Which producer would you like to have seen do a 21st century Who

We've talked at length about actors for the Doctor, or actresses for the companions we'd like, but who do you think could have done a good job at making the show?

I'm going to say.

John Carpenter. I've no idea if he is a Who fan, but I know he loves Quatermass, so its not such a stretch he could find something of value in Classic Who.

Carpenter really knows how to build up an atmosphere, and a lot of his best work already bares a resemblance to some classic who stories. Prince of Darkness follows the same plot as Pyramids of Mars, The Thing is similar to Seeds of Doom etc.

I can see his era being like a modern day Hinchcliff era. Plus I'd love to hear what he'd do with the theme.

Edgar Wright: Though a comedy director, he does know how to build up an atmosphere, and has experience not only with horror, but action too. I can see him capturing a real modern day Pertwee style, of suburban horror and monsters in every day surroundings.

Adrian Hodges: Primeval though sadly completely overlooked nowadays I think did a better job of bringing DW into the modern day. Its a shame he never got to produce the actual show.

You might hate me for this, but probably Nicholas Briggs. His Dalek Empire spin-off series (at least the first three seasons) was exactly the kind of 21st century take on the show I wanted.

Tanmann wrote:You might hate me for this, but probably Nicholas Briggs. His Dalek Empire spin-off series (at least the first three seasons) was exactly the kind of 21st century take on the show I wanted.

I don't mind Nicholas Briggs on principle. He's a decent guy, I love his enthusiasm for the Daleks, and he has done a lot of good work.

I just feel that he has not only lost it recently, but has also become a bit of a sell out.

His ego is definitely too out of control. He has to insert himself into just about every story, he also shows a real sneering contempt for his previous fans as he thinks he has a new trendy, hipster audience with the SJWs (most of whom probably either don't listen to his audios, or want him replaced for being a white, heterosexual man.)

Burrunjor wrote:John Carpenter. I've no idea if he is a Who fan, but I know he loves Quatermass, so its not such a stretch he could find something of value in Classic Who.

Ha, interesting. That mirrors a conversation I've had with my brother, a big John Carpenter fan. I suggested that John Carpenter's take on Doctor Who could really be something worth seeing. He wasn't so sure, due to Carpenter's tendency to satirise "genre" elements. However, the guy seems a very shrewd judge of material and I reckon he'd see Doctor Who as something that needs to be played straight. 'Prince of Darkness' is a case in point, no levity there and, yes, it's occurred to me before that it would make for an excellent Who story. Besides, I'd love to see Victor Wong as the Doctor! I think he would have been tremendous. (So much for lacking diversity!)

Edgar Wright: Though a comedy director, he does know how to build up an atmosphere, and has experience not only with horror, but action too. I can see him capturing a real modern day Pertwee style, of suburban horror and monsters in every day surroundings

Not so sure about this one, having seen what Simon Pegg has been complicit in re; Star Trek. That and Wright's lack of experience with science fiction and drama lead me to conclude that he'd probably mess it up.

Adrian Hodges: Primeval though sadly completely overlooked nowadays I think did a better job of bringing DW into the modern day. Its a shame he never got to produce the actual show

Not familiar with 'Primeval' so I can't really comment on this one. However, my baseline requirement for Doctor Who at this point would quite simply be a competent producer who knows to play it STRAIGHT and not insult the material and the audience with self-parodic idiocy.

I don't know, Burrunjor, if you've seen Terry Wogan's interview with Peter Cushing in which he asks of him whether or not he ever feels tempted to send up the fantasy and horror roles he plays? Cushing's response is, quite simply "Oh no no, and you must never do that, you must take it frightfully seriously because I think, otherwise, you are being terribly rude to your audience". Davies, Moffat and co. would have done very well to listen, I think. But, then, what would the likes of Cushing know, eh? He's simply not as fantastic, brilliant and bonkers as they are, I'm sure...

Tanmann wrote:You might hate me for this, but probably Nicholas Briggs. His Dalek Empire spin-off series (at least the first three seasons) was exactly the kind of 21st century take on the show I wanted.

I could see that, actually. Stories like 'Embrace the Darkness' and 'Creatures of Beauty' certainly suggest that Briggs understands what makes Doctor Who tick. However, it was never going to happen, of course, because of his lack of television experience and Briggs, sadly, like all the others, gladly took an I.Q. cut and blindly followed Pied-Piper Davies like a mindless zombie, unfortunately revealing that he's prepared to be complicit in selling Doctor Who out just for the sake of getting on television and the attainment of transient popularity. That's the unforgiveable part; we know that he knows better.

