I remember seeing Rose for the first time and was surprised at how quickly the time flew by after it was it was over I wondered if after some 44 minutes that, that was all there was to it. I was surprised by the speed of the show and how little the Doctor was actually in it, let alone the fact that it was Rose who saved the day not the Doctor.
Has this happened to any of you...?
- Thread starter Ubik
- Start date
Neither is modern Who. Neither, for that matter, were films like Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory or Charlotte's Web or The Muppet Movie or E.T.: The Extraterrestrial or A Christmas Story or Labyrinth or The Princess Bride or The Land Before Time. Yet all of those children's films had far more emotion, far more passion, far more heart, far more soul, than most of DW TOS.
Who said anything about "years on end?" I said the story of how that character reacts to trauma should be told, not that it needs to last forever.
The new series has the same pace most every adventure program has throughout the English-speaking world. It's only "frantic" if you're used to a five-part, 100-minute long serial that spends 20% of its time going nowhere and doing nothing.
Modern Who has vividly-drawn characters with definite emotional arcs. This is just an absolutely false claim.
Even looking at it as a TV professional, Steven Moffat is kinder to DW TOS than I'm inclined to be. For my money, DW TOS is a show that consistently has the germ of a good idea and consistently fails to plant it.
Inner conflict is not the same thing as internal moral dilemmas. People get conflicted about more than just abstract notions of morality, y'know.
Dude, did you even watch Series One, or "The End of Time, Part Two?" The Doctor is nothing but one big mass of unresolved inner conflict over his decision to destroy Gallifrey, even knowing what they were planning to do to the universe.
I wasn't the least bit surprised by either decision. It's perfectly logical to hold off on revealing too much of the Doctor in the very first episode (which is what "Rose" is, since they were out to bring in people who'd never watched DW TOS) -- you want people to be intrigued and to come back! And it makes perfect sense that Rose would be the one who saves the day -- it establishes an equal power dynamic that's far more palatable to modern sensibilities than the old "Doctor and companion meet monsters, companion screams for help, Doctor saves the day" formula.
As for it being 44 minutes -- that's the way modern adventure programs are done. That's just the convention. You might as well be upset that most films are only two hours long or that most musicals have two acts and an intermission, or that Shakespeare's plays are five acts long.
I don't hate the old show at all--I love it. But I do recognize its limits. And I'm honest enough to say that, for me at least, a big part of the appeal is nostalgia.
I've watched Doctor Who since it aired on PBS in the 70s and 80s ... a time when I was desperate for any science fiction I could lay my eyes on. Oh, I was a huge fan of SF literature, but I also wanted to see bold new ideas ... clean, white sets, robots, flashing lights and laser beams ....
I've never been under the impression that the old show was good. Even as a teenager, the sets looked shaky and the production under-funded. The music was almost always atrocious, and the acting ranged from bad to acceptable, with frequently flubbed lines.
But recently, I watched the old shows over again, with an appreciation for the time they were produced and the limitations they faced. I started in the Hartnell and Troughton eras (which I'd never seen before), and made my way up, ultimately, to the McCoy shows. It's a pity so much of the Troughton production was lost ... I really liked him, and Jamie was a fantastic and useful companion. Hopefully more of that era will turn up in mouldering, old warehouses some day.
The old Doctor Who was like a play put on by local performers who sometimes wandered offstage to the outdoors. The stories were sometimes thoughtful and intelligent, but they were hampered by a period where it was accepted that showing characters running around a lot translated to exciting action. A time when women were treated as nearly useless beyond getting into trouble and screaming for help from the hero. And when a kazoo and xylophone cut it for a musical soundtrack.
If Doctor Who had had the budget for better music, sets, and props, if it had more women who were self-reliant and able to add to the Doctor's efforts, then I think it would hold up under better scrutiny from adults today. Comparing Troughton-era episodes to the original series of Star Trek -- it's contemporary SF production here in the U.S., and McCoy-era episodes with Star Trek: The Next Generation, it's pretty clear that English television back then had vastly different ideas about the requirements of a successful science fiction program.
