Hugely sweeping statement with no examples given to back it up... I'll file this opinion under 'dismiss out of hand'.

Here's my own sweeping statement: I tend to regard Doctor Who fans who dislike all of the 2005+ series as old, jaded fans who have grown out of the show but don't realize it and blame the programme itself for their waning interest. Because it just is not that different, beneath the superficial level of running time etc to the 'classic' show.


General comment, at no particular person: apart from people just wanting to be different, just what is it about Caves of Androzani or Talons that is overrated for some people? I find it hard to believe how someone could find them average episodes. Caves I can understand not being to someone's taste because it is not a typical Doctor who story but to objectively say it's an average story... I'm curious to see some reasoning.

Talons... are people so used to and accepting of cheap and crappy looking Doctor Who that they can't give any credit when it's wonderfully produced like talons is? Even if you're not into the story surely anyone must confess that by classic Who standards it looks fantastic, and that alone stops it being average. That said, wow: the scripts are fantastic; Robert Holmes is the best character writer Doctor Who ever had. Nothing wrong with a slow story that lets the characters shine. I'll take an episode with brilliant characters not doing much over an episode of capture - eascape, capture - escape, exploding Dalek,trite cliffhanger any day. I find it hard to think of any other story that can compare with its fantastic characters, wonderfully realized, atmospheric setting, creative monsters (Mr Syn) and first-rate guest actors. What's overrated about that?

To be fair, Tom, I could ask the same question of you about Earthshock? We have had several discussions over this story in the past and I find it baffling that you dislike the story for it being all about hype and the shock value where as for me that is exactly what makes the story. I think it's far from being average and is one of the best stories of the Davison Era. I would say that in the end that is down to interpretation and taste.

As for Talons Of Weng-Chiang, I do actually agree with you that it does look very nice and as you say it is very well written but I'm still not keen on the story. Part of the reason for this is that I'm not keen on the Chinese stuff like the Kung Fu fighting and stuff like the House of The Many Rams etc(Yep, just made that up). Never been my cup of tea, a lot of the 80's shows like Knight Rider, The A-Team and The Incredible Hulk seem to have had the obligatory Chinese Episodes and I wasn't keen on those either. Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against the Chinese but all of that stuff doesn't appeal to me.

I've also never been a big fan of stories set in Victorian London either. That's just another personal thing. However, I do like the Jago and Litefoot stuff and The Doctor's Sherlock Holmes persona was quite amusing.

Also agree with you about The Caves Of Androzani. I have posted a link here to my story thread and people should read my opening post to try and understand why people like it so much:

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showt...787&highlight=

This is not really to change people's minds about the story but to illustrate why it may be so popular for others. I find it hard that people find it average too as it's so unique and different from many other stories. I've also seen it described as a typical Davison Story when quite clearly it isn't for the various reasons I've described in the link above. As I said though, it is all down to opinion, that's what makes this thread so interesting to read.

That's a fantastic post you linked to. You really should post more regularly again

In your case Talons simply isn't to your taste. That's fair enough; you recognize its qualities. Some people didn't give any such reasoning, and its those people I was addressing more.

Your point with Earthshock is fair. I guess to dismiss it for the reasons I did is also a taste issue. It's an action oriented story. That is boring to me personally, but it's a valid format for a Doctor Who serial, and I do believe in a lot of variety for the show. The one objective criticism I could make of that is that Doctor Who didn't really have the technical capacity to make a really good action story. If it could look like Star Wars, then fair enough.

I will give credit to the direction though: for 80s Doctor Who it was very ambitious, and probably on a par with Caves of Androzani. Again, it's fair to say I should recognize that, just as it is to say one has to give Talons its due on the production front, regardless of the story.

One criticism of Earthshock I insist is totally valid though is that the actual central point of the hype, and the things its really remembered for, the death of Adric, is just so crappy. It's not realized particularly poignantly, it's not really prefigured in any way or given any great resonance. It's just 'BOOM: we blew him up. Didn't think we'd do that did ya?'

