What does New Who generally lack when compared to Classic?

Generally speaking, what would you guys say New Who lacks that restricts its longevity compared to Classic Who? I’d say that it lacks both atmosphere and audacity. New Who has always stuck to a rather glib and soap inspired atmosphere, generally enhanced by the overall tone-deafness of most of the stories and Gold’s John Williams inspired orchestral scores (especially when compared to the electronic scores of the original series, where Derbyshire’s influence would later be found in Kaftwerk, Pink Floyd etc), which deprives New Who of a refined identity and a sense of substance. In terms of audacity, this can be linked to atmosphere in how said audacity achieves atmosphere- Classic Who has always adhered to the counter-cultures of its zeitgeist, whereas New Who has adhered to the mainstream pop culture of its own zeitgeist. This is made clear by stories like The Web Planet- love it or hate it, it’s clearly an example of Classic Who branching out to its LSD driven counter culture of the 1960s, and said counter culture would come to form the more timeless and innovative aspects of the period as opposed to the conservative mantras of popculture. Classic Who’s audacious focus on the mysterious and unknown, especially in the 60s, ensures that this atmosphere is maintained. Stories like The Mind Robber and The Claws Of Axos do this too, either with their sheer surrealism or psychedelic visual look. New Who has never delved into anything particularly surreal or abstract, and instead indulges in uninspired soap storylines to appease popular culture in favour of playing it safe- something Doctor Who should inherently not be doing, and will contribute to why New Who will have aged appallingly in the coming years (not that it hasn’t already in many cases).

Would you guys agree, or would you say that I’ve missed something crucial here in terms of what New Who lacks in comparison?

You've nailed it.
A once unique tv show became like every other show on tv in the 21st century. Impregnated with contrived emotionalism, shallow characterisation and banal scripts.
Where the classic series had class, the New Series was crass. Where the classic series failed, the New Series took that as its blueprint, and then made it ten times worse.

Intelligence.

I'd say genuine warmth.

Self-respect.

Classic Who was a show that was committed to itself, worked through trial and error, dealt in serious scenarios and harsh truths, and expected you to take or leave, like or lump it as it was.

New Who is a manic, ungodly insecure project that basically has done everything to tart itself up and play wacky, dumb and common, and always goes for the same season formulas and magic dust happy ending, in constant desperation to be loved.

All good points raised here, but I think the biggest reason New Who failed in its own right, and not just in comparison to the original is the mantra "DOCTOR WHO IS ALL ABOUT CHANGE."

Speaking as a 90s fan who came to the show through random video releases, I was able to get into the show as a whole because it always felt like the same programe. I could believe that Tom Baker was William Hartnell, that Jon Pertwee and Slyvester McCoy were the same guy. I was interested in seeing how Jon Pertwee ended up exiled, how McCoy's adventures began as Hartnell etc.

The makers of Classic Who may have made the odd mistake in terms of continuity, but they always stuck to the template of the character of the Doctor, and tried to do something new within that.

New Who however hasn't bothered to maintain any kind of template, because ALL CHANGE IS GOOD, and as a result it feels disjointed.

Tennant fans aren't going to want to watch Smith. Smith is a totally different character. He has a totally different moral code. (Tennant refused to let guns be used, even if he and his friends were going to be eaten alive by monsters, whilst Matt Smith got sexually aroused at River using guns to mow down hundreds of bad guys!)

There are also very few connections between Matt and David's eras in terms of story. The earth invasions are quietly erased, no Davies era supporting characters appear, all of his story arcs are dropped etc. The changeover from producers is literally like a different show. (A lot of RTD era fans HATED Matt's time as a result.)

This never happened in Old Who. The eras all flowed into one another, because the writers and producers all saw it as being the one show. Look at Pertwee to Baker in comparison. Sarah is there for a year with Pertwee to ease the transition, UNIT the staple of Pertwee show up in 5 Baker stories, the Brig's in two, Benton's in three, even Bessie shows up in a few of Tom's early adventures etc.

Its not until Tom's third year when Sarah leaves that it cuts ties with Pertwee, but by then Tom is well established. Troughton to Pertwee meanwhile, not only where UNIT with Troughton, but Pertwee's era follows on from Troughton's last story.

Tennant to Smith however have no ties with each other really, which is why I suspect it shed millions. Imagine if Tom's era had dumped the Brig and UNIT right away, and Sarah wasn't there to ease the transition. Its viewers would have tanked too as it would have been too big a change for the Pertwee fans.

