In Criticism of the New Doctor Who

[SiHart]

Have a read of this: http://www.denofgeek.com/television/...octor_who.html

It's an odd article, isn't it? It's a rant that's somehow passed off as journalism.

This bit I found particularly odd

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?

So he wants a Doctor who he isn't like the Doctor at all? One of the things I like about Doctor Who is its optimism and that the Doctor usually sees the best in things- even when they're at their darkest. Any number of other sci-fi shows do this, why should Doctor Who be the same as them? Why can't it stand alone?

But I wonder what you lot make of it.

Si xx

[Dino]

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.

Wow... just when I thought he might have a point? (Well he might have an arguement worth listening to?... well he might have an arguement worth pretending to listen to...wel he might have a point you can switch off and listen to The Magic Roundabout theme in your head while he spouts and spouts etc) at least the comments are funny.
Reminds me of that bloke who wrote in to a sub-Points of View show in the 1980's moaning about the show.
Anyone remember him? *gasp!* Does he post here?
I think the fact that we don't know what went on exactly in the Time War makes The Doctor and the show more interesting than a George Lucas spin off? And I really hope we don't get to hear what happened in the Time War?
The sonic screwdriver opens doors etc, but I can't remember an adventure where the sonic screwdriver defeated the enemy single-handed?

"What a maroon!" as that other great television character once said!
And he was doing so well until he started going on about how much better "Buffy..." was?
Nevermind, let's see what he could have won?

[Jon Masters]

I'd have given more than 5 seconds to think about what he'd written if he'd spent far more time saying what was wrong with new DW than he did giving us his crap 'Slider-StarGate-Lost-Seven Days' rewrite.

[Simon R]

I stopped reading it the moment he cited the Candy Man as evidence of the BBC's shoddy treating of the old series.

[Pip Madeley]

I read this on Roobarbs the other day and could only bother reading it for a minute - I'm surprised Den of Geek agreed to publish it!

[Milky Tears]

[Si Hunt]

What a tool.

Why always "gritty"? He seems to want Doctor Who to be for him alone, and not at for kids. He doesn't understand that most of the huge audience that keeps it going are kids! Do we need an episode that starts with "the companion being tortured"?

Maybe when I was eleven, I'd hide behind the sofa as the cardboard box of tricks called a Dalek evaporated most of mankind

This is telling. It can't be suitable for eleven year olds. Why? Because HE'S NOT ELEVEN.

This bit is odd:

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.

Don't we got all that? Surely this is a theme that is returned to time and again during the Tennant era?

He thinks he'd clever coming up with all these ideas, as if he's the only one that's thought of them. But it's easy to sit back and toss off one-line pitches on all the things they haven't done yet. They've been busy making other stories.

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.

It's just pathetic - I didn't even get the pleasure of reading what he thought was wrong with the series. It was just a silly stream of his pet ideas, none of which he'd thought through, and which he nevertheless thought should be hurled at the audience in order to drive off all the kids that keep it popular.

Si.

[Andrew Curnow]

I haven't got enough energy to read all that, but based on the first few paragraphs... does he not actually like Doctor Who at all? All his 'things it ain't' apply to the old series at least as much as the new (you know, the old series with its Candy Man and 50 minute episodes...) so maybe he's always hated Doctor Who and is now surprised he still does? It sounds really like he wants to be a fan of an entirely different show.

Either way,

[Rob McCow]

I found the whole business that he came up with about 'going back in time to have sex with the parents of evil dictators' repugnant and silly. Was he joking? Is it real? That's the sort of dumb storyline you'd expect in Timecop or some other straight-to-video nasty.

[Mr BHT]

Cheers for the link. Interesting article, but got bored reading it after a few paragraphs. I think I'm over disliking NuWho, and more than happy just being indifferent to it now.

[Jason Thompson]

The sonic screwdriver opens doors etc, but I can't remember an adventure where the sonic screwdriver defeated the enemy single-handed?

I think the sonic screwdriver is overused in the new series. It's such a useful tool the writers had to invent the 'deadlock seal' to explain anything it couldn't do (a useful seal that can be applied to anything from doors to oil drums, it seems). Helen Raynor had to have the Doctor drop it so he wouldn't be able to unscrew the Dalekanium from the Empire State Building's antenna in Evolution Of The Daleks. The Doctor also often uses it to scan things and peers at it as if it has a display, though numerous closeups, production photos and toy replicas show that it lacks any such thing.

Incidentally, the sonic screwdriver is directly responsible for the death of a main monster at least twice: cutting the rope ladder the Cybercontroller is coming up in The Age Of Steel, and amplifying the pipe organ in The Lazarus Experiment. It also blew up a few robot santas and Christmas trees.

The rest of that rant just seems like a load of rubbish, though I haven't read the whole thing.

