Den of Geek

In criticism of new Doctor Who

Mark Reed


Even now, Doctor Who is constrained by a poverty of vision that has seen only few truly memorable episodes since its resurrection

Not everyone is a fan of the Doctor Who revival. Mark certainly isn't, and here's why...

Published on Sep 24, 2009

When I heard they were resurrecting Doctor Who, I was overjoyed. For many years, Doctor Who was treated abominably by the BBC, as they heaped indignity upon indignity upon their tired workhorse: culminating with The Candy Man, a homicidal Bertie Basset from space. Every episode was the same 50 minutes of an eccentric man and an odd sidekick picked up at random, running around Britain being chased by men in suits. Nothing of consequence really happened, and you knew The Doctor would be okay, because he always wins.

With a near invincible time-travelling hero, and a Sonic Screwdriver that can open or break anything, it's boring. Doctors may die, but they always get resurrected as ‘new Doctors', with quirky scarves and stupid hats and a massive block of memory loss. I want the Doctor to be a hard-bitten grizzled cynic, perpetually fed up with mankind for not sorting its shit out. I want the Doctor to be utterly fed up with mankind, and to want a holiday. If I could time travel, and I was immortal, I'd have a sit down a cup of hot chocolate to ponder: what does it all mean? Is this it? Is all my life spent rescuing a species that mostly doesn't even know I exist?

The Doctor is nothing more than an interstellar dandy, roaming a couple of planets, on a sci-fi bug hunt every week, and if the ratings drop, throw in a Dalek or a Cyberman. Don't worry about making great, immortal television and concentrate on cheaply throwing out an episode, ticking off a check list :

Sonic Screwdriver? Check! Weird man In An Alien Suit? Check! Sidekick in mild peril? Check!

So, all those years ago, I breathed a sigh of relief. At last, I thought, the BBC will commission someone worthy of their flagship, one of the most brilliant creations of modern science fiction, and allow him the scope and breadth to break down the walls of tiny budgets and even smaller vision that have hemmed the Doctor in over the years.

The bottom line is that, despite what you might have read, seen, or heard...Doctor Who is nowhere near as good as you are told it is, as you think it is, or as you want it to be. Even now, Doctor Who is constrained by a poverty of vision that has seen only few truly memorable episodes since its resurrection.

Doctor Who could be brilliant, compelling storytelling, stretched over an immense arc, a vision of a work as genius as The Wire, a self-contained, fun, and massive world with the BBC treating sci-fi seriously for adults in a way that is mature and intelligent. But instead it is a self-contained, ghettoised niche of 50-minute chunks of ‘Doctor Versus The Aliens' and potential squandered for merchandising opportunities, rubber masks, action figures, and pencil cases.

Given the rare and brilliant opportunity to create 18 hours of television, The BBC have instead concentrated on dumbing down each episode to a short self-contained narrative arc, and in these 50 minutes, each story must be told, numerous characters introduced, sliced off and (mostly) killed or saved. It's not long enough.

When the Ecclestone series debuted, I was hoping - and again, hopes were dashed - by the hint of the potential of the first series, and hoping that instead of great, but self-contained, tiny stories, there was an enormous plot underneath it

What if, the Doctor's big secret was that he was responsible for the death of Gallifrey and the Time Lords? What if that was his guilt? What if he saw himself as a Christ figure, saving failed and flawed civilisations the universe over in order to make up for that? What if he had been entrusted with that role by the Timelords, once they knew they were doomed, because he would be the only survivor? That's exactly where I wanted the BBC to go - and they didn't.

Make The Doctor something more than a flippant emotional blank with a quip, an admiring comment, and a Sonic Screwdriver. Give him depth instead of an idealised, celibate 12-year-old in a big coat.

Yes, there are episodes with an emotional arc that calls upon previous episodes in the series. Like The Simpsons, you can watch an episode, and if you miss the next ten, it doesn't matter. Because in that time nothing fundamentally has changed. Every episode begins at the Reset Point, with everything in the same place it was at the beginning of the previous episode in almost every instance - aside from when the season is coming to a close and it's time for contract renegotiations.

Remember the way the five-episode Torchwood recently gripped us all? If that's what five episodes could do, is it not time for Doctor Who to pick up the mantle and create a massive, series-long character arc, time to tell stories, weave epic tragedies, take risks with the format and the medium, and step outside of lazy plotting? It's time, Doctor, for more.

Think of what Doctor Who is not doing that it could.

What if there was a season that took a cue from brave, realistic, gritty television? What if the stakes were so high that you could start an episode with his sidekick being vapourised, tortured; something that makes it clear that the stakes are high, the game has changed and you'd better pay attention. Nothing and no-one is safe. Hell, regenerate the Doctor in the middle of a season. Shake it up. Think outside of the box.

Doctor Who isn't just sci-fi; it's mainstream, and because of that it has the power to take risks and make it not just good television, but compelling, intelligent, and fun.

Think of an immortal trapped in a world that is aging around him. Think of the possibilities of that. A flawed Doctor, who has fallen hopelessly in love, watching forever as his friends and loves age and wrinkle with time around him as he remains forever, permanently, thirty. The temptations open to him to go back in time, change the past and keep them forever young.

Only once or twice in the current batch of shows can I remember the show attempting any level of effective emotional impact: Dalek and the fated beach meeting between Rose and The Doctor.

Think of an Evil Doctor, who turns his back on an ungrateful universe to indulge his whims.

After all, time travel is ridiculously easy. If you make a mistake, just go back in time and fix it. I'd use my powers for good. My good and the good of others. After all, I could spend my entire time in bars, propped up, meeting the mothers of the Hitlers and Stalins and Mugabes and Celine Dions of this world. I'd seduce their mothers so that they would never meet their respective fathers. I would flip my scarf and turn myself into Hitler's dad, Stalin's dad, Mugabe's dad. Sure, human history would correct the pre-ordained path of history with an equal but similar event, but then I could just travel back in time a.g.a.i.n. and ‘correct' that correction by meeting the mothers of Alternate Reality Number #1's Major Dictators.

Anyway, by this point, we'd be on Alternate Reality Number #2, so I'd have to identify the dictators in ‘That' Reality, and meet their mothers...and then do the same in Alternate Reality Number #3. I'd be Fucking For Humanity. Literally saving mankind with the power of my Timelord Love Action, constantly chasing the bubble in the carpet...the endless cycle of being a playboy and saving the world.

Think of a meddling Time Lord who keeps going back in time to try and create their own paradise, meddling with time and absolute flippancy, going back ever further to correct his mistakes until he finds himself fighting at the very dawn of human evolution, or perhaps trying to avert the Daleks' very creation? Strangling Davros at birth, for example, as some kind of sci-fi TerminatorLord? Show the consequences across 18 episodes, as he battles to correct The Time Paradox/Butterfly Effect, as his every attempt to alter the core thread of time results in ever more threatening consequences.

You could argue that by saving the world from the Sontaran/The Daleks/The Cookie Monster, I'd be changing human history anyway, so why not go the whole hog and do a proper job of it?

