All just stories in the end
by HTPBDET
A discussion has sprung up on The Guardian site in about three different places and it is one which regularly pops up.
As it interests me greatly, and it is directly relevant to Memories, I thought I might steal the relevant posts and put them here so see if anyone here wanted to have a safe discussion on this, to me anyway, most interesting of topics.
I know @JimTheFish has ideas about this, as I have seen him express them, but I did not want to cobble together a few of his posts, preferring rather to let him add anything he wanted his own way.
Branfish said:
@asgill
How can it be ‘rose-tinted’ when […] anyone can watch old episodes of Who […] any time we like and be greeted with it as it actually was, warts and all.”
That’s true as far as it goes, but there’s a selection bias at work there – the stories that people actually choose to re-watch naturally tend to be the stories that they like the most, the ones that stand the test of time. Sure, it’s theoretically possible to watch all of the surviving stories in order from the beginning, but that is a massive investment of time and money, so realistically, most people choose to watch the best stories more often that the worst, thus giving them a rose-tinted vision of the overall quality of the era under consideration.
In fact, I think I’ve observed the same phenomenon happening with the RTD era already…
asgill said:
@Branfish – Yes, but ‘rose-tinted’ means something which is preserved in non-verifiable and sentimentalised memory, not to something which is readily accessible at any time by most people with a dvd player or computer. It’s just not the right term in this context. You don’t really need to watch every single surviving old Who story to form a general opinion on the classic run -you could watch a handful of stories from each period/era to get a reasonable idea of what the series used to be like. Say half a dozen stories from each seven Doctors (maybe a dozen to cover Tom Baker’s epic run). I don’t quite see, truly, how that would be a ‘massive investment of time and money’…
I mean, the amount of time many nu Who fans spend speculating about season arcs on threads such as these, and re-watching and analysing each new episode several times over (even though, in my opinion, most modern episodes aren’t made for re-viewings but are geared more at surface appeal), many of them could have by now watched probably at least a quarter of the original series, if not more. I’m not sure I understand the point about money either: as far as I’m aware, most old Who stories can be viewed on Youtube for free, plus there’s UK Gold (if one has it), plus the DVDs, some of which can be hired from libraries if needs be. I know these are very straitened times for all of us, but this argument feels really quite incredible to me: you talk as if we’re still in the 80s when Who videos, such as there were, cost about £20 a time to buy and that was the only means to watch them -with Youtube etc. we have more ‘free’ (discounting broadband cost or whatever) access to old Who and other old series than before
@Branfish – p.s. I’m no fan of the RTD era btw, disliked at least 50% of it, if not more than that, though I do think there were a handful of genuinely v strong stories -Unquiet Dead, Dalek, Girl in the Fireplace, Human Nature, Utopia, Blink and several others. The weird thing about the RTD period was that while much of it was brash in-your-face and rather camp, when there was a good episode/story, it could be very good indeed. It was a very split-personality period in terms of stylistic approaches. But I do feel current Moffatt Who is lapsing into similar excesses -for instance, Strax and Vastra, for me, are straight out of the RTD bag of comic-book tricks
I said:
@Branfish – The one issue that keeps being overlooked in discussions such as these is that it is just not possible, at all, in any realistic way, to watch now a Doctor Who story from the original run and understand it as it was meant to be understood when it was broadcast first. If you saw it when it was broadcast, you can relive the experience perhaps. But otherwise, you are assessing if out of time.
If you joined for Rose and then wanted to go back, even the classics which most agree are classics look slow and padded and different. Even Talons of Weng Chiang and Caves of Androzani, both of which I admire greatly, I constantly hear people who see them now for the first time refer to them as boring and slow. Or worse, stupid.
They are not any of those things, in my view, but the fact is the post-Star Wars generations are likely to think they are if they are seeing them now for the first time.
Comparisons between the way Doctor Who is made now and the way it was made then are very difficult because of this singular factor. Everything about how television is made and why it is made and who controls the content is different now to when Unearthly Child aired.
That is why it is, ultimately, pointless to say that Silver Nightmare was or was not better than, say, Invasion. (Unless, maybe, if you were there to see Invasion go out originally and you remember how you felt – some of us here are old enough for that.)
They are different stories, made under different pressures, at different times,with different audiences in mind.
It is and has always been possible to skewer the logic or plotting of most Doctor Who stories – and sometimes a Doctor or companion or producer will not be to your individual taste – but that does not stop the series being compulsory and/or compulsive viewing.
asgill said:
@HTPBDET – Equally, you can use the same argument for how it is difficult to assess a story so close to it having been transmitted for the first time: those who like the modern style of the show will automatically like most of what they see, but this is, as yet, a taste of the moment, the present.
