The success of New Who: Debunking a myth

BillPatJonTom wrote:I want to add some support for Resurrection.

To admit its flaws, yes it often misfires when attempting to copy the success of the Earthshock style and action. There's a very clumsy flashback sequence featuring old companions when Davison's Doc is strapped to the table for a quick mind probe - just why do the sixties companions have to appear so jarringly in black and white? Earthshock handled its flashback clips much more effectively. And ok it's all a bit confused and rushed so perhaps some of the more effective moments are undermined - for instance the glib resolution of concepts like Dalek duplicates being strategically placed on Earth - surely a thread that could and should have been picked up in a future Dalek story?

Nevertheless I think the Daleks here at least behave much more in character than in their previous story, Destiny, when they'd been for the most part reduced to a rather feeble shadow of their former menace - 'If you're supposed to be the superior race of the universe, why don't you try climbing after us. Bye bye!' By contrast, the plot of  Resurrection may indeed be cluttered but the sheer insanity of the Daleks' hatred is always manifest -  'Everything in the warehouse must be exterminated – including Lytton and his troops!' They certainly seem to be attempting too much at once in this story including even a plot to assassinate the Time Lords' High Council no less. But compared with any 'New Who' Dalek stories this is a masterpiece!

I do indeed agree that the Daleks are much more in character here than in Destiny, and the threat presented in Resurrection clearly enthused fans at the time as evidenced by it surpassing Androzani on the season poll. I’d only argue that Destiny is much better structured and written overall.  And your final sentiment is utterly true- Resurrection is the fucking Seventh Seal compared to any New Who Dalek story.

Bernard Marx wrote:[quote=Resurrection is the fucking Seventh Seal compared to any New Who Dalek story.

I'd heartily endorse that, Bernard

BillPatJonTom wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:[quote=Resurrection is the fucking Seventh Seal compared to any New Who Dalek story.

I'd heartily endorse that, Bernard

Why, thank you!

I agree resurrection is so much better then all the new who dalek stories

BillPatJonTom wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:[quote=Resurrection is the fucking Seventh Seal compared to any New Who Dalek story.

I'd heartily endorse that, Bernard

Yep. Them's the facts, ultimately.

Going back to New Who’s success, does anyone have a plainly definitive answer as to why Tennant’s era was as successful as it was? And I don’t just refer to the mainstream popularist audience- I refer to knowledgeable Who fans familiar with Classic Who as well. Very often, whether it be in a Who related article or a comments section online, I hear people declaring Tennant’s era to be on par with the Hinchcliffe era, and tied with it as Who’s golden age, and I struggle to understand how those who understand what made stories like Genesis Of The Daleks, Terror of the Zygons, Pyramids Of Mars and The Deadly Assassin so great somehow see those same inspired and literary qualities in Tennant’s soap-orientated and quotidian era. This question has probably already been answered somewhere else on the forum, but it does continue to confuse me.

Bernard Marx wrote:Going back to New Who’s success, does anyone have a plainly definitive answer as to why Tennant’s era was as successful as it was? And I don’t just refer to the mainstream popularist audience- I refer to knowledgeable Who fans familiar with Classic Who as well. Very often, whether it be in a Who related article or a comments section online, I hear people declaring Tennant’s era to be on par with the Hinchcliffe era, and tied with it as Who’s golden age, and I struggle to understand how those who understand what made stories like Genesis Of The Daleks, Terror of the Zygons, Pyramids Of Mars and The Deadly Assassin so great somehow see those same inspired and literary qualities in Tennant’s soap-orientated and quotidian era. This question has probably already been answered somewhere else on the forum, but it does continue to confuse me.

The thing is, I think it's very easy for fans to get caught up in and sucked into the *viscera* of Tennant's era. There's times where even I was. I'd sometimes get caught up in the Tennant Doctor's fight to save as many lives as he can in the shadow of past losses and failures. The reinforcement of glimpses of contemporary Earth (even if overdone) sometimes making it feel like the end of season threat was a genuine threat to our world and our future...... even if every time I got cheated and they got undone by a lever or pixie dust.

It's weird. Sometimes Tennant's era could get you behind wanting to be a willing sucker to its spectacle and melodrama and bourgeois idealism (it's a trick I certainly think Moffat's era lacked). And then it would do something irritatingly sloppy or on the nose that would take you out of it again. But I guess some fans wanted to persevere enough for the sake of the big experience, and that's what made it feel like their 1970's childhood again.

I won’t deny that there is a strong spectacle to the era, and one which probably does sway fandom and the general public towards the period. Although I’m wondering if the era will eventually be re-assessed by fandom after New Who is inevitably cancelled, given how badly it has aged today- it’ll probably still be seen as a Who golden age due to said spectacle, but it’s a curious prospect to consider.

Bernard Marx wrote:I’m wondering if the era will eventually be re-assessed by fandom after New Who is inevitably cancelled, given how badly it has aged today- it’ll probably still be seen as a Who golden age due to said spectacle, but it’s a curious prospect to consider.

I think the memory of it as a moment, and state of mind fandom was in at the time (when many of them seemed to have utterly bought into 21st century society's happiness cult), might still be strong enough to overpower the more glaring flaws and dated elements, and lend them to still revere it all and still defend its creative decision as 'RTD knowing the right thing to do' in light of the difficulty of reviving and making the show appeal again.

Infact I think that might become strengthened (and indeed already has) by the overriding perception that it was under Moffat that it all went wrong again, which might still become the means of exonerating why Jodie's Doctor wasn't a ratings success, and reinforcing the idea of RTD's time as the golden age.