And not even a thank you from the ungrateful humans. They wake up everyday and go to work, and they haven't got a clue that I, Doctor Who, have saved the world again. And it's happening right now, as I type and as you read this; an alternate version of me is currently battling Cybermen in a quarry in Cardiff. I'm saving the world. Again and again and again. Three times before breakfast thanks to time travel. And thanks to time travel, there'll always be time for breakfast. After all, if I am busy saving the world, and feel a bit peckish, then every time I get in the Tardis, I can just set the stopwatch, eat a decent bangers and mash, then travel back in time the exact-number-of-seconds it took to eat the bangers and mash, reappear without a second's gap, and carry on saving the world. And no one would notice.

A sci-fi gonzo nuts Groundhog Day. Why not?

And if I stopped JFK getting assassinated, but this resulted in the assassination of Thatcher to compensate, I wouldn't even lift a finger. Tramp the dirt down. The possibilities of time travel are quite literally infinite. And there's nothing you could do, and nothing that could surprise you.

Why is it that time is treated so flippantly by the BBC? Why is time travel only used as an excuse to change the backdrop, put on a posh accent, zoom off to an old Victorian stately home, and run around the past for an hour?

There is more to Britain than Cardiff, and London.

Time to look further afield. Take the Doctor to Scotland, Northern Ireland, France (the Eurostar is dirt cheap), take him to the near future, take him back to the 1980s, take him to the 1480s, have him caught in the rise of Christ, the Second World War, anything other than the usual, utterly tedious contemporary dramas of 'London And Cardiff Threatened By Men In Suits'. Have him tried as a wizard in the pogroms for using satanic magic. See him escape his circumstance without the Sonic Screwdriver. The stakes are low when you have a Magic Reset Machine.

And the paucity of the bad guys! Bad Guys in Doctor Who are crap. Maybe when I was eleven, I'd hide behind the sofa as the cardboard box of tricks called a Dalek evaporated most of mankind before retreating to the World Invasion Base in Battersea (pronounced "Bay-ter-seyar"). They're always useless, and whilst they may kill the odd sidekick (including, somewhat criminally, K-9, who should've stuck around for longer than one pigging episode), Doctor Who Bad Guys never really threaten me.

For example, if Doctor Who was really going to be brilliant, I'd introduce a thirteen-episode story arc that revealed that the Daleks, The Cybermen, and so forth were actually creations of The Devil himself. After all, if the Lord God made the world, no doubt he made a lot of other worlds where maybe he got things wrong (though quite how a merciless and lethal planet made solely of war-mongering species survived long enough to think about attacking other species and other planets instead of blowing itself and everything else up is a philosophical discussion for Douglas Adams).

For example, let's say that each episode explored a different ‘baddie', The Cybermen, the Daleks, The Sontagen, The Neurofen, each of whom were an unsuccessful prototype by God to create a peaceful society. In the pecking order of warring species, mankind would be mostly harmless, consisting of a race that has barely mastered space travel and seems intent of killing itself slowly in a variety of ways: nuclear weapons, ecological suicide, that type of thing.

You could then, if you wanted, set up Baddies Number (say) #2, #4, #7, #11 and #13 to be thinly disguised pot-shots at, say, Bill Gates ("Conquering The World, One Desk At A Time! Who Do You Want To Invade Today?"), Jeremy Clarkson, and so forth, playing characters enslaving mankind into destructive behaviours and ways of thinking that Doctor Who has to overturn.

With this plot arc, you could go all tinfoil hat and implement the lead baddie as the mysterious "Them".

Who is ‘Them'? You know. THEM. The unnamed guardinista liberal elite who control thought and make us all slaves. Or the capitalist master plan itself, a headless idea that can never be destroyed except through...The Power Of Communism! And Doctor Who! Make The Doctor a Stalinist. Or a Marxist-Leninist. I don't care. Just make him more interesting than a sexless wonder constantly saving mankind from its own stupidity.

Why not treat time itself, and moving in it, as a weapon?

How about an episode where the Doctor is, for example, knocked over by a car crossing the road, and finds himself as persona non grata in a bureaucratic nightmare? The Doctor sectioned as a madman who thinks he's a time-traveller battling a mindless administrator. If you must, make it a plot by The Master to make The Doctor doubt his own sanity.

Knock The Doctor out and give him amnesia. Destroy his personality for an episode and make him a reluctant saviour.

Make The Doctor a target for The Master's bounty hunters. It's a wee bit Boba Fett or, if you prefer, Trail Of The Pink Panther, but imagine an episode that sees The Doctor's absent internal narrative (what does he do when he's not busy saving our sorry asses, for example?), tinkering with a new K-9, suddenly finding himself under attack from an unknown enemy out to claim a bounty on his head. And this could happen at any time in the entire series.

Explore the mythology of Gallifrey. Show the downfall of the Time Lords to explain a conspiracy bigger than anyone imagined. Show plans within plans, plots within plots, dark actors, political conspiracies to overthrow the Time Lords that were successful, a plan by The Master where everything turned on its head. Strand The Doctor in an alternate universe where The Master rules everything because... maybe The Doctor didn't win. Make The Doctor lose, fallible, hurt, injured. Raise the stakes.

The linear chronology of attacks is pathetic.

It's as if the Bad Guys operate a rota, or a turns system like the DSS: "Ticket 67? It is your turn to destroy the world! You have 47 minutes, starting now!"

A weekly invasion rota. That could work out wonderfully. The Daleks, and The Cybermen, and the Dantaerians, and the Ibuprofens would all meet around a resplendent black-varnished table of the Guild Of Evil, and they would discuss their evil plan, how to cackle in an evil manner, the new supply contracts with Evil Inc., the service level agreements with Henchmen Temporary Staff - and how the new staff there are appalling managers and you just can't get the staff these days, and, of course, the Rota of Attacks. They could argue about who goes next to destroy the world. MY TURN! Orders the Daleks. NO, commanded Cybermanokillerbot... YOU HAD LAST WEEK, IT IS TIME FOR THE RISE OF THE CYBERMEN!

And so forth. Until they destroy themselves in the famed End Of The World Running order Squabble Fest, dissolve the guild, and all declare war on each other. Their evil would cancel all their other evils out, and all the Doctor would have to do would be turn up smugly at the end. ‘Divide and Conquer'.

See, if they were truly evil, they'd launch simultaneous attacks so that the Doctor would be defeated. He'd be putting his all into stopping the Furred Killer Destroybots plan of attack variant 11.1, whilst at the same time, far away from his eyes, unbeknownst to the Doctor, the Daleks would be over-running some other plane of existence, flooding the third world with their latest mode of attack, destroying Rio.

The Creationists, the latest Doctor Who baddies who breathe life into inanimate objects, instilled all the statues in the world with a consciousness, but made the 125-foot statue of Christ the Redeemer sentient, and Christ himself set about rampaging around Rio like a holy, and righteous, cross between Godzilla, the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, and The Equaliser. Made of stone, he could not be ‘killed', and imbued with Christ's mythical powers, he would simply walk across the water destroying everything in his path. A Cartel of Evil, if you prefer.