Worse still in the long term people arent going to be as interested either. Do you think if a young boy or girl watches Pisstaker they are going to equate her as being the same character as Matt or David, like I did with Hartnell and McCoy?

Similarly even Matt, slapping Clara on the bum, and going on about how horny he is when looking at guns is not going to register as the same character as Tennant.

Old Who is something that people want to see all of, because it feels like one character's adventures, New Who feels like 3 different series, vaguely linked where nothing matters.

One writer can spend years building up that the 21st century is where everything changes, only for it not mean a thing in a years time. Again in Classic Who, the odd blip aside there was nothing like that. UNIT weren't erased from existence for instance in Tom's first year.

You can't run a show by the all change is good mantra. Sooner or later you'll drive away your own fans if there is nothing concrete for them to latch onto, which New Who ultimately did even before the sex change.

burrunjor wrote:All good points raised here, but I think the biggest reason New Who failed in its own right, and not just in comparison to the original is the mantra "DOCTOR WHO IS ALL ABOUT CHANGE."

Speaking as a 90s fan who came to the show through random video releases, I was able to get into the show as a whole because it always felt like the same programe. I could believe that Tom Baker was William Hartnell, that Jon Pertwee and Slyvester McCoy were the same guy. I was interested in seeing how Jon Pertwee ended up exiled, how McCoy's adventures began as Hartnell etc.

The makers of Classic Who may have made the odd mistake in terms of continuity, but they always stuck to the template of the character of the Doctor, and tried to do something new within that.

New Who however hasn't bothered to maintain any kind of template, because ALL CHANGE IS GOOD, and as a result it feels disjointed.

Tennant fans aren't going to want to watch Smith. Smith is a totally different character. He has a totally different moral code. (Tennant refused to let guns be used, even if he and his friends were going to be eaten alive by monsters, whilst Matt Smith got sexually aroused at River using guns to mow down hundreds of bad guys!)

There are also very few connections between Matt and David's eras in terms of story. The earth invasions are quietly erased, no Davies era supporting characters appear, all of his story arcs are dropped etc. The changeover from producers is literally like a different show. (A lot of RTD era fans HATED Matt's time as a result.)

This never happened in Old Who. The eras all flowed into one another, because the writers and producers all saw it as being the one show. Look at Pertwee to Baker in comparison. Sarah is there for a year with Pertwee to ease the transition, UNIT the staple of Pertwee show up in 5 Baker stories, the Brig's in two, Benton's in three, even Bessie shows up in a few of Tom's early adventures etc.

Its not until Tom's third year when Sarah leaves that it cuts ties with Pertwee, but by then Tom is well established. Troughton to Pertwee meanwhile, not only where UNIT with Troughton, but Pertwee's era follows on from Troughton's last story.

Tennant to Smith however have no ties with each other really, which is why I suspect it shed millions. Imagine if Tom's era had dumped the Brig and UNIT right away, and Sarah wasn't there to ease the transition. Its viewers would have tanked too as it would have been too big a change for the Pertwee fans.

Worse still in the long term people arent going to be as interested either. Do you think if a young boy or girl watches Pisstaker they are going to equate her as being the same character as Matt or David, like I did with Hartnell and McCoy?

Similarly even Matt, slapping Clara on the bum, and going on about how horny he is when looking at guns is not going to register as the same character as Tennant.

Old Who is something that people want to see all of, because it feels like one character's adventures, New Who feels like 3 different series, vaguely linked where nothing matters.

One writer can spend years building up that the 21st century is where everything changes, only for it not mean a thing in a years time. Again in Classic Who, the odd blip aside there was nothing like that. UNIT weren't erased from existence for instance in Tom's first year.

You can't run a show by the all change is good mantra. Sooner or later you'll drive away your own fans if there is nothing concrete for them to latch onto, which New Who ultimately did even before the sex change.

I agree when all points raised here, and think it brilliantly encapsulates why New Who will not translate well to future generations. Its lack of consistency in its world building and characterisation is a fundamental flaw and ensures that long-term interest will not be sustained. Although I still think that its immediate flaw was RTD commissioning it as a series which celebrates mediocrity and vacuity in pop culture, as opposed to celebrating intelligence and imagination, as I outlined in my first post. This is why I become disappointed when one declares New Who to be superior due to featuring more ‘sophisticated’ effects (as Eccleston put it in that moronic BBC Breakfast interview from 2005), even though New Who is so fundamentally ordinary and unchallenging at its core. The original programme would not only embrace the counter culture of its time period as I discuss in my first post, but also frequently include allusions to challenging philosophical and scientific concepts through genuinely sophisticated dialogue.