If we're being totally honest, despite the strength of the direction, would this really be remembered as a great episode, as opposed to just a good one, if that final scene had been different and Adric had escaped? I honestly don't think so. If his death scene had been good I would like it a lot more and praise it for being a brave, different episode like caves of Androzani, but it seems to get default kudos just because he did die. You still have to write it well. In fairness though... not sure how any writer: Saward, Holmes, Moffat or anyone could get a poignant, dramatic scene out of Matthew Waterhouse :P If any character would have justified a Dodo-style off-screen exit it would be Adric :P

But okay, I will say it's fair to add it to the list of very good Doctor Who stories because it's very well-realized on its own terms, for the most part.

It is all opinion, true, but opinions can be changed with good, well-reasoned criticisms and I'm man enough to change when necessary :P

An even more sweeping statement: If anyone thinks that any TV drama nowadays "is just not that different" from its pre-1990s equivalent, then they simply haven't noticed how much the nature of TV in general (and drama in particular) has changed.

Instead of trying to steadily draw us into the fictional world, drama nowadays keeps us firmly on the outside looking in at a succession of set-pieces. (That's a side effect of the rise of postmodernism in the late 80s/early 90s. One of its central tenets is that there's no difference between a story and the world it describes, so as long as we're watching the drama there's no point in drawing us into the world.)

And now for a non-sweeping, very personal statement: Far from not realising I'd grown out of Doctor Who, I realised that very definitely during the mid 80s. But I became interested in it again ten years later purely as a reaction against the direction TV drama was moving. For me, DW was just an example of the way drama used to be when it was worth watching.

That's why I find it hard to forgive the 2005+ series for not being a return to older, better, less postmodern forms of TV making. Instead DW has sold out and become just like the rest of the rubbish that passes for drama nowadays.

Never understood people who quibble over this word. There's no such thing as "good" either, it's a subjective personal opinion, just like "overrated" is.

It's great you've took my previous point on board! Oh, and I do try and write quite regularly on here.

With Earthshock, I know in the story thread on that story that we discussed this before, but for me, Adric's death in Earthshock is a bonus(in more ways than one). For me personally, the story is so much more than his death. It's about the shock reappearance of the Cybermen and the gradual cranking up of the tension until it hits unbearable levels in the last episode. The Doctor is totally helpless, his own ship has been taken over and the Earth is about to explode. I can't see what can cause more tension than that and that's what I like and remember about it.

Even if The Doctor had rescued Adric and they all went on their merry way, I still would have loved the story for the above reasons.

That's where personal opinion comes in and "under-rated" or "over-rated" are impossible to define.

For me, the fact that the 5th Doctor has a sense of personal responsibilty for once is what makes it epic. He was the one that got Peri into this mess and so he is determined to get her out of it. Too often I find the Dr (in both Classic and Nu Who) comes along, causes the death (directly or indirectly) of X number of people and then saunters off again for more jolly japes. Androzani portrays the Doctor in a much better light to me. Heis more of a hero for this than for saving the universe for the umpteenth time at no cost to himself.

All personal opinion really isn't it.
Last edited by Sam Bell v. 548 : 12-02-2014 at 13:07

More than a little melodramatic but see, your opinions go over a bit better when you provide some reasoning, instead of just making some sweeping statement.

To say it's 'sold out' is pretty... well, childish. Do you honestly think Verity Lambert, Barry Letts, Phillip Hinchcliffe, or any of the producers ever had anything in mind other than making a good mainstream television programme? There was nothing high-minded about it. Sorry, I know you won't recognize this because you've taken a theoretical position and become entrenched in it, but to say the taste and style of today is worse than the taste and style of a differnet era is equally as ignorant as making the opposite statement.

The content of the show has not changed, only the style in which it is presented. That was my point. And if you can't appreciate more than one style then you have a very narrow view of art, and, frankly, not a very interesting one. You think you're being cultured and intellectual with these line in the sand stances but unfortunately the opposite is true. Any fundamentalist is delusional. The great thinker will take on board all good ideas, not close themselves off to them because of some spurious conclusion they came to decades ago.

Blimey. I love Classic Who but some people really seem to have some fuzzy, hazy nostalgic memories about it.

The idea that New Who is all flashbang fireworks and empty gimmicks is just as small minded and false as those that remember Classic Who as questionably talented actors bumbling around cardboard sets. The truth is alot more complicated and interesting.

I cannot see how anyone could be a purist Pro Classic and Anti New or vice versa.