Since BBC budgets are limited, they could start with guest episodes. The Doctor Goes To Loughborough to defeat the Ladybirds, for example?

Or maybe, The Doctor could become drunk on his power and set himself up as a dictator...and The Master has to save mankind from the Doctor? Who knows? 

Remember that astonishing, unforgettable episode of Buffy where there is a death in the family? No vampires, no gimmicks, just compelling drama that utterly confounded expectations. The fan boys sat down expecting another hour of undead derring-do to be utterly banjaxed by a leftfield kick in the emotional nuts. That's the kind of risks you can take with 18 episodes. The kind of risks the BBC are too damn scared to do.

Hell, and it pains me to say it, there's more visual style and flair in five minutes of Hollyoaks than there is in Doctor Who.

Take risks, for heaven's sake. Abandon or emasculate The Daleks. Show the loneliness of the long-distance time traveller. Abandon conventional narrative, split it into a slowly unravelling mystery where the narrative is not linear, and that's the entire point:  with a time traveller time isn't linear. The narrative liberties taken by Memento and Pulp Fiction are basic tricks, yet they are devastatingly effective when used with vision. You could fool the entire show for an episode, only to spin it on its head with a bait-and-switch trick that would make M. Night Shyamalan look like the one trick pony he is. And make you see the show - or even the Doctor himself - in a very different light.

After all, what's to say that humanity actually wants The Doctor constantly bailing us out?

Break the convention of the medium. Use the television as a stylistic tool. Show a whole episode in the style of CCTV. Use degraded or strange film. Show a narrative that runs backwards. Make a meta-textual broadcast where the show itself could be regarded as a plot by The Master.

As it is, Doctor Who is safe, predictable, and lives in a very limited visual and narrative vision. Time to go anywhere the future can take you, BBC. The world is your oystercard.  Time to go to beyond Zone 6.

Dear BBC, all you are doing is peeking through the curtains, hiding behind the sofa in fear at the outside world. Be brave. As a time traveller, you can go anywhere, and anywhen. The possibilities are infinite.

 

Tags

Users Comments

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By stcoop 1 September 24, 2009 08:10:35 AM

To sum up: "I'm a sad no-life loser who doesn't accept the reality that Doctor Who is a children's show. And I can't spell Eccleston either."

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By atomickarma 1 September 24, 2009 08:35:42 AM

How can I take seriously the opinions of someone who opens, when referring to the original series: "Every episode was the same 50 minutes of an eccentric man and an odd sidekick picked up at random," Was it? 50 minutes? Really? No. No it wasn't.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By atomickarma 1 September 24, 2009 08:41:33 AM

Oh and: Knock The Doctor out and give him amnesia. Destroy his personality for an episode and make him a reluctant saviour. Yeh - you didn't see Human Nature, did you? In fact you clearly haven't been watching. I'm not a fan of RTD, and this that a lot of nuWho is over-hyped - but this article is nothing more than a rant, badly thought out, poorly structured and random in places. Perhaps Doctor Who could serve an episode in which the Doctor miraculously restores all the wasted time spent reading diatribes like this, so people really can get the time back...

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By mitchykay07 1 September 24, 2009 08:42:44 AM

This is the worst thing i have ever read on this site.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By bobajim 1 September 24, 2009 08:44:37 AM

What a rant! I thought it would never end. So, you don't like new Doctor Who, but you also never liked the old Who either by the sounds of things. What you want from the show isn't Doctor Who at all. Stoop is right, its a childrens show that can be enjoyed by all the family as the piece of mass entertainment it is. More like the Wire? That's like saying you want the tellitubbies to be more like Waking the dead. And I thought the one thing the new series added was emotionality, so the Doctor as an "emotional blank" seems to be coming from someone who's not even watched it.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By moakle 1 September 24, 2009 08:45:17 AM

While I totally respect your right to have a rant and I actually quite enjoyed reading this (although you were bound to come in for plenty of flack for it) I do think the line 'Hell, and it pains me to say it, there's more visual style and flair in five minutes of Hollyoaks than there is in Doctor Who' was a step too far.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By jimbo600 1 September 24, 2009 08:53:47 AM

"I want the Doctor to be a hard-bitten grizzled cynic, perpetually fed up with mankind for not sorting its shit out." "What if the stakes were so high that you could start an episode with his sidekick being vapourised, tortured;" "Think of an Evil Doctor, who turns his back on an ungrateful universe to indulge his whims." "I'd seduce their mothers so that they would never meet their respective fathers. I would flip my scarf and turn myself into Hitler's dad, Stalin's dad, Mugabe's dad." "For example, if Doctor Who was really going to be brilliant, I'd introduce a thirteen-episode story arc that revealed that the Daleks, The Cybermen, and so forth were actually creations of The Devil himself." Surely the most cretinous, point-missing vision of the lovely, life-affirming Doctor Who ever committed to pixels. Please let it be a joke.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By Omegaspants 1 September 24, 2009 08:54:24 AM

This is very poor journilism! Several of the ideas surmised have actually been done in Doctor Who. Have you actually watched an episode of this fantastic series? I really don't know what passes for sci-fi-fantasy in your house but I suggest you stick to those episodes of Crime Travellar Relic Hunter, and leave Doctor Who to the ones who really appreciate what time and dedication is put into the programme from it;s writers,producers etc.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By DavidS 1 September 24, 2009 09:59:56 AM

This article is astonishing! I disagree with pretty much every word of it, though it's interesting that in your long, rambling list of suggestions for the series, about half of them have already been done (killing off companions, evil Doctors eg. the Valeyard, regenerating Doctors mid-season, visits to World War Two...and the Daleks have regularly been isolated and emasculated - hence the first appearance of a Dalek in chains in the new series). And the other half of your ideas are just crap! Yes, the Doctor could pause mid-adventure for bangers and mash...but it kind of kills the narrative tension. And yes, he could seduce Hitler's mother to prevent the birth of Hitler...but I'm not quite sure it would make great telly. (Though I recommend you read Stephen Fry's book 'Making History', which is all about a time traveller who prevented the birth of Hitler...it's a great book. It's very funny. It's very clever. But it's not Doctor Who). Yes, the Eurostar is quite cheap! But overseas filming is still quite expensive...it may surprise you to learn that you have to transport more than just the Doctor and his companion: you actually have to move dozens of people and a huge amount of equipment and then look after them for several days as they film overseas - it is considerably more expensive to film in other countries, which is why it's not done very often. But...it's fascinating that even though this article was cringe-inducingly bad, it's still inspired so many people to respond to it. Personally it's because reading it makes me feel so glad I live in the universe where RTD and Mr Moffat make Doctor Who...and not Mark Reed. But I'm glad you got it off your chest.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By Discrespective 1 September 24, 2009 10:06:28 AM

Ahhhh Yeah Mark ! And if I gave a shit, you'll be last guy I woul give it to ! Fuck Off !

