The Distinction in AG Doctor Who

by

Posted by Craig in HTPBDET’s absence

The debut of Rose was a much-anticipated and much-feared event. On the one hand, there was the possibility of Christopher Eccleston’s Doctor; on the other, there was pop-star-child-bride Billie Piper who appeared to have disaster written all over her in indelible ink. On the one hand, it was being made in Cardiff and so had purpose built studios and production facilities which might mean it was better supported and resourced than the desperate final chapter of the JNT Era of Doom; on the other hand, it was being made in Cardiff! On the one hand, it was being helmed by Russell T Davies, who knew a thing or two about ground-breaking television; on the other hand, Davies appeared to have a view about BG Doctor Who which had been on display in his seminal Queer As Folk. On the one hand, none of the former writers for the programme were to be involved; on the other hand, neither Eric Saward not Andrew Cartmel would be involved.

A veritable universe of possible outcomes.

Rose established that AG Doctor Who was a continuation of BG Doctor Who in the simplest of ways: it remade Spearhead From Space. This was inspired. At one stroke, the territory was similar, but not the same. Same villains, same TARDIS exterior, same idiosyncratic wanderer in time and space ( this one with a Northern accent, a cool leather jacket, a huge grin, a penchant for “Geronimo” and a suitably scientific approach to problem- solving ) and same sonic-screwdriver ( sort-of ).

Indeed, it was easy to postulate that Rose was occurring at around the same time as Spearhead From Space – two Doctors fighting off the same invasion force but in different ways.

But there were huge differences too: the opening credits ( which were startling, but truly exciting and evocative ), the interior of the TARDIS ( at first alienating but then, quite quickly, utterly mesmerising ), the Time War and the destruction of Gallifrey and the Time Lords.

But the biggest change, the most profound, the most genius notion… Rose herself.

Despite 26 seasons, there had never been a companion like Rose. She was fresh, unique, modern and funny. Her sense of wonder at the TARDIS and the possibilities it offered were unparalleled, as was her sheer joy at the danger of adventuring.

No companion had ever boarded the TARDIS with the intention of having fun and adventures in time and space – not the first time anyway. Most companions had joined because they had no choice, it was their only way of escaping a particular horror or their lives had been destroyed. Jamie and Sarah come the closest – but Sarah was a disbelieving stowaway and Jamie made a snap impulsive choice to hang with people he liked. Rose was the first to actively choose to travel with the Doctor, knowing what it meant, for the sheer fun of it.

And that is the single, most profound and far-reaching distinction between BG Doctor Who and AG Doctor Who.

In BG Doctor Who, the story is everything – always. There are adventures which feature the Doctor and his companions, and they are important in those stories, but they were not the defining issue. They are not the story. It is always about where does the TARDIS land?; what do they find?; how are they endangered?; and how do they get away?. The Doctor and any given companion take different sized roles in the story, but it is about the story always.

In AG Doctor Who, the story gives way to the companion. Since 2005, it has all been about the companion.

With Rose, Martha and Donna, the focus was on how they experienced the adventures, how they interacted with the Doctor, how their lives were changed and their families affected. And their time with the Doctor was not uninterrupted; they came and went as they chose, not always constantly in his company since setting foot in the TARDIS. This was never the case in BG Doctor Who, except, perhaps, during the Pertwee exile and even then there was no sense that either Liz or Jo had spent any significant time out of the Doctor’s company.

With Adam, Mickey, and Wilf, the picture was different. Each came on board the TARDIS because of a particular companion, after that companion had started travels with the Doctor. That, also, was an entirely new basis for a relationship with the Doctor.

Jack, unsurprisingly, is an anomaly. He tags along but is never really a companion in the true sense: he is more an occasional aide. But, once again, the notion was new.

BG Doctor Who had never seen companions like this or stories told in this way, with the focus so clearly on the experience of the lead female companion.

But after Tennant regenerated, the central pulse changed again. Rather than being about the experience of the companion, the entire narrative drive became about the mystery of the companion: first, Amy, then Rory, then River and now Clara.

