Mark Gatiss's Doctor Who Reboot
FIFA1966
Posts: 1,101 Forum Member
✭✭✭
If his reboot was chosen to bring the show back, would it have been a success as it is now?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_(series_1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_(series_1)
0
Comments
Link doesn't work.
Besides, if Gatiss's idea was a 'reboot' then I imagine much of the audience who grew up with classic who and still watch now, would have automatically shunned it on principle and as such the audience wouldn't have been as big as it is now. Even as someone who grew up in the 90's and wasn't really aware of the show until it's return I like the fact that they did it as continuation, as they took something that once was, and rather than the usual 'lets remake that' attitude, they struck the perfect balance between a show for those who had never seen it, and a show that was clearly a continuation of the older show already loved by older people, and as such we now have one show that is 52 years old as opposed to one 26 year old show only fondly remembered by older people and one 10 year old show which may not have ever made it to years if it wasn't done in exactly all the right ways that it was in tone, storyline and production.
I'll admit that it can get a little tedious at times knowing every episode of the past 10 years and talking as someone knowledgable of the show, only to have someone counter arguments with some obscure point from the 70's or 80's for example, but even then I wouldn't change that it's all one show, and I respect those people's right to bring up points that old as I suspect that if the show goes for many years I'll probably find myself doing the same one day. There may even be some younger kids or people who have only just really got into the show who might view me or others as an old obsessive type for bringing up points from series 1 at this stage, such as the show has been revived for 10 years already. It's not really 'new' who any more at all.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Television-Screen-Adventures-Russell-Davies/dp/1905287844
Can anyone who has a copy provide a fuller description of Gatiss's proposed series?
I know, I can jut imagine the day where I mention the Tennant era for example and some youngsters who are currently watching say, the 16th doctor barely have no idea what I'm going on about except for a passing recognition of the name. I'll feel positively ancient.
I think School Reunion is a great example of this - a story working on two levels for old and new viewers. For us oldsters, we could see the episode from Sarah Jane's perspective - meeting up with the Doctor after all those years.
But new viewers could see it from Rose's perspective - realising she's not the Doctor's first travelling companion and wondering what Sarah Jane's experience of travelling with the Doctor means for her.
I think as the years have gone by, the 'nods' to classic Who have become too obvious. I hated "The Name of the Doctor" and all of its clips of old Doctors with Clara.
As someone who had never watched a single classic who ep at that point, I felt that I could see it from the doctors point of view, rose's point of view, and Sarah Jane's point of view all the same.
I think in Moffats era, he has mostly continued the trend of respecting older fans whilst writing returning villains/plot points in an also introductory way for 'new' who viewers but at times he get a little indulgent. Take the ever increasingly prominent mentions of the brigadier for example. I haven't seen any of his episodes (except his part in the 5 doctors) so I don't really have any opinion either way on the character, but the first time I can remember him being prominently mentioned (not including the the quick one line suggestive nod to him by Tennant as it was just that a slight suggestive nod that would have easily gone over the head of anyone who didn't know) was the phone call to his nursing home in the series 6 finale. If you have no idea who the brigadier is that would be a whole scene which leaves you completely confused as to who the person he tried to ring was, and why it was important. Whats wore is that it was a rather vital scene as hearing about his death was what reminded him that everyone dies and convinced him to finally go and face his fate. Then you have Kate Stewart and all the mention's and nod's of her father, yet still no information on the man or why it is significant or why we should care. Then in the series 8 finale we have mentions of him again and even a cyberman zombie brigadier, but still, anyone who has even watched the entirety of new who. without having at least a passing knowledge of classic who it all means nothing. I myself do have a basic knowledge of classic who, so I get it, but it is very different from the usual considerate way they write things. It's almost like a 'thats not for you' type situation for new who only viewers.
That's a lovely post. Thank you doctor blue box. I watch School Reunion every now and again (it remains one of my favourite ever Doctor Who stories). And the scene you are referring to still sends shivers down my spine.
(Whithouse also holds that position for Series 6...
The show had to be fresh, modern and yet still loyal to its past which a reboot probably wouldn't manage, however much of a fanboy Mark is.
There's also the fact that with Russell there was confidence. Not only with actors like Christopher Eccleston approaching the show but probably less fussing and tampering by the BBC. Russell was a safe pair of hands and that's why it worked so well.
I think it was spot on to introduce the Doctor's past gradually so as not to confuse new viewers when Who came back. ie Learn from the mistakes of the McGann 'movie'. IIRC Gallifrey was first mentioned by name in the 2006 Christmas Special, for example. But certainly in the RTD era, once the series had bedded in, we had plenty of references, so that we ended up with Davros, Rassilon and the Timelords, The Master, Sontarans, clips of the previous Doctors, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_(series_1)
I find adding it as a hyperlink works - never had an issue with it!
Ah, thank you
Yeah, that's a fair point. I guess I'm always a bit worried that classic Who is such a vast entity in its own right that including too much of it in New Who will be a turn-off for viewers - or at least be confusing. I think it's the same reason I also don't enjoy stories that are too insular like 'Into the TARDIS'.
But, as you say, that was the anniversary year and it all seems much more contained now. They don't even mention Clara's 'Impossible Girl' story anymore even when they easily could have done (e.g. "Into the Dalek"). So they do seem to be keeping everything quite new and clean these days.
The brigadier being killed off on screen I can understand for many that it may have been confusing however again for classic fans it was a nice nod. However I think you have to bear in mind that we lost Elizabeth Sladen which was a huge loss and quite rightly she had a in memory of at the end of the episode. Which is right because currently she was on the TV with her own show and was a huge loss. If you put one up for Nicholas Courtney possibly people would have felt it would take away something from Elizabeth. Nicholas did a lot for Doctor Who but may not have be as well know for new series fans. So I think its a compromise, a nice touch and a goodbye to a well loved character, although possibly not as dramatic for new viewers maybe. Personally I thought it was a lovely idea.
Cyber brigadier idea I didn't like and I still don't like it. I'd preferred they left him with the sad farewell with the phone call however we won't all like everything. However is anyone reads Philllip Sandler's blogs, the Brigades character has always been slightly ridiculous Carry on regardless whatever insane thing is happening. So if you read it that way then the Brig turning up to save his daughter in the nick of time as a rebel cyberman actually makes perfect sense.
I don't like flying cyberman I know that has nothing to do with this thread but I just dont