Doctor Who [Spoilers]

[Anonymous]

What? After spending a day putting it together

a day?

He's probably spent the best part of his free time this afternoon, looking over the BBC Sales Dept, Doctor Who DVD and merchandising figures.

Unlikely.

Spent too much time listening to people who want to campaign against Angel being dumped by Warner Bros. When they say "yes but the huge fan base and the phenominal marketing potential will bring it back" leaves me wondering "What reality do you live in again?" Take it from someone who works in television, it all comes down to an account handler saying something wanky like "yes but I don't like it" and off the air it goes. It really is as scarily simple as that.

Grade can't move on this BECAUSE the gov. now run the BBC....again. Believe me, if he didn't want to watch it and that was all it came down to, it wouldn't be on air. I heard that one or two MP's wrote to him saying he shouldn't go near it. That he ISN'T is rather telling. Who pulls the strings again, auntie?

 

[Anonymous]

a day?

Well, in between RL interruptions, of course.

 

[Anonymous]

I loved watching Dr. Who as a child. I really don't remember much about it honestly. I am excited to see they are starting it up again. Hopefully we will get it across the pond!!

you will. it's aimed at you people across the pond picking it up, hence why the show is 13X45 min episodes. Designed to slip into that hour slot in the states. If the states pick it up, we'll get a second series. if they don't, the future remains indefinate..

 

[Anonymous]

Well, in between RL interruptions, of course.

forget RL old chap, this is doctor who.... for the love of god...a british institution...have some decency

 

[Anonymous]

Anyway, Grade's anything but ignorant.

He's probably spent the best part of his free time this afternoon, looking over the BBC Sales Dept, Doctor Who DVD and merchandising figures.

Ehr, if he didn't do that in the 80s, what makes you think he's suddenly going to do that now?

ibid.
Apart from his Who-o-phobia, I can't help liking the guy. He always reminds me of his uncle. And where would we have been without all that bizarre, surreal, reactionary/wobblie/subversive, A-Grade ITC fare on telly in the Fifties, Sixties and Seventies?

You know: Danger Man, Robin Hood, The Avengers, The Saint, The Champions, Man In A suitcase, Gerry Anderson's output, Randall & Hopkirk (deceased), The Prisoner, Jesus of Nazareth, The Muppet Show, etc. etc. [/i]

None of which would ever have been made if the Grade in charge at ITC had been Michael rather than Lew. MG stated on Room 101 that he detests Fantasy. LG OTOH didn't give a shit so long as people were being entertained and watching the programs his company was producing. MG therefore strikes me as being nothing like LG. MG doesn't 'get' fantasy, and resents the fact that people he regards as 'losers' ('pimply anoraks' IIRC was how he described fantasy fans in general, not just Who-fans) seem to have no problems 'getting' not just fantasy but SF, and of being able to discern where one begins and the other ends: he talks like someone who suspects that those 'losers' might be brainier than him despite the trappings of his success. He's a git.

 

[Anonymous]

...

... He's a git.

Well, that's a bit depressing then.

 

[Anonymous]

Dr. Who

I'm sure there's a Dr. Who thread and I'm just going blind but...

The horror, the horror:

Doctor Who actor wants 'emotion'

Actor Christopher Eccleston, who has been chosen to play the new Doctor Who, has said he wants the Time Lord to show more "feelings and emotions".
Eccleston, 40, told Doctor Who Magazine he wanted the show to move away from "spooky escapism".

The actor said he wanted to give the role "weight and ambiguity".

The new series of the veteran sci-fi show will be screened next year, and is being written by Queer as Folk writer Russell T Davies.

Doctor Who, originally played by William Hartnell, began in 1963. Seven actors played the doctor before the show was axed in 1989.

Eccleston, who made his name is shows such as Cracker and Our Friends in the North, said he had been influenced by the doctor's second incarnation, played by Patrick Troughton.

'Melancholy'

He said he had found Troughton's performance "compelling and a little bit frightening".

He said he wanted to move the role away from his "foppish image and find a more modern hero". The actor said he wanted to concentrate more on the part's "melancholy side".


The actor also told the magazine that he had been offered the role of the doctor for a movie eight years ago but had turned it down because he thought it might typecast him.

Paul McGann, one of the stars of the cult film Withnail and I, played the eighth incarnation for the 1996 film.

He told the magazine one of his most important memories of the show as a child was when viewers saw what was inside the casing of the doctor's arch-enemies, the Daleks.

"This great, cold steel instrument of destruction, all that casing, all that armour, is actually to protect this very vulnerable, strange, frightened creature," he said.