The big question is, will those who praise much of nu Who now be saying the same things in twenty years’ time when they watch them again? The big test of old Who is that for many many people the majority of it stands the test of time so well, and this is, in my view, because it was made with much more integrity and conviction, belief in its own concept as a kind of rolling mythology -as opposed to the post-modern, ‘knowingly’ flippant way it’s often produced today- and benefited from having, in my opinion (and of most other modern viewers I’ve spoken to) superior writers (and actors).
The problem with the ‘post-modern’ mindset is its’ reticence to take anything too seriously -everything should somehow always end in a laugh or a quip. But by not taking itself seriously enough, the modern series risks not being taken seriously any longer by many who have persevered with it over the past few years.
For many people, old Who has largely stood the test of time and many of its stories are endurable and endlessly re-watchable -and that is because they were made with such care and craft and attention to detail (not all of them of course, but I’d say, the vast majority). I never grow tired of old Who -yet how is it I grow tired of many modern episodes even before they’ve finished being broadcast…?
I’d say fans of nu Who may need to step back in a few years and then re-watch these episodes and see how they feel about them then. Will they prove ultimately to be -in the main- so much of their time and zeitgeist, so ‘of the moment’ and not made or written sufficiently richly or deeply for repeated viewing (not allof them, but many of them), that they lack the durability and sustained fascination in decades to come that much of the original run has been proven itself to have..? Bar the very best nu episodes, I think many of them will not stand the test of time, because I think too many episodes lack sufficient
thought and richness in the writing to stand up to more than a second viewing. But then, none of us can truly answer this now I suppose.
I said:
@asgill – No, I don’t think that is right.
I judged the stories as they played out from the beginning. The ones I liked then I still like, the ones I was indifferent about I am still indifferent about and the ones I didn’t like have not, like red wine, improved with age and proper storage.
The only re-evaluation that I have undergone in relation to Doctor Who concerns Pertwee and then only because I hated him until Three Doctors for replacing Troughton. But that evaluation was about his Doctor, not the adventures or the stories or they way they were made.
Why can’t Nu-Who watchers make determinations now on how they feel? Of course they can. Just as you do.
I like the modern style of the show – since the reboot – as much as I liked Verity Lambert’s or Innes Lloyd’s or Barry Letts’ or Graham Williams’ or anyone else’s – but that does not mean that I like everything about it. As it happens I have grave reservations about Moffat’s era, certainly the Pond era.
And it is nonsense to suggest Classic Who was made with much more integrity and conviction, belief in its own concept as a kind of rolling mythology – no one knew what it would become when it started and, really, it was not until Pertwee’s tenure and Three Doctors that any sense of “mythology” came into play.
And early Doctor Who often ended with a joke or a quip – look at, say, Feast of Steven or Highlanders or Abominable Snowman. Even Marco Polo ended on a light note.
It will be as Doctor Who ever was going forwards – those who see it when it was intended for first broadcast it will judge it as they saw it and, by and large, will stick to those views.
It has, pretty much, ever been thus – not just with Doctor Who but other series as well. The Avengers, Prisoner, Callan, Six Wives of Henry VIII, I,Claudius – all were greatly admired in their time and if you saw them in their time you, most likely, will still admire them. Not for nostalgic reasons (i.e. everything was better back then) but because you actually can remember the feelings you had and the thoughts you thought when you first saw it.
So current Nu-Who watchers will, I expect, always love the episodes they love, just as I expect to always love the episodes of Classic and Nu-Who I have always loved.
I have re-watched dozens of Ecclestone and Tennant stories, even the odd Smith story (all of the Clara stories I have seen at least five times now), and vastly enjoyed them on repeat, sometimes, perhaps often, more than I did on first viewing. Just as it ever was with Classic Who.
Of course, there is an entirely different category of viewer of Doctor Who – the late starter, the person who first watched, say, Tom Baker or Peter Davision or David Tennant and has gradually discovered the earlier Doctors without the benefit of seeing their full runs played out in the intended order. I can’t speak for them because I am not one of them. I don’t know how those people can, seriously, express an opinion about Classic Who which they have never seen or, at least, never saw as intended.
They can say what they like about how they react to seeing Classic Who out of its time, but that assessment seems to me to be not the one you are discussing.
But, obviously, they can speak about all of the episodes which they have seen go out as intended – and they are entitled to their views whatever they are and however much at odds they appear to your of my view.
Standing the test of time will, as it always has been, a matter of subjective taste.
Reading these pages, at times, suggests that rather than the episodes lacking “sufficient thought”, it is the viewer who does not approach the episodes with “sufficient thought”. There appears too much rejection in absolute terms of a programme that regularly garners viewers in excess of 7 million (including I-player) just in the UK.
And I doubt that very many of that 7 million watch to see if it has got better or just to hate it. Mostly, they find something to like – just as it ever was.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And that is where it presently rests.