If Davies hadn't got there first, maybe it would've been different. Who knows..?

More than anything else, the biggest thing that pisses me off about the Fitzroy crowd is their dogged refusal to criticise each other's work no matter how much damage it's doing to the show's reputation - the infamous "writer's code" dating back to the VNA era. They all know that there's a creative pecking order, and that they aren't equally talented writers, but like John Lennon and Yoko Ono, they'll say anything to avoid admitting it. Briggs, having written To the Death, understands that Hell Bent is an appalling, audience-insulting way to send off a companion, but he'll gladly star in it and praise Moffat to the hilt. Davies, having said THIS, knows how pathetic and amateurish Chibnall's dialogue is, but he'll still publicly pretend he's loving it. It's clear that they're more loyal to each other than to the franchise and its fans, which is so disappointing.

Ron Jeremy.

ClockworkOcean wrote:More than anything else, the biggest thing that pisses me off about the Fitzroy crowd is their dogged refusal to criticise each other's work no matter how much damage it's doing to the show's reputation - the infamous "writer's code" dating back to the VNA era. They all know that there's a creative pecking order, and that they aren't equally talented writers, but like John Lennon and Yoko Ono, they'll say anything to avoid admitting it. Briggs, having written To the Death, understands that Hell Bent is an appalling, audience-insulting way to send off a companion, but he'll gladly star in it and praise Moffat to the hilt. Davies, having said THIS, knows how pathetic and amateurish Chibnall's dialogue is, but he'll still publicly pretend he's loving it. It's clear that they're more loyal to each other than to the franchise and its fans, which is so disappointing.

Well, we know one who broke ranks (screwed himself in the process, of course and, apparently, he's "mad" or something, which is convenient):-

Lawrence Miles wrote:The reason I gained a reputation as an unhealthy influence was that I broke what Keith Topping called "the unspoken code", the Omerta-like law which held that New Adventures writers should all stick together in the face of fandom and not publicly criticise each others' work. I say "Omerta", but in practice, they behaved more like Medieval overlords than mafiosa: the elite have to form a united front, because otherwise, they'll be revealed as weak, flabby individuals and the peasants will get ideas above their station. Oh, and you're the peasants, by the way. When the new series began, those authors who were promoted to scriptwriter-level went from "overlords" to "royalty", which is why my heartless attack on Mark Gatiss was received with the same shock as if a small-time landowner in the Middle Ages had just referred to the Prince of the Realm as a big spaz.

You think I'm exaggerating…? Then consider this. When Paul Cornell took me to task for the social faux-pas of having opinions, he seemed appalled that I was incapable of respecting the natural hierarchy, and asked whether there was anybody I 'bent the knee' to. Bent the knee…? What is this, geek feudalism? When I told him that I had no interest in serving or reigning, he asked me: 'Do your followers know that?' I found it horrifying that anyone could even think that way, and I still do.

Frankly, I believe every word. Ironically, it would be insane not to...

Commander Maxil Gale wrote:Ron Jeremy.

Couldn't be a bigger cock-up.

ClockworkOcean wrote:More than anything else, the biggest thing that pisses me off about the Fitzroy crowd is their dogged refusal to criticise each other's work no matter how much damage it's doing to the show's reputation - the infamous "writer's code" dating back to the VNA era. They all know that there's a creative pecking order, and that they aren't equally talented writers, but like John Lennon and Yoko Ono, they'll say anything to avoid admitting it. Briggs, having written To the Death, understands that Hell Bent is an appalling, audience-insulting way to send off a companion, but he'll gladly star in it and praise Moffat to the hilt. Davies, having said THIS, knows how pathetic and amateurish Chibnall's dialogue is, but he'll still publicly pretend he's loving it. It's clear that they're more loyal to each other than to the franchise and its fans, which is so disappointing.

I find it bizarre how Davies discusses how dialogue should avoid cliched expository features in that video, yet the clips shown are exactly that- very clunkily handled scenes of exposition ‘(“There’s a banana grove there now. I like bananas. Bananas are good”). A large portion of the comments section seems to agree to an extent as well. Anyway- I completely agree with these sentiments. There’s a clear elitism and sychophancy to said group of writers- as if they’re aware of what constitutes as good writing, but lack the genuine integrity to point out poor scriptwriting or treat the fans with any respect at all. It does make New Who as a whole seen rather disingenuous, really- the writer’s don’t care about adhering to the intelligence of their audience so much as kissing each other’s arses. They’re just very smug.