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By Discrespective 1 September 24, 2009 10:10:41 AM

Fuck Off ! Fuck Off ! Fuck Off ! :-(

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By plotkin 1 September 24, 2009 10:33:42 AM

While this IS quite poorly written it does make a couple of decent points; there is far too much reliance on Deus Ex Machina in the series. It will set up a completely impossible situation throughout the ep and then just press reset with the sonic screwdriver. Similar to the recalibration of the deflector dish in Star Trek. It is an easy get out and makes for very dull TV; childrens or otherwise.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By themaster100 1 September 24, 2009 10:38:10 AM

The new Dcotor Who IS shite. FACT.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By McCarthy 1 September 24, 2009 11:09:24 AM

Wow, you got a lot of people disliking you for this. I've never seen an old episode of Doctor Who, so maybe I'm not as involved with the show as some of the people above me are, but I'd love to see some of the stuff you're talking about.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By tomsalinsky 1 September 24, 2009 11:29:22 AM

By all means criticise a show you don't like - even one which is consistently getting top 10 ratings might not be to your personal taste - but for goodness' sake spare us your appallingly self-indulgent, ill-conceived and self-contradictory fan fiction. There are forums for people like you.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By Cliff_Chapman 1 September 24, 2009 11:39:52 AM

In principal, I have a LOT of reservations about new Who, progressively as it's gone on - but unfortunately this article doesn't do the 'hang on a minute, it's not always THAT great' cause any favours by containing so many basic errors it's quite worrying...

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By StephenBray 1 September 24, 2009 12:06:38 PM

"That's exactly where I wanted the BBC to go - and they didn't." Indeed, they didn't. That's because they wanted a family-friendly show that wasn't being made just for the same geeks who broke the show the first time 'round by constantly criticising John Nathan Turner! Dr. Who is, and always will be, largely a show for kids. It's how you started watching it - it's how I started watching it. And why is it still watchable? Because once a week we can put ourselves back into the mindset of an excited seven year old who really does get scared of the monsters. And isn't that the joy of it? The escapism...?

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By moorish 1 September 24, 2009 12:52:53 PM

This article reads like the rantings of a loon. The whole thing about "sci-fi for adults" is fine - but it ain't Doctor Who. Who is FAMILY show, like it or lump it. You might want to see the Doctor do a McNulty and drunkenly wreck space and time, but no one else does.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By willbass86 1 September 24, 2009 12:59:46 PM

While this article is messy and unfocused, the core assertion is true. New Who is too safe. I, for one, would love to see some more story arcs, and not just the half-arsed "bad wolf" scenarios, but actual stories that take place over a number of episodes. This is one advantage they had in the 60s-80s, time and space to develop ideas (no pun intended). Even if the ideas were occasionally stretched, it allowed for more investment in the fate of the characters. And yes, more Time Lord stuff would be hugely appreciated.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By SebPatrick 1 September 24, 2009 01:04:12 PM

This is a spoof article, right? It must be. Because there's no way its author is the fan of the original series that he claims to be - otherwise he wouldn't get basic fundamental facts about it so very wrong, or criticise the new series for things that were basic tenets of the original series, or use the phrase "I hid behind the sofa". You are a wind-up merchant, and I claim my five pounds.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By thegrouchybeast 1 September 24, 2009 03:15:36 PM

I'm...genuinely not sure you've actually watched all that much new Who. I mean, you're complaining about them not having the brave, amazing vision to do numbers of things they've already done. That seems odd. Maybe watch a few more episodes, and then have another crack at the article?

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By 1tango13 1 September 24, 2009 03:30:43 PM

You compared Doctor Who to The Wire. They are probably the most polar opposite shows on TV. That's the point. Who is popcorn TV and that's fine. Calm down.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By Mordekai 1 September 24, 2009 04:53:49 PM

As with others posting in reply, I respect your right to an opinion... I'm just glad you are not involved with any of the decision making processes otherwise we'd have the Doctor repeatedly experiencing adventures like Timelash, and the Twin Dilemma. Its the most popular show on telly. Why the hell would they want to alienate 85% of the audience by tw@tting about with it to the point where Sydney Newmans ghost sues the BBC for stealing the name and applyng it to a different program...

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By neozyem 1 September 24, 2009 04:57:00 PM

You should read the Doctor Who novels they are a little more "adult" right? Somebody back me up here.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By weepingangel 1 September 24, 2009 05:12:33 PM

You make several good points in your criticism of NuWho, not least of which being the deus ex machina of the sonic screwdriver. However, as other commentators have remarked, you also make several critical errors in your article, and I will endeavor to point some of them out, minus the ad hominem attacks: You make an apples-to-oranges comparison with Doctor Who and The Wire and Torchwood. Not the same types of shows at all. There is a difference between the outside chronology of events and the personal chronology of a time traveler. See "Blink" for more on this. As others have pointed out, they *did* do an amnesiac Doctor/reluctant hero episode, "Human Nature"/"Family of Blood." You suggested that the Doctor become drunk on power and the Master have to save humanity. First off, the Master is a megalomaniacal lunatic. Secondly, the Doctor is the titular *hero* of the show, not the villain. "And not even a thank you from the ungrateful humans." - See the end of "The Next Doctor." Part of the Doctor's character is that he saves people because it's the *right thing to do*. The Doctor has remarked on multiple occasions that certain events in history are "fixed" or "in flux" (see "The Fires of Pompeii" et al.). Of course, this is really a plot device, so... "Show the loneliness of the long-distance time traveller." For heaven's sake, what have we been watching for the past few years? The David Tennant Emo Show? Didn't they call him "The Lonely God"? (See "New Earth") Go watch just about any DT ep and you'll get a reminder of just how lonely the Doc is. Finally, I would also suggest that your reference to Christ's powers as "mythical" can be construed as either ignorance or offensiveness by at least a good chunk of the population of planet Earth.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By Sentient_Omelette 1 September 24, 2009 05:20:06 PM

I'm in my mid 30's...and I'll admit that, although I don't 'hate' new Doctor Who, I do prefer the classic series...But I wonder if it is a sense of nostalgia that drives my tastes as opposed to which has or had better content...I think that deep down I know and accept that this new series isn't 'my' Doctor Who anymore and in a way I totally accept that...I had my Doctors who I enjoyed watching with my spag bol on a saturday night, my own monsters to be scared of and my own companions to get a pre-pubesent stiffy over...and now it's a new generations turn... My only real gripe as someone who grew up with the series is the one story per show format (apart from the occassional 2-parter) I don't think that this helps to pace the stories better or that it adds any benefit to the show in anyway, but I do appreciate that TV has changed over the decades, as have our attention spans and what we come to expect from our entertainment in any format... Other disappointments with the new series are the lack of any really good Cybermen stories, in comparison to say 'Tomb'...and as for the Daleks, I LOVED "Dalek" and don't feel as if they have had as good an episode since...However, I like the new aliens and monsters that have turned up (save a few) and don't expect the new series to pander to older fans like myself for every episode...Again I think it's about saying to this new generation of Who fans 'these are your monsters and not your mum and dad's...' I'm personally happier with 'Horror of Fang Rock', 'The Mind Robber', and 'Caves of Androzani'...But if you kids want to watch Doctor Who, I'll let you...and I might even let myself enjoy it a little bit...

