The success of New Who: Debunking a myth

UncleDeadly wrote:Then again, a friend of mine, with the wonderfully untarnished wisdom that can only come of being a non-fan, expressed the "shocking" opinion that the BBC is really not interested in Doctor Who itself at all but just as a brand name to exploit. Surely not?

To be honest I suspect they've seen the show that way as their brand to own and exploit ever since they shitcanned Hinchcliffe in the 70's to appease Mary Whitehouse (with possibly an eye on making a tamer version of the show that might be more sellable in Europe). And I think it's been gradually turned more into soulless product ever since then.

UncleDeadly wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:Yep. 21st century Who has typically leaned purely towards passive audience spectatorship and does not allow for subtlety or nuance in the slightest compared to Classic. My question is this: Was it ever possible to make intelligent and mature Doctor Who in this day and age?

iank wrote:Probably not, sadly.

I don't see why not. The fact is no-one's even TRIED.

Tanmann wrote:I used to think it was possible, if given to the right head-writer. Certainly there were Big Finish audios that, if anything, seemed to go even further than the classic series in challenging content. So there were Who writers out there who were prepared to write something exceptional.

Exactly. The BBC just don't seem to want to know. I did write a post earlier that I didn't get around to finishing, espousing that the BBC made a mistake in allowing Russell T. Davies to dominate the series to such a degree, effectively giving him carte blanche to completely re-shape it in his own image, adding and subtracting whatever he saw fit in pursuit of popularity rather than integrity.

However, the buck unavoidably stops with the organisation itself. As such, perhaps it was always going to be this way; the BBC just seem to have pre-emptively decided that a straighter, more intelligent take (read; just doing it as per the original with updated effects) must somehow be doomed to failure, without even attempting it.

Then again, a friend of mine, with the wonderfully untarnished wisdom that can only come of being a non-fan, expressed the "shocking" opinion that the BBC is really not interested in Doctor Who itself at all but just as a brand name to exploit. Surely not?

Agreed about the its never been tried point. We don't know if a proper sequel to True Who could have worked or not, since it has no modern equivilent. Still given the huge success of the show on DVD and Blue Ray, and the popularity of darker genre series like Game of Thrones, and The Walking Dead, then I'd say a modern Classic Who with proper effects could have not only been a hit, but gained greater acclaim in the long run than the revival.

A modernised version of the Hinchcliffe era would probably be very successful today, considering the examples you mentioned. Although I wouldn’t hold said examples to such a high standard, given that Game of Thrones completely sullied its reputation during its appalling eight and final season (the series had been in decline since season 5, in fairness, though 6 was a brief improvement), and The Walking Dead has been shit since about halfway through season 4 (though I’ll admit to not really rating the programme very highly during season 1 anyway).

If Doctor Who was removed from the influence of the BBC, and had competant writers behind it who weren’t burdened by either blatant ignorance or self-loathing fanboyism, it could probably thrive. Perhaps it shouldn’t be run by fans at all, given the negative impact such influences have had on the programme since 2005- it should theoretically be run by clever and experienced writers with no particular bias towards the brand akin to the original series (Levine’s influence during the early-mid 80s aside).

A modernised version of the Hinchcliffe era would probably be very successful today

I get the sense that's the kind of approach Mark Gatiss would've wanted for the show had he been given the reigns.

Although I wouldn’t hold said examples to such a high standard, given that Game of Thrones completely sullied its reputation during its appalling eight and final season

We don't really have a Game of Thrones thread, but some discussion of what a shocker Series 8's decline was did end up in the Star Wars megathread.

If Doctor Who was removed from the influence of the BBC, and had competant writers behind it who weren’t burdened by either blatant ignorance or self-loathing fanboyism, it could probably thrive. Perhaps it shouldn’t be run by fans at all, given the negative impact such influences have had on the programme since 2005- it should theoretically be run by clever and experienced writers with no particular bias towards the brand akin to the original series

The problem with New Who was always the self-loathing fannish neuroses of its production team, but compounded by the fact it was going to inevitably involve arrogant fans who were obsessed with chasing status and climbing the hierarchy who were going to rise to the position to revive it.

