Update

[andrewducker]

Ed came home from feeding Lizzie and Ari's cat, and we watched Dr Who: The Poseidon Adventure together.

Which was complete pantomime bollocks in ways that would have been great, if RTD could actually plot, as well as do emotion.

No problem at all with the over-the-topness, but he's got a real problem with telling things rather than showing, and with introducing the plot device in the scene it's needed in, rather than foreshadowing it earlier.

To give an example - the cyborg. If he'd been an open cyborg, who'd also been put down/patronised earlier on, then the behaviour later on would have made perfect sense. As it was, we got this terribly rushed and unconvincing bit of dialogue so that later on there could be a rushed and unconvincing rescue. Terrible, terrible writing. Shame really, because bits of it were very good fun.

The same is true of the penultimate use of the teleport devices - if he'd said "Quick! To the teleport device, we can use the buffers to get Kylie back!" earlier on then it would have injected a note of tension into the proceedings as he fought his way through saving the ship before he was able to try (and fail) to get her back.

And also of the ship's previously unmentioned backup engines, which kicked in during the dive.

After a writer pulls the solution to a problem out of thin air I cease to feel tension, because I know that _anything_ can happen, so I lose whatever vague suspension of disbelief was keeping me going. RTD clearly doesn't care about making his plots make sense, and so I don't care about watching them. Which leaves only the dialogue and emotional bits. Most of which were thankly fine and fun. But still...

Comments

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

This is really my problem with him too and unfortunately it's a big issue with this particularly shallow Doctor. I couldn't care less what's coming up next year. Have you ever watched Doctor Who Confidential? God.. the arselicking about his writing!

[johanna-alice.livejournal.com]

Funnily enough I came to the same conclusion about Who. Then yesterday I was watching some old Peter Davidson stuff on YouTube. Multi-leveled plots, decent acting, reasonable sets and lots of Daleks going boom! (To whit: The Kings Demons, Resurrection of the Daleks and Mawdryn Undead.)

With (SF) movies I say the special FX make it - its a one off experience. A serial needs that too, but more importantly needs a plot! Someone should send Russell T. the Firefly box set, with 'If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen!', in big friendly letters on top :)

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Firefly?

You're criticising Doctor Who for flimsy writing and you cite Firefly as an example of how to do it right?

[johanna-alice.livejournal.com]

'Fraid so. I like it.

[fire-sermon.livejournal.com]

I hada big problem with the teleport bracelet stuff. Why bother? Just another excuse to snog Kylie methinks. And she didn't need a box the second time, or did her specteral self just float up to the right height?

As an 'old school' Doctor Who fan, I find all the slagging off of RTD and the current set of seasons quite amusing.* Especially when, as often happens, people make comparisons with old series stories. At the time, exactly the same things were being said about Davison / Baker / McCoy era writers, producers and cast members. I could probably pull out a couple of fanzines from the late eighties or early nineties and scrub out the then current producer's name and replace it with RTD and change the actor's name to Tennant and the comments would be almost indistinguishable...

And of course, twenty years on, these self same stories and eras are being used as the yardstick to measure the current regime against. And so it will go on...

*I'm not going to even start commenting on whether this is right or wrong. There's not world enough or time.

* Or start on about Catherine bloody Tate.

[andrewducker]

Oh, old-Who was just as bad, and frequently far far worse.

That's not an excuse though.

[fire-sermon.livejournal.com]

No, I didn't say they were better, or an excuse, but I just find it very interesting that a lot of people, many of whom are discovering these stories for the first time on DVD or remembering back to when they were three or four, often hold them up as shinier and more sparkly versions of what Doctor Who should be.

I know a number of people who often go on about how great a number of Sylvester McCoy stories are, for example, when at the time, fandom was collectively banging its head off the nearest brick wall and calling for the head of John Nathan Turner.

And I do agree, many of them were absolutely dreadful and are best fondly remembered rather than rewatched, or rewatched with special kitch-nostalgia glasses on. It's just a very interesting and amusing (to me) example of how history repeats itself.