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By milobloom 1 September 24, 2009 06:54:37 PM

I've been reading Den for awhile now, too bad it took something so bad to make me sign up. This is writing of a very angry person that isn't having his every little whim catered too, regardless of feasibility, story tone or even budget. Plus, many of the ideas are present, most conspicuously with the excellent Human Nature/Family of Blood two parter. And even with a companion by his side, anybody who knows how to read emotions can see the ache and loneliness in both Eccleston's "rage against the world" defense mechanism, and Tennant's manic silliness and "make kissy-face with the world in a vain attempt at connecting with someone" zest for living. And I can't not mention "Blink". Nuff said. Sure they could do big ideas like you posited, but will they still be Doctor Who stories? And will they still bring in the peanut gallery to pay the bills? There's always a compromise, and I think the new series is doing a pretty good job of it so far.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By mark-reed 1 September 24, 2009 07:20:53 PM

I'm only here quickly, so I will briefly address some points. It is a long article, and I cover a lot of ground. Structuring this was difficult. I don't have an exhaustive memory for every episode : "Blink" was probably the best hour of television I've seen in the past decade. You don't have to agree with me. Many of you probably really enjoy Doctor Who as it is - but I do find it shallow, repetitive, and often over-reliant on the Deus Ex Machina, I've not read the Stephen Fry book : I imagine he might write a brilliant episode, given the chance. Better than Mr Curtis. Hollyoaks, for my sins, I occasionally see out of the corner of my eye, and it does have more stylistic flair, invention, and narrative / storytelling effectiveness than most of the recent few series. Anyway, "Doctor Who" as it is has a lot of potential, and is about 10,000 times better than the Sylvester McCoy years, but at the moment, I feel the potential of it is not being fulfilled : and that it is possible to make brilliant science fiction that works well for adults and children, and does have a longer narrative arc than the length of an episode. P.s. Calling me names isn't big or clever.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By moakle 1 September 24, 2009 08:03:03 PM

I admire your pluck re: Hollyoaks but you really are quite wrong. Hollyoaks, which I too have chanced upon far too often for my sins, seems to revolve stylistically on the MTV generation, all rapid cuts and Neighbours dream sequence-inspired skits. It's certainly far from an inventive show in terms of its direction and production scope and to claim its storytelling/narrative is stronger than DW is simply just not true. It's your opinion of course and I have to respect that. It's still not true though. For the record, I think some of the stick you've taken here beggars belief.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By Mawson 1 September 24, 2009 08:19:32 PM

The ramblings of a fool.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By redninja 1 September 24, 2009 08:54:23 PM

Overlong article, but couldn't agree more. The most over-hyped, over-rated television programme in decades. Piffle.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By jonbritt 1 September 24, 2009 09:14:29 PM

I have problems with the new Doctor Who. A lot of people do. You probably do too but you didn't address any of them. This wasn't a criticism of new Doctor Who. This was an article praising your own imagined 'better' version of it. I expect more from this website.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By gbollard 1 September 24, 2009 09:37:18 PM

It would be a fair criticism if you were saying you liked the old but not the new but instead you're saying... you don't like it - and you use examples from the old and the new. Doctor Who has tried big story arcs before - they have failed spectacularly. Even the brilliant "War Games" was criticised for being too long. Today's audiences have even less patience than those of decades ago. It wouldn't work. The evil doctor... that was first suggested by William Hartnell back in about 1964. It's not a new idea. It was also becoming interesting with the introduction of the Valeyard (whose time is almost upon us). If you really want to criticise, the new series... this is the way to do it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUwGgRD51JA Move on people, nothing to see here.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By roffey65 1 September 24, 2009 10:08:43 PM

My god that was awful, i'm out. io9 for me from now on.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By DailyP.O.P 1 September 24, 2009 10:09:57 PM

I heart Mark Reed. Sure most of what is said is mad ravings and the alternatives he offers are mostly unworkable but at least it raises the point that there are many options that the new Doctor Who fails to explore. The new stories are poorly written and contain far too many obnoxious sexual inuendoes to pass the program off as either family entertainment or a children's show. A slab that gives oral sex... in a kid's show?... right. Looking at Doctor Who's long history one could easily describe a block of stories as an eccentric wandering around seemingly indestructible righting wrongs with his random assistants (sounds like the mid-late 80's). That in itself is not necessarily a bad thing... if you have Tom Baker as your lead actor. There are some great moments, even some great episodes of the new series but by and large it is disposable fluff that will look absurdly bad in a year or two. The classic series is not for everyone but many stories still hold up and are certainly enjoyable for the entire family (including adults).

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By GoldbergV 1 September 24, 2009 10:53:55 PM

This guy lost me around paragraph 12 or 13, way too long. I thought I'd give it a go, cause I'm no great fan of the new series either. But at least its not Torchwood. So when he offered that as an example of what it SHOULD be like, I Peter Jones like declared myself 'out'. RTD writing style does'nt sit well with me, its too knowing and cutesy, but with Moffat at the helm I may give it another go.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By ON3i1 1 September 24, 2009 11:08:14 PM

NuWho can be quite bad. But not quite as bad as this article.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By Brian_Bamswed 1 September 24, 2009 11:15:11 PM

Are you on drugs?

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By drakul 1 September 25, 2009 12:14:15 AM

reading this was EXACTLY like having some raving lunatic throw their own poo at my face over and over again. Did the actual owner of the Den of Geek website edit or approve of this prior to it being posted?

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By Discrespective 1 September 25, 2009 03:57:55 AM

@ Mark Reed - Not Listening ! Not Listening ! Lalalalalala ! I'm In Happy Place ! Kittens And Puppies ! Kittens And Puppies ! ;-)

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By Feefers 1 September 25, 2009 08:24:44 AM

Well Mark. You are right on a great number of levels in this article actually, most of the revised nuwho is turgid and poor with only a few stand out episodes one of them not even really featuring the doctor in it. Take Blink as what a doctor who episode should do, it takes something that shouldn't be a threat (statues) and has you the viewer peering around every so often at that one on the mantlepiece, just in case. Even this episode was ruined slightly by overuse of the Doctor and Martha. Myself i'd have the guy who got thrown back to the 60's only see the doctor as a shadowy outline before cutting back to Sally and her ringing mobile go for full narrative of this now old dying man explaining how his life was changed. And as for the "season finales" oh dear, less said the better. So yeah Mark, congrats on being "brave" enogth to express this obviously unpopular but still correct view.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By mark-reed 1 September 25, 2009 09:00:11 AM

There is a lot of flak for alternative proposals and ideas I have suggested : I've always thought it better when criticising something to not just say why I believe it is a certain thing, but also what I think could be changed. A lot of those ideas may be practically unworkable, but I think they are at least worth considering ; instead of chasing a CGI Man-Wasp round a Victorian Mansion for 30 minutes.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By bobajim 1 September 25, 2009 09:16:14 AM

I think most of the flak has nothing to do with alternative ideas and proposals. It seems more about how badly written and unresearched the article is. Although The Wire suggestion is bollocks!