Levine’s influence during the early-mid 80s aside

I've always said Levine was to the show then what the SJWs are to it now.

Bernard Marx wrote:Ah. My apologies for misunderstanding what you meant, and sorry if I came across as patronising in my response.

That's alright, I was also at fault with my wording, you weren't being patronising at all.

Glad to hear as such!

Returning to the topic of superficial soundbite-orientated takes on the Classic series, what else during the wilderness years do you guys think reflected this, and reinforced the general public’s shallow perception of Classic Who during this period?

The term "wobbly sets" comes to mind.

I don't know where it came from but it somehow caught on in the public consciousness as a repeated meme, often used to suggest a kind of middle-aged-mom condescending endearment toward the boyish show. That any discussion of the show had to start with what was wrong with it, and the bad effects had to be made out as part of the "fun".

And sure, cheap effects can be kind of fun. That's why one of my favourite 1980's horror anthology shows is Monsters. The cheap monsters and effects in that were kind of a delightful treat indicative that someone really had fun making this show.

The thing is, I'm sure someone pointed out that in Doctor Who there has never actually been a set that wobbled onscreen. I think someone pointed pout that infact Neighbours' sets wobbled more often.

It bothers me especially because it seems to suggest an insipid enjoyment of the show. That we might as well not be watching for the performances or stakes, ideas or imagination, but just to have a laugh at the silliness and shoddy effects. That Doctor Who should be done with as much of a contemptful 'this'll do' attitude as possible, and that being a fan means just being obliged to smile at it all.

The whole wobbly sets notion has always baffled me. It never occurred to me at a younger age as the stories were what captivated me. Then again, I recall that Eccleston BBC Breakfast interview where he wouldn’t stop talking about how the Classic series never appealed to him as the sets wobbled and the world ‘wasn’t real’ for him (he also went on about the ‘sexism’ of the Classic series, which is also bollocks, especially given that he never gives any proper examples, and was also perturbed by the idea of RP accents). I find this ironic, given that the Davies era has aged horrendously in terms of visual effects- at least when the classic series occasionally looked crap, there was a semblance of charm to it, whereas New Who is so CGI heavy that no sense of genuine physicality is ever felt. It’s similar to the Star Wars prequels in that sense. And yes- the sets rarely ever wobbled anyway.

Perhaps the ‘this’ll do’ attitude associated with the stereotype once again explains why New Who only sought to create a louder, more bombastic and glossier version with nary the intelligence or ingenuity of the original series.

Bernard Marx wrote:I recall that Eccleston BBC Breakfast interview where he wouldn’t stop talking about how the Classic series never appealed to him as the sets wobbled and the world ‘wasn’t real’ for him

That interview was enough to make me regret that I ever considered him canonical. And no I don't get how he could be that unimaginative, disinterested and cynical as a kid to not find the stakes and danger in Doctor Who something that put it on another level.

It sounds like he just didn't want to be challenged, or more charitably it might be that his family considered it rubbish and so he was discouraged from investing in it or thinking more of it.

But I'm tempted to less begrudge him for his attitude and more begrudge RTD for picking people as wrong as him for the show to be part of the relaunch and tailoring the show to views like that.

I find this ironic, given that the Davies era has aged horrendously in terms of visual effects- at least when the classic series occasionally looked crap, there was a semblance of charm to it, whereas New Who is so CGI heavy that no sense of genuine physicality is ever felt.

Even at the time I found the clear CSO effects in the minecart scene in The Green Death more visceral, compelling and convincing than the cartoon Jagorafess and Slitheen in Series 1.

And you're very right that at least you could see a bit of individual heart and soul put into the old costumes and effects that you don't just get with computer effects.

He mentioned growing up watching Troughton. I can’t imagine someone at that age not being engaged by something like The Web Of Fear, The Mind Robber or The War Games. There certainly is a sense of elitism to his responses in relation to the original programme, and it’s a shame that he took such stereotypes on board rather than actually delve into the show’s history before taking the part (I know that he watched The Talons Of Weng-Chiang, though not much else). Though RTD probably exhibited such elitist notions as well, given that he cast Eccleston in the first place as you say. Though his casting of Tennant, a dedicated fan, didn’t exactly improve matters much at all.

