease to exist. Hundreds of millions of people, thousands of generations can live without fear, in peace... and never even know the word "Dalek".
Sarah: Then why wait? If it was a disease or some sort of bacteria you were destroying, you wouldn't hesitate!
The Doctor: But if I kill... wipe out a whole intelligent life-form... then I become like them. I'd be no better than the Daleks.

The Doctor: If this Missile explodes millions will die. You will die.
Morgan le Fay: I will die with Honour!
The Doctor: All over the world fools are poised, ready to let death fly. Machines of death, Morgaine, screaming from above. Light brighter than the sun. Not a war between armies, nor a war between nations, but just death. Death gone mad! A child looks up into the sky, his eyes turn to cinders. No more tears, only ashes. Is this Honour? Is this War? Are these the weapons you would use?

The Doctor: [In Slightly Caring Voice] Homo sapiens. What an inventive, invincible species. It's only a few million years since they crawled up out of the mud and learned to walk. Puny, defenceless bipeds. They've survived flood, famine and plague. They've survived cosmic wars and holocausts. And now, here they are, out among the stars, waiting to begin a new life. Ready to outsit eternity. They're indomitable.

 

[starsuperion]

I have to say that for me, the older black and white WHO is more interesting story and production values wise then the latter serials..

For the record.. My Girlfriend isn't into the older WHO as well.

I would like to say that some of the charm of the classic series was the slow pace. It was like reading a science fiction novel, slow build up, more character interactions and relationships.

as for the comic book aspect of it, I can't see it, and trust me, I know.. I draw comics..

but for me, the most interesting thing about the classic series is the Hartnell and Troughton years.

I think that the Tomb of the cybermen is also a bit overly heralded.. mainly because of the fact that much of the older series is missing and Troughton's episodes are mostly missing as well..

Though I have to say, the War Games was an excellent episode..
so too was the Dominators! Highly recommended..very..

anyhow.. Classic who isn't for everyone, neither is watching classic science fiction in general.

My favourites of scifi outside of Who are most definitely Forbidden Planet, and the day the Earth stood still.

 

[Sci]

Nyssa talked about losing her father, her step mother and her planet in Logopolis, but she only encountered him in two more stories.

I'm sorry, but that's a prime example of what's wrong with DW TOS. Trauma on that level should have defined that character, should have been an overwhelming emotional arc for her. It shouldn't have just been something she talked about.

And while the Doctor isn't human there's been plenty of talk about human conflict

Talk, talk, talk. That's the problem. Show, don't tell. You can talk about inner conflict all you want, but if it's not reflected in characterization and theme, it's just meaningless dialogue that goes nowhere.

The Doctor: If someone who knew the future, pointed out a child to you and told you that that child would grow up totally evil, to be a ruthless dictator who would destroy millions of lives... could you then kill that child?
Sarah: We're talking about the Daleks; the most evil creatures ever invented! You must destroy them! You must complete your mission for the Time Lords!
The Doctor: Do I have the right? Simply touch one wire against the other, and that's it. The Daleks cease to exist. Hundreds of millions of people, thousands of generations can live without fear, in peace... and never even know the word "Dalek".
Sarah: Then why wait? If it was a disease or some sort of bacteria you were destroying, you wouldn't hesitate!
The Doctor: But if I kill... wipe out a whole intelligent life-form... then I become like them. I'd be no better than the Daleks.

The Doctor: If this Missile explodes millions will die. You will die.
Morgan le Fay: I will die with Honour!
The Doctor: All over the world fools are poised, ready to let death fly. Machines of death, Morgaine, screaming from above. Light brighter than the sun. Not a war between armies, nor a war between nations, but just death. Death gone mad! A child looks up into the sky, his eyes turn to cinders. No more tears, only ashes. Is this Honour? Is this War? Are these the weapons you would use?

The Doctor: [In Slightly Caring Voice] Homo sapiens. What an inventive, invincible species. It's only a few million years since they crawled up out of the mud and learned to walk. Puny, defenceless bipeds. They've survived flood, famine and plague. They've survived cosmic wars and holocausts. And now, here they are, out among the stars, waiting to begin a new life. Ready to outsit eternity. They're indomitable.

Lovely intellectual soliloquies, and there's a place for that in good drama. But they don't define good drama, and citing a random speech as proof that there's real soul in DW TOS just implies a lack of familiarity with real human beings.

