Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
6 August 2013 at 08:09 #15519
Regarding PC’s prior career, this article is a must read
A few surprises in there
Nick
6 August 2013 at 07:59 #15517@bluesqueakpip @jimthefish @Shazzbot
I thought a while about whether I should continue our discussion of not as this isn’t really the best place.
Whilst I don’t like how SM “created” River as a human with regenerations due to some mystical Tardis effect in the womb (because its a load of codswallop really) and that the “marriage” have largely been noted by its absence on screen (it looked more like a series of dates to me anyway), at least it makes some sort of sense. Both the Doctor and River have multiple regenerations are capable(in theory) of spending a long time together. I don’t think we know whether River ages as slowly as the Doctor (or how many regenerations she had before she became Alex Kingston alike), but there is much more inherent possibility in the relationship from the outset. Contrast this with say Rose, who is meant to be what 18 ?
The thing I find difficult to accept, is not that sex has entered the Tardis (I’m with Jim that it needs to be a given in the modern world), but the way the pre-River romance elements with Rose, Martha, Amy (and to a lesser degree with Clara) and Doc 10 and 11 were included and dealt with. My contention is that this could have been handled differently and without bring an element of Doctor romance into the equation so that we now (with an older appearing Doctor) or in the future (with a female Doctor) have this apparently age inappropriate relationship problem meaning that its difficult to see how the sex thing raising its head can be avoided with a older Doctor/young female companion or older female Doctor/younger male companion. Obviously, the “best mates” or mentor/mentee style relationship can work )and that is presumably how PC/Clara will work), but can this explanation be applied consistently now the genii is out of the bottle.
One other thing, we all accept that the D10/Donna relationship worked fine without any romance angle. But if you think about it, why shouldn’t Donna have fallen for D10 ? Are we saying its only possible for teenagers/young woman to fall for the Doctor ?
Bluesqueakpip is of course correct we can look back to Leela and Susan as BG examples. Given that BG Who didn’t handle companion departures at all well, using either case is difficult to justify rationally. Neither departures made much sense after all.
Nick
6 August 2013 at 06:38 #15512as a counter point to the excitement, the guardian has reposted this, a comment article on Matt Smiths appointment.
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/garethmcleanblog/2009/jan/03/doctorwho-television
Worth a read
Nick
5 August 2013 at 15:06 #15482I have personally felt that the best companion groupings have been Ian & Barbara with Susan/Vikki and Tegan/Nyssa/Adric (other examples being Ben/Polly/Jamie), but I don’t think the dynamic quite works anymore as @jimthefish shows with his alt-Ian/Barbara or my prior run in with @htpbdet (soon to have a C I think) over why Ben/Polly would be a couple these days).
I’d love for you to set out how your idea would work unless you bring in a Doctor offspring (or great offspring). All the other examples I’ve just thought of fall into the same trap I’ve just outlined.
Nick
5 August 2013 at 14:55 #15480But they can [but is that what your (teen) audience wants to see ? – pseudo Mum and Dad snogging]. My point is that the “best mates” solution (Doctor/Donna) is just as much of a cop-out when you bring sex into the Tardis as Rose/Martha/Amy having to fancy the Doctor. Why couldn’t have Donna fancied the Doctor ? Its a less age “inappropriate” relationship than with Rose (who was meant to be a teenager after all).
😉
Nick
5 August 2013 at 14:42 #15478I absolutely agree with your analysis, but is it because the (part of the) audience can’t accept that the Doctor is an alien because he looks human. Alternatively (and this is my view) AG Who wants to use that element of the character dynamic (when they choose) to bring an emotional element to the show it wouldn’t otherwise have. I don’t think writers as gifted as RTD/SM would have had any real difficulty in making it clear to the AG audience that any romantic involvement wasn’t going to happen.
The consequence of this decision is that you now are forced to have male/female companion (whether a couple or not) to have some sexual tension in the Tardis (or to avoid it) narrowing your options as a show runner. Since having a Doctor/single female companion is ruled out by this dynamic (unless you have a older female companion where the sexual element can be assumed to not exist ? – “best mates”), having two female companions doesn’t work either (you end up having to have jealousy stalk the Tardis or create/imply a homosexual relationship instead, which is just a different way of getting around the same “problem” anyway). It gets worse with more than two companions let alone with a female Doctor surely ?
