I'm not a fan of the new series, overblown style over substance and up is own backside.Not for me.
I loved watching the older series especially Troughton and Pertwee- the recently returned Web of Fear is outstanding.I want loads more returns!
Not everyone on this forum is a fan of the new series and I include myself in that group. I watch it, I sometimes enjoy it (and hate it in equal measure) but I'm no fan. Heck, I even stopped watching for a period during the RTD era because I couldn't stand it and only returned at the start of the Matt Smith series. There's an assumption that all fans are fans of both shows but that's not the case. I'd love to have been a fan of New Who but it's never grabbed me, still hasn't.
)
I actually love RTD, but it is Moffat that I can't stand.
Well I kind of expected that the era has it's fans otherwise it would have been cancelled
Viva le difference!
Overall, Doctor Who is so good that even at its worse, it beats 98% of all of T.V.. That is why it took them so long to "starve it to death" back in the 1980s.
Even if, Heaven Forbid, Moffat stayed on for another five years, I would keep watching the show for the small bits that I liked and I would patiently wait for a better show runner. Most shows don't last seven years, but, with Doctor Who's long and illustrious history, we an afford to be patient.
Also, I can keep watching the 47 years of pre-Moffat material to tide me over.
Overall, Doctor Who is so good that even at its worse, it beats 98% of all of T.V.. That is why it took them so long to "starve it to death" back in the 1980s.
Even if, Heaven Forbid, Moffat stayed on for another five years, I would keep watching the show for the small bits that I liked and I would patiently wait for a better show runner. Most shows don't last seven years, but, with Doctor Who's long and illustrious history, we an afford to be patient.
Also, I can keep watching the 47 years of pre-Moffat material to tide me over.
I would go so far as to consider Twin Dilemma, Trial and Series 24 to be below even the worst of the dross we see on TV now.
I'd like to echo comments here from posters bored with the current version of DW. I most certainly agree with my old chum Theophile: Steven Moffat's DW is not one that interests me.
Nice to see praise for the Trial season, and especially the Vervoid story. I blummin love the Vervoids!
New Who isn't for me either. I have seen pretty much every episode but for me something is wrong with it - I think someone said style over substance and I think thats it.
I actually liked Ecclestone I have to say but other than that season I wouldn't say I enjoy Who anymore. Give me Classic Who every time. Even Paradise Towers!
Not everyone on this forum is a fan of the new series and I include myself in that group. I watch it, I sometimes enjoy it (and hate it in equal measure) but I'm no fan. Heck, I even stopped watching for a period during the RTD era because I couldn't stand it and only returned at the start of the Matt Smith series. There's an assumption that all fans are fans of both shows but that's not the case. I'd love to have been a fan of New Who but it's never grabbed me, still hasn't.
I'm far more interested in the original series and the 60s era in particular. I grew up with the knowledge that there was an era of the show I'd never get chance to watch. To me it's a magical era, full of crazy ideas and weird worlds. Of course, I know it's also an era of ancient special effects, zero budget and make-do worlds set in quarries. But when rumours are rife that more missing episodes may have been found, well I get rather excited by that
I agree with most of what you say, although I grew up in the Eighties!
I am far more excited about Enemy and Web then the 50th anniversary because I new that would be a NuWho lovefest.
The worst thing they have done in NuWho is solving the regeneration quota and mucking about with it. In my mind I'm noy sure if Capaldi counts or if he does he is Doctor 12 out of 13!
I don't entirely agree. I love Classic Who but it is not deeper than New Who. Both have their strengths and weaknesses but both overall are the same show.
Not everyone on this forum is a fan of the new series and I include myself in that group. I watch it, I sometimes enjoy it (and hate it in equal measure) but I'm no fan. Heck, I even stopped watching for a period during the RTD era because I couldn't stand it and only returned at the start of the Matt Smith series. There's an assumption that all fans are fans of both shows but that's not the case. I'd love to have been a fan of New Who but it's never grabbed me, still hasn't.
I'm far more interested in the original series and the 60s era in particular. I grew up with the knowledge that there was an era of the show I'd never get chance to watch. To me it's a magical era, full of crazy ideas and weird worlds. Of course, I know it's also an era of ancient special effects, zero budget and make-do worlds set in quarries. But when rumours are rife that more missing episodes may have been found, well I get rather excited by that
I think what did it for me was the total disrespect that 5, 6 & 7 never got to appear in the anniversary special. All we got was some online comedy film that would have been better had they been in the actual story instead of it all being about Tennant coming back.