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By DamonD 1 September 25, 2009 09:20:50 AM

Blimey, comments ahoy. 'Nu Who' does have some flaws, it's not the bright shiny perfection and superior to the Classic series that some want to suggest, but it's still damn fine entertainment and this article seems to have been written by someone complaining about the new series...never having liked the old series either. Is it any wonder he's therefore unhappy? Or any wonder that most Who fans here are disregarding his ramblings?

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By johnrivers 1 September 25, 2009 12:48:50 PM

What a load of tosh. I don't know where to begin. Doctor Who is not The Wire, it is not Battlestar Galactica, it is all about self-contained adventures and nuWho balances self-contained/arc really well. The article is factually incorrect in places (the Buffy episode he's talking - The Body - about DOES contain vampires, right at the end). I don't know who Mark Reed is but frankly the number of mentions of painkillers in the article probably indicate pretty well the state he's in. I was offered the opportunity to write for Den of Geek on Doctor Who, I'm considering it, especially since, if this is the standard, I could do a whole lot better. Awful.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By deworde 1 September 25, 2009 12:54:43 PM

I think I lost interest the minute an 18 hour long story was suggested. Not only would that be appallingly difficult to write, it would be tiresome to watch. Doctor Who is AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN Saturday Evening entertainment and a family show. All this sci-fi epic stuff comes from hard-core sci-fi fans who don't understand that they're trying to create a completely different show. Bottom line, what the writer is suggesting would probably make a great hard sci-fi show, but it wouldn't be half as popular, and it would be totally unsuitable for the target audience.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By weepingangel 1 September 25, 2009 03:19:28 PM

Just a suggestion to everyone responding-- please include logical and reasonable responses to the article. Calling the author names is unhelpful and unproductive and unconstructive. I am curious, Mr. Reed, as to your thoughts on the imminent takeover of Doctor Who by Stephen Moffat. Do you think this will significantly alter the tone and types of episodes we see (since I noted that you gave praise to "Blink")?

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By shatterhand55 1 September 25, 2009 06:13:24 PM

To set my stall out from the start - I love Doctor Who - old and new and have done since 1976 (when I was 5) - however, all the ranting aside - I can see intersting things in what's written here. My kids are 8 and 11 and they can follow a 13 story arc in other series - so I don't see whay they couldn't do so in Doctor Who. I could remember what was going on in The Seeds of Doom from week to week when I was younger then they are. The idea of a disillusioned Doctor is a frightening one and could be explored over a few episiodes to great effect, seeing things go wrong (as in Turn Left) while he watches, before something pulls him into action. Criticism keeps writers on their toes and keeps them trying. None of us want lazy writers....

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By shatterhand55 1 September 25, 2009 06:16:32 PM

Oh Yes - Companions should die, or get really injured more occasionally. The joy of representing the viewer and travelling with the Doctor must be balanced with significant risk to make their time more worthwhile.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By mark-reed 1 September 25, 2009 08:34:34 PM

In answer to the specific question, I am cautiously optimistic, and secretly very hopeful, that the Moffatt-era Who fulfills the potential the resurrected Who has always had - it doesn't necessarily have to go in the directions I suggested. I am horrified at the thought "The Boat That Notting Hill Actually Fell In Love With" writing an episode though, the anodyne tossmerchant that Curtis is.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By Alistair 1 September 26, 2009 12:17:01 AM

You people realise that no-one forced you to read this, right? Yes, it's overlong, unfocused and has its facts wrong, but the central point is that the premise of the show means that it could be so much more. He's not saying that Doctor Who is terrible, and even if he were, so what? He doesn't have to like it. He's not saying that the show has overachieved, he's saying that it's underachieved. Most children's programs are very limited in scope, so it would be silly to expand them, but Doctor Who has so many possibilities that go unexplored because of the "children's program" restrictions. Is it unreasonable to ask them to tighten up the plots and make the characters more believable? They don't need profanity or blood to do that. Doctor Who at its worst provides entertainment, which is good enough, but it could be much, much better.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By swordfishtrombones 1 September 26, 2009 12:57:13 AM

Curtis an 'anodyne tossmerchant'? You've seen Blackadder, right?

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By MarvMarble 1 September 26, 2009 02:48:44 AM

I think the idea of a longer plot arc to create a more complex story is a good one, as is the idea of utilising time travel itself in the story outside the usual device of getting the characters to their situation for this week. It really isn't as bad as you make out though. And yes, as a few have said, some of the suggestions you have mentioned have been done already. (Including incorporating time in the plot, but I'd like to see more of that.) And they tended to be cracking episodes.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By mark-reed 1 September 26, 2009 08:08:38 AM

Everyone's seen Blackadder... but what has Curtis done since that? Bean, Bean 2, Love Actually, Notting Hill, The Boat That Rocked, Bridget Jones 1+2, all bland tosh.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By Anthony1 1 September 26, 2009 09:23:59 AM

"The bottom line is that, despite what you might have read, seen, or heard...Doctor Who is nowhere near as good as you are told it is, as you think it is, or as you want it to be. Even now, Doctor Who is constrained by a poverty of vision that has seen only few truly memorable episodes since its resurrection." I and several fans and non-fans I know certainly would endorse that comment. I think that's down to RTD's creative/writing limits, having run out of ideas and his proving unable to provide creative plot resolutions matching the scale of the set up. Clearly many people love new Who but there's a lot who see its flaws (eg the complete waste of time that was Planet of the Dead and the poor wrap up to the season endings ie deus ex...). I agree the show could be so much better on average than it is (as the inconsistency in story quality within seasons demonstrates). Hopefully standards will improve and new ideas will come thru with Moffat running the show...

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By moakle 1 September 27, 2009 10:07:11 AM

Bridget Jones'Diary is a very good film (of that ilk). Mr. Bean was excellent at first as wholesome family entertainment goes, Bean isn't a bad film at all and Mr Bean's Holiday is OK. Love Actually is bobbins though.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By doomsday123 1 September 27, 2009 10:56:37 AM

Well...that was LLLLOOOONNNGGG!!!!! I suppose everyone has a different opinion and that is yours. On the other hand...I love the 'new' doctor who!!! Maybe, though, that's what I'VE grown up with, and i'm not so familiar with the old version of doctor who... Oh well...

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By paljoey 1 September 27, 2009 07:15:20 PM

>>>>I'd be Fucking For Humanity.<<<< That's already been done in the 1964 William Hartnell story, "Planet of the Fuckers".