Are you seriously telling me a brilliantly clever and concise meditation on faith and belief like The God Complex cant hold its own against the best of Classic Who? Yeah. I suppose it was too gimmicky. What it really needed was a talking robot dog. That would've elevated it to the status of high art...

and as for that Amy/Amelia Pond? All that girl who waited stuff? Rubbish. Bring back a fake American accent with big tits.

Rose Tyler and her struggle to define herself and find some direction beyond the day to day mundanity of her working class existence and how she grew and gained strength by travelling with the Doctor but also suffered the wrench between family life vs Tardis life? that was all CGI. Why couldnt we have had a cavewoman in a fuzzy bikini flashing some leg? That's when there was real depth, complex characterization and Doctor Who was winning awards for its stellar acting. Dennis Potter was genuinely in awe.

Oh no. Wait. It wasn't.

I could go on.

Outstanding.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt...use_medium.gif

I don't watch Doctor Who for that sort of thing. If I wanted to watch that sort of thing I either watch a soap opera or a romance movie. They are fictional characters why should I care about them? I really don't care about characterisation at all. And I don't see why poor characterisation is always a bad thing. Especially when the episodes are 45 minutes long. And as some people said classic doctor who is more plot driven which is what I prefer. And also in new Doctor Who other than the main cast there is not a lot said by the cast most of the time.

Well as we've been discussing in the other thread, at the end of the day Doctor Who is Doctor Who and hasn't changed much in essence since Day 1. It's just a case of keeping up with the times. Off course in Classic Who there were brilliant actors like Phillip Madoc and Julian Glover and they both, amongst other actors, put in some awesome performances. Thing is, there were no such thing as NTA at the time to recognise the fact!

As for characterisation, Classic Who episodes were only 25 minutes each which didn't allow time for them to be fleshed out. Eric Saward certainly mentioned how much better it was in Season 22 when the episodes then were 45 minutes as they are now, it gave time for the story to breathe and the characters to be drawn out a bit more.

As for the effects, again, they moved with the times. Off course you couldn't have CGI back then, but the show still told a good story (mainly) for 26 years before it was even invented.

As for your story comparison. Yes, The God Complex may well stand up to a lot of Classic Stories as does several others in New Who but I could say it's the other way round too. Could Love and Monsters and Fear Her really stand up to stories like The Caves Of Androzani, Earthshock, Pyramids Of Mars, the Web Of Fear? IMO, no, it's really a case of every run having there good stories and bad. Comparing New Who and Classic Stories on story alone doesn't really work exclusively in favour of either of them.

Yup, I think Salad makes a great point.

That's a pretty odd statement imho.

Most if not all of the TV phenoms at the moment, at heart, are character-driven, eg. Who, GoT, Walking Dead, Breaking Bad.

Genre TV that isn't doing so well tends to have poorly drawn characters it is hard to be engaged by, eg. Agents of Shield, Helix, Tomorrow People.

I also find that a bit odd. How are you supposed to be engaged in a story if you can't emphasise or have any emotional attachment to character? What's the point? Doctor Who is supposed to be an emotinal rollercoaster. How can you fear for David Warners eccentric Russian scientist in Cold War if you don't care what happens to him? How can you urge the 5th Doctor on in Androzani if you couldn't give a fig as to if Peri lives or dies?

To me, character plays a hugely important part. Take the new Tomorrow People. The characters leave me cold and disinterested and consequently I have given up after 3 episodes. Doctor Who constantly throws up new and interesting (well, most of the time) characters and I'll keep watching even of the show/stories at that moment are not quite hitting the spot for me.

Never heard of those shows except Doctor Who. And just because lots of people like something doesn't mean I do. And I believe there are cases when too much characterisation can be a bad thing to some viewers. Some people for instance didn't like the change of focus in the recent Sherlock series. If there is a decent balance between plot and characterisation then fine in my opinion. Having episodes relying hugely on characterisation isn't something that I like.

You know when I see your posts, I kinda think of MacReady throwing his bourbon & ice into the chess-playing computer in The Thing..

I struggle to emphasise with people in real life let alone with fictional characters. I much rather have action sequences and mystery rather than scenes about the lives of companions. But there are some exceptions like the Vicent van Gogh episode.

David Warner's character is completely forgettable for me. Apart from his use of music I can't remember anything else about him. He hardly appears in the episode.

As for Peri, why would they kill off a character that had been confirmed to appear in the next series?