Like Ubik, I've tried to get my wife to watch the old show. She loves the new one, but hates the old ones. Even terrific stories like "The Aztecs" and "The War Games" are simply unwatchable to her, probably for the reasons I've outlined above. My five-year-old tolerates them better and has fallen asleep in daddy's lap watching decades-old programming.
I've never been under the impression that the old show was good. Even as a teenager, the sets looked shaky and the production under-funded. The music was almost always atrocious, and the acting ranged from bad to acceptable, with frequently flubbed lines.
But recently, I watched the old shows over again, with an appreciation for the time they were produced and the limitations they faced. I started in the Hartnell and Troughton eras (which I'd never seen before), and made my way up, ultimately, to the McCoy shows. It's a pity so much of the Troughton production was lost ... I really liked him, and Jamie was a fantastic and useful companion. Hopefully more of that era will turn up in mouldering, old warehouses some day.
The old Doctor Who was like a play put on by local performers who sometimes wandered offstage to the outdoors. The stories were sometimes thoughtful and intelligent, but they were hampered by a period where it was accepted that showing characters running around a lot translated to exciting action. A time when women were treated as nearly useless beyond getting into trouble and screaming for help from the hero. And when a kazoo and xylophone cut it for a musical soundtrack.
If Doctor Who had had the budget for better music, sets, and props, if it had more women who were self-reliant and able to add to the Doctor's efforts, then I think it would hold up under better scrutiny from adults today. Comparing Troughton-era episodes to the original series of Star Trek -- it's contemporary SF production here in the U.S., and McCoy-era episodes with Star Trek: The Next Generation, it's pretty clear that English television back then had vastly different ideas about the requirements of a successful science fiction program.
Like Ubik, I've tried to get my wife to watch the old show. She loves the new one, but hates the old ones. Even terrific stories like "The Aztecs" and "The War Games" are simply unwatchable to her, probably for the reasons I've outlined above. My five-year-old tolerates them better and has fallen asleep in daddy's lap watching decades-old programming.
I didn't say I was surprised by the decision to make the show a 44 minute show but I meant I was surprised by the pace you ahave to admit that after years of stories that lasted twice as long on average Rose came along as hpyer speed by comparison.
The Doctor didn't spend that much time in The End Of Time lamanting the end of Gallifrey it was his own death that preoccupied his time, he didn't know about Gallifrey til the end of the story so I don't know where you getting that from.
And no it makes no sense to have Rose save the day in the first ep. since the series is called Doctor Who not Rose, setting the show up for a new audience should indeed have the Doctor saving the day from the start as a result Eccleston's Doctor spent much of the time in the backround while others did the heroics.
You can't tell me that a series that lasted for 26 seasons, spawned a TV movie, two theater movies, two stage productions, numerous books and audio stories has no meerit at all, there's no logic there at all. Doctor Who was considered one of the best science fiction series in the world long before there was a new show, there's no way it could that if the series had no soul.
I think we all can see the shortcomings of the old series especially where the budget is concerned, but then I've seen complaints about the new series that were pretty odd as well. Like the complaints about seeing millions of Daleks any of the other menaces in the finales when on the old show if they had the money we would've been seeing that much excess on the old show.
Had they the money the old series would've been more like the new show. As for the story structure that's a matter of format serials are naturally slower paced than one hour standalone series.
Why would you assume that the pacing of DW TOS would inform the pacing of the new show? Reasonably, you'd want to look at the pacing of other hour-long adventure dramas, not 40-to-20-year-old serials, in order to get a sense of what kind of pacing to expect.
No, he knew that Gallifrey and the Time Lords were returning the instant the Master said he'd found a White Point Star. And he was torn by it. No, he didn't have a giant soliloquy where he announced to the world how he felt, but his reluctance to actually pull the trigger upon confronting the Lord President makes it very clear that he was torn about having to condemn his people to extinction again.
That relies on the presumption that the Doctor is supposed to save the day just because he's the central character. But the way "Rose" and, really, all of Series One and Two are structured, he's co-equal with Rose: The show during those seasons was as much about her as about him. So the presumption that he was more central than Rose, and that thus he should be the one to save the day, just does not hold.