So – if anyone is interested in contributing, please do. In this anniversary year, it seems to be a great topic: does it matter how are Doctor Who memories formed?
Also, I think that it was @PhaseShift who mentioned a dislike of the expressions “Classic Who” and “Nu-Who”. I agree entirely. But how should we differentiate them?
Pre-Rose and Post-Rose?
20 comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
@HTPBDET — good choice for a post. I was going to do something on similar lines, but you’ve now, thankfully, saved me the bother.
However, I will rise to the challenge and post a couple of replies of my own to asgill, which seem to be germane to the issue…
First of all one on the old ‘padding’ issue on Old Who…
@asgill – This is an old argument, and seems to be spread over several replies on this particular blog, but for what its worth.
I do have a lot of sympathy for @Jaylcookie’s view. Even the four parter in Old Who often dragged with filler and pointless padding, never mind the six or seven parters.
I’d even go so far to say that Old Who is these days 75% unwatchable. And by that I don’t mean that 75% of the stories are unwatchable, but that while most of the stories are largely pretty good, almost all of them are padded out, have some duff characterisation or plot holes to rival anything in the current iteration. True, there are some stone-cold classics in there but I’d argue that they don’t number in much more than two dozen, which for a show that was on the air for 27 years, is not that much of a good record. Nu Who probably has at least double that ratio in a mere seven years.
Of course, it’s a mistake to consider Old Who as some kind of generic programme anyway. A fan from the Hartnell era would no doubt have nothing but sniffy condescension for mid Tom Baker and would no doubt make similarly grandiose and slightly rose-tinted claims for ‘his’ era. Indeed, it’s all online in the audience reports of the time. If the show has one true constant, it’s that its viewers were always somewhat negative and impossible to please.
And this one on the perrenial Old vs Nu Who debate:
@asgill – all good points and I agree to an extent. (Although you clearly hold Four to Doomsday in much greater esteem than I do, I’m afraid.)
Yes, the Davison era (probably my favourite of Old Who) was more thoughtful, with the occasional burst of action, but it was also experiencing a gradual slide in ratings from the Baker years from what I seem to remember.
Of course this was largely to do with the show starting to be buggered around in the schedules and moved from its traditional Saturday slot, but from the point of view of the execs it would have put that bit more pressure on JNT, I reckon.
But I was thinking more audience expectation rather than the actual production values of the show. Yes, the production team carried on as best they could, and produced some great stories, but they were fighting a losing battle as public and cultural expectation of what SF was changing dramatically.
I’m also thinking that this probably didn’t really kick in until the C Baker era and Davison was largely unscathed by these expectations. Although Star Wars was 1977, I think it took the sequels and the many copyists to cement the paradigm change and that it took quite a few years for it to trickle down.
I also think that it’s significant that there really wasn’t a lot of SF on TV in the 80s beyond Who. The era was characterised largely by lots social realism and commentary and I think the show was largely unloved if not out-and-out despised by the suits in that era. I imagine there was a growing call to ‘be like Star Wars or get the hell out’ going on too.
This, I think, is why nu-Who is very keen to appear hyper-modern. RTD and Moffatt and the execs behind them are aware that this paradigm shift is now complete. There is not going back to languid seven parters — people would largely not accept them now and would switch off in droves. The 25 minute time-slot is now extinct.
Drama, especially one like Who, has to consider international markets and syndication rights etc. Plus the show is not competing with other UK drama really. It’s true competitors now are DVD boxsets, streaming video services and the like. The merging of TV and cinema has well and truly took grip now, if not yet complete. Who doesn’t exist in isolation anymore, but rather is part of an entire (international, thanks to the internet) culture that takes in stuff like Game of Thrones, BSG, Trek, as well their cinematic equivalents. That is the playing field on which it must perform, or perish.
I’ll freely admit that sometimes it gets it wrong and goes too far. Some episodes are way too frenetic and overpacked, and that there’s a strong case for more two-parters being seeded through a series. And films like Moon and Never Let Me Go show that there is still a place for more sedate and thoughtful SF. But in general, Who is no longer the unobtrusive fantasy serial tucked into what was in those days a much more diverse programming schedule. It’s grown way beyond that now.
But I tend to think that the fact that it is still here in some form — and actually flourishing, let’s not forget — is a testament to the strength and pervasive power of the original concept. In televisual terms, we live in a completely different world to the one of 1963. That Who is still here when lots of other excellent shows have necessarily fallen by the wayside is no mean achievement.
(Which gets me on to how pathetic it is that the Beeb are not making much more of a fuss about the anniversary, but don’t get me started.)
But just to add that I heartily agree with @HTPBDET‘s thoughts above. Especially the idea that it’s not really possible to relate to Old Who now in exactly the way that we would have been able to if watching it at the time.
Also I definitely think that there will be episodes of Nu Who that will be still being watched in 20 years time. Every series has produced at least one or two episodes that stand up and I’d say eclipse 99% of what the original show produced.
