I think people probably still hold the 3 Slitheen episodes against him, which is a shame because the rest have been good.

The reason for the message will become clear and will make sense, anything else is a spoiler, but if you think through the steps im sure you can work out several reasons for Peter receiving that message.


Has it bought about changes or are people playing their fated roles, has these visions of the future helped anyone change the future yet so the timeline issue cant be answered, the fact is they arnt trying to tie up everything in one episode so alot of the time things will be left hanging, which is the fun of the 1-11 episodes as it leaves alot for people to debate about, which seems to be fitting as all the main characters are all trying to find their place in the scheme of things.


The first major cliff hangers start around the time when NBC takes breaks, so far the show is in its infancy and it is hard to shock people when you dont really know the characters so you have no preconceived idea as what to expect.


I dont think Heroes will be on as long as Dr Who just simple facts as TV shows evolve better things replace and shows get old, but Dr Who never takes risks in what it shows and doesnt really stretch the imagination compared to alot of other shows out there.

Its safe TV and thats why it will last because it will never have a few episodes which people will watch and really be knocked to the floor, Dr Who is consistant and the people who like it now will still like it and it is mostly no brainer TV and easy to watch on a Saturday afternoon.

Of course it's changed things - Hiro and his mate have travelled to America specifically to stop it therefore everyone and everything they come into contact with has been altered by that fore knowledge.
There does seem to be a 'fashion' for leaving things open currently - Lost being the main culprit with so much internet speculation now considered as 'fact' - Heroes is going down that route and will have to answer a hell of a lot in the second half of the series to avoid it.
The overall 'scheme of things' seems to be too haphazard yet simplistic e.g. the apparently coincidental meetings between characters ( Niki and Nathan in Vegas, Hiro and Nathan at the cafe etc. ) just aren't realistic enough for a supposedly adult show - sometimes it's as if there are only a few dozen people in the entire world who keep meeting in completely different places purely be coincidence.
In DW there is the coincidence that the Doctor happens to be in the vicinity when aliens come to Earth ( with the very occasional exception ) but the show is about him and his interactions with others and the possibility of other alien visitations isn't completely refuted. Also each story is fairly localized so it's not so much of a coincidence that he meets up with the other people involved.

Again we have the pacing of the show , one real cliffhanger in approx 1/3 of the series with the rest being either contrived or extremely simplistic ( Claire dies , well no she can't, it was explained in episode 1 so why try to kid on that she has a couple of episodes later or worse , her passenger in the car also miraculously survives !! )

Totally disagree - DW varies enormously , far more than most sci-fi shows - Heroes uses it's much larger cast to show variation but in reality each character's story doesn't change and they are peripheral often basically irrelevant participants in each other's stories.
DW has survived because it has changed, it has evolved with the audience not because it has remained the same. Each evolution is a massive risk and inevitably loses some viewers but also gains others ( a few have been lost with Rose's departure but some who didn't like her have returned for example ) .

As for 'no-brainer' - that's another one where Heroes and DW are about the same , you can watch with brain switched off and 'enjoy the ride' or you can study and analyse each character , each scene, each word for subtle meanings which if missed won't spoil enjoyment but if noticed will increase appreciation

Of course not. But the point is that Doctor Who is written to fill a particular time slot - Saturday night family viewing. I, too, find RTD's stories pretty simplistic and wish they were stronger and better thought-out. But this is Doctor Who, and millions of people enjoy it week after week, no matter what I think of it.

And, I should add, despite its faults, Doctor Who has me coming back week after week whereas I haven't managed to last more than 5 episodes into any US sci-fi show since Voyager. So it's clearly got something going for it.
Last edited by Mickey S : 04-04-2007 at 20:19

It has. It's light, fluffy, fun family entertainment. And I think that is where people who wish it was Heroes and Battlestar fall down. Heroes and BSG are both exceptionally well written, complex, adult shows. No-one expects Star Wars to be Apocalypse Now, and no-one should expect Dr Who to be Heroes or BSG. Of course, mass appeal is no mark of quality, and frankly your attempts to do so when comparing Dr Who with both these show is a touch naughty, but in the case of this thread, someone is complaining that the chocolate cake they got served doesn't taste like the steak hollandaise they were hoping for. Which essentially leads to the question "Chuh! Then why were you in the cake shop, slapnuts?".

Errr....

I'm all metaphored out.

I find this unaccountably amusing. A creative writing teacher accusing someone widely acknowledged as one the best UK TV writers of being unable to write. Absurd hyperbole and utter hubris combined in one neat package...!

(Note: for those who need this pointing out - there is a difference between 'RTD can't write' and 'I don't like RTD's writing'. The latter is perfectly reasonable, the former is just silly.)

Even funnier is the suggestion that RTD should be getting lessons from the poorly structured and vastly overhyped Heroes (don't get me wrong - I like the series in general - but shock endings, corny dialogue, predictable personal drama and glacial stop/start plotting do not make something great). I'll take the inventiveness of RTDs situations, his excellent structuring and sharp, witty and/or economical dialogue every time.

*double post*
Last edited by Histeria : 04-04-2007 at 21:20

Eh? I fully respect everything RTD has achieved in resurrecting the Dr Who franchise, and I genuinely like the majority of the rebooted series, but frankly that statement strikes me as... well... untrue.