I’ll be happy if you can convince me I’m wrong.
Nick
5 August 2013 at 14:12 #15476I think it was probably a zeitgeist thing that couldn’t be ignored, but that’s in part because RTD forgot the key thing – He’s an alien stupid (paraphrasing Clinton) -. You need to actively make it clear to the audience that they shouldn’t expect human emotions from the Doctor. All of 9, 10 and 11 have had their alien moments of strangeness, but still it seems to me that there is an underlying romantic element in the mix somewhere. Would it have been that difficult to write a 9/Rose or 10/Rose scene when the Doctor gently explains just why its impossible for him to replicate her feelings ?
as an aside,
No doubt @bluesqueakpip will tell us that there was just such a scene (but it just didn’t stand out to me at the time so much that I can remember it or worse it was in one of those short explain everything lines I keep missing 🙂 )
Nick
5 August 2013 at 13:35 #15467the Doctor/Companion dynamic a little ‘fake’ to my mind. Even the pretty good McCoy/Ace dynamic suffered
Hmm. I’d disagree there. There’s absolutely no reason to believe a 1000+ year old Timelord would really develop a romantic interest with a 20+ something human (male or female). That’s the point about him being Alien after all. However, once AG Who brought sex into the dynamic (even tangently) it’s become impossible not to consider surely ?
Nick
5 August 2013 at 13:29 #15465Isn’t the description 12 th doctor correct anyway as John Hurt isn’t technically a Doctor (by name). PC is therefore also the next Doctor ?
On the other matter, I’m not sure they can bring in another male companion without writing some form of “love interest” angle with Clara. If SM wasn’t interested in that element of the show character dynamics, he wouldn’t need to postulate having a male companion at all. One of the biggest criticisms of BG Who when there was multiple companions was the lack of writing time available for each character in each episode. I don’t think 45 minutes shows (as opposed to multiple 25 minute episodes) help the writer achieve this especially when AG who is quicker paced anyway.
Nick
5 August 2013 at 12:25 #15460Strange alien thing in a blue box I could live with, but in fact not a man (or human) and not mad (D11 may have been manic, but that’s not the same thing)
I can’t see PC being manic as I don’t think it would suit him (but of course we wont find that out until 2014 🙁 )
Nick
5 August 2013 at 11:58 #15457Thinking a bit more about your question, if you ignore some of more flippant elements of D11/Clara relationship when he does rather think he’s god’s gift to (young) women, how would you describe their relationship anyway ?
Hopefully we’ll also see the end of the Madman in a Box description as well.
Nick
5 August 2013 at 11:55 #15456Yes, I expect Clara’s boyfriend (or boyfriend to be) will join the Tardis in series 8. Whether its necessary or not is another matter…
I agree a mentor style relationship will probably work out to be best.
Nick
5 August 2013 at 11:17 #15445I think you’re not being entirely serious here, but its in my nature to bite 🙂
Its not an age thing per se. Hartnell was wearing a wig and certainly looked older than he actually was. I certainly thought he was in mid 60s when he played the character. We live a much easier life these days – mid 50’s looks like mid 40’s for many British people in comparison to the turn of the century generation who were 50 to 60 in the 1960s (or earlier). Contrast Sean Connery (age 32) in 1962 (Dr No) with Daniel Craig (38 in Casino Royal). Who looked younger in their first Bond film ? – Craig to my eye.
I think there is a 0% chance that Peter will be referred to as “Grandfather” unless we get to see a pre-teen relation on screen.
I also doubt whether Peter will want to be type cast in grand parent roles just yet either.
Cheers
Nick
5 August 2013 at 07:13 #15413I feel it’s not the quantity of the people who read my posts, it’s the quality.
To answer your questions
1. Odds on certainty – Probably at the end. when it was announced my Guide showed 30 minutes. Now it shows 35.
2. I reckon about 22 minutes.
3. Naffer.Since I shared your opinion here it seems like a score of 1 out 3 puts us both in the dunce’s corner. No Bonnie Langford sightings ?