Watch a show like The Sopranos or Six Feet Under or The West Wing and tell me with a straight face that abstract philosophical arguments are what makes for soulful drama. It's not. It adds to it, but it does not define it.

 

[Gepard]

Lovely ...

I wouldn't even go that far. I've not seen any of these original Who episodes, so I've no idea how they played out in context, but just reading those quotes made me cringe at how awkward and stilted they sound. They certainly don't strike me as an encouragement to watch any of the original series.

 

[Count Zero]

I must say I find it weird to have people in this thread judge the old show in such an absolute manner who haven't really seen it. It's 26 seasons over 36 years with widely different approaches to storytelling and making TV in general, with very different characters and story themes. What you saw didn't appeal to you or you have no interest in watching the old show, fine. But then saying it has no soul is a bit rich. It had enough soul to inspire many of its audience to also do something creative and to try to bring it back.
And it still has its appeal, independent of any nostalgia factor. I didn't even know the show existed until a few years ago and yet, I enjoy watching the old series, and so do several of my friends and acquaintances. Modern drama and modern sci-fi often work a bit differently and that's why some people will have their problems with the old show. It's ok to like something your wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend doesn't.
By the way, I don't really see a big difference dramawise between old Who and say, most of the Trek series.

 

[DWF]

Nyssa talked about losing her father, her step mother and her planet in Logopolis, but she only encountered him in two more stories.

I'm sorry, but that's a prime example of what's wrong with DW TOS. Trauma on that level should have defined that character, should have been an overwhelming emotional arc for her. It shouldn't have just been something she talked about.

And while the Doctor isn't human there's been plenty of talk about human conflict

Talk, talk, talk. That's the problem. Show, don't tell. You can talk about inner conflict all you want, but if it's not reflected in characterization and theme, it's just meaningless dialogue that goes nowhere.

The Doctor: [In Slightly Caring Voice] Homo sapiens. What an inventive, invincible species. It's only a few million years since they crawled up out of the mud and learned to walk. Puny, defenceless bipeds. They've survived flood, famine and plague. They've survived cosmic wars and holocausts. And now, here they are, out among the stars, waiting to begin a new life. Ready to outsit eternity. They're indomitable.

Lovely intellectual soliloquies, and there's a place for that in good drama. But they don't define good drama, and citing a random speech as proof that there's real soul in DW TOS just implies a lack of familiarity with real human beings.

Watch a show like The Sopranos or Six Feet Under or The West Wing and tell me with a straight face that abstract philosophical arguments are what makes for soulful drama. It's not. It adds to it, but it does not define it.

And there's more show than tell on the old show but ht en you keep forgetting who the show's audience is, it's not meant for the adult crowd. Kids don't need to see characters moping around mourning the loss of a parent or planet for years on end, that might work on shows like the new Battlestar Galactica but the current stroy needs to be told. The destruction of Gallifrey and the death of the Time Lords defined the ninth Doctor but people have long since gotten ired of hearing about it and if anything more and more people want the Time Lords back.

The job of a TV show is to entertain and the old series worked otherwise we'd never the new series. The new series has a frantic pace and there's very litle room for character development on the new series as well there's just no time for it.

Steven Moffat agreed with you to a point in 1995 but he was also a fan of Peter Davison and he admitted that Dr. Who wasn't Shakespeare but that it still did it's job.