2013 saw AG Doctor Who briefly flirt with the BG Doctor Who style. From Asylum of the Daleks to Angels Take Manhattan you see a set of “traditional” stories – where the focus is, mostly, on the adventure the TARDIS crew are having. But even then, there is a loose arc about “What happens to Rory and Amy?” ( another companion mystery ) and the Ponds do not travel continuously with the Doctor. It is haphazard adventures in time and space rather than continual ones.

People often comment that the RTD seasons were “too soap opera”. I don’t really understand that, except in the sense that it was always clear what was going on in the personal and home life of Rose, Martha and Donna. But that was the point – some of the most interesting stories look clearly at the effect or possibilities or consequences travel with Doctor bring.

To me, though, the SM years are much more “soap opera” – “Who does Amy love?”, “What happened to Amy?” “Will Amy marry Rory?” “Can Amy love?”, “Does the Doctor love River Song?”, “What happened to Rory and Amy’s baby?”, “Does River Song love the Doctor?”, “Did the Doctor ruin Amy and Rory’s marriage?”, “What happens to Rory and Amy?” “Does Clara love the Doctor?” and “What is the Doctor’s big, deep, dark secret?” – these are the actual arcs of the last three seasons and, narratively, they are way closer to soap opera than anything done in the RTD era.

And they are, as narrative driving forces, as far away from BG Doctor Who as you can imagine.

So – clear points of distinction.

But still, undeniably, Doctor Who.

Because the focus may change, the narrative drive may change, the Doctor may change, the companion may change, the monsters/foes may change – but one thing is constant and defines Doctor Who. BG or AG.

The TARDIS.

The secret of the success of Doctor Who.

From November 23, 1963 to eternity.


57 comments

  1. @ScaryB

    A very good analysis that I find hard to disagree with much if anything. Yes its true that AG fans who have never (and may never) see the classic BG Monsters in their best stories then these are in deed new and their own. That’s not something than RTD/SM et al can claim though. They chose to dig into the past and reinvent existing BG foes. There are many good personal and show reasons for doing this. But then I ask myself, why are AG Cybermen very similar looking to BG Cybermen ?

    Kit Peddler original created the Cybermen to show was the potential danger of replacement part surgery, artificial organs and our quest for virtual immortality. Did they chose to be dehumanized or did that arise as a result of their extended life and continued physical upgrade ? Would it not be possible to create AG Cybermen and leave some elements of “humanity” present. Instead of being completely emotion less, why not leave some emotions, but different ones, lacking empathy and love for example but still having anger and the need to concur all before them for an emotional reason ?

    I think the AG show runners and writers could easily have found a way to do bring back the Cybermen and envisaged something different but which would still work on the same level. I’m not a writer, but I do think this is completely possible. They would not be the Cybermen we knew and loved. but they would still be Cybermen.

    Interesting thought though ?

    Nick

  2. @Nick

    harder to reuse without repeating essentially the same story

    I just don’t understand how that doesn’t also apply to creatures with an “agenda”,  eg if it’s the daleks then they want to take over and exterminate everything living, the master will be manipulative but also want to take over, the angels are looking for lunch and kicks.

    Re BG monsters coming back AG – remember that many of the new fans won’t have met or even know anything about the Silurians or Ice Warriors – this is all new for them.  Reworking an origin story establishes the parameters of the new species for the new audience (and the older fans too, who can then be clear how much of the old characteristics still apply and what’s new).

    @HTPBDET quoted the Dr’s lines from Blink (*respect*) which describes the Angels as a “race” which implies a species. But that doesn’t have to be set in stone (haha).  The idea that they were created by eg the Time Lords as a weapon is intriguing – maybe only a few, but then they did what life tends to do and started reproducing.  Hmmm, wonder how… nah! don’t even go there!!!

  3. @Nick

    Of course, as a BG fan, I wanted to see the Ice Warriors again (for example). Even so I would have preferred something newer than we were given (basically a repeat of there original introduction (melting ice blocks in the Artic complete with the realisation he was alone like Varga (? hazy memory) did back in 1967). If the writers can’t find a better use of the BG concept than repeating the original BG idea, then why not just remake/update the original story as well.