Apologies for the length (as the Bishop said to the actress)
You know, I think there is often an element of a thing – be it a show, a song, a book – having… importance for a person at a time. It becomes imbued with ‘when I was…’ It becomes a time machine. It’s actually a quality I’ve liked reading about in your previous writings; just as we all have.
And here we are.
As for taking issue with the appearance of a story, I wonder at audiobooks. Would that possibly be detrimental? You could argue the same of, say, Star Trek yet even now there are people who would happily watch TOS. Both endure. There’s a reason for that.
And here we are.
I also dislike the ‘Classic-Nu’ thing, despised having to use it for a comment. Pre/Post-Time War? Maybe not that.
(Also wish I could write more… considered comments!)
I’d say @HTPBDET wins on a technical KO 🙂
Had run-ins with asgill before (I presume you added the paragraphing!) – he won’t budge from this position. Can’t see that there will be some post Rose fans who just don’t get the b/w low budget look of many, No matter how many times they view them.
Some old episodes do stand up – but that also fits with his own argument that he likes a few P-R stories. Not only do most of us self select the good ones, the majority of eg the very early ones don’t exist now, some ofhte remaining are reconstructed using audios + animation/still photos etc or from second or third generation video tape.
And it’s not just that you bring your 5 or 10 yr old self’s memories to any current watching, it’s about it being in the context of what else was around at the time, the prevaling culture etc TV is ephemeral by its nature – it’s intended to be viewed in the present – more so I’d suggest than cinema release films. TV shows need to be judged in the first instance re how well they fit their remit – do they have relevance for the people watching them now?
I have no great desire to watch the old Hartnell or Troughton stories again. Partly for all the dodgy quality reasons above but mainly because I don’t need to. Even after 50 years I have very clear and magical memories of some of them in my head, and I want to keep them intact. They are all wrapped up with memories of my childhood, of winter nights, of friends, of my mum… of the context. Watching little clips bring those back but watching whole episodes would change their nature (so I’m glad the temptation isn’t there!)
Dunno – did any of that help?!
@SatsumaJoe – you have a great gift of being concise 🙂
PS on TV being ephemeral – even postRose Who loses a little bit on the DVDs as opposed to watchng at the time of broadcast because of the scheduling. Eg refs to current events, i particularly remember the Lodger (with Smith’s footballing skills) going out at the time of the World Cup, there’s all the Easter and Xmas refs and a whole pile more I’ve forgotten,
Old Who was the same. Writers etc would pick up on what was topical, they’d get inspired by current films, other TV, events, ideas etc
@HTPBDET – I think there’s a bit of over-thinking here, but that’s just me. ‘All stories in the end’? Yes, of course – but it was also about the characters. I was a book reader from an unlikely early age (my grandmother still tells the story of how I read her to sleep with my Nancy Drew Mystery books – before I started primary school).
The story was always primary to me as a child; more important – I thought – than my involvement with the characters in the story. Because I couldn’t separate the two. I just wanted to know how things happened, and how they ended. I never questioned what the author wrote; it was inviolate – it was the story – and although my little mind would race with options on what I thought could have happened, that didn’t matter. The book was written, and that was the story; the characters did what they did and there was no changing that.
I guess I’m an anomaly, the ‘older’ convert to Doctor Who who has only been present since the 2005 re-boot (‘post-Rose’), and has next-to-no knowledge of the so-called ‘classic’ series.
What little I’ve seen of ‘classic’ Doctor Who episodes, fits with my viewing of ‘classic’ movies – everyone spoke differently then, and production values were different, and acting styles were different – all as opposed to current TV and movies. But as blind as I am to camera angles and other director-y tricks, I only ever noticed the stories – and the characters. If the story was strong enough (and I give you ‘Witness for the Prosecution’ as my evidence) then the acting styles, speaking styles, and everything else goes out the window. Because the overall story – crassly, the ‘plot’ – is King: provided the characters’ stories can carry that story along.
I don’t have a TV but whenever on holiday, I madly watch repeats of silly things like ‘Murder, She Wrote’ [very very 80’s]), ‘Big Bang Theory’ [fairly contemporary], and other TV shows from past and [nearly-]present. Setting aside hairstyles and costuming, which is easier to do if one has lived through those eras (and make no mistake, an under-30 watching ‘An Unearthly Child’ might focus solely on those fripperies because they are so alien in of themselves), if the story is engrossing then it doesn’t matter what era it was filmed in. And if the characters are believable, then it doesn’t matter if there is a story or not – perhaps my most important point.
I came as a fully-fledged adult to Doctor Who, but sometime in the 10-Martha series; I bought the Eccelstone Doctor and Rose series boxset (because the BBC – perhaps with CE disagreement?) wasn’t repeated as were all the Tennant and beyond episodes. I hoover up every detail you and others like you provide on this site, because I know I started massively late, and that my knowledge of stories and characters are dependent upon a seriously long history which informs both.