I’m pretty sure the Matt Smith announcement show was on BBC1, although I remember it as a much lower key event than it seems like last nights extravaganza of naffness was. Fortunately I didn’t have to sit through it tonight as it sounds like the cringe factor was extremely high.
I’m not sure that any BG regeneration was actually a surprise. The identity of the was always known in advance with a Radio Times photoshoot for the press release and (brief) BBC news coverage. @htpbdet may remember what happened when William Hartnell was replaced.
The key point is that this is good news all round. There may be a little less frantic running around going forward, but I think it will be better for that and Peter will bring out different angles from the writers.
I think suggesting the Grandfather/Grandchild relationship for the Doctor/Companion is going a little too OTT – he’s not that old. A 25 year old companion is likely to have a 70+ year old grandparent !
Nick
4 August 2013 at 15:03 #15061I read it was being shown live at 4 am on an Aussie channel. If rain doesn’t stop play at Old Trafford before then it sounds like a perfect excuse for a Monday morning sickie
4 August 2013 at 15:01 #15060You better watch out for what you wish for. Bonnie Langford as the Valeyard anyone ?
Nick
4 August 2013 at 14:45 #15056Peter Capaldi would be great, but I still think its likely to be another who !? moment UNLESS its an actress.
Nick
4 August 2013 at 14:04 #15052I have three questions for your live blog. I recall audience participation is obligatory (well it is on the BBC ashes coverage anyway)
- what do you think the odds are that they’ll run the anniversary show trailer ?
- How many minutes into the show will they keep us waiting before making the big announcement ? and
- Do you think the show will be as naff as last time when they announced Matt ?
Nick
4 August 2013 at 13:58 #15051You’re doing yourself a dis-service there. There are at least 3 of us 🙂
4 August 2013 at 11:01 #15042I’ll bite. Its not an episode of the show, but a short documentary during which they’ll announce and probably interview the actor or actress ho will play the next Doctor. The BBC did the same when Matt Smith related David Tennant (leaving most of us to say Matt who ?).
Nick
4 August 2013 at 10:04 #15040Without any doubt, the Angels are the one of the most creative concepts to come out of AG Who. We can be in no doubt about this. I don’t doubt Steven Moffat can develop his concept further than he has done and remove some of my objections which I consider to limit the overall effectiveness of the Angels as a protagonist (discussed elsewhere on this forum). Whether this can be done without removing some of the current mystique is a different matter. As has been commented above, his first attempt in this story to change the Angels modus operandi doesn’t appear to have been totally successful.
I neither feel strongly for or against your Serial Killer concept other than to say that I suspect that it may relate to popular culture’s understanding of serial killers rather than that of (criminal) psychology’s attempts to explain rather than anything else. You seem to be aware that the popular description and the reality of serial killers is rather different and its my distinct impression that you are partially mixing description of serial killers with that of psychopaths. My limited understanding is that whilst there is some overlap between these groups it is not universal. I look forward to seeing how you develop and explain your concept in light of your own and others thoughts. It is certainly an interesting idea.
The Angels arewithout doubt a fabulous creation, but I’m less sure that they are on the way to becoming a modern Icon than you are. I think to be an icon in the absolute sense, then the very name and image conjurors up a common understanding throughout society that making the classic “John Birt is a Dalek” claim [I forget the exact wording used] conveys the writers conceit without any further explanation being needed. I have no doubt that both the Daleks and the Tardis (and Doctor Who itself) achieved iconic status in British society between the 1960s and the 1990s. Even here, I rather think both are passing out of the modern icon lexicon in the 2010s. This doesn’t mean either are less well known than previously, just (for example) it seems to me much less likely that a younger person would ever describe someone as a “Dalek” to describe another’s actions or personality today.
The Angels have a long way to go before they have penetrated the wider fabric of society to the same extent that either the Daleks or the Tardis did in he past. My suspicion is that it is much harder to create icons on our multi-media environment than in the past and that they have a shorter shelf life than previously [To illustrate my point, Omnishables was very much the 2012 word of the year in Britain, but just how much is it being used just a year later ?].