    Varga was not alone in Ice Warriors. Cold War, while obviously reflecting the warrior in the block of ice concept from the original story was more like Dalek in the sense that we were shown a solitary warrior seeking to make sense of its location on revival.

    Cold War serves a real purpose – it re-introduces the Ice Warriors to the new AG watchers who know them not. I don’t believe they wont be back. I think Cold War will be an entree to another story. And, because they have taken the time to introduce the Ice Warriors, they will be able to get right into action when they return.

    I’m probably over interpreting how the Doctor described them in Blink (looking back I’m sure made wasn’t said at all) but it feels right to me to consider that they were manufactured for a purpose than evolved naturally.

    Don’t be so hard on yourself.

    I think there might be a better way to look at it: there is nothing in Blink which contradicts your reaction that they feel like they were made rather than evolved.

    No one knows where they come from and they can’t look at each other – sounds like any form of natural reproduction is unlikely. But not impossible.

    There can’t be any issue with anyone drawing a conclusion which is not flatly contradicted by what is said in the programme – and even where there are flat contradictions, often a way can be found.

     

  4. I am quite amused/bemused by all the talk of differences of BG/AG (or OldWho/NuWho).

    Each Doctor has been a breath of fresh air and a change of style.

    Entertainment has to move with the times otherwise what’s the point of making it, we could just watch the old one (and sometimes we do!).

    It’s in our human nature to tell the same stories again and again.

    The more pertinent question is what keeps AG and BG the same. You could say the Doctor or the TARDIS but really it’s the sense of adventure, that things will change and can be changed

    *disclaimer: As not being a big watcher of AG episodes (infant of the eighties my perspective is obviously different to life-long fans

  5. I think it the lack of recurring enemies with a plan is because of a distinction between types of monsters. There are threats, generally to a relatively small group including the doctor, and there are invaders, who specifically attack an area (often earth). The foes that have more of a specific plan tend to be invaders rather than threats. Invaders also tend to be more likely to be recurring. There can be a new or somewhat familiar threat, but it helps to have some continuity in invaders. It is true that most of the invaders are repeated, but always adapted to the new situation, in a story about the characters (thank you @HTPBDET et al). The new invaders introduced in AG are the Slitheen, the Silence, the Weeping angels to some extent, and several others. They are not yet very recurring, but, although the new series has been around for quite a while, there haven’t been enough episodes for them to come back much to their full potential. I agree that many of the major invaders came up within the first 10 years, and we have had an approximately equivalent time in the new series (2005-2014), but how many of them had much elaboration and repetition within those same 10 years. The only reason we don’t understand, for example, the silence, is that it is currently more popular to have that kind of mystery than a simple explanation.

    Sorry if that got a bit long and rambling, I will explain anything that you don’t understand. I’m a bit new and don’t quite know how to write these yet.

  6. @thommck  I am quite amused/bemused by all the talk of differences of BG/AG (or OldWho/NuWho).Each Doctor has been a breath of fresh air and a change of style.

    I am inclined to agree with this.  The similarities are much more to the point.

    One can just as easily run a distinction analysis between the first and last years of the original series.  And,  I think find differences far greater than between that last year and now.

  7. @Whyhow

    a debate from a while ago, which got a bit out of hand by focusing on detail and not the overall picture. I won’t reopen it (unless you’d like to 🙂 ). I think you explained your point of view clearly (only 1 tip from me would be to break things into multiple paragraphs as it is easier to read).

    Regarding your comment:

    “there haven’t been enough episodes for them to come back much”

    I did a quick count on the basis that series/seasons approximate to 1 year. If you compare the first 7 series of BG and AG Who there were:

    • BG – 54 separate stories, 3 different Doctors and 6 Dalek stories.

    In the first 7 seasons of AG Who there have been

    • AG – 82 separate stories, 3 Doctors and 7 Dalek stories (3 Angel stories) [I’ve tried to limit my count to just the main Dalek stores]

    Quite a surprising statistic I thought. If you added in Cybermen and Ice Warriors, I don’t think the comparison would change that much.

    Cheers

    Nick

Leave a Reply