I don't entirely agree. I love Classic Who but it is not deeper than New Who. Both have their strengths and weaknesses but both overall are the same show.
I think what did it for me was the total disrespect that 5, 6 & 7 never got to appear in the anniversary special. All we got was some online comedy film that would have been better had they been in the actual story instead of it all being about Tennant coming back.
I didn't intend to take the thread off-topic, apologies. I guess without any real news on the ME front we tend to drift
New Who is absolutely what it needs to be in order to be popular, no debate from me on that, but it has no automatic right to my support simply because it's called Doctor Who.
I understood why they didn't have the older Doctors in the anniversary. The deeper issue for me was that it really didn't reference the 50 years of the show. Sure it had a classic monster but then so have many other New Who episodes. Yes it had some subtle references to Coal Hill School and Tom Bakers scarf. And a few other references too. All lovely touches but that episode never once felt to me like a celebration of 50 years.
Maybe that's why so many of us are so intrigued by the missing episodes saga. We love Classic Who and aren't getting our fix with New Who. The missing episodes are brand new Classic Who for a large part of the audience. I'm also a child of the 80s, I've never seen Marco Polo and if that was found it would be like they've just created a brand new story out of nowhere. They will never make a story like Marco again, TV just isn't like that anymore but with returned episodes it's like they did and just for us
I'm very sorry to say that I love both old and Nu Who (and actually can't see much difference between the two, once you get past the bells and whistles). Come to think of it I'm also more or less happy with both RTD and Moffat's era's of the show, so quite often I'm left wondering why I partake in forums at all...
I'm very sorry to say that I love both old and Nu Who (and actually can't see much difference between the two, once you get past the bells and whistles). Come to think of it I'm also more or less happy with both RTD and Moffat's era's of the show, so quite often I'm left wondering why I partake in forums at all...
Hey, what the hell's wrong with you? Stop being so damned reasonable!
I like both as it happens, prefer old as I watched as a kid and it had a certain magic which watching as an Adult the new show doesn't have. I do notice a difference between the two though and tend to think of them as different shows.
Wish we could get back on topic but I guess we'd need an announcement of sorts for that now.
I am sure that there is a load of nonsense spoken about missing episodes. But I invite forumites to look back at the posts which preceded the discover of Web and Enemy in which anybody who suggested that it might happen was treated as a gullible fool. But oddly enough not a single person issued a mea culpa afterwards.
On New v. Old Who I have said it before but repetitiveness never seems to hold back others: living in the past is not a virtue. I prefer the Smith and Moffat era but all of it has been good and it has definitely retained the flavour of the original show. In fact I am always a bit mystified as to which vital bits of the show are suppose to have been lost other than superfluities such as narrative padding and some awful special effects (alongside some good special effects of course).
On New v. Old Who I have said it before but repetitiveness never seems to hold back others: living in the past is not a virtue. I prefer the Smith and Moffat era but all of it has been good and it has definitely retained the flavour of the original show. In fact I am always a bit mystified as to which vital bits of the show are suppose to have been lost other than superfluities such as narrative padding and some awful special effects (alongside some good special effects of course).
There is nothing horribly wrong with the current revival of the show as a whole (although I have a skeleton's worth of bones to pick with Moffat), although the pace is usually a bit too frenetic for me. One of the reasons that I prefer the older stuff is that the pace was more my style. I was able to get to know characters better (especially secondary and even tertiary ones). It was much more of a story being told in that regard to me than the modern stuff which seems, way too often, to be in a "hurry up and get it done" mode. Especially when you don't have _any_ two parters in a season (Moffat). I like exposition. I like explanation. I like development. I like things that take a long time. I am probably in the minority on this, but it is all a matter of taste.
I'm very sorry to say that I love both old and Nu Who (and actually can't see much difference between the two, once you get past the bells and whistles). Come to think of it I'm also more or less happy with both RTD and Moffat's era's of the show, so quite often I'm left wondering why I partake in forums at all...
