|
Post by Paul McDermott on Jul 26, 2017 8:00:22 GMT
If the Master can be younger and female, then so can I! The Doctor, reborn! So, 2017 ends with a regeneration for the Doctor unlike any other as Peter Capaldi hands over the TARDIS key to Jodie Whittaker! I’ve seen a range of views covered online about how this has been received. Probably you have, too. Some are agog, some are aghast. Some will wait and see, some claim they’ll never find out. There are those who think this is a welcome, overdue change made. Others see this as a desperate, futile gamble of a show on the decline. Maybe it's just no big deal, teams always come and go? As with the arrival of Peter Capaldi’s 12th Doctor, I’m curious to hear what folks on the board think about developments. What’s ahead for DW? Where might Chris Chibnall take the character and the series after Steven Moffat? How could he, might he, should he, distinguish his era from those who’ve come before, beyond casting? Being show runner - like the lead itself - is a mixed bag of risks and opportunities. Please chime in with your thoughts, hopes, fears! To kick off, here’s a few of my own. In general terms, I’ll judge the work on its merits as it turns up on the telly in 2018. I’m perfectly happy they’ve cast a woman in the lead, and I hope she has luck with it. I know there are some folks who are deeply uneasy or even furious. They don’t want any woman playing the lead. Or Chibnall running the show. Or at the very least, Whittaker with someone else, or anyone but Whittaker. And so on. There are appeals to lore, to whatever you like. So it goes. I remember quite enjoying Hand Of Fear as a lad. I didn’t think Eldrad changing gender made it a bad story, or that it took away the believability of an alien species. The Bristol boys decided what was possible about Kastrians, and I as a viewer saw no reason to take issue with it. I don’t see why the Time Lords, as old and remarkable and mysterious a bunch as aliens get, should conform to a simplified abstraction of gender that belies the locally available evidence on Sol 3 of Mutter’s Spiral. Under Moffat, this was made plain, first abstractly during the 11th Doctor's run and then in concrete terms since Series 8. As with the 9th Doctor talking to old Charlie Boy in The Unquiet Dead, there's always more to know and be surprised by. RTD making over the Doctor as a mass murderer never sat well with me, but Moffat adding a twist to that in 2013 which absolved him took nothing away from the past. I'm willing to bet that this new development in the ongoing mystery of the character will be just as humdrum and obvious, in time. An important point well put across in An Adventure In Space And Time is that the co-creator of the series honestly didn’t think the Daleks were right for the show. Happily Sydney Newman was unable to stop them coming to pass, and crucially conceded that his estimate was off a bit when the viewers responded so favourably. It’s surely possible that fear and anger about decisions over the new lead or the show runner are just as misplaced. Why not reserve judgement until we’ve seen the next series, eh? Given the way the show works, even if an era is not to one's taste, there's bound to be individual stories that satisfy. If not, don't watch and stick to what's already been made and/or move to other shows. That's always been true, at least since 2005 when we've had the luxury of choice again. I myself took a sabbatical after 2010, came back a few years later and found what didn't work for me the first time around was just peachy in 2013. What I think matters most is that the show is continuing to be made, and it has the backing of the Beeb in ways that we could only dream of in the mid80s. They need it to be successful as much as the fans. Nobody has rushed into this as an idle gamble. Chibnall can and has run successful TV series over a number of years, and clearly likes DW enough to write for it. Like RTD before him, he's called upon a familiar hand to lead his new take on the show. People are playing for high stakes over this, in a very public arena. Jodie Whittaker and her old/new boss know what they are in for. There are easier gigs, as her immediate predecessors (and their knees!) will attest. We can be confident that 2018 will be as fresh and surprising as when Moffat brought us Series 5. New Doctor! New titles! New theme! New TARDIS! New costume! New companions! New everything...yet, so much remains as familiar as ever, because it still works, after all these years. And that attraction, that magic, is both why and because new people keep wanting to make it, a little more differently than before. I see no reason to suppose the 13th will be the last Doctor, nor the last woman, any more than the 12th will be the last man or older actor to play the part, nor the final one to do so in a more remote, mysterious fashion. Who could, these days? I don't begrudge change, it's one of the reasons why the show is still around. But probably there were viewers in 1963 who turned off after An Unearthly Child, swearing that even the TARDIS was a bad move, and no one should have left the junkyard?! Hopefully Whittaker won't get a done-in-one run like Eccelston and will be around for a good while to make her mark as the first of a new generation of Doctors that can be seen to be as representative of the character's views as of the audience itself. A bigger pool of talented actors to choose from also makes