Bernard Marx wrote:Going back to New Who’s success, does anyone have a plainly definitive answer as to why Tennant’s era was as successful as it was? And I don’t just refer to the mainstream popularist audience- I refer to knowledgeable Who fans familiar with Classic Who as well. Very often, whether it be in a Who related article or a comments section online, I hear people declaring Tennant’s era to be on par with the Hinchcliffe era, and tied with it as Who’s golden age, and I struggle to understand how those who understand what made stories like Genesis Of The Daleks, Terror of the Zygons, Pyramids Of Mars and The Deadly Assassin so great somehow see those same inspired and literary qualities in Tennant’s soap-orientated and quotidian era. This question has probably already been answered somewhere else on the forum, but it does continue to confuse me.

Well, a plainly definitive answer is difficult for any situation in which multiple factors are at play, this one included. However, I think we can make some pretty good educated guesses.

Frankly, I think Tennant had the easiest possible gig. The series had already established itself as a hit with its initial run, the legwork having already been done by Eccleston, who hadn't actually hung around long enough for anyone to get seriously attached to him. Also, his leaving had (rather pathetically) made him a hate figure amongst the more obsessive fans, rendering "super-fan" Tennant the golden boy who could do no wrong.  So, Tennant steps right into a ready-made hit that is now a shiny new thing again, as opposed to the 21-year old series, under threat of cancellation, that had rather become part of the televisual furniture which Colin Baker took on in 1984.

I honestly believe that just about ANYONE could have taken the role at this point and been a success. They could have given it to Timmy Mallett (and, given Tennant's performance, they may as well have) and the audience still would have tuned in for their weekly dose of monsters, spaceships, blinking lights and explosions, as nothing like this had been seen on British televison for years. The audience had been starved of fantastical adventure and even a watered-down version would, and did, appeal by this juncture.

This also applies, in many ways, to the "knowledgeable" fans to which you refer, the denizens of GB among them. The desperation for Doctor Who to return, desperately wanting it to be good to the point of self-delusion, the obsession with Doctor Who being "popular" (that MUST be a good thing, right??) and the false equivalence between success and excellence that so many Doctor Who fans seem to have such trouble grasping.

Now, we look at a series like Doctor Who; something that, in its original incarnation, is imaginative, intelligent, surreal and often literate and it is easy to imagine that Doctor Who fans must be a pretty bright bunch, right?. Not necessarily. Television, after all, is easily accessible by everyone and, to repurpose Tom Baker's phrase somewhat is "Watched on many different levels". That's a very pregnant phrase and it tells us much more than Tom Baker was intending. Whilst some are chewing over the layers of the story and any allegory that may be present in what they are viewing, as well as enjoying the sci-fi adventure, others are merely getting off on the monsters, flashing lights and all the rest of it and I do not believe that die-hard fans are actually any different in this regard.

Just because they are superficially "knowledgeable" in terms of being able to quote line after line, eidetically recall the events of each and every episode, rattle off minutiae and trivia regarding the series and collect enough plastic Daleks to populate an African village doesn't mean they ultimately understand what makes Doctor Who work. Bizarre posts on GB in which members enthuse about, say, 'Kinda' and 'Partners in Crime' in the same paragraph as if they are indivisible and of equal worth, would seem to bear this out.

Fundamentally, they don't see, or understand, beyond the surface. Therefore, you can serve them up a "re-imagined" version of Doctor Who that retains the superficial elements yet jettisons its fundamental core and they don't even notice the difference.

Combine that with with the die-hards' overweaning need for Doctor Who to return and you have a guaranteed success. Or should that be disaster...? It rather depends on your point-of-view.

UncleDeadly wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:Going back to New Who’s success, does anyone have a plainly definitive answer as to why Tennant’s era was as successful as it was? And I don’t just refer to the mainstream popularist audience- I refer to knowledgeable Who fans familiar with Classic Who as well. Very often, whether it be in a Who related article or a comments section online, I hear people declaring Tennant’s era to be on par with the Hinchcliffe era, and tied with it as Who’s golden age, and I struggle to understand how those who understand what made stories like Genesis Of The Daleks, Terror of the Zygons, Pyramids Of Mars and The Deadly Assassin so great somehow see those same inspired and literary qualities in Tennant’s soap-orientated and quotidian era. This question has probably already been answered somewhere else on the forum, but it does continue to confuse me.

Well, a plainly definitive answer is difficult for any situation in which multiple factors are at play, this one included. However, I think we can make some pretty good educated guesses.

Frankly, I think Tennant had the easiest possible gig. The series had already established itself as a hit with its initial run, the legwork having already been done by Eccleston, who hadn't actually hung around long enough for anyone to get seriously attached to him. Also, his leaving had (rather pathetically) made him a hate figure amongst the more obsessive fans, rendering "super-fan" Tennant the golden boy who could do no wrong.  So, Tennant steps right into a ready-made hit that is now a shiny new thing again, as opposed to the 21-year old series, under threat of cancellation, that had rather become part of the televisual furniture which Colin Baker took on in 1984.

I honestly believe that just about ANYONE could have taken the role at this point and been a success. They could have given it to Timmy Mallett (and, given Tennant's performance, they may as well have) and the audience still would have tuned in for their weekly dose of monsters, spaceships, blinking lights and explosions, as nothing like this had been seen on British televison for years. The audience had been starved of fantastical adventure and even a watered-down version would, and did, appeal by this juncture.

This also applies, in many ways, to the "knowledgeable" fans to which you refer, the denizens of GB among them. The desperation for Doctor Who to return, desperately wanting it to be good to the point of self-delusion, the obsession with Doctor Who being "popular" (that MUST be a good thing, right??) and the false equivalence between success and excellence that so many Doctor Who fans seem to have such trouble grasping.