See the Master’s rumination on existentialism in ‘The Daemons’, or the allusions to Carl Jung in ‘Warriors’ Gate’, or the ponderances on the nature of death in ‘Revelation Of the Daleks’ (which was itself based on ‘The Loved One’, a satirical novel acclaimed within its era of literature). To introduce kids to such ideas, whether it be implicit or not, is indicate of an intelligent and respectable programme at its core. I can’t think of an instance where New Who will ever inspire its audience to read up on philosophy or literature, as it has no such value to speak of at all. The ‘All change is good’ mantra derives from such an anti-intellectual stance derived from a postmodernist way of thinking- if New Who had set itself apart from such a moronic corner of modern culture, and had instead challenged and broadened the minds of those watching, perhaps such an awful mantra wouldn’t have become instilled into the programme in the first place.

burrunjor wrote:Tennant fans aren't going to want to watch Smith. Smith is a totally different character. He has a totally different moral code. (Tennant refused to let guns be used, even if he and his friends were going to be eaten alive by monsters, whilst Matt Smith got sexually aroused at River using guns to mow down hundreds of bad guys!)

I do think the difference between agonizing pacifism-minded Davison and "just desserts" Colin's moral code was just as, if not more stark and illustrative of a show that had developed a confused and skewed base-code between its makers.

However in terms of why it happened in New Who, I would put that down to something rather crass and revealing Moffat once said to try and redeem the classic show's street cred, by saying that Doctor Who was always the "bad boy" of kid's television (I think this was in DWM).

And it strikes me that much of Series 6 seemed to be Moffat going out of his way to try and make this into a truism in the hope of generating that street cred, hence the obsession with guns and making River out to be psychotic, the Doctor deciding to go to war with the Silence, titles like "Let's Kill Hitler", and of course Amy killing Kovarian in revenge.

And to my mind, he ended up proving how vacuous that approach was when taken to the extreme as a constant.

Then when I think Moffat realized the new fans were alienated by that, he decided to go some distance to over-correct with this stupid idea that only the War Doctor could've fought in the war, and the agonizing self-doubt ("am I a good man") going on with Capaldi throughout his first season, even *after* the events of Day of the Doctor should've surely, finally put that tiresome question to bed.

The bizzare thing about Moffat is that despite his attempts to backtrack on said ‘bad boy’ approach, I’d argue that Death In Heaven features said ‘bad boy’ trademarks throughout, with the sexual undertones between the Doctor and Missy, the casual, moronic and tone-deaf nature of Osgood’s death scene, how Missy’s parodic nature so badly contrasts with the morbid notion of the dead returning as Cybermen, and most of the episode as a whole. So in spite of series 8 focusing on the self-doubt aspect of the Doctor in order to backtrack, he still seems desperate to keep up the ‘bad boy’ mantra, which I’d say encapsulates another overriding issue with New Who. It’s inherently schizophrenic; tonally and in characterisation. One only has to glance at Tennant’s inconsistent moral code to see as such. The series has never known what the fuck it wants to be due to the writers also having no fucking clue- it’s an aimless and pointless series that both celebrates mediocre 21st century TV and one which has no definitive direction, and it does all this with lumbering portentousness in spite of never earning it.

To summarise: New Who is crass, schizophrenic, pretentious, inconsistent and just plain stupid as a whole, and one which frequently mocks and belittles its intelligent original counterpart for the sake of a cheap means of self-validation from the self-loathing fanboys behind it.

Misogyny and wobbly sets.