Series 1 has aged horrendously, visually and culturally (returning my point about popularist references to 2000s pop culture), as has series 2. Have you also noticed how cheap Doomsday looks now as well, in spite of Graeme Harper’s involvement? There are many shots during Rose and Mickey’s early dialogue scene concerning the events of Dalek, where the Daleks appear completely static throughout the scene (and to think Day of the Daleks gets criticised for the same thing in spite of having about 10% of the budget). The scene where both the Daleks and Cybermen meet is awfully helmed as well- the camera just cuts from static mid-shot to static wide-shot to static close-up, in a manner suggesting that Harper directed it for efficiency reasons rather than artistic reasons- it’s certainly a far cry from his work on Caves and Revelation. It looks dreadful, and the fact that a key selling point of RTD’s era was how allegedly better looking it was (at the time) compared to the original series and how the ‘wobbly sets’ were gone only speaks volumes as to how badly it fails in retrospect. I’d rather take wobbly sets over a shit looking CG production any day.

Forgot to ask: In light of such a selling point, were there any other actors akin to Eccleston at the time who publically demeaned the Classic series?

I think 'flippant' best describes his directing style on Doomsday. That's why it feels a strangely hollow, insubstantial story despite the fact it feels there should be more to it.

I think the only moment that actually *felt* like classic Harper was the malevolent close-ups of the three Daleks moving in to suck that scientist's brains dry.

Bernard Marx wrote:Forgot to ask: In light of such a selling point, were there any other actors akin to Eccleston at the time who publically demeaned the Classic series?

I think Catherine Tate said something about the classic show being the unloved old relative destined for putting in a home before RTD. I don't know if she was so much saying she personally saw it that way as that the BBC did. So I don't know if that counts.

Oh and Elizabeth Sladen said she felt there was better fleshed out characterization of Sarah in the New Series, and that often the old series scripts had almost nothing on the page for Sarah. Which was disheartening to hear from her.

I remember thinking at the time of broadcast that the Doomsday direction was as flat as a pancake, with zero in the way of atmosphere.

That was actually a rather noteworthy moment, yes. I think the reason it stands out is because it’s one of a few moments in the story where Harper has the camera adopt a life of its own and actually prowl during the scene. It’s largely stationary throughout the story, in stark contrast to Caves Of Androzani, where depth of field is properly utilised in many shots, with foreboding tracking shots to support it.

I’m wondering if Liz Sladen said that due to attempting to appease RTD, or whether that was genuine. Was she on record for condemning her characterisation prior to 2006? Regardless, it is frustrating that the majority of New Who sycophants mistake mawkishness for depth, when it’s truthfully the opposite, given that it typically commands that the audience feel a certain way about a character without any room for nuance.

Iank, you’re absolutely right. There’s no atmosphere at all, and the static camerawork and Gold’s generic score does not help matters. It was the same with Rise of the Cybermen, which also had really uninspired direction behind it (and some poorly directed actors as well). I can’t believe it’s the same guy who directed Caves or Revelation- they were practically defined by their atmosphere and uniqueness!

I think NewWho can look good. The atmosphere on Empty Child is captivating, The Impossible Planet has a beautiful haunting direction whether it's outside or in the base, Series 3, 4, 5 and 6 have good direction (even if in hindsight, Series 5 is pretty dark in terms of lighting) and Heaven Sent wouldn't be near as wonderful if it wasn't for the beautiful direction and camera shots. Honestly, in Series 11, it felt like Chinballs just said to the directors, "buy some blurry cameras, and mask it as good lighting". Seriously, the blur effects were way too high in that Series, I can't see how people think that was a positive about Series 11.

