Doctor Who: The Eleventh Hour

[M.I.K.]

Yep, this is the internet alright.

[Leigh S]

Everybody does know that it's a early-peak, Saturday night, BBC TV children's programme, right?

Point?

Jim

That perhaps the over-analysis of such a piece of mainstream entertainment ephemera is, oh I dunno, a bit fucking absurd?

I do like Dr Who? Yup. But poring over it in this manner is a bit like critiquing the A-Team for miltary realism.

The ONLY valid questions are as follows:

1) Is the new bloke any good? The last fella was brilliant and amazingly popular with viewers, and rightly so
2) Are the new stories fun/ exciting/ scary/ as good as the rest of the RTD era?
3) Are the supporting cast excellent?
4) The theme tune

Well, I'd agree if this was Lost in Space, or Batman, or something with no pretensions to being anything other than a bit of a lark.  How much fun is there in a series that is supposed to be tugging at our emotions because of the events that trnaspire, when those events do not follow any logical sequence might be a matter of taste, but I'd prefer to say it was a matter of appropriate intellectual engagement - they are asking me to care, so I care, not just if the music tells me to be sad, or Tennant quivers his lip, but that the reason I'm sad or happy are actually tied in to the fecking events that I've seen.  If teh writer transaprently changes the rules from scene to scene, then I reserve the right to be at least confused, at more likely exasperated at the whole cackhandedness of the endeavour.  Even more so when teh guy behind the cackhandedness delights in it and claims it makes the show even better than actual sense would.

[Leigh S]

Or to put it another way (probably a terible interent faux pas), this post from another forum by someone who articulates this far better than I can:

Cheers to a certain LizR from a Dr Who forum for the following

"If the writer doesn't feel the need to drop great clunky agendas and pop culture references in, or does it subtly enough that it is part of the flow; and doesn't interrupt the action to give a character's backstory, but instead fills in their history using "show, don't tell"; and doesn't bring you up short every few minutes with something just being incredibly stupid; and doesn't blatantly tug your heartstrings, but instead does it in a manner that leaves you feeling involved, rather than used; and if they don't top it off with a resolution that insults the intelligence of every 8-year-old watching - if the writer, in other words, keeps their end of the bargain, rather than just thinking "oh it's only Doctor Who, any old tosh will do" - then you actually get that chance. It's like the magical way your room got tidied and your meals got made for you when you were a child. It doesn't "just happen". It takes a lot of work to create the situation where the viewer can just sit back and enjoy the magic of Doctor Who...

Because as any writer will tell you, creating the situation where the viewer forgets they're watching a story and becomes completely involved is actually the most difficult and demanding part of the whole business. it's what separates the men from the boys, the beginners from the professionals (and hopefully the Moffats from the Davies').

One of the greatest writers of the 20th century observed that "good prose should be transparent, like a window pane."* Writing that doesn't come between the viewer and the story is the most wonderful thing. It seems simple enough. The writer "merely" has to keep your belief suspended and avoid bringing you back down to Earth with a dull thud every few minutes (Oh look, Russell's being clever! Oh wait, that doesn't make sense! Oh look, he's making a subtle dig at Mrs Thatcher! Oh look, this episode's gay reference! Oh come on, the Doctor would never do that!) and just leave you alone with the story. That's great writing. That's Ursula le Guin, that's Tove Jannson, that's Ian Fleming, that's - I hope - Stephen Moffat. Someone who can let the story breathe, let the characters be themselves - someone who can do the hardest thing in the business and butt out, leaving the viewer alone with the Doctor and Amy and their magical universe."

[M.I.K.]

*applauds*

[Daveycandlish]

Finally got to see this and thought the new guy was pretty good. I liked Tennant, and having seen Matt Smith interviewed was unsure of him - maybe he seems better with a script!
The new girl can be a kissagram at my 40th later this year if she wants - niiice!
I thought bits of the episode were a bit childish - fish finger custard, etc - more appropriate to a CBBC programme like the Sarah Jane Adventures, than to a prime time family show, but knowing it was Moffat in charge now, I was comfortable enough to sit back and just enjoy it.
New Logo? I can get used to it.
New Music? Not so sure about that new version of the theme and still too bloody loud during the show.
New Tardis? I like all that Heath Robinson stuff - the bell, the taps and typewriter, etc. Not too sure about the nod to the legacy of RTD by having an enormous butt plug as the time column, mind!

[zombemybabynow]

thought it showed a lot of promise.  I really rate moffat.  Series should be less welsh, (not that i minded,) and less bi/metrosexual as rtd has gone.

[House of Usher]

Cheers to a certain LizR from a Dr Who forum for the following

LizR says all that needs to be said, really! How did that go down on the Doctor Who forum?

New Tardis? I like all that Heath Robinson stuff - the bell, the taps and typewriter, etc.

I hate it. It's a bit 1970s, like something out of Rentaghost.

Inside of the Tardis had a bit of a Jules Vern vibe to it.

True. It's a pity, because the Tardis had a much more stylish Jules Verne inspired interior 35 years ago.

[House of Usher]

http://daleksinmanhattan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/baker-secondary-control-room.jpg

[Richard]

LizR rocks!

[Kerrin]

I thought the McGann Tardis had the most Vernesque interior, still my favourite.

http://www.themindrobber.co.uk/mcgann-tardis-tv-movie.html

And LizR is a very astute lady.

[soggy]

http://daleksinmanhattan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/baker-secondary-control-room.jpg

Ooh!  Safety rails.

[House of Usher]

Ooh!  Safety rails.

Just a pity the control console was so small. 

[golledge100]

Signal to noise ratio seems to be off tonight on here/quote]

I think your probably right Jim. Going on about how shit Russell T Davies was on a thread about the new Doctor Who headed by Stephen Moffat is a little irrelevant. I'm personally in total agreement with Brendan1. Critiquing a show is fair enough but going out of ones way to pick tiny holes in a family entertainment show does seem a little absurd. If people were to harp on about how Star Wars is ridiculous and isnt real Science because the spaceships etc would not REALLY make any noise in Space then they are missing the whole point of the film and are not taking it in the spirit with which it is intended. They would also probably come across as more than a little sad. (Using the internet as a way of excusing this behaviour is no justification.) The same goes for Doctor Who. Russel T Davies most definitely did rely far too much on deus ex machina plot devices and it became quite tedious as a result but Stephen Moffat is now heading the show and with just one episode under his belt I feel it has more humour, fun and magic than in the previous 5 years already. It looked particularly good in HD.  People may disagree with me but I'm of the opinion that if a 10 year old doesn't question how a mechanical clock can reset itself to 00.00 (all the clocks in my workplace do as they are controlled centrally by wireless signal) then we should also suspend disbelief. If we can't then we're watching the wrong show and should complain about something more relevant, like how quickly our hair is thinning and our bones are deteriorating!

Something I found quite interesting this morning was my 3 year old looking at a picture of David Tennant as the Doctor in a magazine after watching the new show on Saturday. "Whos that?" he said.
"Doctor Who" says I.
"No it isn't" says he.
Considering the show is aimed at children (admittedly older than 3) I feel this bodes well for Matt Smith.

[golledge100]

Whoops. fucked up the quotes again! Strange. Its never happened to me before. My apologies. I did not mean to offend anyone. (This is the internet after all.)

[Jim_Campbell]

Whoops. fucked up the quotes again! Strange. Its never happened to me before. My apologies. I did not mean to offend anyone. (This is the internet after all.)

Nothing less than your ritual suicide can atone. Sorry about that -- nice knowing you!

Cheers

Jim