I definitely don't have the biggest reason as to why NewWho lacks into Classic Who, but a huge reason is the somewhat stagnant style. I know people generally frown upon the "Doctor Who is all about change" theory, but I would argue in Classic Who's case that it thrived on it for the better. All 8 Doctors had such unique styles each throughout their era, and that allowed it to feel like I'm experiencing 8 different franchises.
Hartnell's era was all about teaching families about history, while really focusing on character studies and worldbuilding.
Troughton's era was more fast-paced and action-oriented, focusing more on base-under-seige storylines and focusing less on historical pieces.
Pertwee's is probably the most unique in the sense that the sci-fi genre takes a backseat, and focuses more on thriller spy action, hardly having a moment to breath. It's especially apparent in Season 7 and 8.
Tom's focuses on pure Gothic horror for Seasons 12-15, then focuses more on comedy in Season 16 and 17.
Late Tom and Peter Davison's era focuses more on pure science fiction, having little to no elements of fantasy and generally having a lot of technobabble.
Colin's was more about showing the dark nature of the universe, being more hardcore about it compared to past eras.
McCoy's era was more explosive, the fastest pace at this point in Classic Who, more orchestrated music and more character pieces.
McGann's era is probably the most experimental era in the franchise. Focusing on more Alice In Wonderland-like Lovecraftian Horror, and putting an emphasis on Time Travel elements.

What sub-genre exactly does NewWho have in each era to make each one stand out? Nothing exactly, besides the Smith era, and even then, it's pretty similar to McGann's era (albeit not as great as McGann's in my eyes). Each one blends together easily, not feeling unique at all, and doesn't feel like I'm experiencing 4 different franchises.

The warmth and heart of the classic series it lacks that and the true sense of adventure.

SomeCallMeEnglishGiraffe wrote:I definitely don't have the biggest reason as to why NewWho lacks into Classic Who, but a huge reason is the somewhat stagnant style. I know people generally frown upon the "Doctor Who is all about change" theory, but I would argue in Classic Who's case that it thrived on it for the better. All 8 Doctors had such unique styles each throughout their era, and that allowed it to feel like I'm experiencing 8 different franchises.
Hartnell's era was all about teaching families about history, while really focusing on character studies and worldbuilding.
Troughton's era was more fast-paced and action-oriented, focusing more on base-under-seige storylines and focusing less on historical pieces.
Pertwee's is probably the most unique in the sense that the sci-fi genre takes a backseat, and focuses more on thriller spy action, hardly having a moment to breath. It's especially apparent in Season 7 and 8.
Tom's focuses on pure Gothic horror for Seasons 12-15, then focuses more on comedy in Season 16 and 17.
Late Tom and Peter Davison's era focuses more on pure science fiction, having little to no elements of fantasy and generally having a lot of technobabble.
Colin's was more about showing the dark nature of the universe, being more hardcore about it compared to past eras.
McCoy's era was more explosive, the fastest pace at this point in Classic Who, more orchestrated music and more character pieces.
McGann's era is probably the most experimental era in the franchise. Focusing on more Alice In Wonderland-like Lovecraftian Horror, and putting an emphasis on Time Travel elements.

What sub-genre exactly does NewWho have in each era to make each one stand out? Nothing exactly, besides the Smith era, and even then, it's pretty similar to McGann's era (albeit not as great as McGann's in my eyes). Each one blends together easily, not feeling unique at all, and doesn't feel like I'm experiencing 4 different franchises.

I totally agree. Classic Who was versatile in terms of style, despite maintaining its own continuity. New Who is so formulaic for much of it that it lacks any distinctive sub genre.

#BeKind wrote:Misogyny and wobbly sets.

It ain't no fun if the homies can't have none.....

Bernard Marx wrote:The bizzare thing about Moffat is that despite his attempts to backtrack on said ‘bad boy’ approach, I’d argue that Death In Heaven features said ‘bad boy’ trademarks throughout, with the sexual undertones between the Doctor and Missy, the casual, moronic and tone-deaf nature of Osgood’s death scene, how Missy’s parodic nature so badly contrasts with the morbid notion of the dead returning as Cybermen, and most of the episode as a whole. So in spite of series 8 focusing on the self-doubt aspect of the Doctor in order to backtrack, he still seems desperate to keep up the ‘bad boy’ mantra

Well I would say that was a case of Moffat trying to have his cake and eat it too.

You're right that the story's hedonistic indulgence of Missy's slaughter does feel downright nasty and sociopathic.

But I think Moffat was consciousness enough of New who's viewership to try to be careful to ensure the Doctor himself kept his hands largely clean.

There was actually a moment after Osgood's death where Capaldi stumbled upon her ashes and glasses and then Missy popped her head around, and for a moment it looked like Capaldi was going to genuinely throttle her.

But then we cut away and Capladi's remained just a paralytic punching bag for Missy's mocking (it's almost as if the instincts of the actor and what was written in the script drastically clashed a moment, and I saw how neutered and puppeteered his Doctor was by the writers).