Now, we look at a series like Doctor Who; something that, in its original incarnation, is imaginative, intelligent, surreal and often literate and it is easy to imagine that Doctor Who fans must be a pretty bright bunch, right?. Not necessarily. Television, after all, is easily accessible by everyone and, to repurpose Tom Baker's phrase somewhat is "Watched on many different levels". That's a very pregnant phrase and it tells us much more than Tom Baker was intending. Whilst some are chewing over the layers of the story and any allegory that may be present in what they are viewing, as well as enjoying the sci-fi adventure, others are merely getting off on the monsters, flashing lights and all the rest of it and I do not believe that die-hard fans are actually any different in this regard.

Just because they are superficially "knowledgeable" in terms of being able to quote line after line, eidetically recall the events of each and every episode, rattle off minutiae and trivia regarding the series and collect enough plastic Daleks to populate an African village doesn't mean they ultimately understand what makes Doctor Who work. Bizarre posts on GB in which members enthuse about, say, 'Kinda' and 'Partners in Crime' in the same paragraph as if they are indivisible and of equal worth, would seem to bear this out.

Fundamentally, they don't see, or understand, beyond the surface. Therefore, you can serve them up a "re-imagined" version of Doctor Who that retains the superficial elements yet jettisons its fundamental core and they don't even notice the difference.

Combine that with with the die-hards' overweaning need for Doctor Who to return and you have a guaranteed success. Or should that be disaster...? It rather depends on your point-of-view.

I haven’t been on GB myself, but from what I’ve heard, they sound incredibly stupid to say the least. I have noticed a sad trend that Who fans (especially in light of New Who) don’t seem to understand what made the series work, and only relish in the superficial offerings provided by New Who, hence why Classic Who gets dismissed by many media outlets due to its age. I guess people today tend to enjoy Doctor Who if it is incredibly stupid, as with the RTD era, but as you said in a previous post, not when said stupidity is coupled with lethargy as is the case with series 11.

What I also don’t understand is why so much of the media enjoys taking the piss out of the original series due to its special effects, yet rarely discusses anything else in relation to Classic Who. It’s showing its age, yes, but then all media eventually does- and why doesn’t the original Star Trek series receive the same indictment? Are Who fans generally as self-loathing and superficial as that? Instead of focusing on the alien atmosphere of the stories, how the original Dalek city adopted its inspiration from Fritz Lang’s Metropolis (1927), how Inferno comments on the destructive, animalistic and id-driven nature of humanity’s psychology, how The Daemons ruminates on empiricism and existentialism, how Warriors’ Gate examines the nature of imagination within a capitalist driven society all whilst commenting on Jung and duality via the coin motif, or how Kinda explores the philosophy of perception (‘you cannot possibly exist, so go away’) and Buddhist philosophy, people continue to focus on special effects defects instead. This all whilst declaring the modern programme to feature more narrative and emotional depth. I’m sorry, but how the fuck does people crying over mawkish and sickening musical beats equate to emotional depth? It’s the exact fucking opposite! The distinction between passive and active audience spectatorship is that the latter ponders on the nature of its narrative and doesn’t spoon-feed it’s audience, and the former tells its audience how to feel. New Who has relished purely in telling its audience how to feel about ‘emotional’ scenes and gives the viewer nothing to ponder, so how does that equate to ‘depth’ in any way? That’s like saying that the films of Spielberg are more sophisticated than the films of Bergman, Cocteau, Tarkovsky and Kubrick due to telling his audience how to feel- it makes no bloody sense at all. And the fact that Eccleston states in that 2005 BBC interview that kids of the 21st century are more sophisticated, and therefore RTD’s series must also be sophisticated, is even more embarrassing- New Who’s production team, and by extension Who fandom, are confusing mediocrity with sophistication. It’s quite hilarious, actually, but also really undignified.

That rant was a bit off-topic, but the notion still fucks me off, and doesn’t hold any water when any actual analysis is conducted on the topic. Hell, I got into the original series thanks to New Who at a young age, and subconsciously I knew that the original series was more respectfully conceived even at the age of 8. The presence of such ideas, the use of strange musical scores and a reliance on the surreal always interested me more than the current series, yet people don’t seem capable of acknowledging these things, with the exception of this forum and a few others out there, and just criticise Classic Who for ill-considered reasons instead whilst praising New Who to the heavens. This even extends to the Doctor as well- people criticise Colin Baker’s Doctor for being too harsh and too abrasive. That’s a fair criticism on its own, but Tennant is also widely considered the best Doctor by many media outlets. I’m sorry, but as far as I’m concerned, when Colin was abrasive and over the top, it was done theatrically and in a borderline Shakespearean manner due to Colin’s acting style, and thus comes across as less jarring and more literary. When Tennant and the other New Who Doctors behave harshly to other people and with a self-absorbed attitude (especially with Tennant in the End Of Time), they come across as smug twats instead, with nowhere near as much screen presence either. More than anything, how are they substantially different on a surface level, really? Given that Who fans tend to only analyse things on a surface level, you’d assume they’d see the similarities. But no- they don’t. I suspect this is because they are very sheeplike and conformist, and only go along with the majority view- a view mainly informed, as you yourself pointed out, by the state of New Who once Tennant showed up, and thus a view which will go unchallenged by said sheep but also date horrifically to anyone with any critical faculties in the slightest.

Fucking hell- New Who really is shit, isn’t it? It’s not only broken the fundamental core of the original programme, but has reinforced fandom’s conformist qualities more than ever before.