And even today, when he is more central than the companions -- why should it follow that he should be the one to save the day all the time? The show was called Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but that doesn't mean Buffy saved the day every episode. The fact that one character is central does not mean that that character should be the only one who does something.
I didn't say it has no merit at all. I said it's a consistent disappointment. There's a distinction. My biggest problem with DW TOS is that it doesn't live up to its own potential.
No, you can design serials that don't waste 20% of their time with filler.
I had a wonderful moment recently when, totally unprompted by my, me three year-old said, "the Fourth Doctor is my favorite Doctor."
And there's something in the background of one of our Wonder Pets books that looks vaguely like the Tardis (a door with a light on top) and she always points out "the Tardis."
It's absolutely heart-melting.
I don't get the impression that the original series 'had no soul' and 'bad acting'. Most of the actors from DW TOS did plenty of other highly rated British productions such as I, Claudius and Citizen Kane, and many, many actors from old WHO have been in Nu who. Patrick Troughton and WIlliam hartnell had plenty of credits and acted alongside the likes of Gregory Peck (The Omen) and Richard Attenborough (Perhaps known better to modern audiences as the Jurassic Park guy, but he is quite an accomplished actor and director). Hartnell was a particuarly powerful actor in old war films. The guy who played Henry Gordon Jago was in Unicorn and the Wasp, there was one of the Revelation of the Daleks guys in Rise of the Cybermen, there was the lady who played Queen Elizabeth being a pseudo-companion back in the Faceless ones and of course we have Peter Davison and Elisabeth Sladen.
I don't get the no soul argument either. This isn't a show with Vulcans or Jedi in it. Or the myth that Doctor Who wasn't popular during it's original run in Britain, when several stories during the Tom Baker run had ratings the new series can only dream of.
Doctor Who actually pioneered several FX technologies such as CSO overlay, models, slit-screen and even CGI. It's just that these technologies were restricted by budget but they were among the first shows to use them.
I don't get the no soul argument either. This isn't a show with Vulcans or Jedi in it. Or the myth that Doctor Who wasn't popular during it's original run in Britain, when several stories during the Tom Baker run had ratings the new series can only dream of.
Doctor Who actually pioneered several FX technologies such as CSO overlay, models, slit-screen and even CGI. It's just that these technologies were restricted by budget but they were among the first shows to use them.
On the subject of nostalgia it can be a funny thing. As a child I loved Buck Rogers and I loved Blakes 7. Now, although I own the season 1 box set of Buck Rogers, I rarely watch it and in fact suspect I haven’t watched every episode on it because, frankly its embarrassing. Meanwhile I still adore Blakes 7 and re-watch episodes all the time; yet clearly in terms of budget and ‘pacing’ Buck Rogers should have the edge.
And if nostalgia were my only reason for liking classic Who, that wouldn’t explain why I really like the B&W Troughtons which were before my time anyway?
I can accept the arguments about pacing and acting and budget, but I wish people would just accept that some of us can see past these things, and also some of us can judge a show as being a product of its time and budget. It’s like watching a 20s film then complaining because there was no sound!
I wonder as well just what brilliance people think was on the other channels at the time?
In Who’s early years this would be things like Lost in Space, which is another show I used to like as a kid but which I find unwatchable now. Ok so then we go into Star Trek, and Trek is brilliant, but it also had way more of a budget than Who and was aimed at a different audience…and it was hardly brimming with the sort of character defining emotional moments certain posters were going on about earlier, and whatever emotions characters encountered they were usually forgotten about by the time the end credits had played.
In the 70’s/early 80’s we had the aforementioned Buck Rogers, the harrowing story of a man dealing with existing centuries out of time, with only a comedy robot for company, and his truly heartbreaking love for two women, the one in tight spandex, and the one wearing too much lip gloss! Yeah there was original BSG as well (which frankly has held up a lot better than Buck) but again I don’t see there was that much emotion there beyond scratching the surface, and again you have a show made on a much larger budget for a different audience.
By the time Who ended TNG was just starting, and yeah TNG was brilliant, a game changer and probably the best new series for…well for an awful long time, but let’s never kid ourselves it was the show it became when it started, and remind me, what was TNG’s budget like?