Do you agree with Eccleston? Should the new Doctor show more emotion? Tell BBC News Online what you think.


I agree with Christopher Eccleston. The Doctor's alienness is best shown by stressing his humanity. The new series needs humour but it would be a mistake playing it for laughs. Good luck to all the team, I am really looking forward to it.
Colin Lewisohn, Leeds


In a nutshell, no. Why change a trusted formula when it has worked for so many years. Sure enough, the programme needs a much larger budget to continue in the 21st Century, but if Mr Eccleston wants to add "weight and ambiguity" to a character, I wish he would choose another role to do so.
Steven Hudson, Clacton Essex


I'm very worried about this new Doctor. As a lifelong fan I would not like to see his past incarnations and history totally trashed to make him more 'relevant'. What ever happened to simple escapism and 'hide behind the sofa' scares? Do we always have to let the revisionists loose on programmes like Doctor Who?

I thought the film with Paul McGann was a disaster - I only managed to sit through about 3/4 of it and that only with gritted teeth. Paul McGann was a good choice but it could have been any sort of americanised drama/cop shop. Doctor Who, like a lot of cult TV is unique and shouldn't be messed about with I hope Christopher Eccleston respects the fans who campaigned so long and hard to rescue the Doctor from Programme Controller Hell. It doesn't sound much like it though.
Nikki D Peterborough

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3668997.stm

 

[Red__Dalek]

Why change a trusted formula that has worked for years? Er, it worked so well that they cancelled the programme.

There's always been emotion in the programme, you can't carry a fued with the whole Dalek species like the Doctor does unless he's bothered.

The Cybermen are the only characters without emotion, it's that dehumanisation that makes them scary.

 

[SoundDust]

Actor Christopher Eccleston, who has been chosen to play the new Doctor Who, has said he wants the Time Lord to show more "feelings and emotions".
Eccleston, 40, told Doctor Who Magazine he wanted the show to move away from "spooky escapism".

Why not have it become like Eastenders, only with time travel:

annoying cockney woman: "so wot you sayin then? you're my brother, my father, and my grandfather?"
annoying cockney guy: "I'm going back to the pub, see you at this time, later"

or something

At least they can bring back the not entirely convincing cardboard scenery

 

[Anonymous]

There's always been emotion in the programme, you can't carry a fued with the whole Dalek species like the Doctor does unless he's bothered.

meby it was just something to do on a wet monday night?

 

[_Lizard23_]

If I hear one more person mention hiding behind the sofa with reference to Doctor Who I am going to shove a sofa up their *&^%$ing arse.

You like it the way it was when you were a kid, it's a nostalgia kick : good grief, some people probably even like Peter Davidson.

The new series will almost certainly be crap unless you are 7.

 

[Anonymous]

If I hear one more person mention hiding behind the sofa with reference to Doctor Who I am going to shove a sofa up their *&^%$ing arse.

Dr Who wasn't scary and I didn't watch it when I was a kid. I got into it as an adult.

The new series will be crap because it's taking itself to seriously.

 

[_Lizard23_]

My most sincere apologies.

I wonder if it will take itself too seriously for even 7 year olds to enjoy it?

 

[Anonymous]

I wonder if it will take itself too seriously for even 7 year olds to enjoy it?

it looks like it will.

Shake with fear :hmph:

Antony Wainer, spokesman for the Doctor Who Appreciation Society, said there was nothing in Eccleston's casting to suggest a return to the novelties of past timelords.

"We are going to have to wait and see, but I think the velvet jacket and coats and gloves are a thing of the past," he said.

"Eccleston doesn't necessarily play eccentric characters and roles in the same way as a Sylvester McCoy.

"I think we will have a more serious-minded character, more reflective and inward-looking, slightly edgy and slightly dangerous with a menacing edge to him


God help us...

 

[Anome]

I must have missed something. I thought the Doctor, while putting up a front of not caring one way or the other, actually did show emotion, particularly as far as his companions were concerned.

Then again, I was watching it cowering behind the couch at the age of 7.

I remember best the Tom Baker era. I think some of those episodes were really well done. Others were crap. During that period there was a confluence of factors: a popular actor; some high-profiles writers and script editors (Douglas Adams, for instance), and probably more money than had been available previously (which mostly went on effects, leaving the usual cardboard sets and recycled Shakespearean costumes). They even expanded their use of locations beyond Bristol Quarry.

Now, I can speculate as to what went wrong after that, but I think there was a dramatic decline towards the end of Baker's run, leading into Peter Davison. (Everyone remembers Adric, right?) And I don't think it ever really recovered. (I know McCoy was popular, although I fail to see why.)