Great posts from Bernard and Uncle Deadly. I agree with pretty much everything, except I'd like to add that I think that some of old who's stars and producers and can take the blame for the self loathing attitude from the fans.

When you watch interviews or docus from the old who production team, they'd always slag off the show. Terrance Dicks, Mary Tamm, Andrew Cartmel, Peter Davison, even Tom Baker at times, they'd all bitch about how this episode didn't live up to what it could have been, how this episode was boring, if only they'd been able to do this.

There's a video from the shows 40th anniversary, where they tak about how in 2002 DW was voted the show people most wanted to see return, beating out other faves like Blackadder. It was mostly young people who voted too. Rather than thinking "great, the shows still popular and making new fans." Louise Jameson actually says "oh it was probably just a few fans forcing their friends and children to vote".

Is it any wonder that a similar attitude from the fans became so dominant?

Look at Stan Lee in contrast. Stan Lee was always so enthusiastic about what he'd done, he'd always celebrate any tiny bit of Marvel's success as a good thing. In docus he'd always focus on the ways in which Marvel was groundbreaking, rather than whine about "oh if only we'd done Spider-Man issue 6 this way, it wouldn't have been such a pitiful embarassement." As a result Marvel had a very healthy and confident fandom, and whilst like everything else they have succumb to SJW crap, its not been anywhere near as castatrophic as DW.

Has the Green Goblin been turned into a horny Disney character for instance? Do you think that Marvel fans would praise a version of the Green Goblin that was a horny Disney character as "its a change and all change is good." No because even in this lunacy Marvel still has at least some idea of itself. DW doesn't

Worse still the old who team have been utterly spineless in slagging off New Who. No way do most of the people involved in Old Who like New Who. Yeah I'm sure Terrance Dicks LOVES Missy, and Cyber Brig. Yet he praises RTD, visits Moffat and says JNT wasn't fit for purpose.

Its a shame because obviously I love old Who, and I love what they created, but in a way they've got the sequel they deserved. If you are going to have so little confidence in yourself, and if you are going to be willing to sell your old fans out then what do you expect?

burrunjor wrote:Great posts from Bernard and Uncle Deadly. I agree with pretty much everything, except I'd like to add that I think that some of old who's stars and producers and can take the blame for the self loathing attitude from the fans.

When you watch interviews or docus from the old who production team, they'd always slag off the show. Terrance Dicks, Mary Tamm, Andrew Cartmel, Peter Davison, even Tom Baker at times, they'd all bitch about how this episode didn't live up to what it could have been, how this episode was boring, if only they'd been able to do this.

There's a video from the shows 40th anniversary, where they tak about how in 2002 DW was voted the show people most wanted to see return, beating out other faves like Blackadder. It was mostly young people who voted too. Rather than thinking "great, the shows still popular and making new fans." Louise Jameson actually says "oh it was probably just a few fans forcing their friends and children to vote".

Is it any wonder that a similar attitude from the fans became so dominant?

Look at Stan Lee in contrast. Stan Lee was always so enthusiastic about what he'd done, he'd always celebrate any tiny bit of Marvel's success as a good thing. In docus he'd always focus on the ways in which Marvel was groundbreaking, rather than whine about "oh if only we'd done Spider-Man issue 6 this way, it wouldn't have been such a pitiful embarassement." As a result Marvel had a very healthy and confident fandom, and whilst like everything else they have succumb to SJW crap, its not been anywhere near as castatrophic as DW.

Has the Green Goblin been turned into a horny Disney character for instance? Do you think that Marvel fans would praise a version of the Green Goblin that was a horny Disney character as "its a change and all change is good." No because even in this lunacy Marvel still has at least some idea of itself. DW doesn't

Worse still the old who team have been utterly spineless in slagging off New Who. No way do most of the people involved in Old Who like New Who. Yeah I'm sure Terrance Dicks LOVES Missy, and Cyber Brig. Yet he praises RTD, visits Moffat and says JNT wasn't fit for purpose.

Its a shame because obviously I love old Who, and I love what they created, but in a way they've got the sequel they deserved. If you are going to have so little confidence in yourself, and if you are going to be willing to sell your old fans out then what do you expect?

That’s an excellent point that I hadn’t considered. Which is strange, given it was a major part of the reason I stopped buying the Blu Ray sets after the first one was released- Jameson referred to Holmes as the ‘RTD of the 70s’ whilst Fielding continued to complain about the old show on the season 12 Blu Ray set, and the DVD commentaries aren’t any better. Yet they never criticise New Who at any point, with only the occasional implicit exception from Letts or Dicks on some of the Pertwee stories (Hinchcliffe also alluded to New Who’s lack of consistent internal logic on the Planet Of Evil DVD, though this was done whilst also praising every other element of New Who and criticising his own work on Planet Of Evil). My only question is why the hell they all have this attitude? What caused them to look down on the programme so badly without actually being objective about any of it?

Bernard Marx wrote:That’s an excellent point that I hadn’t considered. Which is strange, given it was a major part of the reason I stopped buying the Blu Ray sets after the first one was released- Jameson referred to Holmes as the ‘RTD of the 70s’ whilst Fielding continued to complain about the old show on the season 12 Blu Ray set, and the DVD commentaries aren’t any better. Yet they never criticise New Who at any point, with only the occasional implicit exception from Letts or Dicks on some of the Pertwee stories (Hinchcliffe also alluded to New Who’s lack of consistent internal logic on the Planet Of Evil DVD, though this was done whilst also praising every other element of New Who and criticising his own work on Planet Of Evil). My only question is why the hell they all have this attitude? What caused them to look down on the programme so badly without actually being objective about any of it?

I thinks its because they were in an environment where the show was looked down on, and because sadly they're British.