casting brilliant leads easier than ever before, though choosing between them is likely to make the job just a bit tougher than it used to be! Back around the time of the 30th anniversary, I remember a fanzine I was involved with had an article that laid out, perfectly reasonably, why a female Doctor made sense if the show were to return. One example given as a means of illustrating a possible approach using existing material was Professor Rumsford in Stones Of Blood. Things have moved on a bit since those quiet days - for starters, the show has been back on the box for over a decade! But clearly, some of us have pondered this a while. Now, it’s actually happening! I’ve enjoyed the older Doctors we’ve had since 2013, a demographic some thought permanently discarded since 2005, if not earlier. For those who felt that these aged types didn't speak to them, I'm hopeful that they'll see something more compelling in what Chibnall and Whittaker bring us next year. Tolerance starts at home! The Beeb is right to extend that courtesy of inclusion to the other half of the viewing audience who've been ignored for even longer, despite sharing in the efforts that continue to make DW the success it remains today. Sorry you missed it, Verity! New fans, welcome to the best show ever made! The future is going to be very interesting. For many kids seeing Jodie in the part as their first Doctor, it's going to be a game changer with generational returns. Moffat is owed an immense debt in getting us here, and Michelle Gomez surely is due no small admiration for taking the opportunity to show us so perfectly just how tremendously satisfying and fresh a new woman can be in a familiar part. Chibnall has both an awesome and scary job ahead of him. One hopes that many of the talented folks who've pitched in over the years will be considered as sources for inspiration and support. I wish the team every success in landing Series 11, whether they choose to drop the almost redundant 1 or not. I'm confident they know what they're doing with this latest remix and why the show still works nearly 54 years after it began. All that said, what do the rest of you think is next? Success, disaster? Eager to hear what others reckon about DW in 2018!
|
|
|
Post by tomharper on Jul 26, 2017 9:23:08 GMT
Great post Paul. Funny and insightful comments about An Unearthly Child and the concept of change. I was cautious but optimistic about the announcement at first, but you have filled me with hope!
|
|
|
Post by Richard Marple on Jul 26, 2017 17:01:29 GMT
Great post Paul. Funny and insightful comments about An Unearthly Child and the concept of change. I was cautious but optimistic about the announcement at first, but you have filled me with hope! Same here, I've mostly heard positive things so far from my friends who are into DW.
|
|
|
Post by richardwoods on Jul 26, 2017 17:26:13 GMT
Well, if they do a Yeti serial I'd be happy whoever plays the Doctor.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Marple on Jul 26, 2017 19:40:11 GMT
I'm wondering if the Draconians will appear (they are long overdue!) it will be interesting if they do as Doctor won't be able to address the Emperor!
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Jul 27, 2017 2:00:14 GMT
Yeti and Draconians could be fun, sure. The surprise reveal of the Macra was a highpoint in Series 3, brief though it was. I’m sure there’s a twist on the Japanese monster movie genre waiting to be made with them! Why should Hammer Horror get all the love, eh? I’d welcome the Rutans coming back. We only saw them once, and we know nothing much of them except they’re clearly capable of giving the Sontarans a run for their money. Speaking of cash, the Usurians might be fun too. Who better to sell the world something that ameliorates climate change? Hopefully the Cybermen, Master and Gallifrey will be given a good long rest now. We’ve had plenty of each over the last few years, and it’s time for something else. The blink and miss it walk-on of the Movellans in The Pilot has me wondering. Why go to all that trouble, for so little screen time? Perhaps they’ll be back again soon. Indeed, that’s got me thinking about the structure for the next series. For so long, we’ve had the incremental drip feed of plot elements over the course of a year, leading to the big finale. Jodie’s first year needs to be extra Doctory, I think. And that makes me feel it might be time to try something new and old again: a front of house multi-episode saga. Think Key To Time. Or better still, Masterplan. You’ve still got different times and places, aliens and dangers. But throughout it, you know there’s a big overarching threat, and this time the Doctor is on it with us from the start. Obviously, TV isn’t quite like how it was in the 60s and 70s. So it’d have to be carefully done, to keep things interesting. It might also be fun to make the 2018 batch nonlinear in structure for once. Instead of the reliable pattern of things we've seen forever, have the 13th in the thick of things, and slowly, over the weeks, reveal backstory in the process of how she's gotten to be where she is and why she's with whomever gets to travel alongside her in the TARDIS. Speaking of the TARDIS, it’s basically the same set since 2012. The exterior is even older. High time for a refresh, I’d say. What would you choose to shake things up? Old school round things? McGann era warehouse apartment? Cushing’s interior junkyard??