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

No, seriously, though, a couple of the Sylvester McCoy-era stories were at least as good as anything the current Who administration has produced. (You know the ones I mean, but just for the record - Ghostlight, Curse of Fenric, and arguably Silver Nemesis was rather good too).

Having said that, there are some seriously awesome ones from the last few seasons. The Empty Child, obviously, and I hear Blink is amazing too.

My major problem with the show right now, I must say, is still the current format. I just don't think Doctor Who works well at 45 minutes.

[fire-sermon.livejournal.com]

Silver Nemesis is still one of the most old fan-derided stories out there from that era. It was full of bollocks. It's loads of fun and I enjoy watching it greatly, but it was glorified fanwank.

I'll quote the much more erudite fan writer Nick Pegg:

'There's a difference between the postmodern approach to being hip to one's own textuality and simply fannying about with in-jokes and self-referentially sampling past reference points. From its title onwards, Silver Nemesis is so persistently, so systematically aware of itself that it's in constant danger of suffocating as it takes an ever-decreasing spiral route up its own tightly-clenched bottom.'

I'll give you Ghostlight and Curse of Fenric, but will raise you a Time and the Rani and Delta and the Bannerman for poor quality.

Most Doctor Who is flawed in *some* way, especially the older stuff as it now suffers from dated production values and world-views. Plus, what you think of it is not only subjective, but depends on lots of things over and above the actual quality - the nostalgia factor being a major influencer.

Anyway my point here was never what's good and what's bad, but that history is repeating itself.

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

Oh, god, yes, completely agree with you. There was some total, total shite.

Sorry, never actually said that I agree with your main point. Doctor Who has always suffered from being terribly, terribly uneven.

Do you think that it basically just survives because of the nostalgia factor? I mean, it gets much more uneven reviews than something like, say, Buffy, and yet it has survived for 35 years now. Do you reckon it would be possible to create a media property this durable at this point?

[andrewducker]

It's largely survived because it appeals widely to a broader section of the audience, who want something silly, fluffy, and fun.

Who is clearly aimed at the "family entertainment" sector, and hits it dead on. The bits that we educated, media-literate, fussy people complain about just don't matter to the mass of its audience.

[fire-sermon.livejournal.com]

Exactly... You can't argue it's not been hugely successful in capturing the mass market again. I never thought I'd see a time again when you could buy Doctor Who comics, chocolate bars, yoghurts and er, cup cake mixes. It does weird me out occasionally when I go to the supermarket.

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

Would that indicate that the series still has a limited life expectancy, however, in that today's audience as a whole is arguably more media-savvy than those 15, 20, 30 or 40 years ago - especially if the programme's makers are now targeting a non-child demographic.

[fire-sermon.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure it would be viable to create something totally new these days. I think there are a number of things that help Doctor Who to survive...

Firstly, the format. Allowing your lead actors to change every few seasons by 'regenerating' the main character was inspiried in 1966 and stands equally well today.

Then there's the constantly changing situation - no chance of boredom there, and now there's nostaligia. I don't think the series survives on nostalgia alone, or it would never have been cancelled in 1989, but it's a definite factor. It's almost part of growing up in the UK. In fact, it's a very British institution, which makes it very sellable abroad. Hence all the well known landmarks and historical figures.

I just think it's a really good recipe. They struck lucky in the 1960s, and every time it's reinvented someone tweaks the recipe and adds their own special touch.

Can you imagine someone pitching the idea now? I'm not sure if it would get out of pre-production hell.

[fire-sermon.livejournal.com]

I don't think it works that well at 45 minutes either. They tried it at 45 minute slots in 1986, and it wasn't too bad, but they didn't do standalone episodes. There just isn't enough time for character development.

It's all too damn fast for me. It must be my age :-)

What format would you put it in?

