Does anyone else not get the appeal of the new 'Doctor Who'?

[Deleted User] · 22/01/08 - 07:50

By get I mean I just don't find it appealing as a programme. The Doctor Who I grew up with had a certain atmosphere to it that really drew you into the world of the show, and they felt like 'proper' sci-fi.

The new style shows don't even feel like sci-fi, more like a pastiche or a spoof. The shows seem very Earth-bound and always seem to show Cardiff.

And why have both Ecclestone and Tennant been told to act that way? lways grinning, wide-eyed, pantomime style. As characters I really don't find anything interesting about the new Doctors.

With the old shows, it felt like if you removed the sci-fi elements, it would still be an entertaining drama with interesting, unusual characters. There was a certain serious mood to it. The new ones have a panto superficiality to them and the characters come out with one-liners that are meant to be 'clever' but never seem to talk in a believable way!

I know the show gets good ratings but I really don't get it!

[Deleted User] · 22/01/08 - 08:16

You have just put into words what I don't like about it. The old one could have been a period drama (and sometimes was

), without any real element of Sci-fi and still been Dr Who. There certainly isn't any change of feeling from the Kylie/Catherine Christmas specials, to what is shown in the normal series. Enhancing that image of a pantomime for TV feeling.

Can't help the Cardiff situ, heard it was cheap so that suits the BBC nicely.

TracerTong · 22/01/08 - 08:46

RTD is Welsh, so there's another reason

AcornAntique · 22/01/08 - 09:08

The so-called new Doctor Who is indeed utter rubbish, licence payers' money for old rope.

As for the Christmas insults, you could write them in your sleep. Let me see now, exploding tin soldiers... sorry, too original!

Toby Latimer · 22/01/08 - 09:23

I was beginning to think I was the only one ! , The Dr Who I can remember was of it's time , (as is the new lot) a lot of drama in the 60s had that certain something that could draw you in (try the anti nuke thing "Threads" thats been mentioned on another thread recently or the original "Nineteen Eighty Four" with Peter Cushing) The new Dr Who seems too fast and slick ,& overproduced to my eyes ( and is all that overkill on BBC3 really necessary ?) I watched the first series with Eccleston and Billie Piper but not much since . It's Dr. Who , Jim but not as we know it.

sgt.cryer · 22/01/08 - 09:35

I nver watched dr Who when it was on originally but though the new series might be good. It asnt IMO. Its like an expensive panto. The fact that the BBC has had to go back to dredge up an old TV classic to get ratings says a lot about originality as well.

[Deleted User] · 22/01/08 - 09:37

Watched half of one episode.Overacted,hammed up tosh. Never bothered again.

Believe it is popular with gay *men though, ( and kids) probably* due to rumours surrounding David T's ambiguous....

j24 · 22/01/08 - 10:05

i've never found any doctor whos appealing, sorry:p

shadforth · 22/01/08 - 10:16

I grew up with Pertwee&Baker,and think their Doctors had much more depth than Tennant's,plus they didn't spent half their screen time pulling daft faces! The stories back then were usually four parters,so you had time to soak it all up,whereas today's 50 minutes flash by! I also agree that Tennant's Doctor is far too earth-bound,as was Eccleston's,and at least in the 70s,80s,even tho' the sets were dodgy,the writers were given free reign with their imaginations! It's as if today's Who stories will only be accepted if they're earth-orientated! I enjoyed Christopher Eccleston's Doctor to a certain extent,but Tennant is definitely pantomime material!

[Deleted User] · 22/01/08 - 10:59

Can't stand it either. It's generic, overacted and overhyped. It only seems to appeal to superficial young teenage girls or anyone who watches the dross of a BBC1 Saturday night lineup - Casualty, etc.

I like Christopher Eccleston but can't stand Billie Piper or David Tennant.

System · 22/01/08 - 11:02

diary_room wrote: »

By get I mean I just don't find it appealing as a programme. The Doctor Who I grew up with had a certain atmosphere to it that really drew you into the world of the show, and they felt like 'proper' sci-fi.