Anyway, I hope that they manage to reproduce what made it great, but I'm not holding my breath. The tricky part of it is that the lead has to find his own space as the Doctor. He can't just be a Tom Baker or Jon Pertwee rip-off (for example).

 

[Kondoru]

The Doctor `did` care....it was what got him into trouble with the Timelords in the first place. He wanted to get involved rather than be an impartial observer.

I will look up my books.

 

[Anonymous]

The Doctor `did` care....it was what got him into trouble with the Timelords in the first place. He wanted to get involved rather than be an impartial observer.

I will look up my books.

I think your right there...I can't look up my books as I don't have any.

 

[Anome]

The Doctor `did` care....it was what got him into trouble with the Timelords in the first place. He wanted to get involved rather than be an impartial observer.

I will look up my books.

You're quite right, of course. It's mentioned numerous places in the "canon".

 

[Anonymous]

Troughton's Doctor was put on trial in "The War Games" story by the Timelords for "interfering". He was found guilty and banished to Earth (a planet he had shown a great love off) and was given a new face, care off Pertwee. IMO he's always cared, hence being put on trial! I recall Tom Baker as well, just about to wipeout the whole of the Dalek race, delivering a great speech about genocide and the debating wether "he had the right to do so".

As for the new Doctor Who...Eccleston's a great choice, but the Doctor has always had his "emotions". Tom Baker was always smiling, perhaps Eccleston would like the Doctor to shed a tear after he's wiped another alien race?

The new series (starting 2005, possibly even January the 1st) looks to be shaping up nicely. Floating daleks, 45 minute episodes, Anna Friel as a possible for the new companion (Rose Tyler), a decent budget and back to it's best time slot - Post-Grandstand. At it's core is the character and his Tardis, that was the premise for the original Who and if the writers stick with the idea "He's a time traveller who puts right wrongs" how can they screw it up? (IMO) By staying away from time paradox stories (The TV movie plot was about what again?) and concentrating on the nasty aliens and their nefarious plans It can work, Star Trek took the same idea and updated it very successfully.

mooks out

PS Some great titles for the episodes of the new Doctor Who. I'm looking forward to the story "Aliens of London".

Lots of info here BTW
http://www.gallifreyone.com/newstv.php#newsitemEplklZkZlAPGBkGLBT

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Dr. Who

I'm very worried about this new Doctor. As a lifelong fan I would not like to see his past incarnations and history totally trashed to make him more 'relevant'. What ever happened to simple escapism and 'hide behind the sofa' scares? Do we always have to let the revisionists loose on programmes like Doctor Who?

Don't be. Each incarnation has been a revision and has been more in keeping with the era. From the first up to Peter Davidson. the ones that didn't work were the ones that tried to hark back, ie: Colin Baker AND Sylvester McCoy (though his latter episodes were getting back on track, shame they ended). The movie on the other hand was too much of a revision, you're right. infact they tried to change so much of the history it's rediculous. The bbc books of that doctor are much better.

I think the new doc will be a refreshing change personally made by people who genuinly care.

 

[Anonymous]

"HARRY POTTER author JK Rowling has turned down the chance to bring some magic to the new DrWho series."

Edited due to bad linkage

here's the page, bout halfway down.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/

mooks out

 

[kitsunegari]

Re: Re: Dr. Who

Don't be. Each incarnation has been a revision and has been more in keeping with the era. From the first up to Peter Davidson. the ones that didn't work were the ones that tried to hark back, ie: Colin Baker AND Sylvester McCoy (though his latter episodes were getting back on track, shame they ended). The movie on the other hand was too much of a revision, you're right. infact they tried to change so much of the history it's rediculous. The bbc books of that doctor are much better.

I think the new doc will be a refreshing change personally made by people who genuinly care.

I agree with the McCoy comment, there were some dodgy episodes but I thought his performances particulary in the latter shows were excellent and his small part in the film high lighted to me what a shame it was that he wasn't the going to be the Dr anymore.

 

[Anonymous]

Dr. Who

No. I don't think so. I don't think so.

 

[Yithian]

if the writers stick with the idea "He's a time traveller who puts right wrongs" how can they screw it up?

"Putting right what once went wrong" Quantum Leap surely?

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry I'm having some problems with Ziggy...ZZzzzzck...

In the same way Star Trek (any of them) was basically "Horatio Hornblower in space". They never tinkered with that basic concept.