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

I'd say "to hell with the perceived wisdom" and go for 45-minute slots, but with stories stretching between two and four slots.

That's if we're on TV. Sure, it's going to screw your syndication chances, but I don't think that's the primary income stream for the Beeb anyway - increased DVD sales would make up for it. And the Beeb is used to formats like that, because they've used them for things like Morse and A Touch Of Frost for years.

Battlestar Galactica, Lost, and so on - audiences are OK with continuing storylines these days. Slap a master arc over the top of each season, lengthen the season a bit (say, 18 episodes - doable because longer stories actually make writing easier), and you're done.

Doctor Who is a mystery show, and an SF show. SF needs to be a bit slower at the start because you're introducing a new setting, and Doctor Who does it with every episode. A mystery show needs to be a bit slower to give you time to set up, well, mysteries. You can get away with ONE of those genres in a 45-minute slot (see Buffy or Veronica Mars), but not both.

Also, it's my considered opinion that most of the writers have the same level of competence with American-style 45 minute episodic writing that I do with advanced particle physics. Hire Jane Espenson, for fuck's sake. Hire Joss Whedon! They're cheap right now.

Alternatively, think of TV as an afterthought, and do 22-minute episodes for the Web in classic Who format. It worked for, what, 25 years? Custom Bittorrent client to download them in the background a la Blizzard Downloader, YouTube channel, and you're golden. And you could kick Fox's ass with their stupid "Quartermile" thing.

[fire-sermon.livejournal.com]

I totally agree about the formatting. And television in general has fallen in love with the story arc again...

I would love to lose the standalone 45 minute episodes completely, and go with a mix of 2 x 45 min or 3 x 45 min. Arguably they did it last season with the three part finale, but it was never tagged as a three parter.

I think it would actually lose some of its charm and character if it did hire the likes of Joss Whedon or Jane Espenson. It runs the danger of being another US tv series by numbers. Even if it's a great series by numbers. They're just very different animals.

I do think they need to do something about their script editing though. Have someone who's not afraid to reign in RTD for a bit.

Downloadable episodes... Mmmm. Maybe in a few years. I don't think the mass market tv viewing audience is there just yet. It would go from being a popular and populist tv series overnight to a niche cult programme. There's probably a few people out there who would love that to happen, to be fair...

As a companion piece maybe, similar to the Tardisodes they did for season two - little teasers or fill in pieces only accessible online.

And I've just got the season three box set - you'll need to come round and watch some. Maybe in the New Year?

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

I'd be interested to see what Whedon would do as a guest writer. But I do see the danger.

Online - it's difficult to say. Remember, 4-5 million viewers is very doable on YouTube - I've got mates who have done it. And Doctor Who is much more geek-friendly than "Quarterlife".

Yes, I'd love to come round and watch some Doctor Who - wouldn't mind seeing some of Season 2 either!

(Tardisodes - not a good name. Kinda crying out for an apostrophe in front of it.)

[andrewducker]

XMas special got 12 million viewers.

And the majority of _those_ people want to watch it with their families, around their big TV.

Until you can stream to the TV for the _average_ person, VoD is going to be through set-top-boxes.

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

Hmm. True dat.

And I guess the BBC's mandate is UK-wide, not global.

Pity. Ah, well. Maybe it's about time I looked into whether the Who team would like an online animated spinoff...

*Adds it to the enormous list of potential projects*

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

Absolutely agreed that it's no excuse. RTD seems content to try to replicate the naffer aspects of the original series rather than surpassing it. It's a shame, since when it occasionally *really* works it's fantastic.

[swisstone.livejournal.com]

RTD can do all this stuff if he wants to - viz. Dark Season, and even some of the Eccleston scripts, where the rabbits out of the hat weren't quite so obvious. But somewhere around about the change from Eccleston to Tennant, he stopped bothering.

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'd agree that there was a definite change in quality around then. What happened to the satire as well? The first series was dripping with anti-media/anti-Bush/anti-Blair critiques.