|
|
|
Post by timmunton on Jul 27, 2017 2:31:23 GMT
Done well a female Doctor would be fine. For some reason I could imagine it working well in 60s Who (Jacqueline Hill or the woman who played the Megan charactar in Fury for example would have suited the role ). Though I realise in terms of the BBC/society at that time it was never very likely.
For some reason I can't imagine it working especially well in the 70s or 80s Who (not sure why; possibly just because I much prefer the 60s programme - though there may be other factors too).
In terms of 2005 plus/present day DW - I'm sure it will mainly be terrible; not because a woman is cast but because of the way it is made in general: I don't like the conventions/modes of most modern TV - & in terms of modern DW, although I have enjoyed some episodes, mainly I see it as essentially derisory ( or perhaps more accurately insultng ) to the original version - it has already effectively excessively downplayed the Doctor to his line of always sassy female companion (a stereotype which can get as boring as if they were all dependent - or other - types ), making him often a somewhat emasculated over-emoting neurotic (though I'm guessing the Whittaker Doctor will be for the most part ...sassy; now 'he' is female she will probably be allowed to be more easily & assuredly confident). The new series has also mostly derided the hetero male companions ( Mickey/Rory - I'll bet Ben/Jamie etc are glad they didn't get in the Tardis with these I-essentially-don't-really-like you-if-you're-connected-to-my-female-companion modern Doctors!).
And most pertinently it's the terrible emotionally-guiding music (where now the avant-electronics of the BBC RP Workshop? ) & general pseudo-emotional narcissism (sometimes with soap overtones ) of the thing. Sometimes I think the person who would suit the modern production teams' definition of the Doctor best would be Donald Trump! (All bluster, neediness & ego ).
I exggerate ( a bit ) re Trump, but I do find it hard to understand how nice seeming people like Capaldi & Tennant want to participate in the deconstruction of their favourite programme into an overly-pc mush fest full of constant deux-ex-machinas & companions who are constantly killed & resurrected to the point of laughability & the deflation of all dramatic tension. It's probably not just for the glory & the money but it makes you wonder about their aesthetic judgement, seeing as it often operates as a travesty in comparison to the atmospheric & generally emotionally lucid but not overblown original.
All this is probably part of a general trend in modern TV but that doesn't justify it.
I stopped watching every DW episode near the start of the last but one series (though have wondered why I've been bothering since 2005 or thereabouts - my own fault; should have stopped sooner!). The final straw was the Capaldi/Davros one which had some good elements but completely ruined it in the 'cheat' at the end where it undermined the whole premise of the episode which it had set up at the start - ie that the Doctor caused Davros's disablement, leaving us with 'nope, the Doctor didn't cause it - it happened later, in other (unseen) circumstances'.
It is an over-emotionalized programme very often structured, despite this, by an emotional dishonesty & crass emotional manipulation.
Since the Davros one I saw some of episode one of the latest (Bill Potts) series which was ok & then made a point of watching the last 2 episodes because I'd heard the Hartnell-era Cybermen would feature.
The 1st of these was excellent; good atmosphere, good ideas & images & plot, quite chilling & great to see the original Cybermen - who were treated with respect & presented to devestating effect. OK the companion was killed & revived (as a Cyberman ) but I didn't mind too much as everything else was generally great. One quibble would be instead of explaining the Mondas-like look/nature of the Cybermen as 'parallel development' (or some such ) - it would have been nicer to have said that Mondas sent of the ship to explore/colonize space at the time of their first glimmers of research into Cybernization; hence the results effectively the same as those developed on Mondas itself.
In contrast part two (final episode) was terrible! A load of clunking modern noisy cybermen ( & their habitual lack of style ), a fairly ropey storyline, more back from the dead shenanigans for companion Bill complete with blatant deux-ex-machina ending (reappearance of the pilot character) the arbritariness of which was insulting to both the audience's emotional & mental intelligence.