Even at the end when he's about to shoot Missy, the Cyberbrig comes along and does it for him just to spare him the blood on his hands.

Even Hell Bent ends up softening his Doctor's gunplay with a line about 'man-flu'.

, which I’d say encapsulates another overriding issue with New Who. It’s inherently schizophrenic; tonally and in characterisation. One only has to glance at Tennant’s inconsistent moral code to see as such. The series has never known what the fuck it wants to be due to the writers also having no fucking clue- it’s an aimless and pointless series that both celebrates mediocre 21st century TV and one which has no definitive direction, and it does all this with lumbering portentousness in spite of never earning it.

I think it started with some sense of purpose in terms of wanting to tie up some loose ends from the classic series, and find out what had happened to the Doctor since. There was I suppose an overarching message to Eccleston's first season about living a life experience to the full in the shadow of mortality and danger, represented by the Doctor who lost everything and is now fighting to preserve life where he can and prevent the same fate befalling Earth.

Then with Tennant it seemed to ride and coast on that idea, that success and that theme, taking an ever increasing turn into the downright emotionally hysterical and cultish (Love & Monsters, Last of the Time Lords).

End of Time felt more like a burnout of all that, than a genuine culmination.

Moffat's era is where it just seems to become themeless, and resorting to ever more contrived soap drama between the Ponds and navelgazing about the 'awesomeness' of the Doctor.

Anything that seemed like it could've been a theme, like Amy's attachment/abandonment issues, the tragedy of losing their daughter to a sinister cult, or even the dreaded day that River will have to have her last night with the Doctor.... all just seemed to be handled or resolved in the most feckless, flippant, or impatient way possible.

It all just seemed to be based on trying something cinematic and outlandish (The Pandorica Opens) and then spending a whole season arc after contriving to have the Doctor decide to backtrack from that ("I got too noisy. Time I went back into the shadows") or go to the other extreme.

There was a lot of talk in his era about the love of stories about heroes, but gradually, bit by bit, it seemed to become more about Moffat's gleeful, smug love of being a compulsive liar through his writing.

Series 11 seemed to actually have an intent in mind about getting back to that first theme, with Jodie's Doctor taking the companions through their experience of grief at Grace's death by showing them new life wonders on other worlds.

And yet it all seemed to fizzle out fast, for whatever reason. It ended up all feeling safe and weightless.

Tension and Horror.

Charm.

Tanman wrote:There was actually a moment after Osgood's death where Capaldi stumbled upon her ashes and glasses and then Missy popped her head around, and for a moment it looked like Capaldi was going to genuinely throttle her.

But then we cut away and Capladi's remained just a paralytic punching bag for Missy's mocking (it's almost as if the instincts of the actor and what was written in the script drastically clashed a moment, and I saw how neutered and puppeteered his Doctor was by the writers).

That was the moment Capaldi lost me. Never mind in comparison to the previous Doctors, can you imagine ANY hero being that big a pussy.

You can have the villain do something really nasty to the heroes loved ones, but there has to be some kind of pay off. There has to be a reason for it in the story, it has to move the feud between the hero and the villain to another level, and the hero has to at least make the villain pay in some way, or even just get angry like the audience is etc.

With Missy killing Osgood NONE of that happens. The Doctor fucking kisses Missy two mins later, its never brought up as a horrible thing she did, and the Doctor goes as far as to justify Osgood's death in a later episode and compares her slaughter to eating a bacon sandwhich.

Compare that to this clip from Return of the Joker which was written by professionals and not self loathing fanboy hacks. Here the Joker does something really nasty to Robin, but there is a reason for it in story, it does elevate the Batman/Joker feud, and Batman gives the Joker the beating of a life time for it.

Steven Moffat wrote:
BILL: She's a murderer.
DOCTOR: Enjoying your bacon sandwich?
BILL: Why?
DOCTOR: Because it had a mummy and a daddy. Go tell a pig about your moral high ground

Osgood really should have looked up to Batman instead of that cuck. Batman might not kill the Joker, but at least he doesn't insult his victims by comparing them to bacon, so he can hang around with the Joker.

burrunjor wrote:You can have the villain do something really nasty to the heroes loved ones, but there has to be some kind of pay off. There has to be a reason for it in the story, it has to move the feud between the hero and the villain to another level, and the hero has to at least make the villain pay in some way, or even just get angry like the audience is etc.