[Jamie McCrimmon]

Perhaps he just needs to get out more.

[Rob McCow]

His main argument seems to be 'Doctor Who should be more like show X', where show X is a cult fringe show that gets 300,000 viewers on BBC Four or Sci-Fi. But these days, Doctor Who is an immensely popular mainstream show that can pick up ten million viewers.

There's a lot of critiscism of Doctor Who out there, but very little of it is coherent or convincing, sadly. I think there's room for a balanced appraisal somewhere, because the show certainly isn't without problems. But for criticism to be worthwhile, it has to be well thought out and considered.

If someone says they don't like the show, then that's absolutely fine, I've got no problem with that. But it's when they bang on about what it should be like... without remembering that it's always going to be a fun adventure show for the family. So it won't be much like Sopranos, or The Wire, or Hostel. It will only be 'gritty' and 'dark' periodically, because family audiences would weary of torture and bloodshed pretty quickly. The Doctor only comes across as a juvenile twelve year old because he's full of energy, but he's not sex-obsessed.

Doctor Who isn't a limitless program at all. But it's quite wide ranging within it's limits.

[Alex]

Heh, that is one of the funniest things I've ever read - as others have mentioned, for all his "It needs to be new, original, outrageous" rantings, nearly all of his suggested plotlines have been stolen from other tv shows / films / books.

Personally I would like to see a season long arc (and not just something which is occasionally mentioned like Bad Wolf or Torchwood), but I know that can alienate audiences who might give up on the show if they miss an episode and no longer know what's going on. And imho things are fine as they are and the show has been (mostly) fantastic to watch - and has covered subjects that other series wouldn't dare to touch.

[Si Hunt]

I think there's room for a balanced appraisal somewhere, because the show certainly isn't without problems.

To me, the funny thing about the article is that there was very little criticism of what Doctor Who is - it was all about what it isn't. I expected the usual slagging off of the gay agenda/Welshness/I can't accept "Love and Monsters" etc. but there was none of that. Interesting, incidentally, and unfair that he didn't mention L&M, one story that it can't be argued hasn't pushed the boundaries of Doctor Who - yet is mostly loathed for it. Maybe that's why he didn't mention it! It sort of wees all over the entire "it should be different" thrust to his article. Anyway, his article was less attacking the show as bemoaning the things they hadn't done... and again, surely you have to append a "yet" to that. Though lots of his apparently brilliant idea's were stupid and wouldn't work - and those that would, it didn't look like paid any attention to things like ratings or existing viewers or whether they would topple the show. I'm not saying ratings are everything, but I think the series does a good job of balancing different styles and ideas with traditional style, and ongoing story arc's with not alienating people.

I want to answer the question that leads naturally on from Steve's quote above without turning this into a bitch fest. But it's a genuinely good question.

I always love watching the New Series and I think they are 100% right to have different adventures every week or every few weeks, and to still devise new monsters and do historical stories and future stories and space stories. I guess what I'm saying is, the format of the show is fine, IMO. I dislike the characterisation of the Doctor a little - he's fine most of the time, but occasionally they get TOO carried away with him being perfect. He's a bit too in love with humanity, and scenes like where he hugged all the base crew in "The Impossible Planet" (was it?) were just a bit too much. Also, as others have pointed out, the "Lonely God" concept has had its day - I think I liked it better when the Doctor was more fallible, an abent-minded inventor rather than a powerful God. You could relate a little more to him then.

Apart from that, I only really dislike the odd creative decision they have made, usually when it's an element of the past that they doggedly refuse to embrace. They've succumbed to most of them, but when they bring back the Doctors face in the titles, make Regeneration a BIT more creative rather than using the same effect each time, and embrace the size of the TARDIS, then I'll be happy. It's rather odd that the Doctor travels in a space ship that is bigger inside than out, yet no-one is ever seen outside of the console room. We can hope Moffatt corrects some, if not all, of these next year.

But that's just my two-penneth. The show isn't perfect, but I still think it's MORE perfect than anything else on TV. It could occasionally be a little more adventurous with its format, but not to the extent that this guy demands.

Si.

[Stuart Wallis]

Certainly the story arc idea is one that you have to be very careful with - I was bored with Torchwood by the end of that series and it was hardly mentioned. Plus, the TOATL could have been better handled - a more interesting opening and a more coherent and thought-through, less rushed ending for example.

I agree with his idea of doing more historical and overseas setting, but I wouldn't go out of my way to agree with too much. Preventing the Daleks' creation? has he not seen Genesis? Changing history by preventing the birth of certain individuals? continuity in the series is Byzantine as it is, ta. Evil Doctor? wouldn't last five minutes. And the enemies have to be just a bit crap, otherwise, again the series wouldn't last five minutes.

3/10. Could do better.

