Dean's World

Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.

Who's On First

Thanks to the internet, I managed to catch the second episode of the new Dr. Who this morning. It was even better than the first episode.

It reminded me not just of why I had liked Dr. Who as a kid, but also why I grew to loathe it. I remember how near the end of Tom Baker's run a new producer called John Nathan-Turner came in and, really, he all but ruined the show. It grew steadily more pompous, self-important, preachy, and melodramatic, which continued through Peter Davison's time. Eventually Nathan-Turner left but by then I'd lost interest. From what I saw, they producers brought in new actors after that and tried to recapture the tongue-in-cheek wit and the light camp, but frankly it was terrible. They overdid it and, basically, the magic was lost.

It's a delicate balance, really. The show can't take itself too seriously or it just loses its charm because, honestly, the whole thing's a little daft. The whole time travel thing: it's been done, right? Doing it episode after episode, it's almost impossible for viewers not to lose interest if the show can't make them chuckle and say, "Okay, this is just fun, let's relax and enjoy."

But if it's all camp, that sucks too.

It was no surprise that the show was eventually cancelled. It wasn't so much the actors' fault as the production team simply seemed to have no idea what it was that had originally made Dr. Who fun and intresting for both adults and children. Or perhaps by the time they figured it out, it was too late.

This new show really does recapture that perfect blend of wit, camp, drama, and interesting ideas that made the old show show work so well. I can't believe the BBC hasn't found someone in the US who wants to show it over here.

Oh by the way, thanks to Paul Burgess, I found out recently that Christopher Eccleston (who's excellent, by the way) did quit the series after the first season, but not for the reasons the BBC originally said. The BBC has apologized for mischaracterizing his decision: he apparently never wanted to more than one season, and always made it clear that that was all he ever wanted to do.

Posted by Dean | Permalink | Technorati Trackbacks
Martin (a.k.a. UML Guy) (www):
Dean,

Did you mean: "he apparently never wanted to do more than one season, and always made it clear that that was all he ever wanted to do"?

I have to say, the only significant Dr. Who I ever saw was the Tom Baker era. Local PBS never showed anything else. And even with that, it was somewhat spotty airings on Saturday afternoons, when I often had other things to do. So I never saw it consistently. I know more Dr. Who from the novelizations and from the role-playing game than from the show itself.

So I have no idea what "made the old show show work so well." I don't have a solid basis for comparison.
4.12.2005 6:59am
Martin (a.k.a. UML Guy) (www):
P.S. Oh, and I hsve no idea whether the role-playing game is canonical at all, nor whether the BBC writers care all that much about consistency with an obscure 20 year old game. But Continuity Cops might note that the game included a limit of 10 incarnations per Time Lord. Eccleston was number nine (ignoring the Peter Cushing film and the FOX film). As I said above, I'm not well versed in Dr. Who lore. Is that limit "official"? I seem to recall some story where The Master had exhausted his incarnations, and was after some power that would give him a new lease on life.
4.12.2005 7:18am
Dean Esmay:
Right, he always wanted to do just one apparently.

In the old show as well as the books, yes, there was a limit of ten. However I seem to recall that there was something that happened near the end of Tom Baker's term that made it look like he got his regeneration limit reset somehow. Not recalling directly. It's either that or they'll just ignore it anyway....

You know, I had forgotten there was a Peter Cushing Dr. Who movie. I knew about that other one in the 1990s by some other British actor but I'd forgotten about the Cushing. Always sort of wanted to see that just because it looked interested and I always sort of liked Cushing...
4.12.2005 7:46am
Martin (a.k.a. UML Guy) (www):
I watched the Cushing film, but only once, and only while working on code. And that was before I had ever seen an episode, so I knew absolutely nothing about it. Under those circumstances, it was utterly incomprehensible, and quite forgettable. It soured me on Dr. Who for a long while. I have no idea how a knowledgeable fan who paid attention might view it.
4.12.2005 8:10am
Paul Burgess (www):
Ten? Somehow I thought it was twelve. Or perhaps twelve regenerations, hence thirteen incarnations? And something comes to me that the transition from Hartnell to Troughton was technically not a regeneration, but rather a rejuvenation(???).

But it's been many, many years since I've seen the show, so all this is quite foggy in my mind. I may well be mistaken.
4.12.2005 8:46am
Maodou (mail):
It's quite likely that this new series isn't directly connected to previous canon (as far as doctors and their adventures go); it could be like the BG remake - new from the ground up.
4.12.2005 8:50am
Jerry Kindall (www):
It's possible the new Doctor Who isn't connected to previous canon, but I wouldn't call it likely. There's been no indication of any such thing.

It might be interesting if the next incarnation is the last, and the Doctor knows it. How would that affect him psychologically? Of course, that doesn't mean they couldn't find some way for him to regenerate after all, but THAT could always be his last -- he never knows if he has another one.
4.12.2005 2:44pm
Drew Vogel (mail) (www):
Just a quick correction, Dean. John Nathan-Turner never left Doctor Who. He tried, but the BBC wouldn't let him. He stuck with it until the show was cancelled after the 1989 season. He died several years later.

Also, I disagree with your assessment, sort of. John Nathan-Turner was excellent in his early years, in my opinion. His predecessor, Graham Williams, was a disaster. The show devolved into "The Tom Baker Show". The humor and camp got way out of control. John Nathan-Turner brought Doctor Who back to where it belonged. JNT's first four seasons comprise what I consider to be the 2nd Golden Age of Doctor Who, the first being Tom Baker's first three seasons under producer Phillip Hinchcliffe.

Co-inciding with the departure of Peter Davison and the arrival of Colin Baker, the show took a dramatic downturn in the quality of the writing. This was followed by a dramatic upturn in quality for the last two seasons of the show, but by then, it was too little too late.
4.12.2005 4:59pm
Andrew Ian Dodge (mail) (www):
OMG Dean, I think very highly of you but on this we disagree. The new Dr Who is total and utter crap. My reviews of the first two are on BG. The third one was a little better but the show was stolen by an ancillary character in the form of Dickens.
4.12.2005 9:52pm