Has this happened to any of you...?

[Sindatur]

From what I've seen/heard, the BBC always referred to it as a Children's show and shown at the Children's Hour. They often reference this or that is for the Children, David Tennant called it a Children's show on an interview after an Audio Drama I own (And in fact, mentioned the approach of storylines is indeed for Children), and then of course there's the Children in Need Specials, and the fact that early Hartnell is specifically aimed at teaching Children history.

So, yea, you would want to compare it to something like Land of the Lost

 

[Count Zero]

It has a pretty high bodycount and plenty of violence for a children's show, though. That goes for the new show, too. Maybe it sticks out more to me because in general, you don't see much blatant violence on German TV at all, except late at night. But my DVD box of the new show's second series has a FSK 16 sticker on it (meaning you should be 16 to watch it - it's only one episode which got that label, but still).

 

[Sci]

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?

DW TOS seemed to get worse as time went on. I'd tend to agree that the Troughtons and the Pertwees are better than most of the 80s stuff.

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,

When it comes to acting and pacing, you're talking about the very essence of the production. It's the equivalent of talking about being able to see "past" the music on an album.

I wonder as well just what brilliance people think was on the other channels at the time?

Not much. With rare exceptions, English-language television dramas on either side of the Atlantic didn't become truly good until the 1980s, in my view.

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.

I think that's a completely fair criticism of TOS. TOS could produce really wonderful episodes, but it would often have no follow-through. Still, I think that episodes like "Journey to Babel" or "The City on the Edge of Forever" contradict the notion that ST TOS's characters are as shallow as DW TOS's. ST TOS may not have had the kind of follow-through we'd expect from modern TV -- which, again, is a function of television's structural immaturity in the 1960s -- but it still had more depth than most of DW TOS.

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.

I would certainly write off both of those shows as utter dreck. And in fact, I'd consider the difference in quality between nuBSG and BSG TOS to be comparable to the nuDW and DW TOS.

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.....

I think DW TOS's biggest strengths are its concepts -- the basic premise is brilliant -- and its lead actors. Moffat is a bit harsh on the actors playing the Doctor, and I'd tend to agree that more than a few of them would have trouble finding work almost anywhere else, but I also think that most of them were able to embody the character of the Doctor very charismatically.

^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!

And BSG TOS opens with the genocide of all humanity.

Having a dark idea or two is not the same thing as executing the premise well.

 

[Count Zero]

It seems there is a broad consensus here in this thread that people like old Doctor Who mostly due to nostalgia. Which is odd because it's totally contradictory to my own experience.
Just last night, a friend of mine who's also watched all of the new show recently, told me that she had started watching the old show and that it was "like crack". So, of all the people I know who've seen the new show (not too many, granted) all loved it and all but one checked out the old show and liked it. Half of them are women.
I wonder if that's a regional difference. Maybe this proves once and for all that Germans are weird. Or maybe just my friends are.

 

[Ubik]

See, I agree, it often IS like crack, the original series. I find it highly addictive. When going through the old episodes with my wife, I tended to want to sit through at least 2 or 3 parts at once, but by the end of one 24-minute part on any one particular evening, she'd had enough. And I just didn't understand. "Aren't you anxious to find out what happens??" I'd say. "No, not really," she'd answer.

And I also agree with Sci, who argues the best part of the original series is the concept. And that, precisely, was also my wife's main criticism of the show - the core concept of the regenerating Time Lord and his (infinitely?) large Tardis was absolute science fiction gold. Brilliant concept. And yet, they do so little with it. War Games was the first time they really delved into the Time Lords, and it's one of the only episodes she seemed to want to keep watching. On the other hand, she thought The Deadly Assassin was terrible - you have this ancient, mysterious, wise, time travelling race, and you present them with a lot of mediocre acting, silly costumes, and a cliched plot? The main reason she wanted to watch the original series is because she is fascinated by the "mythology" of the show - and yet, again, the show is basically NEVER about its own mythology. She loved the first part of Logopolis, because it's got those very cool Tardis-within-a-Tardis scenes, and those deal directly with the realities of the Tardis, which is part of the mythology. But then they abandon it for a stupid comic book plot about a mustache-twirling 2-dimensional cackling villain. Don't the writers know how fascinating their core concept is? Why do they themselves seem so uninterested in it, in favour of formulaic B-level monster movies?