What the makers of the classic series did on a very meagre budget with limited time or support is truly brilliant. It’s a shame some people can’t see that but, you know what, I like to think it rankles that if it wasn’t for one iteration of a show they hate, the show they now love wouldn’t even exist, and their thoughts don’t seem to impact on DVD sales of the classic series either.
And if nostalgia were my only reason for liking classic Who, that wouldn’t explain why I really like the B&W Troughtons which were before my time anyway?
I can accept the arguments about pacing and acting and budget, but I wish people would just accept that some of us can see past these things, and also some of us can judge a show as being a product of its time and budget. It’s like watching a 20s film then complaining because there was no sound!
I wonder as well just what brilliance people think was on the other channels at the time?
In Who’s early years this would be things like Lost in Space, which is another show I used to like as a kid but which I find unwatchable now. Ok so then we go into Star Trek, and Trek is brilliant, but it also had way more of a budget than Who and was aimed at a different audience…and it was hardly brimming with the sort of character defining emotional moments certain posters were going on about earlier, and whatever emotions characters encountered they were usually forgotten about by the time the end credits had played.
In the 70’s/early 80’s we had the aforementioned Buck Rogers, the harrowing story of a man dealing with existing centuries out of time, with only a comedy robot for company, and his truly heartbreaking love for two women, the one in tight spandex, and the one wearing too much lip gloss! Yeah there was original BSG as well (which frankly has held up a lot better than Buck) but again I don’t see there was that much emotion there beyond scratching the surface, and again you have a show made on a much larger budget for a different audience.
By the time Who ended TNG was just starting, and yeah TNG was brilliant, a game changer and probably the best new series for…well for an awful long time, but let’s never kid ourselves it was the show it became when it started, and remind me, what was TNG’s budget like?
What the makers of the classic series did on a very meagre budget with limited time or support is truly brilliant. It’s a shame some people can’t see that but, you know what, I like to think it rankles that if it wasn’t for one iteration of a show they hate, the show they now love wouldn’t even exist, and their thoughts don’t seem to impact on DVD sales of the classic series either.
Here's the thing, Starkers - I'm not sure how budgetary limitations have any effect on lack of character development, over-the-top acting, flat dialogue, endless corridor scenes, emotionless companions (other than fear), and formulaic writing. Again, keep in mind that I still love the show, but now I'm hit with this nagging feeling that the show I love is objectively awful.
The time period has nothing to do with it. The Twilight Zone, The Prisoner, and the original Star Trek all had more inner conflict, mature themes, better pacing, better dialogue, and better writing. Hell, Metropolis, the silent film from the 20's, is a much better piece of science fiction than anything the original Doctor Who ever came up with.
It's not a matter of "being able to see beyond that." What exactly are we "seeing beyond" to? I fear there's not much there, not much to see. You're right, nostalgia doesn't seem to cover it for me either, since I love the Hartnell and Troughton episodes too. So maybe the real question is, why does a show that is so obviously bad, badly written, badly produced, badly acted, and worst of all, boring, gain so much love and such a devotional following from so many people, including myself, someone I usually consider to be pretty good at separating the good from the crap? It's a real dilemma, I think.....
The time period has nothing to do with it. The Twilight Zone, The Prisoner, and the original Star Trek all had more inner conflict, mature themes, better pacing, better dialogue, and better writing. Hell, Metropolis, the silent film from the 20's, is a much better piece of science fiction than anything the original Doctor Who ever came up with.
It's not a matter of "being able to see beyond that." What exactly are we "seeing beyond" to? I fear there's not much there, not much to see. You're right, nostalgia doesn't seem to cover it for me either, since I love the Hartnell and Troughton episodes too. So maybe the real question is, why does a show that is so obviously bad, badly written, badly produced, badly acted, and worst of all, boring, gain so much love and such a devotional following from so many people, including myself, someone I usually consider to be pretty good at separating the good from the crap? It's a real dilemma, I think.....