The new style shows don't even feel like sci-fi, more like a pastiche or a spoof. The shows seem very Earth-bound and always seem to show Cardiff. And why have both Ecclestone and Tennant been told to act that way? lways grinning, wide-eyed, pantomime style. As characters I really don't find anything interesting about the new Doctors.

With the old shows, it felt like if you removed the sci-fi elements, it would still be an entertaining drama with interesting, unusual characters. There was a certain serious mood to it. The new ones have a panto superficiality to them and the characters come out with one-liners that are meant to be 'clever' but never seem to talk in a believable way!

I know the show gets good ratings but I really don't get it!

I hate the new Dr Who. The acting is beyond terrible it is just so pathetic. You're right it dont feel like sci-fi at all. The old shows were a bit cheesy but well acted and were fun to watch. The new ones are just, how do I put it... ? Shit!

JEFF62 · 22/01/08 - 11:15

well I think the new Doctor Who is brilliant. I never watched the originals and they now look rediculous next to the big budget film like episodes of today. As far as i am concerned Doctor Who began in 2005. Some episodes have been up there with the best Hollywood blockbusters. One episode must cost as much as a whole series of the old Who used to. I watched some old episodes and they look awful compared with the new ones. So personally I think the new revamped Doctor Who is great. Shame Ecclestone didnt do a second series but Tennant is great in the role. Roll on MArch for the new series.

allafix · 22/01/08 - 11:19

Strange the BBC resisted bringing back Dr Who for so long, then create a completely different programme with the same title to cash in. The first "new" series had it's moments, but it has now descended into farce.

The plots are ludicrous. The two parter at the end of the last series (I refuse to use the US term season), had Dr Who old and enfeebled. His assistant, in just one year, was able to implant a phrase worldwide to overthrow the Master, and the Doctor is magically restored to youth and vigour. Very convenient. Sure he is a time traveller, but the Dr Who plots of old avoided such cheap tricks to get him out of trouble. You always felt the Doctor actually was in real danger, now you know he will just side-step it.

New Doctor Who is just too far up itself for comfort.

Balti · 22/01/08 - 11:31

I love the new Dr Who

....
Can't claim to have been in on the beginning, but my 1st Dr was Patrick Troughton.
IMO, the programme lost its way around the mid section Drs - Davison, McCoy, the other Baker - and don't get me started on McGann. Much picked up with Eccleston and DT, I reckon!

Toby Latimer · 22/01/08 - 11:35

It's just a cash cow for the BBC now , I never understood all the praise heaped on Russell T Davies either , I mean er flying Daleks anyone ? and Catherine bloody Tate as his assistant is just plain wrong on all levels (as she would say "What a load of old f***ing s**t !)

Shrike · 22/01/08 - 11:41

Toby - we had flying Daleks in the old series too, as for Catherine bloody Tate - what about Bonnie bloody Langford?

I would agree about the fast pace of new Who - 40 minute stories dont give us time to get to know the non regular characters - its hard to empathise with their peril if we've only known them 5 minutes!
Then again some of the old stories do drag, and each episode required a cliff hanger - which then needed a quick resolution the next week. I know a lot of people love that, but I found it was too often a "with one bound he was free!" copout.

Sloopy · 22/01/08 - 11:52

I've never liked Doctor Who but the modern incarnation is awful.

Panto acting, unimaginative stories that drag and a hammed-up script. Horrible.

I don't know why David T gets all the plaudits. He's been working the "rabbit caught in headlights" look for the past two years.

[Deleted User] · 22/01/08 - 11:59

I to think that the new Dr Who is far to effects based. A lot of shouting & loud explosions is no substitute for proper , well written programmes. The show is far to London / Earth based & this obssesion for chavvy assistants is also annoying. I dont make much of David Tennat, id prefer Eddie Izzard , hed give a far more eccentric outlook.

Id much rather see Dr Who on the big screen with a proper CGI. Dr Who should be on at cinemas especially IMAX. A feature film every 2-3 years would be far better than the pitidul TV series which is fast becoming boring.