However, I do think you are right, the Angels have already become an icon of the Who universe up their with the Davros, Cybermen, Master and other BG foes who are in the same pantheon. I expect we will see other writers take up SM’s concept and create something new and interesting for the Angels in the future, although only time will tell on that.
Nick
1 August 2013 at 15:09 #147451 August 2013 at 14:14 #14740You both obviously know this better than me, but (simply) it seems to me that you have two sorts of actors. Those who can actually act and those who play endless variations of the same character (themselves ?). Is it just that Freema didn’t really get the Martha character motivations and the Martha/Doctor relationship or something more fundamental ?
I always thought RTD had some sort of problem or he wouldn’t have written Martha out of Who (regardless of her time in Torchwood). She obviously want prepared to sit around and wait on the production team to make up their minds by the way shejumped at the Law and Order opportunity. I didn’t watch much of that show as my wife and I weren’t really interested in watching UK remakes of the (better) US original we’d already watched.
Nick
1 August 2013 at 13:59 #14739I don’t think RTD had difficulty letting go of Rose…I think he knew exactly what he wanted to do and he did it.
I’m not sure quite the same can be said for AG Who though 🙂
I saw enough Buffy and Angel to know the Spike/Angel/Buffy triangle existed, but I assume there is something more than just a preference for Spike rather than Angel ?
That the actors have a better idea of the characters than the writer/show runner doesn’t surprise me somehow in a long running show.
Nick
1 August 2013 at 13:33 #14736@IAmNotAFishIAmAFreeMan
Yes loneliness and abandonment are themes I can recognise, but I think he must have some form of underlying concept to link the various elements of his story arcs together with the TimeWar if his overall narrative is to work in any coherent way. I may be wrong here, but he’s dropped hints about things which are currently happening right from the very beginning (11th Hour). That demands some form of resolution before the regeneration. I’m expecting some might be delivered in the Christmas story
Nick
1 August 2013 at 13:21 #14734“Intellectual” – I should obviously choose my words more carefully, although as a science graduate all this airy fairy humanities lark never suited me :). What I mean is that what SM is trying to do with the overall narrative is rooted in an idea or concept that has more than the emotional journey that RTD showed, rather than that it doesn’t have emotional components or expression. You’re obviously well ahead of me as I don’t really have much of an idea what its going to be just yet and probably wont twig until I read the discussion here :). Then I’ll probably get annoyed again.
Cheers
Nick
1 August 2013 at 11:41 #14725I’ll admit I wondered how you might justify your comment. I rather expected you to refer back to a series of scenes which made it absolutely clear why you were right ! I actually agree with your analysis, I can’t really see the Doctor would fall romantically in love with a human, although I’m equally sure he loves all of his companions and it would be natural if he cared for some more than others. I’m perfectly satisfied that the Time War has emotionally effected each of 9, 10 and 11 in their own way and that Rose in particular helped him recover from that hidden trauma. That’s what makes Rose special in my opinion. However, equally my impression is that RTS over egged it into a romantic love between 10 and Rose and we ended up with the smug series 2 with its “look at us aren’t we wonderful” arrogance and the sticky and untimely ending in the Cybus parallel universe and then the series 4 completion (of sorts).
I deliberately write my impression as that’s what I felt I was being shown and hated at the time. The fact that Rose’s character didn’t appeal to me from the outset just made it worse for me.
I agree with you, RTD for 10 (and I think SM as well for 11) have created a Doctor character arc, which you can seen as an underlying reason for moving the Doctor towards regeneration over the three or four seasons they appear in the show. SM’s is probably more of an intellectual journey (and I fully expect his to tie together all of the individual season arcs in the two remaining episodes) where as from the way you describe RTD;s version with 10 its obviously much more of an emotional justification. Its the same with 9 as well although its packed into a single series (and 10’s arc obviously starts in series 1 with 9. Again my gut tells me that SM is likely to try and pull together the entire 9, 10 and 11 story arc into a single overall narrative and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if we see the two mystery Timelords from End Of Time (Claire Bloom – the Doctor’s mother ?) explained as well.