Then nice to see the 1st Doctor at the end - I'll be watching at xmas (or some point after) to see how they treat him - I really hope it's done with respect & doesn't turn him into a vessel of superficial over-emoting (some fussing about, a little sentiment & some wise words a le Hartnell would be fine) - otherwise it would be best to leave past incarnations at rest (especially the 1st 4 ).
Have gone somewhat off-topic but in summation: Female Doctor - could be done well but, somewhat paradoxically almost, the triteness & over blown-ness of the modern era will mean (almost certainly) that it will just be one more element bunged into this over-emoting-fest.
And finally: I realise many people enjoy the new series & mean no offence to them in voicing my opinion here. It is of course just my opinion & to those of us to whom the modern version(s) brings joy & satisfaction; more power to you.
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Jul 27, 2017 6:35:49 GMT
Done well a female Doctor would be fine. ... I stopped watching every DW episode near the start of the last but one series (though have wondered why I've been bothering since 2005 or thereabouts - my own fault; should have stopped sooner!). Thanks for opening up Tim! That's why we're here. Obviously, we differ a bit on what we are seeing in the same show. 12 years in, and you're still not happy? You're a tough audience! Of course I felt that way over the two droughts on either side of the McGann telemovie! A dozen years in the old money is a stretch from what, Totter's Lane to Nerva Beacon? Homo Sapiens fanviewerus, what an indomitable species... I don't think we've seen that much qualitative change, since 2005, exactly. In the 1963-75 period, the show was still figuring out what it could be. I'm pretty sure that's now largely understood, even if the kinds of stories and the ways you can tell them have changed a bit over time. But, if you think about it, that was true in the old days too. Compare The Aztecs with Ghostlight, The Rescue with Sontaran Experiment, Space Museum with Leisure Hive, Tomb with Earthshock. It might be sacrilege to some, but given a choice between (for example) Reign Of Terror or Vincent And The Doctor, I think I prefer the latter. And not infrequently, Amy's Choice over The Mind Robber. I'm sure there's viewers who feel the same way about (say) Love & Monsters over the likes of Pyramids Of Mars. Or Turn Left over Inferno. Zut alors! Different kinds of stories, different means of making them, different focus, all true. And yes, the music plays a big part in the feel of any era - which makes it curious that Murray Gold seems to still be sticking with the show, into the 3rd production team. But like any audience that can enjoy the full sweep of surviving past DW, some episodes will satisfy some viewers better than others. And even there, what that is and why can and frequently does change, over time. Even on the scale of an individual viewer! What did old Reuben say about the odd goings-on at Fang Rock? That's why ice cream parlours have more than one flavour, and DW keeps being made. Each time, we should and often do learn new things and find great new taste sensations, though as ever, some prove more successful than others. And that's equally true for television drama in general. Ask any of the surviving cast from the very earliest days about how it was compared to how it is now. Who would even try to make something so risky like that, and expect to be, want to be, doing it next week, month, year, etc? Brilliantly conceived as Flatline is, there was no sign of anything like it even when it might have seemed a good fit - like in say, Season 7, or back in the early Hartnell days. Bidmead's scientific enthusiasm needed more jokes (something the previous script editor was rather better at), and Flatline has plenty whilst making very concrete seemingly weird and abstract notions that could lose the less astute viewer regardless of the relative prowess and ambition of the visual effects. And indeed, the first colour year of DW was so different to the second many new viewers might have switched off. A recurring evil Time Lord who loses, every story?! Yet, despite Barry and Terrance's protestations, there was still a long road to go before the TARDIS was back where it used to be, not frequently based on contemporary British soil. It'll be interesting to see how things go next year. If you think you can give the new team a fair shake, I'll be glad to hear what you make of it when it airs! On the question of companions, what do folks hereabouts think would work well with the next Doctor? Former associates pressed into service anew? Doddery young whippersnappers? Aliens? New friends from the past? A minder? Glad to hear how you'd choose to mix things up in 2018!
|
|
|
Post by timmunton on Jul 27, 2017 16:13:29 GMT
Hi Paul,
Always good to read your posts; I admire your enthusiasm & detailed account of your subject matters.
Re the 2005 season; Ecclestone ( & also Capaldi ) were to my mind great casting for the role (even though I'm not keen on the 2005 plus program ) - but although I mainly enjoyed that first season at the time, I sort of naively assumed (subconsciously probably) that they'd put in the soap/over emoting/etc elements in just to initially draw in a wide audience & then would fairly quickly get rid of those elements & return it - in essence at least - back to something more in keeping with the old series. While (hopefully) retaining most of the 'hooked' audience.