For me Remembrance of the Daleks is the most over rated story of the classic. Most people rave about it being like a great example of old Who and one of the great Dalek stories. It's not. Its just slightly fast paced rubbish with a entertaing and cool special weapons Dalek. The acting is really poor (as with most 80's Who). It's not in the same league as Genesis or Revelation of the Daleks

All very true Davey. I didn't want to sound like I was bashing Classic Who to defend New. I like both. In general if forced at Dalek plunger point to choose I would say New Who. But that's irrelevant.

My point was that there is good and bad in both when it comes to the most important things ie story/narrative and characterization. Its just not realistic to present Classic Who as some exercise in sophisticated high art. Sometimes it was. Sometimes it was silly. Sometimes it was a mixture of the two and a million other things. As is New Who. So you go from Barbara Windsor throwing a ghost Cyberman out of the queen Vic to the coruscating heartbreak of Ten and Rose parting all in the space of one episode. Brilliant. And Matt Smith was brilliant at this. From clowning around to whimsy to dark intensity to unbearable sadness sometimes in the same scene. Classic Who excelled at this also. At its best. Sometimes it was rubbish. Just because New Who has expensive special effects (relatively) and a grandiose score doesn't take away from the smaller character moments that keep people watching. An entire generation didn't fall in love with Who again because of the Slitheen and that cool effects shot of wartime London with the barrage balloon. They fell in love with Rose and Jack and Nine. As I think Grisonaut points out up thread the earlier series of NW now seem dated themselves. Its the stories that endure.

Classic Who fans often berate those that don't watch the old series because they can't see past the effects and the different pace. A classic Who fan who hates new Who because they can't see past the effects and different pace is no different. Both blinkered.

I think with Remembrance Of The Daleks, it gets a better rating from some people because it is first and foremost a big improvement on the dross we had in Season 24. You can see the differences in McCoy's performance and this is helped by having a more streetwise companion who suits him better than Mel.

I would also say it fares well against the rest of Season 25 as well and is in some ways more akin to previous era's and is very typical of the McCoy Era as it's loaded with continuity references. That's why I think it's a popular story but much as I agree it isn't as good as the two Dalek stories you mention, I still think it isn't that bad.


Yes, I think those who don't like Classic Who may very well find themselves in a similar position in 20 or years time if the shows keeps going as I daresay even Series 1 effects will be dated by that time! They will defend it in the same way others like me defend Classic Who.

As I've said recently, I don't think every New Who fan refuses to watch Classic Who, I just get that impression from some posters on here that that is the case. Likewise I've only seen a couple of posters refuse to watch New Who because of the reasons you describe. Sometimes I can understand their point of view that if you've been brought up on Classic Who, it is hard to accept change and you get the old 'I remember it when it was just fields' syndrome. (Check out The Old Gits from Harry Enfield if you don't know what that means...)

Sometimes you have to respect the fact people don't want to watch stuff for a reason. I just find that when people won't watch Black and White Stories because they're 'naff' or think every single Classic story had dodgy effects, you need to put a counter argument forward because in both cases it really isn't true.

I personally don't like Talons that much because of the handling of the Chinese element in the story. I'm not sure who dropped the ball with it, Robert Holmes or David Maloney, so they can both share the blame.

Whilst I could launch into a huge philosophical debate about the phrase: "overrated", I'd rather just say a list of episodes that seem widely loved that I feel don't live up to the hype, IMHO.

The Doctor's Wife
Vincent and the Doctor
Blink

I enjoyed all of these episodes a lot, but I wouldn't regard them as anywhere near the pinnacle of New Who. Also for me, The Crimson Horror, which I think is awful and cannot be underrated frankly. Oh and the complete mess that I consider Journey's End.

That's the point. It is all subjective. But the word overrated explicitly ignores that. Saying something is good or bad is personal opinion. Saying something is overrated is saying that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is wrong.

I loved the Doctors Wife especially for the moment when 11 gives the TARDIS licence to obliterate House (and it sounds painful). It's good to remember that the Doctor can be ruthless when needed.

Vincent and the Doctor, honestly, it doesn't figure in my memory very much.

Blink was epic at the time, the best doctor-lite ep ever. I think it's power has been depleted by the later use of the Angels. At this point I'd like to see a non-Moff Angels story that restores some of their fear.