I also think that they buy into the hype of New Who that if it weren't for the revival then no one would remember their work. Its bollocks of course, but still they just don't bother to analyse it.

Look at this interview with Stan Lee where he talks about how proud Bob Kane was of creating Batman. (Though ironically he had very little to do with Batman but still.)



Now look at this interview with Janet Fielding in contrast.



The result? Batman gets the various DC animated universe series and films that were originally intended just for kids, but are still incredibely faithful and get what makes the Batman so special, whilst DW gets a big budget live action series that turns the character into a total joke.





Its embarassing comparing the two. A fucking cartoon has more nuance, depth and far, far, far better acting than a high budget series made by BAFTA winning writers.

Fair enough there have been some shit Batman's, but when there is a poor Batman like Batman and Robin the fans hate it. Nobody tries to justify it with "oh well originally we didn't know Batman's parents were killed, and then we did. That was a change, so all change is good. Plus the original Batman was crap anyway so who cares if he's a joke." As a result after there is a bad Batman, then the next version tries to rectify it (as seen with the Nolan movies.)

Furthermore people involved with each Batman will not automatically praise one version above all others, just because its popular.

There's an interview with Cesar Romero where he says he doesn't like the 89 Batman because he feels its too nasty and miserable. Now I respectfully disagree with Romero. I loved the 60s series, but there is a place for both.

Still I respect that Romero was honest, and didn't throw his own version (and by extension the people who love it) under the bus with a lot of "OH OUR BATMAN WAS SHIT, IF ONLY WE'D BEEN TALENTED AND AMAZING LIKE THE NEW PEOPLE, I'M GRATEFUL THAT ANYBODY AT ALL LOOKS AT OUR CRAPPY VERSION BECAUSE OF THE GENIUS OF TIM BURTON!"

With Batman fandom there is a diversity of thought in the interpretations, yet a strong love for what the core of Batman as a character is, which is why people aren't happy to sell the concept out just to be popular, and Batman always remains recognizably Batman.

With DW the reverse is true. There is no respect or love for the core of the Doctor at all in the fandom anymore, yet a received wisdom on what the show should be, based on the most shallow "well it was popular then so that must mean that way is the best." Hence why they are happy for every single thing about the show to be tossed in the bin if its popular. (Though as this thread has pointed out New Who has not been popular in a long while, but they just can't admit they were wrong.)

Sadly the makers of the original have helped to propagate that.

Terrance Dicks went to visit Steven Moffat after series 9, yet to this day viciously slags off JNT?

Does he really in his heart of heart's think that Battlefield was more disrespectful to Nicholas Courtney than New Who? Does he really think Ainley at his worst fucked up the Master as much as Missy?

Don't even get me started on Katy Manning defending Michael Grade and Cyber Brig for no other reason than "the show is popular now." Pathetic, absolutely pathetic, and in the long run they have just contributed to the destruction of their own legacy, as New Who sadly I feel will tarnish the original's reputation.

Hey I hope it was worth it, Katy, Colin, and Janet for a few years of getting to sign autograph's for shallow, cosplayer, Millenial twats.

burrunjor wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:That’s an excellent point that I hadn’t considered. Which is strange, given it was a major part of the reason I stopped buying the Blu Ray sets after the first one was released- Jameson referred to Holmes as the ‘RTD of the 70s’ whilst Fielding continued to complain about the old show on the season 12 Blu Ray set, and the DVD commentaries aren’t any better. Yet they never criticise New Who at any point, with only the occasional implicit exception from Letts or Dicks on some of the Pertwee stories (Hinchcliffe also alluded to New Who’s lack of consistent internal logic on the Planet Of Evil DVD, though this was done whilst also praising every other element of New Who and criticising his own work on Planet Of Evil). My only question is why the hell they all have this attitude? What caused them to look down on the programme so badly without actually being objective about any of it?

I thinks its because they were in an environment where the show was looked down on, and because sadly they're British.

I also think that they buy into the hype of New Who that if it weren't for the revival then no one would remember their work. Its bollocks of course, but still they just don't bother to analyse it.

Look at this interview with Stan Lee where he talks about how proud Bob Kane was of creating Batman. (Though ironically he had very little to do with Batman but still.)



Now look at this interview with Janet Fielding in contrast.



The result? Batman gets the various DC animated universe series and films that were originally intended just for kids, but are still incredibely faithful and get what makes the Batman so special, whilst DW gets a big budget live action series that turns the character into a total joke.





Its embarassing comparing the two. A fucking cartoon has more nuance, depth and far, far, far better acting than a high budget series made by BAFTA winning writers.

Fair enough there have been some shit Batman's, but when there is a poor Batman like Batman and Robin the fans hate it. Nobody tries to justify it with "oh well originally we didn't know Batman's parents were killed, and then we did. That was a change, so all change is good. Plus the original Batman was crap anyway so who cares if he's a joke." As a result after there is a bad Batman, then the next version tries to rectify it (as seen with the Nolan movies.)

Furthermore people involved with each Batman will not automatically praise one version above all others, just because its popular.

There's an interview with Cesar Romero where he says he doesn't like the 89 Batman because he feels its too nasty and miserable. Now I respectfully disagree with Romero. I loved the 60s series, but there is a place for both.

Still I respect that Romero was honest, and didn't throw his own version (and by extension the people who love it) under the bus with a lot of "OH OUR BATMAN WAS SHIT, IF ONLY WE'D BEEN TALENTED AND AMAZING LIKE THE NEW PEOPLE, I'M GRATEFUL THAT ANYBODY AT ALL LOOKS AT OUR CRAPPY VERSION BECAUSE OF THE GENIUS OF TIM BURTON!"