Obviously that was naive thinking! As people don't usually tamper too much with the formula of a ratings winner & because the production team(s) like this sort of thing anyway (ie not just their own work; eg I remembr reading RTD eulogizing over soap operas).
So with the 1st xmas special/start of the 1st Tennant season I realized the main parts of the formula were set in stone - & never enjoyed it much after that; though some good episodes here & there; I liked the 2-parter where the Tennant Doctor temporarily stored his memory elsewhere & became a teacher in circa World War One.
However now (with hindsight) the Ecclestone series also seems dire (have come across a couple of episodes a few years later).
My favourite moment of that series was the Emperor Dalek in the cliffhanger & the subsequent dialogue with it; the Emperor's look was quite good & the voice was truly excellent (fantastic stuff Nick Briggs!) & it's ultra facist/psychotic lines as it explained it's actions/worldview were superb.
I'm guessing those sequences probably still hold up well & also the Dalek slaughter; even though that led to the 1st of the interminable companion resurrections: To change the Ecclestone Doctor's words from elsewhere: 'I just wish that - for once - everybody dies'!
On the topic of a female Doctor it also doesn't help that they've chosen what many would regard as a conventionally 'good looking', & young-ish woman. Where is the - late, great - Margaret Rutherford when you need her!
|
|
|
Post by Richard Marple on Jul 27, 2017 20:55:36 GMT
In some of the TV Comic strips Jon Pertwee looked like Margaret Rutherford, at least according to the Completely Useless Guide.
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Jul 28, 2017 0:58:28 GMT
In some of the TV Comic strips Jon Pertwee looked like Margaret Rutherford, at least according to the Completely Useless Guide. Brings this to mind, from The Green Death: DOCTOR: You say one word. YATES: I like your handbag. DOCTOR: Do you? Well, watch out I don't slosh you with it! MASTER: Fascinating. See that? That's the retinal structure of the human eye. The Doctor is half Rutherford! No wonder.
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Jul 28, 2017 1:54:53 GMT
Always good to read your posts; I admire your enthusiasm & detailed account of your subject matters. I'm glad you find my posts of interest Tim. Your candour does you credit! As to how you've travelled with the series since it came back, don't know what to say. The mouth on legs had a phrase that pretty much sums it up, I think. TEGAN: My Aunt Vanessa said, when I became an air stewardess, if you stop enjoying it, give it up. DOCTOR: Tegan TEGAN: It's stopped being fun, Doctor. Goodbye. I took a break for a few years when Matt turned up. I enjoyed his run and the show a heck of a lot more when I came back. There's a bunch of reasons why, some subtle, some obvious and some probably ineffable. They weren't all related to what was happening on the telly. But I'm glad I like Doctor Who again. It was the show that waited! Tonally, it sounds like you wish DW was more like it was long, long ago. That's okay, but as you concede naturally unlikely to happen. Hinchcliffe didn't come in and think it was too risky to change what came before, or even to give Sherwin's approach another go. DW keeps on changing, even since it turned up. But that's why it's still around, and people still care about making and watching it. Troughton's portrayal was sensibly nothing like the original, just as Capaldi really isn't very like Tennant. But what the show is about and for is still pretty constant, I think. Thrilling adventures in time and space? Yep, still plenty of those! You've got to go back to 1970 if that's not why you tune in! On the other hand, regarding the supporting characters, the lot of companions in the 80s, for instance, weren't the same as it was in the B&W days. I like Barbara, but there's other kinds of character that couldn't have been realised in the earliest years of the show but are now. Could Bill have worked with the First Doctor? I don't think so. (But maybe we'll get something like it this Christmas! ) I wish she'd turned up sooner, and I'm sorry she's gone. Times change and DW has to reflect the world and people in which the show is made and watched. Otherwise it becomes a period drama or a sort of sterile rote art form. Chibnall's run will continue that truism of television production, as has all past eras. So long as it speaks to enough of the contemporary audience, it'll be successful. And bear in mind, a female Doctor surely increases the odds of different kinds of male companions, which seems like another win to me! But that doesn't mean we'll all like it equally well, and that's just how it's always been with DW, too. The difference compared to the old days I think is twofold. First, we can avail ourselves very easily of the entirety of extant past stories. When you can pull out a screen from your pocket and watch Enemy Of The World or Carnival Of Monsters or Kinda or Vengeance On Varos or The Empty Child or Human Nature or whatever you like - maybe it matters a bit less what's currently being made. Especially if you're forcing yourself to watch something new that you don't like and aren't expecting to. In the 80s and earlier, if you didn't like current Who, well - hard cheese, right? Second, there's a plethora of ongoing adventures of past Doctors. And not just in comic book form! As you'd know, Big Finish has the surviving old teams back together, making the past come alive for those whose era of preference is not right now or the future. For fans of a time travel show, it makes sense and it is to be hoped that we'll see more of it, as the recent addition of the 10th Doctor with first Donna and now Rose to the stable suggests. Next year, thanks to the BF team, we've Tom's Doctor in a rematch with Sutekh. For those who find that some version of DW's past speaks more strongly to them, it's a very good time to be a fan!