UncleDeadly wrote:I could see that, actually. Stories like 'Embrace the Darkness' and 'Creatures of Beauty' certainly suggest that Briggs understands what makes Doctor Who tick. However, it was never going to happen, of course, because of his lack of television experience and Briggs, sadly, like all the others, gladly took an I.Q. cut and blindly followed Pied-Piper Davies like a mindless zombie, unfortunately revealing that he's prepared to be complicit in selling Doctor Who out just for the sake of getting on television and the attainment of transient popularity. That's the unforgiveable part; we know that he knows better.

Well yeah, his contentiousness toward the fans and sucking up to Upper Boat was at the back of my mind as a possible strike against him. But I could see maybe a world in which RTD's revival never happened and Briggs never lost his heart to it, and where he stuck with what had worked for him on audio as the model for the TV show. And despite what I know of his attitude to the fans, I would've probably been happy enough with his product to overlook that.

You're probably also right that his lack of TV experience would probably have disqualified him, which is a shame because I think he would've been much better at handling that transition from radio to TV writing than Saward was.

UncleDeadly wrote:I don't know, Burrunjor, if you've seen Terry Wogan's interview with Peter Cushing in which he asks of him whether or not he ever feels tempted to send up the fantasy and horror roles he plays? Cushing's response is, quite simply "Oh no no, and you must never do that, you must take it frightfully seriously because I think, otherwise, you are being terribly rude to your audience". Davies, Moffat and co. would have done very well to listen, I think. But, then, what would the likes of Cushing know, eh? He's simply not as fantastic, brilliant and bonkers as they are, I'm sure...

Yeah I really hated the way the word "bonkers" got bandied about in praise of RTD's utter cartoon logic, particularly regarding the Simm Master acting like a non-stop utter wanker onscreen.

It just seems such a cheap, empty get-out of "Oh we'd be thought of as sad if we were seen to take the show's out-there sci-fi elements and story construction seriously, so let's just call it all 'bonkers' and the fickle public should go with it being why we compulsively watch the show."

I mean Terry Nation wasn't being "bonkers" when he came up with his visions of the future. He wasn't selling the Daleks and nightmare mutations and wars as "bonkers", and that wasn't it's appeal. The appeal was the thought that this future history could be real and could be a real challenge to the Doctor, and a reminder that there were some battles the heroes were going to lose, and that's what got us invested.

Bonkers generally means "all this crazy stuff happened and then the Doctor came up with this bonkers solution out of left field that made it all go away."

"Bonkers" doesn't really have that substance, I don't think. I saw a lot of 'bonkers' shows in my childhood, but few had the compelling staying power of Classic Who.

UncleDeadly wrote:

Burrunjor wrote:John Carpenter. I've no idea if he is a Who fan, but I know he loves Quatermass, so its not such a stretch he could find something of value in Classic Who.

Ha, interesting. That mirrors a conversation I've had with my brother, a big John Carpenter fan. I suggested that John Carpenter's take on Doctor Who could really be something worth seeing. He wasn't so sure, due to Carpenter's tendency to satirise "genre" elements. However, the guy seems a very shrewd judge of material and I reckon he'd see Doctor Who as something that needs to be played straight. 'Prince of Darkness' is a case in point, no levity there and, yes, it's occurred to me before that it would make for an excellent Who story. Besides, I'd love to see Victor Wong as the Doctor! I think he would have been tremendous. (So much for lacking diversity!)

Carpenter does occasionally border on pastiche when it comes to certain components of horror, but didn’t Who do the same thing occasionally? Although an inherently serious story at its core, The Brain Of Morbius certaintly pastiches and satarisies its key literary influences to a degree, so I’d argue that Carpenter’s style could reflect that of Robert Holmes to an extent. I agree that he’d be great- given how well The Thing holds up today, and how much it shares in common with The Seeds Of Doom, he’d be ideal in re-capturing the atmosphere and uniqueness of the Hinchcliffe era.