With Batman fandom there is a diversity of thought in the interpretations, yet a strong love for what the core of Batman as a character is, which is why people aren't happy to sell the concept out just to be popular, and Batman always remains recognizably Batman.

With DW the reverse is true. There is no respect or love for the core of the Doctor at all in the fandom anymore, yet a received wisdom on what the show should be, based on the most shallow "well it was popular then so that must mean that way is the best." Hence why they are happy for every single thing about the show to be tossed in the bin if its popular. (Though as this thread has pointed out New Who has not been popular in a long while, but they just can't admit they were wrong.)

Sadly the makers of the original have helped to propagate that.

Terrance Dicks went to visit Steven Moffat after series 9, yet to this day viciously slags off JNT?

Does he really in his heart of heart's think that Battlefield was more disrespectful to Nicholas Courtney than New Who? Does he really think Ainley at his worst fucked up the Master as much as Missy?

Don't even get me started on Katy Manning defending Michael Grade and Cyber Brig for no other reason than "the show is popular now." Pathetic, absolutely pathetic, and in the long run they have just contributed to the destruction of their own legacy, as New Who sadly I feel will tarnish the original's reputation.

Hey I hope it was worth it, Katy, Colin, and Janet for a few years of getting to sign autograph's for shallow, cosplayer, Millenial twats.

I couldn’t even watch past the first 5 minutes of that interview featuring Sutton and Fielding. What a materialistic, superficial and plain dense arsehole Fielding is in that clip. The fact that she declares RTD to be a genius highlights the sheer hypocrisy and idiocy behind her stance. Her whole reputation and stature is based on Who- she was in fuck all before and after- and she treats her tenure in that ignorantly pig-headed manner. And Sutton doesn’t help either, merely reinforcing Fielding’s platitudes and rhetoric. Why they even worked on the programme in the first place is the one thing that perplexes me, given how much they clearly despise it. It’s easy to lambast a dead man and emerge unscathed- how pathetic. Her input on the season 12 Blu Ray fucked me off too- she decided to make a distinctly snarky remark after those involved on the ‘Behind the Sofa’ feature discussed the Who theme as it played, and said ‘Composed by a woman- just saying!’ Yes, a woman who effectively pioneered a new form of electronic music and imprinted a unique variation of sound onto the public consciousness, and all without gaining any recognition for it prior to her death due to alcoholism. The work of a genuine genius, unlike RTD. Fielding has had all the recognition she needs, and never had any form of comparable talent to Derbyshire, so she can be more dignified and stop behaving like a twat.

Your Romero example concerning Batman is considerably different, given that the opinion he expressed was mainly based on the overall tone and atmosphere provided within the 89 film- he wasn’t trying to cowardly lambast anyone involved purely for his own gain. And that clip from Heart Of Ice is exceptional- if New Who had writing of that quality, none of us would be complaining at the moment. Batman: TAS is a perfect template for how to adapt a work of source material and expand on the psychological templates for its characters- when has New Who ever done an episode to rival ‘Perchance to Dream’ or ‘Two-Face’?

It is plain depressing that no one involved in the original programme can show the slightest trait of objectivity concerning New Who- for a programme that was once respectable, intelligent, counter-culture adhering and unique, it’s just sad.

I think unfortunately it's a mixture of the fact the BBC didn't enfoster pride in the old show for a long time, partly because Star Wars made them feel comparatively ashamed of it, and that shame had a trickle down effect.

But also, sometimes the best stories of a producer's or companions' run are actually the ones they never particularly cared for.

Genesis of the Daleks is probably the best Hinchcliffe story, but Hinchcliffe himself was not a fan of the Daleks and didn't want them back. I also suspect some of his fonder memories of his time are tainted by the BBC wrapping his knuckles for the violent content and then booting him. I believe he even said it took seeing some of New Who's scares to feel vindicated that he hadn't gone too far, despite what Mary Whitehouse said.

It might be that he just generally saw himself, and RTD, as a caretaker of what was really Verity Lambert's baby, rather than his own, and maybe that lent him to think RTD had done stuff with it he had an inferiority complex about not getting to pull off.

Warrior's Gate and Kinda may be the most sophisticated of JNT's early time, but I do doubt they were really in tune with his light entertainment sensibilities. And unfortunately their art film aspirations don't tend to match the nasty meat-puppet exhibitions of later stories like Warriors and Resurrection, so the arty ones tend to be seen as less defining of their time for it.

But Kinda unfortunately is one example of where Saward wasn't happy with the script as it was, Bailey hated what Saward and the production did with it, and in time Bailey himself became disillusioned in the show by Saward's neglect. So there's very few to claim pride in the final product. Ironically Janet Fielding herself is one of the few.

Janet Fielding, I'm afraid to say I kind of sympathize with her feelings of being short-changed in the character department in her time enough to be envious of New Who's approach. Likewise I don't think Terrance Dicks is wrong about the 80's production team's deficiencies and ineptitudes after he'd worked so hard in his day to make the show work for a broad church. And I suppose in that light he just does feel that New Who's makers can be excused for having to make up for lost time and lost viewers, and put any issues he has with their era down to him being the wrong side of the generation gap.

As for Louise Jameson I'm surprised to hear her say that about the 2002 public vote for Doctor Who, as she'd always seemed to talk of her episodes fondly (even the less loved ones) whenever I've met her. But I think, like Fielding, she sometimes felt short-changed in terms of how she wanted the character to develop (or indeed go out strong), hence her early departure.

Sarah and Janet are such boring speakers. I'm actually surprised the dimwit audience didn't nod off and fall out of their chairs.