|
|
|
Post by timmunton on Jul 29, 2017 0:17:30 GMT
You make a lot of good & relevant points Paul. As you suggest (via Tegan) I have indeed mainly stopped watching it because 'it's stopped being fun':
But will have a look now & again if there's something intriguing to me (so, as mentioned I watched the recent Mondas Cyberman eps to see how they handled them - & I'm glad I did as the first part was excellent. And - been usually torn between Hartnell & Troughton as to who's my favourite Doctor - am likewise interested to see how the 1st Doctor is portrayed this xmas).
In the 60s it would have been probably nearly impossible to have a black or openly gay companion - & it is a little hard to imagine those scenarios in the imagined world of the program then ( though I should probably just dream harder ). Although as I've mentioned before I could fairly easily imagine a female Doctor in that era's dramatic/aesthetic form (though unlikely it was ever considered by the production team).
In terms of DW now it's good that society is better reflected in the program with eg black, gay etc companions/characters.
My problem lies with the more general overall mode of the program:
All characters of whatever type are drowned in the over-emotionalizing which mostly feels superficial, unsubtley manipulative & as a result of that usually is ineffective & indeed detrimental to the dignity which one would hope all characters might be treated with.
It's a very general analogy but try this on for size : Ken Loach's films generally treat working class people with dignity & a sense of truthfulness - whereas the same demographic in say Eastenders gets treated in a way which is in many ways comparable to the sort of over emotionalising the characters in new Who have to act out; the program makers may not mean to; but the effect has (in my experience) the feel of derision to everyone involved.
What I mean is; they could make new Who a bit more Loachian in that sense; continue being inclusive to society as a whole but make the depiction of all characters' feelings (whatever their class, ethnicity etc ) more lucid & less soap like; then I actually would feel their joys & sorrows more often!
Of course I don't mean it should be done like a Loach film in general. And nor would I expect it to replicate the, to my mind,high point which was 60s (or even the 70s) Who ( nice though that would be!) There must be many ways of making DW on TV that cuts out the emotional prima donna-ness & still get a good size audience. And it shouldn't be that hard to do this & also still be inclusive & empowering to various social groups, while also not making the Doctor (in male form ) a neurotic playing out his feelings like an overactive accordian!
Just finally to say; nice to talk about this stuff & - as I hope is clear - although I am engaged with what I'm trying to say, what I percieve as new Who's deficiencies isn't something that makes me livid or anxious ( a bit excitable now & then maybe! ) & I am grateful it has probably developed greater interest in the old series (what with the Emperor Dalek & the 1st Doctor & so on reappearing )& especially those elusive missing episodes!
And I am glad you & many others are enjoying it & finding that it adds to your happiness.
