I was watching Doctor Who on UKGold this morning and was surprised how good Colin Baker was as the doctor with Bonnie Langford. I was never keen on Peter Davison, I'm surprised Colin Baker got so much stick. I personally think the way it was produced then was better than it is now. Comparing the two, here are a few bad differences in the new series.

The doctor is wearing a modern leather jacket from burtons
The assistant's homelife is concentrated on eg her mum, her boyfriend, her dead dad etc
The incidental music is louder and at times over bearing
The doctor hasn't set foot on another planet yet, seems to like cardiff
The doctor is a lot quicker and hyper.

I think it depends on what you want from the series.

On the plus side the new series has been allocated a decent budget & this is apparent in the way that the whole thing looks & also in the special effects.

On the downside:-

RTD seems to think it's a soap, hence Rose's Mum & boyfriend popping up at various junctures. Doctor Who was never about the families of the companion & ion my view it's a mistake to change that. Jackie & Mickey are not needed in the programme & sometimes it feels as though they've been forced into the script.

Episode length:- To have a story that lasts one episode is ludicrous. There's no time to build up any suspense or for the viewer to get to know any of the characters or for the writer to give any of the characters any depth.
Single episodes can work with things like Buffy where you have a cast of continuing characters & familiar locations, but WHO has a different cast for each story (aside from The Doctor & companion(s) and a different location. The stories should all be two episodes long to allow for greater suspense & characterisation. This will also allow a greater proportion of the budget to be spent on each story.

I've never been much of a doctor who fan! But I appreciated the old style plots and cheesiness (I like that kind of thing!) I absolutly hated the new series! It seemed like I was just watching a sci fi version of Eastenders

Of the three double-episode stories, the only one which worked well was Bad Wolf / The Parting of the Ways.

Although I'd rate Aliens of London / World War III as the poorest story of the series, the first episode was reasonable but the second seemed to run out of steam very quickly and there was a lot of padding in it.

I thought The Empty Child was fantastic but again, I felt that The Doctor Dances failed to keep up the pace and excitement. As a story, the whole thing was great but again, the second episode seemed to have a lot of unnecessary padding (mainly involving Captain Jack).

The last two episodes were great but in many ways it seemed like two separate episodes rather than a two part story.

If you look at episodes like Father's Day and Dalek I think the episode length can work well, especailly if time is not wasted in Mickey and Jackie. However, it looks like we're saddled with them for next series too.

as a fan of both the classic series and the new one, i think its pretty plain that the new episodes have been written for a different generation (and with half an eye on the American market)..... what has been achieved with the new stuff is very clever in that it attracts new viewers without alienating those of us who have been watching for years.

if you look back at the classic series, even stories like City of Death (which is my absolute all time favorite) does have a lot of padding in it, and the production values are not always the best. the new series has managed to maintain the story telling whilst using an increased budget to "beef up" the other areas.

This is where the long gap between season 26 and season 27 might actually turn out to be a good thing; dw could not have returned after a couple of years in its new format, it just would not have worked.. 16 years on, it has made such a massive impact

I loved Dr Who growing up, and I think many of the tales have stood the test of time. I especially enjoyed the Tom Baker 'gothic' era (74-77) and most of the Peter Davison run.

It is interesting watching those old episodes now, though, and seeing how (often) slow moving they are, and how convoluted the plots could be just to make sure the story stretched to four episodes.

Resurrection of the Daleks, for instance, is incredibly complicated. There’s an entire sub-plot involving characters who all get killed off without even meeting The Doctor, and who don't particularly contribute anything to the story or the resolution.

Keeping the old series to 25-minute episodes worked extremely well as it stopped these slower/gentler stories from dragging and left you feeling you hadn’t had quite enough. I felt Colin Baker’s first series suffered by making episodes 45 minutes, as they really seemed too long.

The new series, I think, has stripped away a lot of these sub-plots and sticks to much simpler, slicker narratives – as such, I think 45 minute episodes are right for the new series as they are written so differently.

Each episode speeds you from A-Z in an exciting rush that doesn’t give you time to draw breath. That said, my favourite so far have been the two part stories – The Unquiet Dead was one of the best bits of TV I’ve seen in years.

By the way, thanks for opening this forum. It’s really interesting reading every one else’s take on the old and new.

I think they try to cram too much into 45 minutes and at times it is so fast you wonder what is going on. It worked better when it was 4x25 minute episodes because the story went at a much slower pace and you had time to really get into the story.

Would anyone care to buy into the theory that the writers are limited to 45 minute chunks?

If you can write a story maintaining a proper and coherent narrative, but can't tell it in less than 60mins of screen time, then you need to expand it to a 2-parter, and create sub-plots to fill the other 30mins, otherwise the 45min episode you've got makes little sense. Did anyone see Knight Rider when ITV cut (such a diplomatic word for what they did!) episodes to 22mins to fit it in a 30min slots for schedule filler. If you were watching these stories for the first time, you wouldn't have a clue what was going on!

One of the things I liked about the old 2x45/4x25mins stories was that you had a lot of threads and you were kept guessing as to how they would all fit together.

I also like the 45mins stand-alone episodes. You have to take each series in its own context, as regards what it wants to do, but there's no harm in comparison. I would love to see a 4x45 story in the old cliff-hanger style.

Whilst not my favourite characters, they were pretty crucial in the last episode.

I'd love to see a few more historical style plots, like in William Hartnells era. There were some great (non Sci-fi) style story's that are still highly popular even today. It would be good for Rose to see that not everything evil has to come from space or a time rift.

I love many of the older stories, a feel they are more memorable than some of the new stories. I still Clearly remember Robots Of Death and Earthshock from the first time round although I have seen them both more recently, I remembered Everything from all those years ago.

I'd like to see some darker stories with DT's Doctor, a mix of old and new would be great.

Padding more like. All that stuff with Rosie & the truck was stupid & unnecessary. I'd much rather have preferred that time to be used in showing the human defenders trying to slow down the Daleks. As it was the Daleks went through that satellite like a dose of salts ~ it was all over far too quickly.

I agree that some stories can work well within the current format length but I do think a lot of them seem very rushed & therefore a bit pointless.

Take the opening story "Rose". On one level it worked well as an introduction for the Doctor & new companion but as an Auton story it was completely abysmal. The whole point about the Autons is that they're pretty undestructable. Fire guns at them, send them crashing over cliffs in car, run them over etc & they just get up & come right back at you. The story itself was wrapped up far too quickly & there was no sense of threat at all.

I think you can best compare the new series by looking at The End Of The World which is a story about a group of people trapped in an enclosed environment being killed off. Then compare that with The Robots Of Death & Terror Of The Vervoids.

In terms of look, special effects & production values The End Of The World is the clear winner. However in terms of script, depth of characterisation , suspense & tension both The Robots Of Death & Terror Of The Vervoids win hand down.
The End Of The World is simply too short for the audience to wonder who is behind the events & why.

I think all 3 parters in the first season had problems, but at least we had a better chance to get to know the characters in those stories &, on balance, I'd prefer more two parters in future seasons.

If nothing else, Jackie and Mickie hammered home the point to Rose that there was more to life than sitting around eating chips and talking about pizza.

As for the Daleks, well they always have been very efficient killing machines. The Gamestation was a civillian installation, not a military one and as such was ill-equipped to fight a war. And with only a handfull of people with a few guns to try and stop them - and no defenses, do you think it's unrealistic that the daleks would go through them like a dose of salts?