Why is Classic Who being compared to Star Trek? Star Trek was Prime Time Adult/Family programming. Doctor Who is a Child's program. It's got "Mustache Twirling Villians" and scenery Chewing Play Acting because it's a Children's Program. Of course, someone who can't reflect on their inner-child is goign to see it as Childish, because it is, and that's who it was aimed at.
This happened to my wife too.. And it happened when I tried to introduce her to PG era Genesis, Pre-90125 Yes and Pre-Moving Pictures Rush... She's just not that into the old classics...
However...
Once we got Netflix streaming, I loaded up with classic Who and I too, find much of it SOOOOO tedious.. Even my favorite Doctor, Peter Davison, is hard to watch.. Or maybe that's just because of Peri...
When they announced the resumption of the series and that it would fit into one-hour episodes, I lamented the loss of the several episode format.. However, I apprecite it now that I can see how the older shows were just a lot of fluff to fill in between the interesting bits..
However...
Once we got Netflix streaming, I loaded up with classic Who and I too, find much of it SOOOOO tedious.. Even my favorite Doctor, Peter Davison, is hard to watch.. Or maybe that's just because of Peri...
When they announced the resumption of the series and that it would fit into one-hour episodes, I lamented the loss of the several episode format.. However, I apprecite it now that I can see how the older shows were just a lot of fluff to fill in between the interesting bits..
Again I'd draw your attention to exactly what character development there was in, say, Star Trek? As for over the top acting, William Shatner ring a bell? Emotionless companions, I don't get this at all, even if a lot of them were just damels in distress they weren't like this all the time (and I defy you to prove that someone like Sarah Jane was some emotionless robot when she wasn't screaming; I've seen her thoughtful, brave, flirtatious, noble...and did Tegan really do nothing but scream? I think not, or Zoe, or Jamie, or Leela, or Ace?
More major themes? Mature themes? So The Trouble with Tribbles or Spock's Brain were more mature and dealt with deeper issues than Genesis of the Daleks? Or Vengence on Varos (which did the reality tv schtik a damn sight better than Bad Wolf IMO) Or The Curse of Fenric?
See maybe you like it because it isn't crap? Or maybe you just don't really like it at all?
Exactly! And despite that it managed to deal with some pretty dark stuff. As Gareth Roberts says, there's things like violence, or attitudes towards religion that the old show did that Nu Who wouldn't be able to go anywhere near these days.
However...
Once we got Netflix streaming, I loaded up with classic Who and I too, find much of it SOOOOO tedious.. Even my favorite Doctor, Peter Davison, is hard to watch.. Or maybe that's just because of Peri...
When they announced the resumption of the series and that it would fit into one-hour episodes, I lamented the loss of the several episode format.. However, I apprecite it now that I can see how the older shows were just a lot of fluff to fill in between the interesting bits..
Me too. As hooked as I was in the 80s I just can't categorize any of the old serials as 'entertainment', even the old favorites like Genesis or Remembrance. The last time I saw the serials repeated on TV I would try and watch, but soon realised that my attention would drift to the Sunday supplements or some other distraction.
Maybe if I watched one installment per week I might rediscover some of that old magic, but why would I do that?
Because they are contemporaries of one another. If you insist that Doctor Who was a children's program, then should we compare it instead to Land of the Lost or Ultraman? I don't agree that Doctor Who was intended as a kid's show so much as a kid-friendly family show.
For what it's worth, I've been a Trek fan for nearly all my life and yet, when I started watching old Doctor Who (starting with the beginning) not too long ago, I was taken aback by just how much more modern and progressive the show was. And it did a lot of Trek's premises and stories before Trek or at the same time. I find it superior to Star Trek.
There were periods when Doctor Who lost some of its mirth, sure. But it often feels a lot grittier and more realistic than Trek.
There were periods when Doctor Who lost some of its mirth, sure. But it often feels a lot grittier and more realistic than Trek.
^Yeah, I mean take The Dalek Invasion of Earth, that's incredibly dark for what's supposed to be a childrens' show. A wasted Earth, humans enslaved either as labour or as robomen, those still free living like animals. Daleks everywhere and death and destruction on every street corner!
Similar threads