With Missy killing Osgood NONE of that happens.

Absolutely.

It didn't have any narrative point or reason to happen at all (I don't think anything in the story did). It was just a cheap and nasty scene for its own sake (I'd say it was a cheap shock tactic if it wasn't so smugly telegraphed). Moffat said the only reason he did it was to make Missy seem more dangerous, but you're right that it didn't raise any stakes between hero and villain at all. So it just reeked of Moffat's insecurity about the villainess' effectiveness.

The Doctor fucking kisses Missy two mins later

I don't know how much of Moffat's Sherlock you've seen, but something *very* similar happens at the end of The Final Problem concerning a similar mass-murdering villainess, and it feels just as uncomfortable.

Compare that to this clip from Return of the Joker which was written by professionals and not self loathing fanboy hacks. Here the Joker does something really nasty to Robin, but there is a reason for it in story, it does elevate the Batman/Joker feud, and Batman gives the Joker the beating of a life time for it.

Now that scene really worked. It gets you emotionally involved, but it also quite effectively shows how when Batman loses control, the Joker can get the upper hand. It was very cleverly done without telling you how clever it's point is.

Above all of its other shortcomings, the one that ultimately destroyed NuWho was its lack of creative integrity and self-belief. TruWho wasn't perfect in this regard, but with scum like Michael Grade and whichever idiot fired Hinchcliffe in charge of the BBC, it couldn't be. Obeying instructions to tone down the violence or inject a little pantomime silliness is in no way comparable to fundamentally abandoning what made the show Doctor Who to pander to a sci-fi-hating mainstream audience. Even at its most compromised by BBC interference, the classic series always retained its basic heart and essence. Most importantly, there's absolutely no way that any of the classic series' producers or script editors would have acquiesced to demands from hateful, bigoted extremists that the show tell impressionable young boys they're inferior because of their race and gender.

"The universe is full of testosterone. Trust me, it's unbearable."

"What's that face? Are you thinking? Stop it. You're a man, it looks weird."

"White people."

"White people what?"

"Always so optimistic. Always so certain things are going to work out for you. Oh, well, because they usually do."

"My dad tried to kill me when I was eight."

"But you got your mum up walking again. Typical white-person happy ending."

"So, please, as much as it is possible for a human male, try not to be an idiot."

"Is the future going to be all girl? We can only hope."

Boofer wrote:Charm.

Strangeness and Quark.

ClockworkOcean wrote:Above all of its other shortcomings, the one that ultimately destroyed NuWho was its lack of creative integrity and self-belief. TruWho wasn't perfect in this regard, but with scum like Michael Grade and whichever idiot fired Hinchcliffe in charge of the BBC, it couldn't be.

I read someone say somewhere that Mary Whitehouse actually had some powerful contacts in the BBC in the 1970's, and it was through them that she was able to exercise power over certain producers' careers, and this might be how she got taken seriously enough to get Hinchcliffe shitcanned.

Bernard Marx wrote:

burrunjor wrote:All good points raised here, but I think the biggest reason New Who failed in its own right, and not just in comparison to the original is the mantra "DOCTOR WHO IS ALL ABOUT CHANGE."

Speaking as a 90s fan who came to the show through random video releases, I was able to get into the show as a whole because it always felt like the same programe. I could believe that Tom Baker was William Hartnell, that Jon Pertwee and Slyvester McCoy were the same guy. I was interested in seeing how Jon Pertwee ended up exiled, how McCoy's adventures began as Hartnell etc.

The makers of Classic Who may have made the odd mistake in terms of continuity, but they always stuck to the template of the character of the Doctor, and tried to do something new within that.

New Who however hasn't bothered to maintain any kind of template, because ALL CHANGE IS GOOD, and as a result it feels disjointed.

Tennant fans aren't going to want to watch Smith. Smith is a totally different character. He has a totally different moral code. (Tennant refused to let guns be used, even if he and his friends were going to be eaten alive by monsters, whilst Matt Smith got sexually aroused at River using guns to mow down hundreds of bad guys!)

There are also very few connections between Matt and David's eras in terms of story. The earth invasions are quietly erased, no Davies era supporting characters appear, all of his story arcs are dropped etc. The changeover from producers is literally like a different show. (A lot of RTD era fans HATED Matt's time as a result.)