Bernard Marx wrote:The whole wobbly sets notion has always baffled me. It never occurred to me at a younger age as the stories were what captivated me. Then again, I recall that Eccleston BBC Breakfast interview where he wouldn’t stop talking about how the Classic series never appealed to him as the sets wobbled and the world ‘wasn’t real’ for him (he also went on about the ‘sexism’ of the Classic series, which is also bollocks, especially given that he never gives any proper examples, and was also perturbed by the idea of RP accents). I find this ironic, given that the Davies era has aged horrendously in terms of visual effects- at least when the classic series occasionally looked crap, there was a semblance of charm to it, whereas New Who is so CGI heavy that no sense of genuine physicality is ever felt. It’s similar to the Star Wars prequels in that sense. And yes- the sets rarely ever wobbled anyway.

Perhaps the ‘this’ll do’ attitude associated with the stereotype once again explains why New Who only sought to create a louder, more bombastic and glossier version with nary the intelligence or ingenuity of the original series.

Eccleston leaves me so mixed when it comes to my impression of him. I absolutely agree on him recently when it comes to littering (any bins that I can't find, I'll just stick in my pocket), and I have no doubts that the BBC had blacklisted him, but then there's times like that interview, where it looked like Eccleston was only taking up the role for the money, there's somewhat been reports of him being rude on the set of Thor The Dark World, and there was a story about Eccleston complaining on the train because he had the wrong seat, and wanted to be up in upper class. Eccleston, you're damn lucky that you even got a seat on a train, so sit down and shut the fuck up and stop being ungrateful. Say what you want about Tennant, Smith and Capaldi, they have respected the show, their roles and their fans, never speaking ill will about the Classic era or the impact it left on to the public.

Oh- there’s some superb direction in New Who. Heaven Sent is gorgeously photographed, edited and directed,, and series 6 is very lush looking itself. I was just shocked at how Graeme Harper (one of the best classic directors) cocked up as badly as he did during series 2.

I do agree with Eccleston on particular matters outside of Doctor Who (the littering example being very apt), but his sheer apathy towards Doctor Who and its fans, coupled with his apparent dismissal of the Classic series for the flimsiest of reasons doesn’t provide me with the best impressions overall.

Bernard Marx wrote:Iank, you’re absolutely right. There’s no atmosphere at all, and the static camerawork and Gold’s generic score does not help matters. It was the same with Rise of the Cybermen, which also had really uninspired direction behind it (and some poorly directed actors as well). I can’t believe it’s the same guy who directed Caves or Revelation- they were practically defined by their atmosphere and uniqueness!

The acting in Rise of the Cybermen was absolutely atrocious. Andrew Hayden-Smith as Jake was especially bad. I usually quite like Noel Clarke, but his performance as Ricky was beyond dreadful. Urgh.

Commander Maxil Gale wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:Iank, you’re absolutely right. There’s no atmosphere at all, and the static camerawork and Gold’s generic score does not help matters. It was the same with Rise of the Cybermen, which also had really uninspired direction behind it (and some poorly directed actors as well). I can’t believe it’s the same guy who directed Caves or Revelation- they were practically defined by their atmosphere and uniqueness!

The acting in Rise of the Cybermen was absolutely atrocious. Andrew Hayden-Smith as Jake was especially bad. I usually quite like Noel Clarke, but his performance as Ricky was beyond dreadful. Urgh.

I thought Jake was fine (not bad, not good just fine), but Noel's performance as Ricky is so hammy and over-the-top that it practically rivals the over acting in Resurrection of the Daleks. Thankfully, he's not in it long, and doesn't have much lines.

I thought they were both pretty awful in it, as was Roger Lloyd Pack, who managed to be hammy without being funny. At least one could piss themselves laughing at Graham Crowden in The Horns Of Nimon. Actually, your point about Resurrection is rather apt as well- the death scenes in it are horrendously acted, though I’d argue that Resurrection had more dynamic direction overall.

Resurrection is one of the best-directed stories of the Davison era. I actually enjoy the story a lot despite some ridiculous acting and the fact that several subplots seemingly go nowhere. It's all very entertaining, though.

I’ve always found it a little wearying for some reason, although I admit that it is well directed.