And my wife has a point about all that. She's right, the writers AREN'T very interested in their own concept or premise. In fact, the Hartnell years, when Verity Lambert was running the show, was much closer to what Doctor Who should be about than much of the later years. (And Lambert, the creator of the show, has publicly said she disapproves of the direction the series ultimately took.) In Hartnell's time, they hadn't yet settled on the formula of ALWAYS having a monster/villain. The companions (at least Ian and Barbara) were real people. And the themes were more science fictional - The Aztecs is one of the only episodes to really delve into the question of whether a time traveller has the right to judge an earlier civilization. Isn't THAT one of the major questions the entire series should be about, given its premise?

Anyway, I feel I'm starting to ramble. I'll leave it to someone else to continue. I need to reiterate, though, I still do thoroughly enjoy the series, love it in fact, and yet I can't ignore these very real, and quite undeniable criticisms of the show.

 

[Count Zero]

I think some people are just overthinking this and judging the show from today's viewpoints what superb TV drama should be like. Of course, Doctor Who will never fulfill those expectations. That's what I meant earlier when I said you had to let go to a degree to enjoy it. Just as you can't expect a silent movie to tell a very sophisticated story. (And I say this as an avid fan of silent movies.) For some people, that's easy, for others, not so much. Others just don't see the point. And that's all fine.
Obviously, old Doctor Who has its weaknesses and it sometimes descends into formulaic storytelling. Considering the mass of material, it would be a miracle if it didn't. It's also different things to different people, including producers and writers. To some, it was just a silly sci-fi show, to others it also had an educational aspect, others wanted to get their message across. Thus different stories and eras will appeal to different people (or not). I just wanted to chime in, saying that I don't think that people mainly like the show for nostalgic reasons.

 

[Ubik]

I think some people are just overthinking this and judging the show from today's viewpoints what superb TV drama should be like. Of course, Doctor Who will never fulfill those expectations. That's what I meant earlier when I said you had to let go to a degree to enjoy it. Just as you can't expect a silent movie to tell a very sophisticated story. (And I say this as an avid fan of silent movies.) For some people, that's easy, for others, not so much. Others just don't see the point. And that's all fine.
Obviously, old Doctor Who has its weaknesses and it sometimes descends into formulaic storytelling. Considering the mass of material, it would be a miracle if it didn't. It's also different things to different people, including producers and writers. To some, it was just a silly sci-fi show, to others it also had an educational aspect, others wanted to get their message across. Thus different stories and eras will appeal to different people (or not). I just wanted to chime in, saying that I don't think that people mainly like the show for nostalgic reasons.

I just would like to put this recurrent and incorrect myth to rest. The notion that there was no fantastic television until the 80's is false. The expectations some people have of what classic Doctor Who could have and ought to have been were absolutely met by other science fiction shows both before and during Doctor Who's original run.

And second, even if there were no other fantastic science fiction shows before or during that time, there were fantastic science fiction movies, and there's no reason why an sf show couldn't be as tight, as complex, and as literate as an sf movie. Or an sf book, for that matter.

 

[Count Zero]

Which shows are you thinking of?

 

[Shatnertage]

Everyone probably gets something different out of it. For me, a big part of the fun is rewatching something that I first saw as an 8 year-old and thought was tremendously impressive/scary/whatever. But particularly in the B&Ws, I feel almost like I'm traveling in time by watching them-I just like immersing myself in something that's so different from what you see on TV today.

 

[Count Zero]

For me, part of the appeal is that many episodes are set in a time period (the 60s and 70s) I've always found fascinating and wished I had lived in. Even the episodes set in the future are drenched in that zeitgeist, regarding costumes, design and the like.