Thanks
Nick
1 August 2013 at 10:06 #14724This may be of some interest to Paul McGann regeneration wishes
http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/mcgann-on-50th-return-rumours-52161.htm
1 August 2013 at 08:30 #14721Your description of a female Doctor lead is spot on for me – that’s exactly what the BBC would do (and in fact its exactly how BG Who treated the Doctor/female relationship). But isn’t that a reflection of what they would be happy to show on screen in a Children’s programme ? If you think about it the rationale that supports younger female companion falling for the Doctor (even if it has been part subverted by SM in that way that Amy and Clara’s relationship developed) works then just why wouldn’t the same be true with a female Doctor ? I think the answers obvious isn’t it ? The BBC wouldn’t even want to hint at a “cougar Doctor”, but they have little compulsion against hinting at the opposite.
Of course in adult drama, in an attempt to be more PC (I suppose) its now pretty commonplace to develop the sexually aggressive female lead character (I don’t know if you saw Gillian Anderson in the Fall for example) subverting the normal older male/younger female stereotype, but I can’t see the BBC doing it in a kids programme.
The problem when you bring “romance” into the Tardis is that it immediately opens up the “will they won’t they” dynamic. Doesn’t this theme underlie pretty much all TV relationships these days ? Older male/younger female is the most common portrayal of course. RTD chose to incorporate that dynamic by writing in the lurrve, unrequited love, or opportunistic snogging when he didn’t have to. The Doctor is Alien, not human after all. It seems I’m more cynical than you are on how the parts of the Media and some comedians (for example) might choose to play up the female Doctor line to create some faux coverage for themselves.
I think your probably right. It’s difficult to envisage a female Doctor with a female companion, given the relationship stereotypes that typify our society. The fact that its feels necessary to mirror the male Doctor/female companion is a shame surely ? The companion group dynamic will probably work better with a female Doctor, in that it is a safer environment to avoid the female Doctor romance problem.
It’s interesting to speculate about how it might actually be done. I’m sure it could be done, but I’m not so sure that they will actually do it. I’m sure they have thought about it though. If I were the BBC (and I had the budget) I rather think I’d go for a bigger trial first – a River lead spin-off show anyone ?
Nick
1 August 2013 at 07:49 #14720@htpbdet @bluesqueakpip @Shazzbot @whisht
I’m surprised you didn’t comment on this sentence from HTPBDET above
I never saw Martha as “rebound” girl because I never thought Tennant was in love with Rose
Whilst we could debate exactly what “in love” means for the Doctor, my impression was that this was exactly what RTD was showing us in series 2 (especially at Bad Wolf bay), building on the special relationship developed in season 1 where Rose helps the Doctor to recover and rediscover himself (sort of). Rose’s return in Turn Left to Journey’s End continues this theme and its by dumping the Doctor/Donna on Rose in the parallel universe and by having Mickey return to normal Earth that RTD that RTD brings it to its conclusion (not very satisfactorily for me, buts that’s a different discussion). For me it was very clear that Martha was rebound girl and that this really did colour the Doctor/Martha relationship because of the way that the Doctor behaved.
Bluepipsqueak, Shazzbot your descriptions of D11 are spot on (and very funny)
Nick
1 August 2013 at 07:10 #14718your last comment exactly explains why River can’t be a prototype female Doctor – the audience expectation of River is very different from what it would be if she was playing the Doctor. If you look at the Companions thread discussion between HTPBDET, @bluesqueakpip , @Shazzbot and @whisht (post 14659 to 14708) and reverse the concept so that you have a female Doctor and (most often) a younger male Companion I can just see the media “Cougar Doctor” coverage right now. Whether its right or wrong doesn’t matter they’d play up the angle and create the controversy to sell newspapers (as for a younger female companion !). Unfortunately this is the world we live in.
Nick
31 July 2013 at 14:59 #14661No I understood what you meant, but I think you need someone of that sort of stature if your going to make it work first time round. No matter how good the actress actually is, the first time is going to need somebody very special to pull it off. That isn’t the way it should be, but I think its necessary. Everyone is a little uneven at first – just think of the potential headlines in the Sun and Mirror and the crap on Twitter.