@Shazzbot nail and head 🙂
“The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there”
Some people want to visit it, others aren’t bothered and a few never want to leave
PS Over-thinking?? In here???!!!
@ScaryB Thank you 🙂 I love words, used to use them in a blogger/writer way (like this only much less interesting!); concision is probably current studies getting to me. Can’t really do the academic waffle!
What about pre-hiatus and post-hiatus?
Or pre-interregnum and post interregnum?
I think that the main influence is probably the age of the viewer. Most of us who watched the, ahem, pre-hiatus Who, watched it as children, a period when you are most open to the magical, the wonderful and the wondrous. Watching something as an adult, even with a child-like enthusiasm, doesn’t give you the same experience.
There is also the change in style that has undoubtedly occurred – I have written previously on this subject and illustrated my point by comparing the two versions of the movie Cape Fear. That said, I suspect it’s a preference for the style of any given time that is most pertinent here – sometimes the zeitgeist of a different era just resonates.
From a young age, I have had a real penchant for 30’s and 40’s movies, when my contemporaries were heavily into Action films and, yes, Sci-Fi. They wouldn’t have dreamed of watching a black-and-white movie. Subsequently, they will never know the acting marvels of Stewart, Grant, Hepburn, Colbert etc. nor the writing of Capra and Sturgess, the genre of Noir or the Screwball comedy. It is their loss but I respect their preferences as they respect mine. It’s just a shame that some of the more rabid DW fans don’t show this same degree of tolerance.
@JimTheFish
Not so sure about that old bean…have a look at this: http://www.thedoctorwhoforum.com/sidrat/what-are-your-50-favourite-doctor-who-stories-ever/
And see what you think.
Of course, seeing Old stories fresh, for the first time now, is hardly ever going to be as interesting or exciting as seeing either New stories or being there for the original screenings. But, even so, I would watch a lot of the Old in preference for the new.
Sad but undeniable.
I am not so sure about this. Games of Thrones, True Blood, Merlin and Once Upon a Time are all examples of more languid storytelling – and all work, or worked, remarkably well. I could see no reason why, if someone wanted to go to the effort, that you could not tell a marvellous, engaging and languid story over thirteen episodes: it would need to be a cracking story, but it could be done.
And the BBC recently had great success with Bleak House in 25 minute installments and many many comedy programmes are sold around the world in that format.
Nothing is dead until it is so dead it’s alive. For a long time, people said Doctor Who was dead. It’s the ideas, not the format in terms of minutes, which pushes the international sales.
Unquestionably. People who think its appeal is confined to this time and now are just, well, wrong.
@SatsumaJoe
Again, undeniable.
People like @asgill and @TruclentSheep disavow this, insisting that the periods in the programme they prefer were actually the best the programme ever was.
While that might be true for their own perspectives, it is not true for the general public or other fans. Necessarily. The Android Invasion had better ratings than Pyramids of Mars, Brain of Morbius, Seeds of Doom and Talons of Weng-Chiang and all of Davison, Colin Baker and McCoy. Go figure!
Forgive my ignorance, but what is TOS?
I like audiobooks and audio recordings. If you have a visual imagination, they can be wonderful.
@ScaryB
Totes correct – as the young ‘uns say.
Ephemeral and eternal. Did you ever see that Australian comedy series, Supernova, set in the outback at a research station where one of the characters thought he had encountered alien life in the skies, but he was just picking up the television transmission signals of Pertwee’s opening titles bouncing around in the Universe? Gold!
I wonder. Would they change their nature or just reinforce your memories? When Tomb of the Cybermen was found and I saw it again, I was, quite definitely, 10 again in my heart and mind. I remembered things that happened to me when I saw it the first time simply by seeing it again.
I think that, for those of us who were lucky enough to be there at the start, and can still be thrilled to the core by the new series, I think, hope, want, that, for us at least, seeing it again will not dull the edge of those wonderful memories.
When that episode of Underwater Menace was found and shown at the BFI, I , literally, cried with delight. Watching Troughton in full flow, dealing with a lunatic scientist and then carefully but simply explaining the fate of Atlantis with whatever was handy – it was genius – and it made my nephew completely understand why I loved Troughton so much. You can read the books and scripts, you can listen to the audio – but there is nothing that beats seeing Troughton in action. At least, for me.
@Shazzbot
Moi? Overthink? I am wounded…:-)
Very very true for books, and to a large degree Television too. But, the simple fact is, Television is made to be seen and heard. The acting is as important, perhaps more important, than the writing. The actor can’t work without the writing but, with Television, it is the acting, the direction, the look and feel, which conveys the story. With books, it is the imagination of the reader which supplies all of that. Television does it for you.