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By LizR 1 September 27, 2009 09:57:09 PM

"For example, if Doctor Who was really going to be brilliant, I'd introduce a thirteen-episode story arc that revealed that the Daleks, The Cybermen, and so forth were actually creations of The Devil himself. After all, if the Lord God made the world, no doubt he made a lot of other worlds where maybe he got things wrong (though quite how a merciless and lethal planet made solely of war-mongering species survived long enough to think about attacking other species and other planets instead of blowing itself and everything else up is a philosophical discussion for Douglas Adams)." Never mind the late, sometimes great Douglas Adams - I'd be interested to know what his friend Richard Dawkins would think of the above "brilliant" suggestion. (Sounds to me like more of the Lonely God/Oncoming Storm nonsense we've had recently...)

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By kerravon 1 September 28, 2009 12:06:09 PM

THIS IS THE WORST ATTACK IVE EVER READ OF DOCTOR WHO ON ANY LEVEL!!!.For a start the writer needs to get his facts right.several mistakes are wrote here like the timing of original episodes,the Doctor losing his memory (he did that in series 3).In my opinion the reason Doctor Who is so succesfull is because of its basic message.Believe in the good people can do and be OPTOMISTIC I dont want a time traveller who goes about time being a cross between Hitler and the Terminator!!!!!.Good God man that destroys the whole appeal of the character!!.What the Doctor does is save us (sometimes from ourselves) because he believes in us and our potential as a race.Isnt that something worth watching and teaching to our young ones??.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By merlin07 1 September 28, 2009 04:57:16 PM

Even as a devoted Whovian I respect your right to not like the show but your arguments seem empty because what you are taking the show to task for NOT doing for the most part they have done. Feel free to not get the show, feel free to not like the show, but please use something to back up your points that makes sense. Otherwise you are just a very literate version of a troll.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By mark-reed 1 September 28, 2009 08:30:58 PM

....I do not have an exhaustive memory of every episode.. and I am certainly not a troll. A troll does stuff for attention and no other purpose whatsoever.

Preventing the creation of the Daleks
Posted By derek2 1 September 29, 2009 03:35:45 AM

I guess you forgot that Tom Baker's Doctor had a chance to do just that--and turned it down at the last minute.

Grizzled cynci fed up with mankind
Posted By derek2 1 September 29, 2009 03:38:36 AM

In other words, you want the original William Hartnell character back.

Cynci??
Posted By derek2 1 September 29, 2009 03:39:36 AM

I of course meant "cynic".

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By bobajim 1 September 29, 2009 01:39:24 PM

Well Mark you said it.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By Maugrim 1 September 30, 2009 05:36:05 PM

Jeez. This is silly. And I dont mean the acticle. I mean all of these comments. I actually AGREE with this article. I tried to watch Doctor Who. It sucks guys. It just does. He has pegged it on every point. Now if you like your stories bland and mindless, its fine, but really, Enterprise had more character arcs than this mess. And a childrens show? How many of you guys are under 12? Any of you? Im annoyed that the first time I logged in here was to defend a writer from simply voicing a wish for a show he likes to be better. You fanboys need to sod off if you cant be civil to someone who has a different opinion.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By bobajim 1 October 1, 2009 08:19:37 AM

Maugrim, are you really suprised at some people's reactions to Mark's comments? This site is called Den of Geek, there's going to be some Doctor Who fans reading it. Personally, I love the new Who, even with its faults, so bite me. Also, might I say if you want people to be civil telling them to sod off ain't gonna help.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By thegrouchybeast 1 October 1, 2009 10:30:18 PM

@mark-reed 1 >....I do not have an exhaustive memory of every episode.. Well, then, I hope you've learned the lesson that when you're writing an article on a subject, it's a good idea to do some basic research to make sure that what you're saying is actually true. Letting something go out full of factual errors just guarantees people won't take your ideas seriously. If you don't have the time to do your own research, then maybe getting the article proofread by someone who does know the subject thoroughly would be the way to go.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By R-type 1 October 2, 2009 10:04:28 PM

Can't believe I read that entire wall of crap. I can't tell if its a serious rant or taking the mick. Half those "they should do THIS" ideas were done in books and audios. I'm confused as to why someone who obviously doesn't know the series beyond a couple of episodes is so motivated to whine about it. the only thing I actually agree with is yeah they should have him regenerate mid season or something to "shake it up" the only problem is it'd be all over the papers and in the news about 6 months before it was due to air, totally ruining it, which is what happens these days.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By REVOL 1 October 5, 2009 05:09:15 PM

What bothers me about Doctor Who is the soundtrack to the Bridges of Madison county (or somesuch) that they have in the background in every episode. It puts me off my dinner.

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By dangale 1 October 12, 2009 11:48:48 AM

Considering it's been a week since anybody has commented here I've no doubt this'll be lost on most people but I thought I would say it anyway. Mark Reed wrote: "What if, the Doctor's big secret was that he was responsible for the death of Gallifrey and the Time Lords? What if that was his guilt?" He was. Though we don't yet know exactly why (maybe it'll be revealed in the last few episodes) The Doctor has stated that it was he who ended the Time Ware and destroyed the Daleks and Timelords alike. Although I enjoy the show as it is, I understand some of the things the author is saying. Maybe with Stephen Moffat taking over the show will take a drastic turn. Everything I've seen so far seems to point to that. With RTD gone it seems that it won't be the same show anymore so why not run with it? I wouldn't mind 13 episode arcs full of drama and tension. Though I wouldn't want them to go to far with The Wire comparison. Keep a bit of the childishness and innocence after all.

Mister Reed I Love You And Want To Have Your Babies!
Posted By holosword@gmail.com 1 May 11, 2010 10:57:59 AM