I hate to say this, Tanmann, but I don’t completely agree about JNT’s era there. Warriors and Resurrection are crap, no question, but in terms of JNT’s light entertainment sensibilities, when does his era deliberately go out and celebrate the average and vacuous in society like New Who does (with the exception of season 24, when Grade was pulling the strings- and it was still earnest even then)? The failings of Warriors and Resurrection, as you’ve pointed out numerous times already, are primarily the fault of Saward. There’s a scene in The Runaway Bride where Lance declares that he couldn’t put up with Donna due to her materialist and anti-intellectual nature (“A woman who can’t even point to Germany on a map!”), yet he’s presented as the villain in that scenario, indicative of RTD suggesting that materialism and mediocrity are preferable to striving for more, as to do so means to have evil intentions. This is only an interpretation I’ve derived from the scenario that could only arguably be seen as celebratory of the average, but when does JNT’s era do that outside of season 24? Besides, I wouldn’t even say that Warriors’ Gate and Kinda are the only intelligent stories of the period either. They were the most artistically inspired, perhaps, but far from the only ones with artistic merit. Stories like Enlightenment, The Caves Of Androzani, Revelation of the Daleks, Full Circle, Vengeance on Varos, The Greatest Show in the Galaxy, Remembrance of the Daleks etc. are intelligent as all hell, whether it be due to the subtext presented within the script or direction or just the overall story structure. I’m not saying that his era was perfect by any means, but I don’t really see JNT’s light entertainment sensibilities creeping in until season 24 (and arguably 23, or Colin’s costume, though this is mainly related to cosmetics as opposed to narrative), when Grade’s presence became increasingly pronounced. Correct me if I’m wrong there, but I don’t see it as doing as such- there were shit stories, but usually earnestly shit stories.

Although I likewise will argue that Tegan wasn’t the most well rounded character, which is a fair point to make. My annoyances with her are more to do with the fact that Fielding only seems capable of talking about how shit JNT was due to her materialist features (the first thing she discusses in that interview is her fucking hair) and other things, and how she seems to hold no respect or passion for the series as a whole. There’s rarely any discussion beyond that side of things when it comes to interviews with her, and her subtle belittling of eras prior to her own in those Blu Ray sets don’t provide the best impressions either, I have to say.

I agree with everything else you say, though. I wasn’t aware of those facts concerning Hinchcliffe you mentioned, which are rather interesting. If Whitehouse had never got involved, I wonder how differently things would have turned out...

And yes, Maxil. They are boring as all fuck. Although I found that interview more depressingly moronic than anything else.

I really can't these videos because of the constant hollering and applause. Even if she started smearing Chicken and Mushroom Pot Noodle all over her armpits the idiots in the crowd would still clap.

Tanmann wrote:Janet Fielding, I'm afraid to say I kind of sympathize with her feelings of being short-changed in the character department in her time enough to be envious of New Who's approach.

I dont think she was short changed at all. They - JNT / Eric - gave her a role that was as demanding as they thought her capable. She is just not a very good actress. She had more to do in Kinda and Snakedance but she couldn't shine in those either. I feel she makes the dream sequences in the former very painful to watch.

In that interview on stage with Sutton, Fielding comes across as almost auditioning for a role - any role - in an RTD production, hence the flattery and praise she heeps upon him. Its almost embarrasing to watch for that reason. She seems to have no self awareness, blaming JNT and Dr Who for her career probems when in actual fact i think the problems lie closer to home.

stengos wrote:

Tanmann wrote:Janet Fielding, I'm afraid to say I kind of sympathize with her feelings of being short-changed in the character department in her time enough to be envious of New Who's approach.

I dont think she was short changed at all. They - JNT / Eric - gave her a role that was as demanding as they thought her capable. She is just not a very good actress. She had more to do in Kinda and Snakedance but she couldn't shine in those either. I feel she makes the dream sequences in the former very painful to watch.

In that interview on stage with Sutton, Fielding comes across as almost auditioning for a role - any role - in an RTD production, hence the flattery and praise she heeps upon him. Its almost embarrasing to watch for that reason. She seems to have no self awareness, blaming JNT and Dr Who for her career probems when in actual fact i think the problems lie closer to home.

Completely spot on. I found that interview insufferable for the same reasons- it reeks of a desperate smugness exhibited in order to appeal to RTD. I do agree that her acting wasn’t good either- though she did improve a little over time.

You should never slag off a past employer especially if that employer a) gave you your break and b) is no longer alive and cannot defend himself against any criticisms made against him.

Exactly she should not be badmouthing JNT he cannot defend himself.

Bernard Marx wrote:I hate to say this, Tanmann, but I don’t completely agree about JNT’s era there. Warriors and Resurrection are crap, no question, but in terms of JNT’s light entertainment sensibilities, when does his era deliberately go out and celebrate the average and vacuous in society like New Who does (with the exception of season 24, when Grade was pulling the strings- and it was still earnest even then)? The failings of Warriors and Resurrection, as you’ve pointed out numerous times already, are primarily the fault of Saward.

Well I would mainly say that there was an earnestness to JNT's early years, because that was what the BBC wanted for the show's new direction, after the later Tom Baker years. It's what Barry Letts wanted, as JNT's overseer for that first season, and I'd say that's why he complied with making it more serious.

But certainly I felt Time-flight seemed an abandonment of the credible sci-fi arc of Season 18-19 and more an exercise in passing Doctor Who off as more pantomime/soap now.

Gradually there became more celebrity casting, pantomime tone, and more talk of the show being like "the Morecambe and Wise show, with monsters" (though he did later say what he really meant was that Doctor Who was a show celebrities of their day wanted to appear on).