Nick
31 July 2013 at 14:55 #1466051 or 52 I think. There is a whole bunch of actresses who would have the right sort of gravitas to play the first female Doctor (Rachel Weisz would also be a good choice for example as would have been Alex Kingston herself who is 50 now). I’m not so sure about some of the other names mentioned though (Nicola Walker especially according to @htpbdet. She’s a fine actor, but I’m not so convinced. Mind you I though Matt Smith was too young so..).
This might interest you – I thought it was any way
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/25/no-women-over-50-allowed
Nick
31 July 2013 at 14:17 #14656Your theory makes sense. Tilda Swinton would be a very interesting choice in my opinion and she has quite a CV for unusual character parts. I’m not so sure about Helen Mirren as I’d think you’re looking at someone in their late 30’s/mid 40’s as the top end of the age range, unless you’re particularly young looking. Even William Hartnell was 55 in 1963 and I can’t see them casting someone that old these days in a show like Who with a “young” audience demographic. Once you get into the 50’s it seems TV needs the older actors to be strong character who support younger leads (DCI type positions).
Nick
31 July 2013 at 14:02 #14655I wouldn’t know of course, but Helen Raynor and (Pip &) Jane Baker (Paula Moore ?) isn’t much of a track record on the writing side. What you say about River makes sense, but its different being a “companion” than being the lead. As I say, I think the dynamic of the show would have to be different in some ways. Presumably they have a bunch of audience research. Hmmm…
Nick
31 July 2013 at 12:30 #14651There seems to be a lot of back ground noise from various female actors that it should be a female who this time. More than in the last time ? I’m not sure how it would work period. I’m sure it could work, but I’m not sure exactly how. I also think Who will need quite a few more female writers as well. Whether the BBC would gamble this much on a ratings leader is something else. There is probably a lot of internal and external pressure to do just that, but whether it would be a ratings winner I just don’t know, there’s so little precedent out there.
I won’t be parting with any cash then. I passed on the regenerations one so far even thought I’d love to see the 10th planet on the basis that I already had the rest of them.
Cheers
Nick
31 July 2013 at 12:02 #14648Have you seen this ? Since its numbered #4 it implies there is a series of them out there (or will be ?). What are they doing with all this stuff ?
Nick
31 July 2013 at 11:54 #14647I’d agree that he’d be one of several almost perfect candidates, so lets hope. Actually pretty much all of the Doctors were relatively well known as character actors or in the case of McCoy as a comedian, although I’d say Colin Baker is the least known. As HTPBDET\s comment in the Next Doctor thread just might indicate we may be in for more of a surprise than we think.
Nick
31 July 2013 at 07:23 #14645I don’t know how much you know about the Thick of It, but Peter Capaldi plays the part of a political spin doctor in the last Labour government. It is extremely well written and funny. Many of the pithy phrases have entered political life in the UK. You may have seen VEEP made by HBO which is created by the same guy (Armando Iannucci), which is similar in concept but rather toned down for USTV in comparison.
Nick
31 July 2013 at 07:11 #14644A good explanation and description from my perspective. I guess RTD realized it was a mistake pretty quickly as well, because of the speed at which he wrote Martha out of the Tardis.
Nick
30 July 2013 at 14:46 #14608It was the series 2 Rose/Doctor love in that did it for me more than season 1. RTD clearly meant us to see how a rather unDoctorish Doctor 9 was put back on track by the relationship he developed with Rose. Narratively it worked pretty well although it was less appealing to me because I didn’t like Rose’s character much at all in the first place.
Looking back, I can’t really say whether the lack of chemistry between Freema and David was the problem or the way the season 3 companion premise was written by RTD (D10 mourning Rose with the combination of love struck Martha) just want that believable.
Nick
30 July 2013 at 14:31 #14605Your gossip regarding an “Older woman” seems to have a believable BBC ring about it. I could see it happening, but the way you describe it is perhaps too good to be true.
Nick
29 July 2013 at 14:33 #14581You’re absolutely right time does change your perception. I find the RTD less objectionable now than I did at the time, although I really must get round to rewatching them all to see whether my initial impressions have changed. There was quite a lot I enjoyed at the time for sure, its just that I found that the climax of some of the stories (and especially the story arc) too unbelievably simple for me to be really satisfied.