There is nothing horribly wrong with the current revival of the show as a whole (although I have a skeleton's worth of bones to pick with Moffat), although the pace is usually a bit too frenetic for me. One of the reasons that I prefer the older stuff is that the pace was more my style. I was able to get to know characters better (especially secondary and even tertiary ones). It was much more of a story being told in that regard to me than the modern stuff which seems, way too often, to be in a "hurry up and get it done" mode. Especially when you don't have _any_ two parters in a season (Moffat). I like exposition. I like explanation. I like development. I like things that take a long time. I am probably in the minority on this, but it is all a matter of taste.
Not sure about minority, but I agree with your comments about the frenetic pace and lack of exposition and character and story development. Squeezing it all into 45 minutes of storytelling time does not work, except for the simplest of stories. There are many stories which could have benefited greatly from an extra 5 or 10 minutes (e.g. TPo3, VotD )(at the same time there are a few two parters which would have benefited from being much shorter (TRF/TAP)).
There is nothing horribly wrong with the current revival of the show as a whole (although I have a skeleton's worth of bones to pick with Moffat), although the pace is usually a bit too frenetic for me. One of the reasons that I prefer the older stuff is that the pace was more my style. I was able to get to know characters better (especially secondary and even tertiary ones). It was much more of a story being told in that regard to me than the modern stuff which seems, way too often, to be in a "hurry up and get it done" mode. Especially when you don't have _any_ two parters in a season (Moffat). I like exposition. I like explanation. I like development. I like things that take a long time. I am probably in the minority on this, but it is all a matter of taste.
Although we differ over Moffat's contribution as a whole I do take your point that the pacing is now just too frenetic. It has rather gone from the sublime to the corblimey.
But I ought to say something about lost episodes. It strikes me that that Web/Enemy discoveries are unlikely to be one-offs and the most likely pattern for the future is the very slow emergence of further material, which will on every occasion be preceded by scornful nay-saying.
I am sure that there is a load of nonsense spoken about missing episodes. But I invite forumites to look back at the posts which preceded the discover of Web and Enemy in which anybody who suggested that it might happen was treated as a gullible fool. But oddly enough not a single person issued a mea culpa afterwards.
On New v. Old Who I have said it before but repetitiveness never seems to hold back others: living in the past is not a virtue. I prefer the Smith and Moffat era but all of it has been good and it has definitely retained the flavour of the original show. In fact I am always a bit mystified as to which vital bits of the show are suppose to have been lost other than superfluities such as narrative padding and some awful special effects (alongside some good special effects of course).
I just had to laugh at this. Read through this thread, just the last few pages as I know it's a bit of a long and winding road, mostly paved with recyled sewerage. Now explain to us why anyone should take any claim about missing episodes seriously. ANY claim about missing episodes is to be treated with the utmost contempt at first reading. Respect has to be earned, especially with the track record these claims have.
If you want apologies for doubting claims about missing episodes, you'll still be there when Doctor 9 is chatting up trees.
Comments
Because some of us would rather watch classic Doctor Who than what's currently going out under the Doctor Who banner.
In your opinion. Some of us happen to believe differently.
I loved watching the older series especially Troughton and Pertwee- the recently returned Web of Fear is outstanding.I want loads more returns!
I actually love RTD, but it is Moffat that I can't stand.
Well I kind of expected that the era has it's fans otherwise it would have been cancelled
Viva le difference!
Overall, Doctor Who is so good that even at its worse, it beats 98% of all of T.V.. That is why it took them so long to "starve it to death" back in the 1980s.
Even if, Heaven Forbid, Moffat stayed on for another five years, I would keep watching the show for the small bits that I liked and I would patiently wait for a better show runner. Most shows don't last seven years, but, with Doctor Who's long and illustrious history, we an afford to be patient.
Also, I can keep watching the 47 years of pre-Moffat material to tide me over.
I would go so far as to consider Twin Dilemma, Trial and Series 24 to be below even the worst of the dross we see on TV now.
Oh i don't know, i would happily watch those lot over eastenders any day!
Nice to see praise for the Trial season, and especially the Vervoid story. I blummin love the Vervoids!
I actually liked Ecclestone I have to say but other than that season I wouldn't say I enjoy Who anymore. Give me Classic Who every time. Even Paradise Towers!
