Insightful New Yorker article on Doctor Who
- Thread starter The Nth Doctor
- Start date
And yet it lasted 26 years so it must have had something going for it - given the writers clear ignorance about the show maybe she should have kept to discussing the current series.
Anyone who thinks one of the best things about Who is the story arcs really doesn't know what they are talking about.
Nussbaum never claims in that article that DW TOS didn't have anything going for it, and she does talk about DW TOS's traditional strength: the character of the Doctor himself.
Criticism is not a zero-sum game. One can evaluate an old TV show negatively without meaning to say that nothing is good about it.
Except that the ability to construct a coherent story arc for a TV show whose format more naturally lends itself to an episodic structure (really almost an anthology) is actually a sign of talented writing. So is the capacity to take advantage of the time travel conceit to construct some really wonderful emotional arcs that examine the nature of love (both romantic and platonic) and its relationship with the passage of time, which is most of what Moffat's Who has focused on. If you don't think Moffat's arcs are some of the best things about modern Doctor Who, then I really don't understand by what criteria you're judging your TV shows.
I've been watching old Doctor Who recently and I'm surprised at how much of an emotional core it does have; it's just very differently done than the current Doctor Who. In regards to the writing it's tough to say as you're comparing very different things but there's a lot of smart Doctor Who that occurred between 1963 and 1989. I quite love new Doctor Who but in terms of a sharp, witty, scathing script I don't think anything has undone "The Caves of Androzani." Really couldn't care less about the visual effects, to be honest.
One of the problems I have with Steven Moffat is the overuse of really good ideas, namely River Song and the Weeping Angels. Both were great ideas that should have been used once. His arcs haven't been great either. The fifth season arc with the crack in time was interesting but the resolution was flat. The Impossible Astronaut arc started out great and then collapsed under the sheer weight of unbelievability. BTW did anyone notice that both season enders were basically the same with time collapsing on itself and some non-solution fixing the problem.
Your mileage may vary with the Weeping Angels, but I don't see how you could say that about River. The entire point of her character when first introduced was that he would see her again and have a non-linear relationship with her, in spite of having already lost her (and that he would one day lose her again).
I really don't know how you could look at those lovely scenes where the Doctor is telling one last story to little Amelia, or where Amy, sobbing, brings the Doctor back to life at her wedding day by reciting that old wedding rhyme, and call them "flat."
I didn't see any collapse in the Series Six arc.
I mean, if you speak in the broadest possible description of the plot, sure. But that logic would also apply to "Father's Day," "The Girl in the Fireplace," "Army of Ghosts"/"Doomsday," "Utopia"/"The Sound of Drums"/"Last of the Time Lords," "The End of Time, Parts I & II," and God knows how many Star Trek episodes and other science fiction stories.
Meanwhile, the emotional depth and thematic resonance of his work is leaps and bounds above much of what else is on TV.
Agreed, linking River to Amy in particular strained the whole thing past breaking point and the arc collapsed into absurdity.
One of the problems was SM instead of writing interesting rounded characters which we know he can do just put in place more twists, so the doctor is going to die, oh wait Amy is secretly pregnant oh and now she's not really Amy, oh wait the (completely unexplored) bad guys have her and the baby, then they've rescued the baby but then it isn't the baby and then River is the baby grown up and then SM must have realised he'd basically written a storyline where parents lose their child and forget about it the next week so he put in the horrific character of Mels who was their never previously mentioned trouble causing best friend (which made Amy & Rory out to be the sensible ones even though the Amy we were originally introduced to was supposed to be the troubled one but then she ceased to exist when time was rewritten so who is Amy really, are we supposed to actually care?) then Nazi Germany of all places is used as the backdrop for a silly romp and then all this gets put on hold for a few weeks when we get some good episodes written by other people. Then time is once again rewritten, the Doctor's supposed final absolutely definite death is dealt with in about 5 seconds and he gets married to River Song even though she's unstable and he's never shown much more interest in her than any other modern companion.
It made Dodo's entrance look emotionally truthful!
I can't speak for the durability of the sets on DW TOS, but I find them much more impressive than the sets on almost any era of Star Trek. The level of detail, (especially regarding the historicals), and interlocking nature worked pretty well. The only real problem was when they'd switch from pre-filmed pieces to studio stuff shot on video, but that was standard BBC practice basically until sometime in the 90s.