Edgar Wright: Though a comedy director, he does know how to build up an atmosphere, and has experience not only with horror, but action too. I can see him capturing a real modern day Pertwee style, of suburban horror and monsters in every day surroundings

UncleDeadly wrote:Not so sure about this one, having seen what Simon Pegg has been complicit in re; Star Trek. That and Wright's lack of experience with science fiction and drama lead me to conclude that he'd probably mess it up.

Although I really rate Edgar Wright as a director, I’d generally have to agree in the sense that he’d bare more of a resemblance to the New Who style (albeit likely to more intelligent effect).

Adrian Hodges: Primeval though sadly completely overlooked nowadays I think did a better job of bringing DW into the modern day. Its a shame he never got to produce the actual show

UncleDeadly wrote:Not familiar with 'Primeval' so I can't really comment on this one. However, my baseline requirement for Doctor Who at this point would quite simply be a competent producer who knows to play it STRAIGHT and not insult the material and the audience with self-parodic idiocy.

I don't know, Burrunjor, if you've seen Terry Wogan's interview with Peter Cushing in which he asks of him whether or not he ever feels tempted to send up the fantasy and horror roles he plays? Cushing's response is, quite simply "Oh no no, and you must never do that, you must take it frightfully seriously because I think, otherwise, you are being terribly rude to your audience". Davies, Moffat and co. would have done very well to listen, I think. But, then, what would the likes of Cushing know, eh? He's simply not as fantastic, brilliant and bonkers as they are, I'm sure...

“Fantastic...brilliant...bonkers”. That just sums it up- the producers of New Who have a tendency on relying on mere platitudes and rhetoric as opposed to finesse, which Cushing certainly had, and something New Who should have ideally had in order to stand up to genuine scrutiny.

Tanmann wrote:

UncleDeadly wrote:I could see that, actually. Stories like 'Embrace the Darkness' and 'Creatures of Beauty' certainly suggest that Briggs understands what makes Doctor Who tick. However, it was never going to happen, of course, because of his lack of television experience and Briggs, sadly, like all the others, gladly took an I.Q. cut and blindly followed Pied-Piper Davies like a mindless zombie, unfortunately revealing that he's prepared to be complicit in selling Doctor Who out just for the sake of getting on television and the attainment of transient popularity. That's the unforgiveable part; we know that he knows better.

Well yeah, his contentiousness toward the fans and sucking up to Upper Boat was at the back of my mind as a possible strike against him. But I could see maybe a world in which RTD's revival never happened and Briggs never lost his heart to it, and where he stuck with what had worked for him on audio as the model for the TV show. And despite what I know of his attitude to the fans, I would've probably been happy enough with his product to overlook that.

You're probably also right that his lack of TV experience would probably have disqualified him, which is a shame because I think he would've been much better at handling that transition from radio to TV writing than Saward was.

UncleDeadly wrote:I don't know, Burrunjor, if you've seen Terry Wogan's interview with Peter Cushing in which he asks of him whether or not he ever feels tempted to send up the fantasy and horror roles he plays? Cushing's response is, quite simply "Oh no no, and you must never do that, you must take it frightfully seriously because I think, otherwise, you are being terribly rude to your audience". Davies, Moffat and co. would have done very well to listen, I think. But, then, what would the likes of Cushing know, eh? He's simply not as fantastic, brilliant and bonkers as they are, I'm sure...

Yeah I really hated the way the word "bonkers" got bandied about in praise of RTD's utter cartoon logic, particularly regarding the Simm Master acting like a non-stop utter wanker onscreen.

It just seems such a cheap, empty get-out of "Oh we'd be thought of as sad if we were seen to take the show's out-there sci-fi elements and story construction seriously, so let's just call it all 'bonkers' and the fickle public should go with it being why we compulsively watch the show."

I mean Terry Nation wasn't being "bonkers" when he came up with his visions of the future. He wasn't selling the Daleks and nightmare mutations and wars as "bonkers", and that wasn't it's appeal. The appeal was the thought that this future history could be real and could be a real challenge to the Doctor, and a reminder that there were some battles the heroes were going to lose, and that's what got us invested.

Bonkers generally means "all this crazy stuff happened and then the Doctor came up with this bonkers solution out of left field that made it all go away."

"Bonkers" doesn't really have that substance, I don't think. I saw a lot of 'bonkers' shows in my childhood, but few had the compelling staying power of Classic Who.

You’ve articulated this brilliantly. The term “bonkers” is so superficial that it inherently means and says nothing, much like New Who in general.