JauntyMonty · 22/01/08 - 12:03

It needed updating but some of the changes for me haven't been for the better. I haven't really felt any empathy with any of the new companions and David Tennants OTT Doctor grates. RTD seems fixated with having some sort of love interest between Dr and assistant and there were too many storylines revolving around Roses family. The Doctor seems too infallible to the extent where his saviour act comes across like the second coming ("He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy!").

Having said that as light entertainment goes its still better than most things on TV (it could be so much more though). There are some really well written episodes. The 'Blink' episode in particular was thoroughly enjoyable (I'm sure in no small part because Tennant screentime was limited).

Balti · 22/01/08 - 12:03

I'm not sure that the panto acting is a new phenomenon - Sylvester McCoy anyone? Ditto hamming it up - er, Tom Baker? Roger Delgado was a right panto villain as the Master. (Still the best tho)
It's fiction screened at children's tea time. I don't expect Laurence Olivier.
However, agree entirely about Catherine Tate - there's enjoyable rubbish and there's rubbish.....

[Deleted User] · 22/01/08 - 12:04

What I don't understand is how for such an expensive show it still looks cheap and always filmed in exactly the same place.

aussiewantsaps2 · 22/01/08 - 12:05

You grow up and your tastes change plus you remember it with fondness of being a child etc. The new Dr Who is great and at the end of the day like with anything if you dont like it switch off.

Toby Latimer · 22/01/08 - 12:10

Shrike wrote: »

Toby - we had flying Daleks in the old series too, as for Catherine bloody Tate - what about Bonnie bloody Langford?

I would agree about the fast pace of new Who - 40 minute stories dont give us time to get to know the non regular characters - its hard to empathise with their peril if we've only known them 5 minutes!
Then again some of the old stories do drag, and each episode required a cliff hanger - which then needed a quick resolution the next week. I know a lot of people love that, but I found it was too often a "with one bound he was free!" copout.

Well the kids like it so I suppose it must be doing something right , but it just doesn't click with me. I certainly can't remember any flying Daleks from the old series , but if you say so ..... Generally speaking , nothing that gets remade is ever the same , it's a bit like comparing the old 60s Batman t.v. series with the movie franchise that's been redone recently they're a totally different ( as are The Italian Job or Casi no Royale or any number of things) I agree about Bonnie Langford tho' lol.

[Deleted User] · 22/01/08 - 12:13

I enjoyed the new series at first, but even though I like Tennant as the doc, the whole production style of the show has become pretty annoying and I couldn't be bothered to watch the Xmas Special. My main problem is it's just too over-the-top, camp and grandiose - and it tries too hard to be those things. I've been rewatching some of the old Tom Baker episodes on UKTV Drama, and what strikes me is how great the dialogue is, plus the atmosphere and music is much more interesting, with fun and often dark storylines and a nicer buildup and tension- sure, the budget is low and there are some embarassing SFX moments, but that also adds to the charm for me. Of course, I grew up with the original series, so there's a nostalgia element for me, I suppose. As I said, I did like the new series at the beginning, but it's just gotten more and more BUFFY as it goes on. I have the same prob with TORCHWOOD - I actually love campy things, but usually the best camp is campy because it was not aware at how ridiculous it was (as in the great Ed Wood films!)...RTD tries too hard to manufacture camp. But then again, if he did these shows as I would like to see them, they probably would not be popular and not make any money ;-)

[Deleted User] · 22/01/08 - 12:16

aussiewantsaps2 wrote: »

You grow up and your tastes change plus you remember it with fondness of being a child etc. The new Dr Who is great and at the end of the day like with anything if you dont like it switch off.

True

and Pertwee's Dr spent the majority of his time on 1970s earth anway and were some of the more scary episodes,

esp those maggots in the welsh mine.........

Snikpoh · 22/01/08 - 12:25

aussiewantsaps2 wrote: »

You grow up and your tastes change plus you remember it with fondness of being a child etc. The new Dr Who is great and at the end of the day like with anything if you dont like it switch off.

I agree. Can remember William Hartnell as the Doctor, and "watching from behind the sofa"! I thoroughly enjoy the new Doctor Who, and personally like the sometimes less serious, tongue-in-cheek approach.

Hey there!

Quick Links

Does anyone else not get the appeal of the new 'Doctor Who'?

Comments