[Stephen Morgan]

I read some of this rubbish the other day after it was posted up at Roobarbs and thought then what a load of bollocks it was.
Let him go and watch something else if he needs a bit of mind excercising, I'm sure Hollyoaks and The Simpsons suits him best.

[Jason Thompson]

He's a bit too in love with humanity,

That's one thing that bothers me about the new series. We have monsters or we have humans. And that's pretty much it. We get RTD and everyone else saying how wonderful the series is in that it can go anywhere and anywhen, and yet in the whole of the new series we have been mainly on Earth or in Earth orbiting stations (entirely, in the case of the first series), or else when we have visited an alien world such as Krop Tor or Malcassairo it's only to see a bunch of humans there.

RTD of course famously said right from the start 'no-one cares about the Blargs from planet Zog, but a human colony on the planet Xarg will get people interested'. I think that's rubbish. If you make the Blargs half decent characters people will still be interested. Aliens can be people as well.

[Si Hunt]

I half agree. In defence of your point Jason, Chantho from "Utopia" was a very popular and memorable alien character. On the other hand, there always the best identification with human characters, particuarly when they are away from Earth visiting alien worlds.

Si.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

What about the Ood where it turned out to be the humans exploiting the Ood?

Or Hariet Jones shooting down the already defeated Sycorax?

We've also had our share of greedy people out for power putting us in danger, often collaborating with alien powers - van Statten in Dalek, Rattigan (deserving the Baltar award for stabbing your own species in the back), the Editor in the Long Game, Diagoras from Daleks in Manhattan

Although the Macra were in Gridlock, the situation of the killer drug Bliss which caused all the problems was of mankind's own making.

Mankind was quite happy making and watching the killer gameshows of the Gamestation in Bad Wolf.

So there's been plenty of unpleasantness over humanity in the new series ...

[Rob McCow]

I think it's part of the remit to make Doctor Who an uplifting show. There would be huge problems with portraying humanity as utterly evil (how utterly evil!) because where do you go from there? Why would the Doctor have a human as a companion? And it would be extremely depressing to watch.

You couldn't, for example, have the Doctor making his 'Run, because the real monsters are coming, the human race' every week. It would lead to a mass outbreak of misery - either that or the family audience would turn off. But then you can sneak it in occasionally. Even at Christmas!

[Jason Thompson]

You're quite right Si. IN retrospect I was being unfair. We also had the Sisters Of Plenitude, and the various aliens in The End Of The World.

However, did we care less about Jabe's death because she was a tree? Were we less saddened when the Face Of Boe finally died? Was Chantho's death at the hands of the Master just a shrug of the shoulders moment because she was blue and insectoid? Aliens can be people, even without bothering with prosthetics and makeup, without being specifically human, and if the characters are written well enough I don't see why the viewers can't identify with them or care about them as much as any human character.

[Paul Monk]

I'd love to see an alien companion

[Stuart Wallis]

We have before - and I'm not saying that just to stir things up Paul, but to make the point that Susan, Romana, Turlough and Adric were aliens, and apart from Mark Strickson's hairdye, not an ounce of prosthetics or out-of-the-ordinary makeup was used.

[Rob McCow]

If they were to have an alien companion in the new series, I think it would be a secondary companion. There always has to be that link to Earth now, it seems.

Though now that the Doctor has been properly established, we don't really need a human companion.

Anyway, what else is wrong with new Doctor Who?

The most obvious thing to me is repetition. There's a familiarity to the season layout and story styles that started to damage the show by Year Three.
The examples below aren't exactly watertight, but they have appeared a couple of times.

In which episode does the Doctor meet a famous historical writer and gets involved in an alien attack?
In which two-parter do the aliens have a plan to destroy present day Earth, facing off against the government and military, using a strange and unusual way to subvert humans?
Which story is set in the year 5 Billion?
In which story doesn't the Doctor appear very much?
An old enemy is reintroduced for the series finale, having been built up earlier in the season?
How often do the companions feel that they're useless, only to be told by the Doctor that they're amazing?

Although none of these things are bad, or not worth repeating, they cropped up in the show with alarming predictability. They really needed to subvert expectations throughout series 3, to make series 4 feel fresh again. But by series 4 some episodes felt a bit like treading over old ground. The worst example is probably The Wasp And The Unicorn, which is a fine story in it's own right but is damaged by it's precedents in series 1 and 3.
Despite a different setting, 'The Sontaran Strategem' does feel like the writer having another go at a similar story after 'Daleks In Manhattan' (but doing a lot better second time round). The aliens working with a human ally to form a bridgehead on Earth via a bizarre and huge engineering project...

The trouble is that it only takes a few of these repetitions within form to make the series start to feel staid and out of energy. Series 4 totally redeemed itself with it's run of episodes towards the end, which were exciting, different, vital and brave and then Davros turns up with the Daleks and oh well never mind.