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Jul 30, 2017 0:59:10 GMT
That's fine Tim, if we didn't discuss things here, the boards would be a bit pointless! And discuss doesn't and shouldn't mean, like and agree about the same things! But I take your point re the Mondasian Cybermen - and I'm glad other fans can see why they were a classic design. Sure, they don't look like the sleek sturdy robot types that came later, but they offer a glimpse at a more disturbing kind of nightmare, made all the more real because Bill got turned into one. I had thought the Doctor would perform some magic surgery as in Class, and give her one of his hearts to restore her, thus triggering his fall in the final battle and ultimately the regeneration. But no! That's two companions the 12th has seen meet pretty abrupt and unpleasant ends, regardless of the saving grace Bill scored at the end. Compared to Peri's exit, I didn't feel cheated. Re the prospects of a female Doctor way back then, maybe I'm misremembering, but was there not in the very early stages some notion that the Master was going to be a female role? It's also a great pity that given how terrific Fariah was in Enemy Of The World, we didn't see her like again in Barry's run as producer, or even after. In light of your thoughts on the way DW is made nowadays, I'm curious about what contemporary telly you enjoy. There's a plethora of police procedural and soaps, but there's also a lot more scifi and drama than there used to be too. Perhaps there's other stuff that you feel is more to your taste, at least from an emotive or "realistic" balance? Then again, maybe your view is that this aspect of DW is a commonality of contemporary TV drama, regardless of genre or origin? Your fondness for the 60s Doctors - did you grow up with them? Or did you find them later and felt they were a better lock for your taste? I'm pleased BF keeps making stuff from that end of the show, have you heard any? Lost Stories like Farewell Great Macedon and Masters Of Luxor are worth a listen. (That's true of newly written stuff too, though as with the show proper I don't like all of it equally well. Flames Of Cadiz was pretty decent as a Hartnell historical, if you like those over more way out or more modern stuff.) Of course, turning an unused 60s TV script into an audio play many decades hence for a contemporary audience is bound to be somewhat "inauthentic", as I expect you might probably anticipate from the appearance of the First Doctor at Christmas.
One could offer similar criticisms about the appearance of earlier Doctors in last century's multi-Doctor specials. Yet for myself at least, I think the good that comes of it is overwhelmingly positive and takes nothing from the pre-exisiting body of work. New audiences are reconnected with the past, and curious fans can find things in those original stories that we've enjoyed for many years - and which clearly succeeded in launching a remarkable phenomenon that continues to this day, albeit a little differently. And after his wonderful turn as Hartnell in 2013, I think a lot of fans are very glad David Bradley is back as the First Doctor! One thing the B&W days had that we don't now is the influence on the crew dynamics that came from the inherently risky and inconvenient nature of TARDIS travel. Ian and Barbara were stuck for a reason, one that none of the 2005 era crew have (or would?) put up with. The tone would be a little more interesting if there was a genuine sense of risk and loss that you might not get back for work the next morning, or ever, despite the Doctor's best efforts. What do you mean I can't even call home on my mobile?! Who would still not care or actively choose such a life? Overconfidence is one thing, that you'll win through like you do every week. But being fairly sure you might never go home again? Unless you're a fugitive or a nihilist, why would you knowingly choose such a life? Especially with someone you've just met about whom you know almost nothing? The Doctor needs people with him, but it'd be difficult to find her wholly admirable if that need was weighted higher than the impact of that choice on his companions. Of course, Hartnell pretty much broke the mould here! Not only did he swipe the TARDIS, he swiped his granddaughter's school teachers as well! I'm not so sure it'd be viable to do today, but if it was unintentional, through the TARDIS suddenly reaching a point of profound equipment failure or what have you? It'd make the process of gaining and keeping new crew a bit different, to say nothing of how such a bond would evolve over time, and maybe that'd be worth a shot. Of course, one obvious cost of that would be the lack of "real world" interaction. It's a matter of taste whether that's losing more than we're gaining, of course.
|
|
|
Post by timmunton on Oct 16, 2017 21:41:37 GMT
Hi Paul,
In response to a couple of the points you mention; generally I'm not too keen on modern tv; I don't like its aesthetics & a lot of its attitude ( far more accepting of social inequality, & down on imaginative thought; despite lip service to the former & regurgitaion of 'memes' re the latter ). With regard to aesthetics - although it's hard to tell if it's all just subjectivity; modern stuff does seem lacking in terms of its editing, filmic/video textures & so on.
But in the old days wasn't keen on the soaps - except for 1960s gothic/horror US 'soap' (if it can really be called that ) "Dark Shadows' which I've only seen recently ( ie have started watching it ) & which is great. And wasn't that keen on most of the police stuff & so on from back then.
I like the more fantastical or imaginative stuff or thoughtful stuff like Callan & Public Eye ( not that I saw them at the time ). And the rich deep seam which is old 'children's TV'; for which to me Smallfilms & 'Pogles Wood' especially is the pinnacle.
Hope life is good for you.
Best wishes,
Tim
|
|