Really? On what basis do you believe that? I'd recount the various plaudits given to him by fellow writers, his BAFTA, the critical responses to his works, the fact that pretty every major production company wants to hire him etc. - but all those are givens. I'd be more interested to know on what basis you find that statement to be untrue?
Last edited by Dr Thete : 04-04-2007 at 21:53

I am no fan of RTD and beleive that there are much better writers for Doctor Who. However I give as I find and your statement is a bit strong. The story had it's faults but was by far the best series opener we've had and certainly not as bad as you make out. Heros, BSG, X Files etc are show within there own right and very different to Doctor Who and they are not perfect. I have not seen Heros but X Files (which I also enjoyed) had hit and miss episodes as well (as does BSG). Doctor Who also appeals to the family, as it always did. Would you let any children see any of the other shows? I don't want the programme to be a copy of any of these shows. Remember a copy is never as good as the original.

i thouht it was good

Comparing heroes to doctor who is like comparing chalk to cheese. They are two different things. As for comparing DW to Millennium, erm isn't that a show about serial killers many episodes of which are bbfc 18 cert? Again, not exactly similar to dr who.

Although it is worth noting that a lot of Christopher Eccleston's dialogue in heroes is quite doctorish. As I've pointed out one of the trailer's on usa tv for heroes had brief shot of him saying 'fantastic' before cutting away. Would the makers of heroes really pay homage to an inferior show in this way? I think not.
Last edited by JCR : 04-04-2007 at 23:32

what you've got to ask yourself is: would heroes get 9million viewers at 7pm on a saturday night on bbc1 or itv?
the answer is no. because heroes is made and aimed at at different demographic of audience.
doctor who is at the end of the day speciffically aimed at children while hoping to lure other members of the familly into watching aswell. which it does better than any other programme of the last 10 - 15 years. that's what RTD has to contend with - dumbing his writing down to suit a much younger audience. sure other doctor who writers do this better, but after his previous attempts i do believe RTD is getting better, and this series of doctor who does look (on what i've seen so far) like it will be the best. so maybe like a fine wine RTD's doctor who is getting better with age?

I do love the attention seeking-ness of the original poster....

"I don't like the first episode and I'm going to make DAMN sure everyone knows about it!"

This thread is entirely needless. Ok, an opinion which is fine to voice, but is there any reason why this is a new seperate thread of it's own and not, like everyone else on the forum manages, in the appropirate Episode one discussion thread?

Thought not.....attention seeking!

Be fair - he's a creative writing teacher - so naturally his opinion of the ability of a successful award winning, critically praised writer who is spoken of as being the 'head of the holy trinity of British scriptwriters' is worthy of its own thread.

I cant see how you can compare Christopher Eccleston performance of Claude to Dr Who, Claude is a completely diferent type of character and nothing like Dr Who, i didnt see any dialogue with him as Claude which remotely reminded me of Dr Who.

I am no RTD fanboy either in that his scripts for Who have not had the same impact as other writers work on the series have for me but to say he can't write is a bit of a sweeping statement.

Have you watched Casanova, Queer as Folk, Bob and Rose or The Second Coming to name but a few? He really does shine as a writer in those works and really knows how to pace and tell a good story with characters that you can believe in.

I do agree that it would be interesting to see someone else have a stab at writing either the series opener or the finale..not because I don't like his scripts..more just to see what another writer would come up with.

I like how Tegan put it above:


I don't agree with her - or you - but it's a recognition that it's one thing dismissing RTD full stop - and other dismissing him in a context - i.e. as a writer for Doctor Who. I can respect that even when I think it is wrong.

you are not paying me a compliment Thete?

Of course.

think I need to lie down...........

It's because, frankly, I've never seen any real critical praise (especially professionally) of his work as a writer. I've seen praise for the show generally, but RTD's scriptwork? Not really. Certainly nothing that would mark him as "one the best UK TV writers". Now, that's not to say it isn't there in the vast array of writings in the media (so you can stay your itchy google-finger ), but given that (like many here) I'm quite the devourer such media, I'd certainly contests the "widely acknowledged" part quite vehemently.

All this, of course, is not to say I don't like his work- he's written some crackers (the season 1 finale two parter was great), but the statement was - at least based what I have personally seen said about the guy's work - somewhat misleading.

Anyway, I'm not going to get drawn into this usual DS tripe. I neither agree with d2macreject about his "can't write for toffeeness", nor do I agree with you about his messianic contribution to popular TV. I thought 'Smith and Jones' was a great laugh - flawed in places, but overall jolly good fun. And at the end of the day, what more is needed in such a show?
Last edited by Histeria : 05-04-2007 at 00:37

RTD is to sci-fi as Catherine Tate is to comedy.

I nearly choked on my Ovaltine reading that Yonnix!

By that I assume you mean very successful and critically applauded by their peers and both shows winning awards in their respected fields. Infact 4 episodes of series two of Who are up for Hugo awards, two of those episode written by RTD.

I assume thats what you meant as thats the only factual conclusion that can be drawn from you post. If it's a 'witty' personal opinion then thats a different matter


Last edited by CAMERA OBSCURA : 05-04-2007 at 01:00