...NEW DR WHO TONIGHT, 05/04/08, 6.20pm, Partners in Crime...

[DavidXBrunt]

As we established. As you possited. Different. Different. Different.

It works as fiction just fine. I mean...have you read Great Expectations and Oliver Twist? Pip gets off a crime that should jail him and Fagin gets hung without legal reason. Is that plausable? Is it realistic? No. It's fiction. A story. Something made up to entertains. It seems right that FFagin diea and Pip goes free so that's enough. Millions of people agree. I met my nephew after school today and he excitedly told me all the bits he liked. That's enough for me.

[Floyd-the-k]

"Read Troillus and Cressida. Listen to X by Kylie Minogue. Masturbate over pictures of Pandas. Prepare a steak tartare. Inhale the scent of a daisy"

What, simultaneously?

DXB, well-put. I see a point to the criticisms of new Who, but so far I've enjoyed all the episodes I've seen.  There must be some time-loop thing affecting threads about Who.

[Leigh S]

I don't think the fact that the realisation of Skaro in Genesis of the Daleks is as important as the fact it's set on an alien world.  when I read a book I have to do a lot of the work in imagining the alien world.  If I listen to a radio play, same thing.  When I watch old who, it's the very fact we are told we are on a totally different world that was thrilling to me as a youngster - the dramatic possibilites that threw up, rather than the special effects or set design possibilities that arose.  They were a billion miles from humdrum life, and that suited me fine. It just seems more epic and engaging to me to think of the characters being lost on the sea of time and space rather than being on the 9.15 return journey to Cardiff via Earth Orbit.  

That's not to say that RTD hasn't made a good case for keeping the stories earthbound - indeed, without stranding the Doctor again, the companions family ties seems a pretty sensible way to justify the Doctor returning Earthwards week after week - better than the half human malarky anyway!  However, that's at the loss (if you see it as that) of that sense of being lost amongst the universe.  

While the Doctor as Eccleston was not doing "domestic", I felt it worked - once he was house trained as Tennant, I felt it neutered the character of the Doctor somewhat, and thats befoere we get to see the Dopctor discussing who fancies him . The other problem is that RTDs Earth is now nothing like "real" Earth.  By addressing the consequences of his big setpiece invasions, he has created an Earth that is surely already headed into planet Zog territory?  A Yeti in tooting Bec loos, but not in our universe.

As for why people watch, they watch cos its Doctor Who, and it as potential to deliver the same hit as before.  I dont watch Torchwood, because frankly, the first 6 episodes I saw of it were laughable, so I stopped. I didn't watch dr Who through most of the 80s, because it clearly wasnt for me.

With Who, it's not so clear cut.  It's an old habit and it sometimes threatens to give you (and occasionally delivers) the hit you had back in the day.  I suppose we are like junkies complaining about the talcum powder and rat poison that's been cut into our lines. The show is 50% what I'd want from a perfect Who, and 50% bewilderment and disappointment.  and that 50% of disappointment seems to me to be self inflicted (almost bloody mindedly inflicted it seems at times, with RTD keen to shake offor up  more fucking mosquitoes by driving the plot into inanity) - they could make the stories make more "sense" (thats not to say make it hard Scio-fi or even quasi-scientific, just plauaible within it's own rules - Blink being the perfect example).  it wouldn't dampen the enjoyment of those who don't care, it could only heighten it.  But hell, they've got Moffatt to write the "clever" ones, everyone else can relax. moffatt can (generally) take the RTD formula and make soemthing special out of it - its not what you do, its the thoguht with how you do it that counts it would seem, but thought seems positively discouraged at times.  

[Tu-plang]

I would like to see certain changes to new Who, sure.  More alien worlds would be a treat.  Longer serials.  Radiophonic music.  But the current series veers between average (Partners in Crime) and excellent (Steven Moffat), and when its average its inoffensive at least, and doesn't make me want to piss blood on an internet forum.  Whatever happens its never worse than Timelash.

We're in Pompeii tomorrow night!  And then the planet of the Ood, then with UNIT.

[TordelBack]

it's the very fact we are told we are on a totally different world that was thrilling to me as a youngster

Agreed.  The locations in the Hartnell episodes last week signified their alienness with streamers of tissue-paper, and oddly it was enough.  However, that's coming from an oldie - do kids today really buy quarries as alien planets?  Mind you, Stargate uses the same pre-fab cave and pineforest as representing all the planets in two different galaxies...

[Adrian Bamforth]

It always seemed easier to believe and scarier in B&W by virtue (noe pun intened) of it being less clear - when it went to colour it started to look more like a TV studio, especially when the studio light reflected off anything metallic.

[Leigh S]

as a kid, I was aware it was a studio, and it never once marred my enjoyment - if anyhitng, the fact tat these adults were more obviously performing these roles added another dimension to the experience.  When you go to see a play, do you feel less involved because of the limitations of what they can do with some props and backdrops?

[TordelBack]

Good point, Watcher, although you do touch on one of the key diferences between cinema/TV drama and theatre.  

ASIDE:   There's a superb play about a Munster/All Blacks rugby match called Alone It Stands which manages to convey  a simply huge range of locations with no physical sets whatsoever - the team bus and various cars are created by a series of actors on all fours, for example.  

[DavidXBrunt]

Theatre is a completley different medium to television though there are some surfece similarities. It's like oile paint and photography. It's all about creating an impression.

[Leigh S]

Thats true, though I think TV used to be much more like theatre when it didnt have the resources to be like cinema, and in the old days, the Beeb was very much more like a theatre, putting on plays.  Ceratainly old TV programmes are often performed like plays - theres a theatrical approach to the productions and even the acting.  Modern audiences expect a cinematic approach, but I'd argue it isnt necessarily a superior approach - theres something about the investment you need to make - the leap of faith you take in old drama, especially in old sci-fi - where theres nothing they can do but ask you to fill in the blanks effectwise.  Certanly, I'd rather fill in the blanks effectwise than plotwise.

[Buddy]

[Proudhuff]

++With Who, it's not so clear cut. It's an old habit and it sometimes threatens to give you (and occasionally delivers) the hit you had back in the day++.
Spot on watcher, there are bits I like about the new Who, and like other here I like to discuss it with the family sprogs not to mention buy em the magazines, toys etc etc...
BUT it's like watching one of your close friends losing the battle against alcohol, the occasional good night out doesn't make up for what has been lost, or one feels, with a bit of TLC could be recovered.

Dr Huff

[DavidXBrunt]

No, it's not like that at all. The world has moved on and, like it or not, the environment that fostered and created the original show isn't there any more. If New Who was like Old Who in presentation then it wouldn't have worked, I really believe that.

[Leigh S]

I agree, but what you were the first to draw the parallel - old Who did alien planets - were they well realised in comparison to the new? you can't compare, as the way we watched old Who is very different to the way TV is watched today.  

New Who has to make them "look" more real, but do they feel any more real becasue tehy look more real?  Objectively viewing both fresh now, New Who wins visually, but its an unfair comparison.

Old Whos alien worlds may have been forests or caves, but they werent really any the worse for that in their day

[DavidXBrunt]

Well actually I think it was Pete who brought the subject of alien worlds up, but that's by the by.

Your pooint that Who in its day was fine for what it was is essentially something I agree on. It's the old sfx snake test, I suppose. Kinda and The U.S.telemovie with the Jon Pertwee logo both have fake snakes. Which one is better realised and which is the better story.

But I don't think New Who is style over substance. Some of my favourite Who ever is from the last 5 years.