Well, I think we are in violent agreement. The characters, at least in Television, come from the acting and direction and the characters deliver the story. If it were otherwise, you would not watch Television. Because that is its appeal.
Never apologize for coming to the party late – true Doctor Who fans welcome anyone, no matter when they first saw the light.
@WhoHar
Yes and No.
For me, Doctor Who gave me a special gift – the gift to always be a child when watching it.
Those blind pathetic fools…
They will never know All About Eve, Psycho, Murder Most Foul, It’s a Wonderful Life, A Night to Remember, Casablanca, Midwich Cuckoos, Desk Set or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Carve Her Name With Pride or The Maltese Falcon. And all the others.
How those and so many other early B/W films can shape lives and imaginations – they did mine – as well as all the B-Grade Sci-Fi stuff I soaked up. Sigh…
I have decided to refer to rabid Doctor Who fans from now on as SheepWithGills. Somehow, that image, makes me feel calmer and happier – and more tolerant of their intolerance.
Thanks to all!
Conversations like these are the stuff of life.
As Troughton said in Tomb of the Cybermen:
@HTPBDET – thank you for your thoughtful reply. After reading what you wrote and re-considering what I wrote, I realise what I didn’t emphasise is how much of a book-reader I was as a child, and how little TV I watched.
I approach TV (and movies) from a bookish frame of reference. I take your points about what actors bring to characterisation, and I do understand how in visual media the amount of personal imagination is limited by definition.
Which brings me back to Doctor Who – because this show encourages imagination in a way that simpler programmes simply cannot! For example, I’m loving Parks & Recreation (shown on BBC4) but I certainly don’t spend any time thinking about what those characters are doing outside of the limited amount of their lives we see in each episode. So, DW melds the imagination-expansion of my favoured medium, books, where the writing (story and characters) is all; with the best elements of good TV – acting, direction, editing, sound.
@Shazzbot
I think that is exactly right – there is no other television show in the world that has fired and continues to fire the imagination as Doctor Who did and does.
It can do anything and encompass anything.
It is utterly, breathtakingly unique.
@HTPBDET
I’ve been thinking, for a while now, that after several series of mysteries that are gradually revealed via little drips in each one-off episode (River, Amy, now Clara) that what Doctor Who needs next is one big story. Not an arc, but one BIG story.
I think a “mission” story could work a la James Bond or Indiana Jones. Both have episodic missions which take them to many different places, so each episode could still be standalone, and in a different time or on a different planet, so as not to alienate the casual viewer or those who miss the odd episode. But each could also advance the mission.
For example, I actually hoped that was going to happen in the second half of Series 6 when Amy was found to have been kidnapped, but they got her back pretty quickly, unfortunately 🙁 . Imagine if the Cybermen intro to AGMGTW had instead been one whole thrilling, scary episode about infiltrating the Cyberfleet to try and retrieve the info they had. And then next there had been an episode where The Doctor and Rory met the Headless Monks in order to learn even more information to advance their rescue bid etc, etc. It could have been a wonderful ride.
So a hunt for a companion would work, a race with The Master to be first to find a MacGuffin would too. I live in hope that the rebound from one-offs really does give something more meaty, along those lines, in the future.
Maybe one day we may need a “Previously on Doctor Who…” intro 😀
@HTPBDET — yes, I must admit I was being slightly mischievous with my ‘75% unwatchable’ line. The actual percentage is a whole lot less probably. But I’d stand by my assertion that many of the less-than-classic Old Who stories can be something of a trial now and even stone-cold classics like Genesis of the Daleks do have a bit of filler to them too (dramatic race up the rocket, oop, no, we’ve been caught again).
Take your point about time slots being able to revived. But I just don’t see it happening with Who now. You’re dead right about the possibility of more languid story-telling though — Game of Thrones being the prime example. But I think you do need some really strong story-telling and a degree of complexity that seems to throw up howls of protest from some areas of fandom. Otherwise the risk is you aim for Game of Thrones and you end up with Miracle Day.
Which brings me on to…
@Craig — A long story could be interesting but, again, if not done properly then you could just kill the show dead. Whenever the original show tried this — The Key to Time, the E-Space Trilogy, Trial of a Time Lord — the results were rather mixed to say the least.
I definitely think a stronger arc is needed though, with stories that are essentially integral to the arc, and more two-parters too. I think it’s also probably likely that series 8 will not be 13 episodes, now that they’ve got us used to six or eight episode runs. I don’t really have too much of a problem with that as well long as the quality is kept up (as it has, I think, this year). That also means that it’d be easier to sustain a strong arc that essentially constitutes a loose ‘serial’….
Plus @Craig, your AGMGTW serial idea is awesome. I’d love to have seen that. It could have been quite Terminator-ey….