Indeed for much of his first few years, JNT was trying to pitch other shows in the field of soap opera to move onto. And I think that's why there was a bit more of a soapish element to the Davison companions.

Even Philip Martin has said that JNT didn't really want Vengeance on Varos to be too political or too in the vein of 'Play For Today'.

Certainly I think he had enough of a light-entertainment leaning for it to become a point of increasingly bitter and frustrated difference between him and Saward (then again Saward seemed to think anything less than a total bodycount was a pantomime walk-down ending, so maybe he was prone to think that of JNT's sensibilities no matter what).

Also I think maybe 'light entertainment' has changed and meant something different then than it means now. It never used to be quite as smug.

There’s a scene in The Runaway Bride where Lance declares that he couldn’t put up with Donna due to her materialist and anti-intellectual nature (“A woman who can’t even point to Germany on a map!”), yet he’s presented as the villain in that scenario, indicative of RTD suggesting that materialism and mediocrity are preferable to striving for more, as to do so means to have evil intentions.

Yeah, I think it had been something fans had been pointing to as a problem with New Who being so Earthbound and insular, and fans longing for when the show was more expansive and about the bigger picture. So of course RTD decided to be really cheap and egotistical about it and decide to villainize those fans.

It was kind of pathetic.

And the thing is, I could've probably still cared about Donna enough for the purposes of the story. That the humanist in the Doctor values protecting her even if she seems on the surface an unimportant, shallow-minded speck in the ocean because *his* values are grand and noble and about the sanctity of all life.

But the fact it says so in such an on-the-nose fashion is just rather cloying isn't it?

This is only an interpretation I’ve derived from the scenario that could only arguably be seen as celebratory of the average, but when does JNT’s era do that outside of season 24?

Well, JNT's era never seemed to venerate the average, but (and granted this is again down to Saward), it did become more nihilistic and misanthropic in a way that no longer seemed to revere human achievement, revolutionary ideas and decisions, or pioneering spirits like the show used to. And I would say in that light the earnestness of that nihilism made it worse.

The message in Saward's writing often seems to be "just live in a state of learned helplessness" (which to my mind inspires the worst kind of, as you say 'passive viewership'). It was at worst, I think a much more infantilizing era that seemed to say "put all the worlds' problems down to a just world fallacy where everyone has it coming to them for some flimsy reason" (whether that 'just world' notion was down to Saward's poor writing or the clash between Saward wanting to convey an 'unjust world' and JNT wanting to keep it in the realms of fan comfort food).

Besides, I wouldn’t even say that Warriors’ Gate and Kinda are the only intelligent stories of the period either. They were the most artistically inspired, perhaps, but far from the only ones with artistic merit. Stories like Enlightenment, The Caves Of Androzani, Revelation of the Daleks, Full Circle, Vengeance on Varos, The Greatest Show in the Galaxy, Remembrance of the Daleks etc. are intelligent as all hell, whether it be due to the subtext presented within the script or direction or just the overall story structure.

Well, I tend to see artistic stories as ones with a living humanist element and conscious thought. And most of them you list do qualify (though I do think even Revelation ends up suffering from a 'just world' outlook in places).

The problem I have is that they often seem to disappear into the murk again immediately after (the fact Barbara Clegg was never commissioned again despite her having some compelling ideas, is itself a disgrace, I think), and often seem followed up by stories that suggest the show's ambitions are far more shallow and nasty, or that the show was just in a state of 'eccentric decline'. Stories where that artistic aspiration or conscious thought seems to go to die and it just becomes about a bunch of either pantomime Master escapades (Time-Flight, The King's Demons), or Saward's nasty meat-puppets again, and certainly Warriors is a gross example of the show being outright thought-terminating. But there's others where it feels just chauvinistic in crediting the female companion's intelligence very poorly (Terminus, Timelash)

Cartmel did begin to turn this around, thankfully but it seemed to be uphill work.

Although I likewise will argue that Tegan wasn’t the most well rounded character, which is a fair point to make. My annoyances with her are more to do with the fact that Fielding only seems capable of talking about how shit JNT was due to her materialist features (the first thing she discusses in that interview is her fucking hair) and other things, and how she seems to hold no respect or passion for the series as a whole. There’s rarely any discussion beyond that side of things when it comes to interviews with her, and her subtle belittling of eras prior to her own in those Blu Ray sets don’t provide the best impressions either, I have to say.

I do get the sense that in that particular clip, Clayton Hickman was goading her on somewhat to be more bitchy about the era and wanting to be more sycophantic about RTD. There are a few features on the DVDs where sometimes Fielding expresses moments of fond reminiscence toward JNT and the old cast, but as you say there are a lot more where she sounds more scathing and militant.

I agree with everything else you say, though. I wasn’t aware of those facts concerning Hinchcliffe you mentioned, which are rather interesting. If Whitehouse had never got involved, I wonder how differently things would have turned out...

I think unfortunately Mary Whitehouse's actions very much started the slow domino effect of the show's eventual fall. I think the show was largely in the best hands with Hinchcliffe, and I would've loved to see what would've been next under him (I could easily imagine David Maloney coming to be his successor).

But I think because of Hinchcliffe doing a scorched Earth with the budget on Talons (because he was so miffed at being booted) Season 15 ended up a bit of a confused transition with the finale falling apart. It began to lose that reverence as a terrifying, compelling show, and the limited resources and budget made it more of a poisoned chalice that seemed to put JNT in more of an exposed position in terms of being the main promoter of the show, hence making him vulnerable to the creeping fan influence of figures like Ian Levine, leading the show increasingly to a state of 'death by niche'.