http://nzdwfc.tetrap.com/archive/tsv43/onediscussion.html

Steven: If you judge on what they were trying to do - that is create a low budget, light-hearted children's adventure serial for teatime - it's bloody amazingly good. If you judge it as a high class drama series, it's falling a bit short. But that's not what it was trying to be.
Paul: Fanboys put Doctor Who up against I, Claudius. There's a certain macho quality to a lot of fan recognition of the show which says 'Yes! It's up there with Shakespeare'...
Andy: Come on, if you put it up against I, Claudius, there are amazing similarities. I, Claudius took place entirely on studio sets, everyone wore stupid costumes, talked in mock Shakespearean speech...
Steven: And it had a brilliant script and a cast of brilliant actors. These are two things we cannot say in all forgiveness about Doctor Who. There have been times when some people have thrown doubt on the quality of the dialogue. Much as I dearly love it...
David: You're willing to recognise its limitations?
Steven: Yeah. I still think all the Peter Davison stuff stands up.
David: I'm sorry but I hated the Davison era.
Steven: How could you? I'm talking retrospectively now, when I look back at Doctor Who now. I laugh at it, fondly. As a television professional, I think how did these guys get a paycheck every week? Dear god, it's bad! Nothing I've seen of the black and white stuff - with the exception of the pilot, the first episode - should have got out of the building. They should have been clubbing those guys to death! You've got an old guy in the lead who can't remember his lines; you've got Patrick Troughton, who was a good actor, but his companions - how did they get their Equity card? Explain that! They're unimaginably bad. Once you get to the colour stuff some of it's watchable, but it's laughable. Mostly now, looking back, I'm startled by it. Given that it's a children's show, and a teatime show, I think the Peter Davison stuff is well constructed, the characters are consistent...
Andy: They are consistently crap.
David: One dimensional and cardboard.
Steven: That's true, but if you can point at one example of melodrama where that's not true, I'd be grateful. Peter Davison is a better actor than all the other ones, that's the simple reason why he works more than all the other ones. There is no sophisticated, complicated reason to explain why Peter Davison carried on working and all the other Doctors disappeared into a retirement home for lardies. He's better and I think he's extremely good as the Doctor. I recently watched a very good Doctor Who story, one I couldn't really fault. It was Snakedance. Sure it was cheap but it was beautifully acted, well written. There was a scene in it where Peter Davison has to explain what's going on, the Doctor always has to. Now some drunk old lardie like Tom Baker would come on to a sudden, shuddering halt in the middle of the set (and) stare at the camera because he can't bear the idea that someone else is in the show. But Peter Davison is such a good actor he managed to panic on screen for a good two minutes so he had you sitting on the edge of your seat, thinking god, this must be really, really bad. He shrills and shrieks and fails around marvellously. And he's got the most boring bunch of lines to say and I'm thinking 'Oh no, this guy's wetting himself! We're in real trouble!'

 

[DWF]

Lovely ...

I wouldn't even go that far. I've not seen any of these original Who episodes, so I've no idea how they played out in context, but just reading those quotes made me cringe at how awkward and stilted they sound. They certainly don't strike me as an encouragement to watch any of the original series.

Kind of hard to criticize what you haven't seen but they don't sound awkward or stilted to me.

 

[Ubik]

I think you deliberately misunderstand when someone says classic Doctor Who has little inner conflict - it's not moping, or whining - it's when the inner conflict is the primary conflict of the story, of the episode. Instead of the episode being about Hero #1 vs. Villain #1, it could be about Hero #1 and his inner conflict with his own demons, past, mistakes, moral dilemmas, etc. That's the stuff of the best science fiction, the best drama, the best plays, the best storytelling in history. The Ancient Greeks knew that. Shakespeare knew that. Michael Piller and Ronald Moore know that. And now, having rewatched most of the old series with my wife, I can say, honestly, that the classic DW writers simply were not interested in that kind of storytelling. And, in retrospect, I do kinda find that weird.

 

[DWF]

I think you deliberately misunderstand when someone says classic Doctor Who has little inner conflict - it's not moping, or whining - it's when the inner conflict is the primary conflict of the story, of the episode. Instead of the episode being about Hero #1 vs. Villain #1, it could be about Hero #1 and his inner conflict with his own demons, past, mistakes, moral dilemmas, etc. That's the stuff of the best science fiction, the best drama, the best plays, the best storytelling in history. The Ancient Greeks knew that. Shakespeare knew that. Michael Piller and Ronald Moore know that. And now, having rewatched most of the old series with my wife, I can say, honestly, that the classic DW writers simply were not interested in that kind of storytelling. And, in retrospect, I do kinda find that weird.

There's plenty of internal moral dilemmas as much on the new show as on the old, but in the end the Doctor always feels he's in the right look at how The Christmas Invasion ended. The Doctor even moralized the destruction of his race so there was no inner conflict there either, he knew in the end what he was doing was the right thing.

 

[Mr Light]

My GF also really likes NuWho but hates Old Who.

 

[captcalhoun]

philistines the lot of you.

 

[Cutter John]

Okay we get the message, you guys think old Who sucks. Jeez.

*slightly grumpy classic fan*


I will say that at least in the old series, villains got a little bit of development beyond the "Oooh look at me, I'm evil and want to destroy the Earth!" that the short running time of the new series allows.

 

[Canadave]

I'll pop back into this and say once again that I don't think the old series is terrible, or that it sucks, just that it doesn't work for me, on the whole. I can watch and enjoy the classic episodes, but there's just not enough there for me to get through everything else. Yeah, it might have been different if I'd grown up watching it, but I didn't, and that's just the way I see it.