 

[Shatnertage]

^Yes, for me that makes The War Machines a lot more fun than if it, considering it's really about things that look like Xerox machines trying to take over the world. The look at London in the Swinging Sixties, though, is awesome.

 

[Count Zero]

Yes, that made that story enjoyable for me, too. Especially the bar scenes. Otherwise, it was somewhat slow.

 

[Ubik]

Which shows are you thinking of?

I've already named a few earlier in the thread - The Prisoner, The Twilight Zone, and Star Trek. Let's leave personal preference out of this if we can, and try to stick to facts as much as possible (I don't want to derail this thread with a Doctor Who vs. Star Trek argument; I actually prefer watching classic Doctor Who to original Star Trek.)

First, the pace of Star Trek is far more accomplished than Doctor Who, objectively. Much more happens in 45 minutes of Star Trek than often happens in 2 hours in Doctor Who. Even a mediocre or average Star Trek episode is rarely boring, and the scriptwriters have a good handle on the 5-act structure of a television show. They know how to increase tension, decrease it, and then increase it in time for a commercial break, and those commercial breaks are far more dramatic and varied and creative than your average Doctor Who cliffhanger (imagine if, in Star Trek, at every commercial break, someone were about to kill Kirk or Spock, or execute them, or throw them off a cliff, or crush them in a complex machine, or shoot them - the 60's Batman and Robin series understood that this would be comical and silly more than the writers of Doctor Who ever did.)

Second, the main characters on Star Trek show a lot more personality, levels, subtlety, and depth than the main characters on Doctor Who. Kirk and Spock are far more complex than the Doctor, far more like real people, and McCoy shows far more personality than even the best Doctor Who companions (Romana, Sarah Jane, Ace, etc), with the exception of Ian and Barbara, who are fantastic, and just as realistic and complex as any Star Trek character.

The conflicts on Star Trek are often internal, not just against an outside threat. Kirk often has to debate within himself what he ought to do - should he break the prime directive? Should he let Edith Keeler die? Should he trust Khan? Should he allow Spock to go back to his planet to mate? Should he ignore the commands of a superior officer? Even in the mediocre episodes, there is almost always an internal conflict with one or more of the characters. In Doctor Who, that is very rarely the case. The only major internal conflict I can think of is the Doctor wondering if he has the right to destroy the Daleks before they have been created, but that conflict lasts about 15 seconds, and should have been at the heart of the entire episode.

I could make the same comparisons with The Prisoner, another early sf show that has an excellent understanding of character, conflict, and pace.

Anyway, my point, believe it or not, is not that Doctor Who sucks. As I said, I actually would rather watch an old episode of Doctor Who than an old episode of Star Trek. I guess I just don't understand why Doctor Who, despite the fact that the writing is more often than not pretty sloppy and amateur, that it entertains and entrances nonetheless.

 

[Starkers]

I'd argue that not every Who cliffhanger fell into those categories, but I know what you mean, but its not like the new series has come up with cliff hangers that are that different really.

In terms of internal conflicts, well the obvious one that springs to mind is the Second Doctor having to decide whether to contact the Time Lords or not in The War Games. Again is the modern series that much different? Often there's no internal conflict, the Doctor is right, the Doctor is almost sociopathic at times because he's right and no one else has a say. And when they do try to include some internal conflict it doesn't always go well and can appear quite clumsy (see The Waters of Mars for further details).

And as good as the Prisoner is, did it really feature Number Six having an internal conflict every week? Often it was just how Number Six reacted to this week's plot to get him to talk. (and actually given the half hour nature of Who it might be more apt to compare it to Danger Man than the Prisoner.)

But I won't completely disagree with you, often Who was plot over character (but so was a lot of telly then, and even now) and maybe part of the charm is its cheesiness, and undeniably part of the charm comes down to the men in the role.