Like you, I never enjoyed watching Colin Baker at work. I think (now) that there probably was a good concept hidden somewhere in his performance that might have actually worked if they had lost the clown suit and played down the outright nastiness. Nothing ever made me cringe as much as I did watching Twin Dilemma and yet there are still Colin Baker stories I rather liked (even on a rewatch years later).
I have less to say about Hartnell and Troughton as I only saw them on DVD (apart from An Earthly Child and the Krotons which I saw on repeat in the 1980s) and I think its harder for me to put them into their time. I don’t have very clear memories of Pertwee anymore (I was between 5 and 9) although I know I enjoyed him as much as Tom Baker. I thought Tom Baker was brilliant as a 10/12 year old, but that didn’t stop me really hating his obvious lack of interest in season 17 (1979) (Creature from the Pit to Horns of Nimon), which resulted my giving a miss to The Leisure Hive and Meglos to watch Buck Rogers in the 25 Century on ITV instead. The only time I’ve actually strayed from the show. I couldn’t resist going back to Who though.
I have always been quite neutral on Peter Davison even though I rather liked most of his stories. I was surprised to like Sylvester McCoy as I rather expected not to. I think he needed another couple of years at least as did Chris Eccleston. It the biggest shame in AG Who we didn’t get to see at least another year of Chris to see how he would have developed his character. I currently prefer Matt Smith over David Tennant, but I think that is as much a reaction against the whole Doctor/Rose arc in series 2 to 4 as anything else. Both have been excellent really.
The target novelisations were also very important for me. I’m not sure I’d class myself as a fan if I hadn’t read them as a child.
Nick
29 July 2013 at 13:16 #14579I fully admit OTT is my take and not everyone’s for sure. On the episode scoring I took part in between series 2 to 4 I was consistently scoring lower than average (2 or 3 out of 5, verse an average of 4 or better). I gave up after the Other Doctor, which I thought was a good story with a very poor ending (something my Brother and his pre-teen kids agreed with). I couldn’t reconcile the apparent majority view that most of these stories were almost equally as good as each other at 4/5 with what I saw on screen. There were good stories, even some brilliant stories, but some dross as well.
Nick
29 July 2013 at 12:59 #14578RTD cringe value. I had that at the time all too often, but I put that down to my age and my preference for good story telling over OTT dramatic endings and squeee elements :). For me SM is better, but the show isn’t aimed at me !
Cheers
Nick
29 July 2013 at 12:54 #14577Well maybe I should have used another word. Some of the things (2 part stories, series arc, stand alone stories, classic monsters) are (well virtually) a given, so its hard for me to imagine voting for the obvious. Also voting for any of these options is a bit more of a passive approach (and around 40 % of the voters did just that). I thought that to be odd, but the odd part is as much (I guess) in the options given.
Nick
29 July 2013 at 12:25 #14571I noticed the RTD point as well. It actually doesn’t surprise me that much. I think RTD era was more OTT in many ways and that probably appeals to a younger audience slightly more than SM where I’d say the stories/characters probably need a slightly older audience to fully appreciate them. To this, I also think the general audience prefers David Tennant more than either Matt Smith or Chris Eccleston for that matter. To top it off, the DT/Billie Piper series 2 represents a high water mark for AG Who in terms of public awareness of the show as well.
Nick
29 July 2013 at 12:14 #14570@jimthefish @htpbdet @Shazzbot
Did you see the what do fans want to see in Series 8 ? (a link from the bottom of the page you posted). Very odd result, but I assume that was the way they asked the question.
Nick
29 July 2013 at 08:32 #14560It struck me on rewatching a few years ago that in many ways this was a 4 part story (the theatre and sewers) tagged with a two part ending (the Temple). I think it would have been easy enough and perhaps preferable, to wrap this story up beneath the music hall without the change in location for the last two parts. Anyone know whether Robert Holmes started out writing a 4 part story and was asked to extend it to 6 ?
Nick
29 July 2013 at 08:27 #14559 -
AuthorPosts