I think on the central question about how those memories are formed, I’ve basically stated my position on the “Faces” thread. I really don’t feel able to judge those Doctors who came before my experience when compared to those that I lived through. It’s a particularly emotive experience, TV. The time, the place, the age you were, all tied up with a messy bow.
I make observations on their performance, and their relative merits, but there is no real underlying passion in my appraisal. I think I can appreciate them, and do, but it would be unfair to compare them to my formative “bonding” experience that came with Tom Baker.
As with @WhoHar, I have a fascination with TV and Cinema which predates me on the planet. There are marvellous stories which I appreciate access to, but cannot be fully passionate about, because I cannot appreciate their full impact at the time they were developed. As an example, my father told me about his reaction to Quatermass and the Pit, after I had watched a VHS copy (TV not film).
“Quatermass and the Pit”. A classic. My father was a young Miner in a small village outside Newcastle-Upon-Tyne. TV was a novelty in 1958 and, as the winter months drew in, the BBC unleashed the final in a triumvirate of Horror. Word of mouth from the previous series had filtered around. The people with TVs were assaulted by neighbours without, bearing gifts of food and drink to experience this marvel. Shift Miners tried to swap evening shifts if they were watching the show with people who didn’t (tiredness caused an upsurge in accidents). The two village pubs would empty, until one decided, two episodes in, to purchase one of these new fangled TVs, put it in the Pub to draw back thirsty and inquisitive drinkers.
How could I hope to experience that level of anticipation? We can barely comprehend behaviour like that in today’s catchup/download society. I love it and appreciate it, but I don’t think I could ever love it like my father.
With “Who” I’ve always felt that there are a certain faction of the fanbase who had an odd reaction as a ramification of their love of the show. People telling them they were odd, or laughing at them. They decided to make the show a subject worthy of “serious” criticism. They became defensive about everything in a show in which the creators simply wanted to tell cracking adventures, for people who wanted it, with a little subtext and homilies for the observant. They are so used to building up the show to something it isn’t that, when it comes back, it cannot hope to live up to the mental image they have built around their memories.
In doing so they appear to have lost the connection that made them fans in the first place. I haven’t seen asgill write passionately about one episode in celebration of the classic series yet, just complaints and tired clichés. I doubt he is capable of writing a passionate post on any era of Who anymore. I actually feel sorry for him. The newer fans we have actually feel the connection he once felt, and I think he actually envies them.
It was a gap. Let’s go for a BC/AD reference, as it’s about time. “Before Gap” BG and “After Gap” AG. 🙂
@HTPBDET
“Yes and No.
For me, Doctor Who gave me a special gift – the gift to always be a child when watching it.”
I think when you are a child, experiences are seared into your brain like at no other time in your life. You feel like a child now because that’s how you were when you first watched the show.
Some great movies in there and one or two I’ve not seen, which is great for me – gives me something else to hunt down.
@PhaseShift – your description of Quatermass and the Pit in that Newcastle-upon-Tyne village would make for an excellent one hour comedy I think. I’m scribbling ideas down as I type.
And BG / AG – like it. Of course in a wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey way, there’s never been a gap.
@PhaseShift: “It was a gap. Let’s go for a BC/AD reference, as it’s about time. “Before Gap” BG and “After Gap” AG.”
Equally, one could do ‘BE’ and ‘AE’, ‘Before Ecclestone’ and ‘After Ecclestone’. 😀
As @WhoHar says, “Of course in a wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey way, there’s never been a gap.”
I agree very much with @HTPBDET here.
When watching BG episodes I am very aware that there is a metanarrative in my head that simply would not have been present for an 10yr old viewing at the time, however I would go further and say that the same is true for AG episodes too. As adults we are aware of the whole gamut of mythology and continuity that make up the metanarrative.
A child experiences the sheer pleasure of the Doctor talking his way out of being exterminated. We see not just this, but also every other time that we have seen it. We compare, we search for references. The child thinks “Oh no! Oh Yes! He’s escaped”; we think “Ah, let’s see how he gets out of this – oh yes, that similar to the time in episode x when……”
It’s very difficult to divorce yourself from the metanarrative, and I guess it’s just an inevitable consequence of watching any long running series as an adult.
Please excuse my overuse of the royal we here – i spend far too much time reading stuff on Comment is Free! 🙂
@HTPBDET @JimTheFish @PhaseShift
I think two issues have been underplayed a bit here.
The least important is the manner in which genre fans generally, and Who fans especially, have a sense of ownership of the show – something which puts writers in an impossible position. The most egregious result, of course, the the class of fanfic that tries to “correct” the given story. Sod right off.
But much more import is that fact the first impressions really do last.
If I watch The Wonder Years now I am far from immune to its plastered on sentimentality, but I can still see exactly why me and the flatmates were up bright-and-early on a Sunday morning to watch it (followed by the incredibly atmospheric Bonanza and The Fugitive – : The Waltons is the only show that was actually better second time round than first!).