Star Trek had far superior cinematography, visual effects, and makeup at every point in its run, but the set design was often lacking in a way that Doctor Who wasn't. In TOS it was often a set with a different colored light, in the TNG era it was Planet Hell and throughout both eras it was the claustrophic indoor feel of anything not shot on location. Even when the sets were good, they still looked like sets that lived on a soundstage, not places that interacted with the outside universe.
It's always been agreed that the BBC does great period sets, and Doctor Who was no exception on that point. However, their sci-fi sets were always more problematic. But then, I suppose you have a point when comparing them to Star Trek sets. Star Trek's alien planet/ship/whatever of-the-week sets were, perhaps, not that much more imaginative than whatever Doctor Who was coming up with at the time.
But then, Star Trek got a lot more mileage out of its regular standing sets than Doctor Who. On average, I would say recurring starship interiors would comprise about 70% of your typical Star Trek episode. On the other hand, there are many Doctor Who stories where we never see the interior of the TARDIS at all. As a result, I would say most regular Star Trek starship interiors far outstrip anything classic Doctor Who was able to muster. But then, Star Trek didn't have to tear down its sets every week to make room for the new alien planet.
But then, Star Trek got a lot more mileage out of its regular standing sets than Doctor Who. On average, I would say recurring starship interiors would comprise about 70% of your typical Star Trek episode. On the other hand, there are many Doctor Who stories where we never see the interior of the TARDIS at all. As a result, I would say most regular Star Trek starship interiors far outstrip anything classic Doctor Who was able to muster. But then, Star Trek didn't have to tear down its sets every week to make room for the new alien planet.
There were some lovely sets/costumes in classic Who. Parts of Planet of Evil really do look like an alien jungle (of course other parts look like a studio because they had to shift into the studio for bits) and things like Zygons or the robots from Robots of Death could almost step into nu Who with little or no modification (actually you could even argue the original Sontaran makeup was pretty darn good as well.) and beyond Who the Liberator flight deck from Blakes 7 is a gorgeous set. The trouble is for every brilliant bit of work done, they did something that hasn't held up nearly as well, or worse something that was terrible even at the time, but even if their reach sometimes out did their grasp, at least they tried, and seriously what would you prefer? sailing ships in space or farting aliens?
Some people will never accept that anything in classic Who was the equal or better of anything since 2005, in the same way there are people who won't aknowledge that in many ways Nu Who is superior.
Gareth Roberts has summed it up nicely. There are plenty of places the new series has gone that classic Who wouldn't/couldn't, but by the same token lots of areas that classic Who touched upon, the new series wouldn't be able to touch with a barge pole now. (I need to get home to my copy of the Brilliant Book of Dr Who for the exact quote).
Classic Who is better sometimes, Nu Who is better sometimes, it depends. It's like pacing. A lot of old stories were too long, too full of padding, but often they worked really well, allowing a story and characters time to breathe. The new series is a lot pacier, but there have been plenty of episodes where you wish they'd had a little bit longer to tell the story, to generate some drama or tension or make you care about the guest cast.
Some people will never accept that anything in classic Who was the equal or better of anything since 2005, in the same way there are people who won't aknowledge that in many ways Nu Who is superior.
Gareth Roberts has summed it up nicely. There are plenty of places the new series has gone that classic Who wouldn't/couldn't, but by the same token lots of areas that classic Who touched upon, the new series wouldn't be able to touch with a barge pole now. (I need to get home to my copy of the Brilliant Book of Dr Who for the exact quote).
Classic Who is better sometimes, Nu Who is better sometimes, it depends. It's like pacing. A lot of old stories were too long, too full of padding, but often they worked really well, allowing a story and characters time to breathe. The new series is a lot pacier, but there have been plenty of episodes where you wish they'd had a little bit longer to tell the story, to generate some drama or tension or make you care about the guest cast.
I agree with all of this! Great summation.