I agree with most of what you say, although I grew up in the Eighties!
I am far more excited about Enemy and Web then the 50th anniversary because I new that would be a NuWho lovefest.
The worst thing they have done in NuWho is solving the regeneration quota and mucking about with it. In my mind I'm noy sure if Capaldi counts or if he does he is Doctor 12 out of 13!
I think what did it for me was the total disrespect that 5, 6 & 7 never got to appear in the anniversary special. All we got was some online comedy film that would have been better had they been in the actual story instead of it all being about Tennant coming back.
I didn't intend to take the thread off-topic, apologies. I guess without any real news on the ME front we tend to drift
New Who is absolutely what it needs to be in order to be popular, no debate from me on that, but it has no automatic right to my support simply because it's called Doctor Who.
I understood why they didn't have the older Doctors in the anniversary. The deeper issue for me was that it really didn't reference the 50 years of the show. Sure it had a classic monster but then so have many other New Who episodes. Yes it had some subtle references to Coal Hill School and Tom Bakers scarf. And a few other references too. All lovely touches but that episode never once felt to me like a celebration of 50 years.
Maybe that's why so many of us are so intrigued by the missing episodes saga. We love Classic Who and aren't getting our fix with New Who. The missing episodes are brand new Classic Who for a large part of the audience. I'm also a child of the 80s, I've never seen Marco Polo and if that was found it would be like they've just created a brand new story out of nowhere. They will never make a story like Marco again, TV just isn't like that anymore but with returned episodes it's like they did and just for us
Agree with this ^^^^^^^^.
Huge fan of Who since the early 70's and really enjoyed RTD reboot but the Moffat stuff with MS leaves me cold.
Hey, what the hell's wrong with you? Stop being so damned reasonable!
I like both as it happens, prefer old as I watched as a kid and it had a certain magic which watching as an Adult the new show doesn't have. I do notice a difference between the two though and tend to think of them as different shows.
Wish we could get back on topic but I guess we'd need an announcement of sorts for that now.
On New v. Old Who I have said it before but repetitiveness never seems to hold back others: living in the past is not a virtue. I prefer the Smith and Moffat era but all of it has been good and it has definitely retained the flavour of the original show. In fact I am always a bit mystified as to which vital bits of the show are suppose to have been lost other than superfluities such as narrative padding and some awful special effects (alongside some good special effects of course).
There is nothing horribly wrong with the current revival of the show as a whole (although I have a skeleton's worth of bones to pick with Moffat), although the pace is usually a bit too frenetic for me. One of the reasons that I prefer the older stuff is that the pace was more my style. I was able to get to know characters better (especially secondary and even tertiary ones). It was much more of a story being told in that regard to me than the modern stuff which seems, way too often, to be in a "hurry up and get it done" mode. Especially when you don't have _any_ two parters in a season (Moffat). I like exposition. I like explanation. I like development. I like things that take a long time. I am probably in the minority on this, but it is all a matter of taste.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX1MfRidNzg
"Have you ever asked yourself who's writing all the plot holes? And there are a lot of plot holes."
Because they're fun(ny)?:D
Not sure about minority, but I agree with your comments about the frenetic pace and lack of exposition and character and story development. Squeezing it all into 45 minutes of storytelling time does not work, except for the simplest of stories. There are many stories which could have benefited greatly from an extra 5 or 10 minutes (e.g. TPo3, VotD )(at the same time there are a few two parters which would have benefited from being much shorter (TRF/TAP)).
Although we differ over Moffat's contribution as a whole I do take your point that the pacing is now just too frenetic. It has rather gone from the sublime to the corblimey.
But I ought to say something about lost episodes. It strikes me that that Web/Enemy discoveries are unlikely to be one-offs and the most likely pattern for the future is the very slow emergence of further material, which will on every occasion be preceded by scornful nay-saying.
I just had to laugh at this. Read through this thread, just the last few pages as I know it's a bit of a long and winding road, mostly paved with recyled sewerage. Now explain to us why anyone should take any claim about missing episodes seriously. ANY claim about missing episodes is to be treated with the utmost contempt at first reading. Respect has to be earned, especially with the track record these claims have.
If you want apologies for doubting claims about missing episodes, you'll still be there when Doctor 9 is chatting up trees.