But ask the young people of today to watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer: They may like it well enough, but a few episodes notwithstanding, they will simply not be able to comprehend just how revolutionary a show it was in terms of dialogue, use of metaphor, invention of shot, continuing story and character development (all events had consequences, often several seasons later – season 6’s Dark Willow was set up in season 2) because they have come to expect that now. They have no clue that before Buffy each of these was rare and the combination unheard of. See also Moonlighting for witty, audience aware, drama.
Before Who, SF as either action-adventure or scary-fable/Twilight Zone/ Outer Limits. But for decades now, thanks to Who, we expect SF stories to continue and for characters to progress (compare later Star Trek with the original episode series, which was all but absent of character progression).
But sometimes progress leaves people behind, either by their choice or the writers’.
I would sooner have a programme that explored the boundaries and missed than, say Charmed or any of the Stargate franchise (neither of which I mind, but both of which I couldn’t give a shit of I missed).
@HTPBDET @JimTheFish and others
Fascinating stuff. A couple of points I’d like to add to the original post and comments. I agree that watching the story on first showing in the original context allows a better perspective on the strength or weakness of the story in its right context. I started watch roughly age 5 in 1970 and have with the exception of around 10 stories seen just about every story since. Some I remember well and others hardly at all, some I hated, some I loved. My memory is certainly fallible too. As a young teenager I found Douglas Adam’s City Of Death incredibly boring. I haven’t seen it since so I find it hard to relate to the “classic” label it now has.
Its correct that I cant put the pre-1970 stories into the right context, but I still think I have a reasonable opinion I started watching closer to the time. I think a child of the 2000’s watching a 1965 story (say) is going to have a different appreciation than a child of the 1970’s, although most (all ?) of us have got so used to modern style TV production it is harder to watch than perhaps it ought to be (all that damned padding).
However, my perception of all these stories including the pre-1970 ones are also heavily coloured (in some cases very heavily) my reading the Target novelisation as well my age then (10 to 20 year old) and the age at which I originally watched the story. For example, I loved Brian Strutton’s novelization of the 6 part Web Planet story. It was easily one of my favourite Hartnell stories from the book. Imagine the shock I had when I purchased the DVD. The Vaseline on the camera lens, the incredible slowness of the story telling. I haven’t watched it since (although I really must). I would recommend the book to anyone today, but would be hard pressed for the TV story.
Jim, I really do disagree with part of this comment (even if it was tongue in cheek and underplaying the %).
Also I definitely think that there will be episodes of Nu Who that will be still being watched in 20 years time. Every series has produced at least one or two episodes that stand up and I’d say eclipse 99% of what the original show produced.
In my opinion, the number really isn’t that high. For a reason I can’t remember I went through every Who story (most of which I have seen live or on DVD and have certainly read) and gave each a score out of 5 (half points allowed). I tried to score instinctively and without hesitation based on my feelings about just how good the story was in my opinion. Of course I reviewed and tweaked (and looked up some stories on Wikipedia to make sure the title (which I often don’t recall especially for AG Who). Most range from 2 to 5 (not many 1’s I really really hated out their). Strangely though, each Doctor/production team/show runner etc came out between 3 and 3.5 on average. My point, I don’t doubt that there will be AG shows still being talked about in 20 years time as classics, but actually the % is likely to be similar to BG Who based on the strength of the story as a whole.
Padding in BG Who, too frenetic in AG Who, which ever terminology you choose to use today, I think that a good story always works and good Who stories could work with just about any Doctor/Companion team although they work best with the team they’re originally written for (naturally).
It may well be that watching old stories gets more difficult to do as the gap between your age and the original production date gets bigger due to both the technology and the production/writing style. My family got our first 21 inch colour TV in about 1969/70 (623 lines ? what’s that 6,000 pixel density) allegedly so I could watch the moon landings in colour. Contrast this with the latest 85 inch HD back lit LED monster (capable of 3D viewing) you could use today. Can we really watch a 1970 programme today in just the same way it was intended ? You can, I think, if you focus on the story rather than the way it was made. A poor story remainsa poor story even if you take out all of the padding.
In the same way, in 2030 who knows what the technology will deliver ? Fully immersive 3D with live net feed (from the production team as well as your favourite Who usergroup) via the successor of googleglasses ? 2013 era AG who will probably feel as different by then as BG who does now and you’ll (I hope be the 50 something trying to explain to the 20 something what they missed.
Of course my tongue is firmly in my cheek now 🙂
Seriously there are enough comments and discussion in the posts to keep you going for a long time and I for one will try and read this series several times over. Its a real shame that this thought provoking blog seems to have fizzled out.
HTPBDET thanks again.
Nick