I can't, and won't agree that Who never dealt with adult themes, or science fiction themes, that the companions had no personality (seriously love McCoy though I do he isn't exactly that 3 dimensional, and is primarily there for the same reason as Sarah Jane, to act as Kirk/The Doctor's concience. If anything he has more gravitas, he's larger than life but then Kelly is also an accomplished and experienced cinema actor who I'm guessing cost a lot more than young aspiring actress Lis Sladen.)

But I don't think you can argue Dr Who is better than Trek, I think though that sometimes the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts, and this is why Who is so enduring. The central theme is captivating, the man in the central role has always been a strong focal point, and it tried, really tried, to tell bigger stories than its constraints would allow, and I think sometimes that it's that very struggle to achieve more than they had any right to that somehow shines through in the serials.

And Sci, give me classic BSG over the modern version any day

 

[Count Zero]

Anyway, my point, believe it or not, is not that Doctor Who sucks. As I said, I actually would rather watch an old episode of Doctor Who than an old episode of Star Trek. I guess I just don't understand why Doctor Who, despite the fact that the writing is more often than not pretty sloppy and amateur, that it entertains and entrances nonetheless.

There are a lot of aspects to the show that are appealing - its sillyness, the fact that it doesn't take itself too seriously (which I think sets it apart from the majority of sci-fi fare), that it can thus get away with stories a show like Star Trek couldn't, its versatility due to the premise, its style(s), the witty and funny dialogue, the often eccentric characters and so on.
I'm still not convinced regarding inner conflict being portrayed more often and in a better way on Star Trek, but let's assume for a moment that I was. Not every show has to be everything to everyone. A show might have strengths that make you look beyond the weaknesses or not see them so clearly. What those strengths and weaknesses are and whether the former outweighs the latter varies from individual to individual.
There's a lot of visual art that I enjoy for quite different reasons, so I don't need any one show/film to fulfill all my wishes.
I veheemntly disagree with the assumption that a lack of inner conflict signifies bad writing/story telling and makes for bad shows/movies. Just take the Avengers. There's practically zero inner conflict and yet, most people like the show and hardly anyone would argue that it's not very well made even if they don't like it.

All right, it all sounded more coherent in my head. I'm tired because instead of going to bed in time, I had to watch all episodes of Carnival of Monsters. I, for one, really dig the kick-ass cliffhangers.

 

[Starkers]

Anyway, my point, believe it or not, is not that Doctor Who sucks. As I said, I actually would rather watch an old episode of Doctor Who than an old episode of Star Trek. I guess I just don't understand why Doctor Who, despite the fact that the writing is more often than not pretty sloppy and amateur, that it entertains and entrances nonetheless.

There are a lot of aspects to the show that are appealing - its sillyness, the fact that it doesn't take itself too seriously (which I think sets it apart from the majority of sci-fi fare), that it can thus get away with stories a show like Star Trek couldn't, its versatility due to the premise, its style(s), the witty and funny dialogue, the often eccentric characters and so on.
I'm still not convinced regarding inner conflict being portrayed more often and in a better way on Star Trek, but let's assume for a moment that I was. Not every show has to be everything to everyone. A show might have strengths that make you look beyond the weaknesses or not see them so clearly. What those strengths and weaknesses are and whether the former outweighs the latter varies from individual to individual.
There's a lot of visual art that I enjoy for quite different reasons, so I don't need any one show/film to fulfill all my wishes.
I veheemntly disagree with the assumption that a lack of inner conflict signifies bad writing/story telling and makes for bad shows/movies. Just take the Avengers. There's practically zero inner conflict and yet, most people like the show and hardly anyone would argue that it's not very well made even if they don't like it.

All right, it all sounded more coherent in my head. I'm tired because instead of going to bed in time, I had to watch all episodes of Carnival of Monsters. I, for one, really dig the kick-ass cliffhangers.

Quoted for Truth

 

[Haggis and tatties]

I love all Who from Hartnell right up until today's Who, but that's no doubt because i was brought up on 30 min episodes on a sat night and a cliff hanger every week as norm.

And i have no problems moving from the new to old again and back again, cant get enough of old who at times, just a pity we wont every get to see them all.