Another thing I've noticed with old Beeb series that doesn't help is that sometimes things seem left unfinished like paint, trim, polish, etc. Sometimes flubbed lines and takes are left in and so on. I don't recall that in much US TV save soap operas like Dark Shadows. I think that may be apt as I think shows like Who are probably more like US daytime TV than US prime time shows. On the flip side, it's probably better to have some ambitious ideas over working fully within your means.
Well, the old William Hartnell episodes, while not aired live, were shot as if they were practically live. Doing retakes was simply not practical with the kind of budget they were working with. Not only was this a regular issue when William Hartnell couldn't remember his lines (which was often) but this could sometimes create odd, unexpected problems, like in "The Chase." In that story, the Daleks create a perfect android duplicate of the Doctor. The android was played by a stand-in with pre-recorded William Hartnell line readings dubbed over him. This was necessary even in the scenes where the Doctor & the android didn't appear in the same shot because, due to the quasi-live nature, William Hartnell couldn't be on the set of the Dalek ship if they were intercutting those scenes with scenes of the Doctor in the TARDIS with Ian & Barbara, which had to be shot at the same time.
However, when William Hartnell flubbed his lines, the other actors were usually able to cover for him and it very much became part of the character. Even to this day, the Doctor often rattles off mindless technobabble which he seems to be totally making up and his companions have to swallow it because they don't know any different. The Doctor maintains such a momentum of words that you don't necessarily notice if what he's saying doesn't make much sense. (On the other hand, when they flub a line on Dark Shadows, it's frequently painfully obvious. I haven't watched much of the show but there's an episode on the Best-Of DVD where Dr. Hoffman has clearly forgotten her line and needs Barnabas to prompt her.)
One thing I miss from the old series was all the cliffhangers they used to do. It was such a requirement for the show and became such an artform. The new series doesn't do them nearly as often and lately seems to kind of whiff on the timing of them. (They need the stinger at the beginning of the closing credits to be louder.)
However, when William Hartnell flubbed his lines, the other actors were usually able to cover for him and it very much became part of the character. Even to this day, the Doctor often rattles off mindless technobabble which he seems to be totally making up and his companions have to swallow it because they don't know any different. The Doctor maintains such a momentum of words that you don't necessarily notice if what he's saying doesn't make much sense. (On the other hand, when they flub a line on Dark Shadows, it's frequently painfully obvious. I haven't watched much of the show but there's an episode on the Best-Of DVD where Dr. Hoffman has clearly forgotten her line and needs Barnabas to prompt her.)
One thing I miss from the old series was all the cliffhangers they used to do. It was such a requirement for the show and became such an artform. The new series doesn't do them nearly as often and lately seems to kind of whiff on the timing of them. (They need the stinger at the beginning of the closing credits to be louder.)
Comparing DW TOS to US daytime television from the comparable eras is a really apt comparison.
(There's a reason I don't much like daytime television....)
Considering that she went into broad opinion strokes, I'd say it's a review of the last two seasons, just not in detail (how would you write a detailed review with the space limitations of a couple thousand words that her editor ordered?). But even then, I think this very thread, and the other threads and discussions that Whovians Old, Nu, and future have, is evidence by itself of what she's trying to bring up with that comparison to Community. And besides, Doctor Who is a pop culture institution, like Star Trek. You can't bring up the current without providing context of the old, which built up that institution in the first place. That's a major reason why the show was revived, not rebooted -- its considerable past and library was just remembered too fondly to be swept under a rug. Rather, RTD and Moffet ended up using that past material as foundation for their work.
By her mentioning Old Who, regardless of her opinion of it, she acknowledges that Old Who lay the groundwork for Nu Who, a show she certainly likes. This mainstreaming of Who in America wouldn't have been possible if it wasn't for that ambitious yet humble original show, and the memories of the fandom that linked the two eras together and convinced new fans to join the ride. Indeed, why would a major network sitcom like Community devote a season-long subplot to a parody tribute? It takes a special kind of franchise to inspire that kind of writing and loyalty in another show across the pond, which is her point.
This. Just because you critique something or point out a flaw doesn't mean you automatically dislike or disapprove of it overall. We got some really defensive folks here. Her pointing out a couple quibbles about Old Who doesn't mean she condemns it to the level of "Supertrain", it just means she has merely a couple quibbles.
Last edited:
Similar threads