Dr. Who (IMO) was about a time traveller who fought on the side of good against evil in any form! I wouldn't want a Doctor without his respect for life. One of my favourite Pertwee era stories has the speech at the end by the Doctor on how the humans and Siluarians could have lived together (Davidson's Doctor tried to capture that and failed). I really like Baker's Genesis of the Daleks discussion with himself as I said above.

Maybe I don't respect the Doctor for his respect for life, maybe I'm just fed up seeing death paraded as entertainment, god knows I see enough! Watching Doctor Who would be a nice bit of escapism, I'd rather watch a Dalek die than a human, but hey that's me.

Come on the Doctor, can't wait to see Christopher up against Aliens in London!!!

(white doorway opens) mooks out
(white doorway shuts)

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: Re: Dr. Who

I agree with the McCoy comment, there were some dodgy episodes but I thought his performances particulary in the latter shows were excellent and his small part in the film high lighted to me what a shame it was that he wasn't the going to be the Dr anymore.

Basically the minute they changed his costume to a darker jacket etc, and stuck him in episodes like "Curse of Fenric" and "Battlefield" (where we learn that a much later incarnation of the doctor is infact Merlin from Arthurian legend of sorts) you started to see a darker side to the character, with references made here and there to the vampire wars, and to the possibility that he may have actually stolen the TARDIS. Also we had a sense of past mistakes made by previous incarnations coming to bear with that doctor, such as that whole sentinal business etc. So in all he did get better. These were elements that not only reflected a developed doctor, but also one that reflected the era in which he was on TV.

With Eccleston talking about heart and soul etc, this is only a natural progression from where the better McCoy left off really. It was bound to come to this. The Doctor Who universe is one of the most organic universes there is in Sci-fi.

and yes, seeing McCoy in the movie made you almost wish he'd stayed as the doctor in the movie. shame really.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dr. Who

... (where we learn that a much later incarnation of the doctor is infact Merlin from Arthurian legend of sorts) ...

Also a problem with such a long running series, is the temptation to make the lead character the centre of an increasingly shrinking Universe, almost a God. Something that had the Doctor dangling his toes over the edge of the 'Abyss of Pretentiousness' a few times, in his later years.

I'm kicking myself that I sort of passed up a chance to see some of those series, past and present, that I'd missed, just recently.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dr. Who

Also a problem with such a long running series, is the temptation to make the lead character the centre of an increasingly shrinking Universe, almost a God. Something that had the Doctor dangling his toes over the edge of the 'Abyss of Pretentiousness' a few times, in his later years.

Sort of, except that it becomes more like knowing nods than attempts at intellectual pretentiousness. "Dangling toes" illustrates it perfectly, except there's a sort of chuckle that would follow shortly after. It's not like "the force" which lucas felt compelled to explain away with science thus ruining any ambiguity. The ambiguity remains. It's a bit like the Doctor saying, "Titanic, yes, I was there on the deck..." that sort of thing. He becomes a bit more like the count of St Germain, which isn't really any great stretch into pretentiousness, rather swimming in what ought to be familiar waters. There's a great story linked to the Count of St Germain or "the wandering jew" in which during the first world war, a french man was captured by the germans, and it's alleged he told the germans all about the second world war and their involvement and the outcome. Sort of almost imagine the doctor doing the same, except that in the who universe, saying such things would be irrelevant (and invariably it'd have something to do with the Cybermen anyway).

I'm kicking myself that I sort of passed up a chance to see some of those series, past and present, that I'd missed, just recently.

Battlefield and the whole Merlin thing is great, because it gives a sense of the worm almost eating itself whole again. Time and again and again. It's cool to think that Merlin (or the last incarnation of the doctor) would be doing battle in Iceland in the 54th century.

 

[Timble2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dr. Who

...and to the possibility that he may have actually stolen the TARDIS...

This was hinted at at least as far back as 'The Wargames' when Patrick Troughton's Doctor had to ask for help from the Time Lords and it became apparent that the Doctor had unofficially borrowed the TARDIS, because he was bored of life on his home world and the Time Lords rarely used their powers to help others.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dr. Who

Sort of, except that it becomes more like knowing nods than attempts at intellectual pretentiousness. "Dangling toes" illustrates it perfectly, except there's a sort of chuckle that would follow shortly after.

Maybe, but I'd contend that the main reason, 'Doctor Who: The Movie', didn't go very far in any direction, was exactly because the plot revolved so much around The Doctor, the Cosmically All Encompassing nature of the TARDIS, and old business with the Master that it got sucked right up it's own fundamentals.

They even had him strung up, in an apparent nod to crucifiction, at one point.