I'd say there's very little sci-fi (although perhaps a bit more in Series 7), but I believe it's rather too much fantasy that's the problem.
I agree. Dr Who is supposed to have science-fiction as its primary focus.
The fantasy issue I cannot connect with; the singy-songy nonsense that was supposed to lull the monster to sleep in a recent episode, really put me off this series. Keep the singing for The Voice or the X factor.
I want reasonable, logical, scientific solutions to problems, not "wishing and hoping", airy-fairy, reset-to-former-condition cop-outs.
And they could be doing with less of the "snogging all companions" scenarios, too.
What made the reboot so popular is that it managed to combine different types of science fiction, and often added a soapy feel to it as well:
Science fiction like "Sapphire and Steel", more fantasy than science fiction.
Classic sci-fi concepts from it's written form, human brains into machines etc etc.
Eastenders.
Over the years it's just being done with less sensitivity and care. This latest series is slap-dash.
I really can't agree with your last sentence, some of Matt's finest scenes have been when he realises the impact he has, directly or indirectly, on 'ordinary' people, like Rory's dad.
The first two, SF and fantasy, yes please. Eastenders? I'd run a mile before watching that or any other soap - and the whole RTD dragging around companions' dysfunctional families etc thing was horrendous. It would have been better if they'd been pleasant people but even better with just the occasional glimpse. It never made any difference that we never saw Jo's mum or Liz's best friend. What little we saw of Amy's parents they seemed nice and normal, and Rory's Dad was lovely, and apart from Dinosaurs none of them featured much, which kept the action concentrated on the Doctor and his current companion/s. Amy, Rory and River were an integral part of the plot so that was fine. The fact they were related was the whole plot.
I don't see how there could be too much Sci-fi or fantasy anyway when you're talking travel in time and space by an ancient alien in a blue box?
The William Hartnell pure historicals have stood the test of time somewhat better than the sci-fi stories from his era (imo), and "Black Orchid", a one-off pure historical from the Peter Davison era, is an absolute delight.
As opposed to what sort of human? a human who can actually 'get' science fiction?
I think all fiction should reflect on the real world. I don't know what you mean by "getting" science fiction. I have no problem with heavy sci-fi/fantasy concepts as they have some relevance and aren't just there for there own sake. The Doctor's Wife,my favourite post 2010 episode, is essentially a romantic tragicomedy heightened, not hampered, by the sci-fi backtrop . I like anything Dystopian, because that is very much centred on what people might become.
Where's Moffat's who is let down by the insistence that plot come before characterisation. I'm still baffled by his decision to re-write his lead character's* entire childhood and adolesence 13 episodes into his first season without any detail on how this changed her life. I loved the dual time-line thing in Turn Left, but anytime something similar rears it's head in Moffat's Who I just find it too convoluted and not worth investing time in.
I've always wondered what a "general viewer" looks like. Why bother to ever tune into any show of you're not going to follow it? What possibly encourages such people ever to tune into the show? And do you truly need to worry about losing them? Such a person, I'd imagine, watches the occasional episode for reasons so inexplicable and esoteric that the best you could ever hope for is that if you lose one, another is bound to replace the one lost.
But, in my country, I've witnessed people from all walks of life discussing convoluted theories for what was going on in Lost. That was a complicated show. Perhaps overly so. But it was one of the most popular and innovative shows of early 21st century American Television. Produce a good story with compelling characters and production and people will watch. I think the "general viewer" is a myth.
Comments
Just reflecting on the differences between American and British TV.
I agree. Dr Who is supposed to have science-fiction as its primary focus.
The fantasy issue I cannot connect with; the singy-songy nonsense that was supposed to lull the monster to sleep in a recent episode, really put me off this series. Keep the singing for The Voice or the X factor.
I want reasonable, logical, scientific solutions to problems, not "wishing and hoping", airy-fairy, reset-to-former-condition cop-outs.
And they could be doing with less of the "snogging all companions" scenarios, too.
I really can't agree with your last sentence, some of Matt's finest scenes have been when he realises the impact he has, directly or indirectly, on 'ordinary' people, like Rory's dad.
The first two, SF and fantasy, yes please. Eastenders? I'd run a mile before watching that or any other soap - and the whole RTD dragging around companions' dysfunctional families etc thing was horrendous. It would have been better if they'd been pleasant people but even better with just the occasional glimpse. It never made any difference that we never saw Jo's mum or Liz's best friend. What little we saw of Amy's parents they seemed nice and normal, and Rory's Dad was lovely, and apart from Dinosaurs none of them featured much, which kept the action concentrated on the Doctor and his current companion/s. Amy, Rory and River were an integral part of the plot so that was fine. The fact they were related was the whole plot.
I don't see how there could be too much Sci-fi or fantasy anyway when you're talking travel in time and space by an ancient alien in a blue box?
Mind you a real historical would be nice...
We did see some Classic Who companions' relatives.
As I recall, we saw Tegan's aunt Vanessa. Not that she was in it for very long (the Master murdered then shrunk her).
Yes, and of course we also saw Susan's grandfather. Oh wait a minute ...
Agree.
The William Hartnell pure historicals have stood the test of time somewhat better than the sci-fi stories from his era (imo), and "Black Orchid", a one-off pure historical from the Peter Davison era, is an absolute delight.
We saw quite a bit of Tegan's family. She was travelling with a cousin in Ark of Infinity and we saw her grandfather in The Awakening.
I think all fiction should reflect on the real world. I don't know what you mean by "getting" science fiction. I have no problem with heavy sci-fi/fantasy concepts as they have some relevance and aren't just there for there own sake. The Doctor's Wife,my favourite post 2010 episode, is essentially a romantic tragicomedy heightened, not hampered, by the sci-fi backtrop . I like anything Dystopian, because that is very much centred on what people might become.
Where's Moffat's who is let down by the insistence that plot come before characterisation. I'm still baffled by his decision to re-write his lead character's* entire childhood and adolesence 13 episodes into his first season without any detail on how this changed her life. I loved the dual time-line thing in Turn Left, but anytime something similar rears it's head in Moffat's Who I just find it too convoluted and not worth investing time in.
But, in my country, I've witnessed people from all walks of life discussing convoluted theories for what was going on in Lost. That was a complicated show. Perhaps overly so. But it was one of the most popular and innovative shows of early 21st century American Television. Produce a good story with compelling characters and production and people will watch. I think the "general viewer" is a myth.