Mark Reed, THANK YOU. For Gods Sakes, SOMEBODY needed to have this rant out in public. They have BUTCHERED Doctor Who, and its been a decades long process of profound torture. Halfway through Tom Baker's reign in the 1970's that complete waste of blood and organs John Nathan Turner (may he rot in his grave and YES I DO MEAN THAT!!) turned the series into what Baker himself described as "some kind of pantomime". Probably the last decent story ever told before the choppy seas arrived was The Talons Of Weng Chiang. Right from the Horror Of Phang Rock forth we could all just 'feel' that something was now terribly, terribly wrong. Where was the plot? Where was it hiding? So...they all die...and then a glowing green thing turns up? That's it? There's no subplot? No wierd reality distortions, no chance for Leela to really kick some ass?? Ok, that was a very long time ago, but I dont care: up until that point the bad patches were far outnumbered by the good patches. Nothing, but NOTHING, has matched the sheer punk sickness and insanity of Terror Of The Autons, and the Holmes-vs-Moriaty exchanges between John Pertwee as the Doctor (rest in peace, sweet prince) and Roger Delgado as the Master (ditto sir). Stories like Genesis Of The Daleks moved so fast, and sometimes in some quite shocking and disturbing directions, that they produced the true 'Who' atmosphere. Now here is where I definitely agree Mark that Who is never as good as you think it is or remember it is. Its a placeholder for what it should be or could be. Its like a mummer's play. But thats fine - when it has good actors and GOOD STORIES, especially with good dialogue, it approaches the curve close enough that we all get it and receive its precious gifts. This has not occurred, not really, since the 1970s. No, really, I'm serious. For me, I can count a handful of stories since then that were any good, in fact I'm naming them so there: Warriors Gate - even though we had to still put up with K9 and that little snot faced irritation Adric The Keeper Of Traken - it was silly, but it was GRIPPING Logopolis - again silly, but with a deep philosophical premise underlying it, and ATMOSPHERIC Castrovalva - ok it was DREADFUL until you get right to the end, but then those last few minutes are just gold, and of course we're all big Escher fans (yes you are shut up) Then.....NOTHING. I, and in fact a lot of Whovians, just try to pretend that everything between then and Christopher Ecclestone never happened. Nuff said. Except for this - Sylvester McCoy is actually an *excellent* actor, I saw him in Sir Ian McKellen's production of King Lear as the Jester and he was a triumph! Why then, were THOSE PSEUDO-WHO'S SO AMAZINGLY, CRETINOUSLY STUPID???? And then came Russell T Davies, saviour of the series, or so we thought....until we got to sample his writing. Oh dear. Oh deary, deary me. The introduction episode with the Autons was monumentally stupid, but none of us cared - the doc was back! Chris was The Man and could pull it off! The assistant was sexy and sprightly, and the BUDGET HAD GONE UP!! WHOOOPEEE!!! I mean, at that point its LET'S GO!! Who cares if the opener was a clanger, let's go and make most of the stories as far out as we can!!! Yes, well...... From poor, dear Chris's reign, the only ones that I have not expunged from memory completely are: Dalek - it should have been the last dalek story ever, and had it been it would have been remarkable. But no, they cheapened it and generally crapped up the entire series by bringing the monster that John Pertwee couldn't stand because it was so stupid (I like them, most of us do, stop playing with the salt and pepper shakers you....), back, again, and again, and oh god not another dalek episode. Each one stupider than the one before. This single episode was beautifully poetic (ok it had one big clanging plot hole but again nobody cared including me, we just winced '12 parsecs' style and carried on), but then it was cheapened to nothing by bringing the supposedly extinct creatures back again and again. The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances - genius. Brilliance. Chilling, unexplained, macabre, excellently acted, and the big reveal at the end. Moffat, get in there my son. Aaaand, thats about it. Sorry Chris the rest were just rubbish all of them. Tennant? All rubbish, the lot of them, except for the remaining Moffat stories: 'The Girl In The Fireplace' which was silly but gripping. 'Blink' because we have to - its a work of friggn genius, but more about that in a moment. 'Silence In The Library' - a tad silly but the doc is part space opera and I've made my peace with that, but otherwise, genius. I'll also count the non-Moffat 'Doomsday' because I kind of liked it, it had daleks vs cybermen, and it plugged the giant plot clanger from 'Dalek' which was something of a relief. It wasnt complete crap. And now what? Stephen Moffat, creator of Jekyll, one of the finest mystery/SF series I have ever seen. Creator of Blink, and all the others. Creator of 'Coupling' with its tangled skeins and wittiness. He, is now in charge. And we get: SPACE WHALES VAMPIRES AND A HEAP OF OTHER. COMPLETE. AND UTTER. SHYTE. Its reached the point of 'give up', or 'take the war to the BBC', and I say the latter. I had dreams that one day the beeb might bring back a remake of Sapphire & Steel, since the audiobook versions with David Warner and Susannah Harker were so excellent. BUT AT THE MOMENT I WOULDNT TRUST THEM. No way. S & S would end up having sex whilst running from some guys in silly masks, then save the day by mumbling something incoherent and pulling some cosmic space ray out of their pockets at the last moment. The Doc has the right to be deep, even if it isn't all the time. In fact, it has the right to be deep more often than it is not, that is the way in which to handle it with respect. But right now, its a dumb, dumb comedy with some dubious SF thrown in. I say dubious because there's no excuse these days - you can just go to town. Not only do you have traditional genre things like other dimensions and force fields, but you can go completely mental with modern theories: the nano-swarm and schroedingers-cat ideas Mr. Moffat has already used as backbones of excellent stories really gave it that extra spice - wow, a dose of SCIENCE! But, this week, again, you know it will be some dumb CG monster, guys in silly masks, a load of sexual innuendo that doesnt do anything but annoy you (I watch porn or have sex if I want titillation thanks, keep my Doc stories wierd, fast paced and brain not groin massaging), and the doc will save the day to some really loud orchestral rubbish music with a heap of bright flashes and YAWN.....getting sleepy just thinking about it. Mark - I'm glad you mentioned The Wire. I myself would like to mention Breaking Bad. People Of Britain - the yanks are KICKING YOUR ASSES at the moment!! (I'm not a yank, its ok). Breaking Bad is, for me, what good science fiction is all about, even though its not a science fiction series. It has more moment-by-moment tension and buildup and reveal per every single episode than the Doc has come up with over how many seasons now???? Mr. Moffat. We're talking to you. Please fix this - and soon! And by the way: I like Matt Smith, I think his Doctor can go far (Tennant irritated me frankly, but it might have been the stupidity of the dialogueish bilge he was handed to speak), and of course Amy is just a honey - but she has the potential to be another Leela or better, "try that again and I'll CRIPPLE you!!", I mean WHEN was the last time we heard anything that pithy or full on in a Who script? The 1970s, thats when. Oh and word about the Children. BUGGER, THE CHILDREN. Children don't rule the world and with good reason. Who was never a children's series, that was a concept that John Nathan Turner (You're dead!! Stay dead so I can keep laughing at you, you piece of CRAP!!) pulled out of his fat hairy anus. What it was, was an adult series that children could somewhat get into. They didnt always understand what was going on, they were often disturbed by it, but they could compare notes with their siblings and class mates the next day!! The daleks never particularly scared me but by heck the autons scared the bejeebus out of me!! I'm sure it warped me, I'm sure it did. And thats GOOD, MARY F******G WHITEHOUSE, thats actually a GOOD THING. Kids THINKING about things, questioning their realities and asking QUESTIONS!!!!! Ok, vitriol expended. Again Mark, thank you, we are not in 100% alignment on all things but I am fighting on your side, pass me the rocket launcher I need to wipe these candy daleks off the field so we can go and see what that strange warping of space is and what that guy in the suit and briefcase wants.....

Re: In criticism of new Doctor Who
Posted By ExceedinglyAngryOfMayfair 1 May 11, 2010 11:11:33 AM

Oh and yeah, FUCK GOD. There is too much god bothering rubbish in the series now. FUCK GOD and just FUCK OFF GOD.
Post a Comment
Security Code* Get another image
 
 
Ready for war...

Ah, you lot again...

Untitled Document

Follow Den of Geek on

Related Articles

SEARCH

Coke Zero
Advertisement