This never happened in Old Who. The eras all flowed into one another, because the writers and producers all saw it as being the one show. Look at Pertwee to Baker in comparison. Sarah is there for a year with Pertwee to ease the transition, UNIT the staple of Pertwee show up in 5 Baker stories, the Brig's in two, Benton's in three, even Bessie shows up in a few of Tom's early adventures etc.

Its not until Tom's third year when Sarah leaves that it cuts ties with Pertwee, but by then Tom is well established. Troughton to Pertwee meanwhile, not only where UNIT with Troughton, but Pertwee's era follows on from Troughton's last story.

Tennant to Smith however have no ties with each other really, which is why I suspect it shed millions. Imagine if Tom's era had dumped the Brig and UNIT right away, and Sarah wasn't there to ease the transition. Its viewers would have tanked too as it would have been too big a change for the Pertwee fans.

Worse still in the long term people arent going to be as interested either. Do you think if a young boy or girl watches Pisstaker they are going to equate her as being the same character as Matt or David, like I did with Hartnell and McCoy?

Similarly even Matt, slapping Clara on the bum, and going on about how horny he is when looking at guns is not going to register as the same character as Tennant.

Old Who is something that people want to see all of, because it feels like one character's adventures, New Who feels like 3 different series, vaguely linked where nothing matters.

One writer can spend years building up that the 21st century is where everything changes, only for it not mean a thing in a years time. Again in Classic Who, the odd blip aside there was nothing like that. UNIT weren't erased from existence for instance in Tom's first year.

You can't run a show by the all change is good mantra. Sooner or later you'll drive away your own fans if there is nothing concrete for them to latch onto, which New Who ultimately did even before the sex change.

I agree when all points raised here, and think it brilliantly encapsulates why New Who will not translate well to future generations. Its lack of consistency in its world building and characterisation is a fundamental flaw and ensures that long-term interest will not be sustained. Although I still think that its immediate flaw was RTD commissioning it as a series which celebrates mediocrity and vacuity in pop culture, as opposed to celebrating intelligence and imagination, as I outlined in my first post. This is why I become disappointed when one declares New Who to be superior due to featuring more ‘sophisticated’ effects (as Eccleston put it in that moronic BBC Breakfast interview from 2005), even though New Who is so fundamentally ordinary and unchallenging at its core. The original programme would not only embrace the counter culture of its time period as I discuss in my first post, but also frequently include allusions to challenging philosophical and scientific concepts through genuinely sophisticated dialogue.

See the Master’s rumination on existentialism in ‘The Daemons’, or the allusions to Carl Jung in ‘Warriors’ Gate’, or the ponderances on the nature of death in ‘Revelation Of the Daleks’ (which was itself based on ‘The Loved One’, a satirical novel acclaimed within its era of literature). To introduce kids to such ideas, whether it be implicit or not, is indicate of an intelligent and respectable programme at its core. I can’t think of an instance where New Who will ever inspire its audience to read up on philosophy or literature, as it has no such value to speak of at all. The ‘All change is good’ mantra derives from such an anti-intellectual stance derived from a postmodernist way of thinking- if New Who had set itself apart from such a moronic corner of modern culture, and had instead challenged and broadened the minds of those watching, perhaps such an awful mantra wouldn’t have become instilled into the programme in the first place.

Excellent post that I wholeheartedly agree with but in fairness, both Professor Lazarus and the Doctor quote from TS Eliot's 'The Hollow Men' in (the otherwise execrable) 'The Lazarus Experiment' (2007):

Lazarus: I find that nothing's ever exactly like you expect. There's always something to surprise you. Between the idea and the reality, between the motion and the act
Doctor: Falls the Shadow.
Lazarus: So the mysterious Doctor knows his Eliot. I'm impressed.

Kaijuko wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:

burrunjor wrote:All good points raised here, but I think the biggest reason New Who failed in its own right, and not just in comparison to the original is the mantra "DOCTOR WHO IS ALL ABOUT CHANGE."

Speaking as a 90s fan who came to the show through random video releases, I was able to get into the show as a whole because it always felt like the same programe. I could believe that Tom Baker was William Hartnell, that Jon Pertwee and Slyvester McCoy were the same guy. I was interested in seeing how Jon Pertwee ended up exiled, how McCoy's adventures began as Hartnell etc.

The makers of Classic Who may have made the odd mistake in terms of continuity, but they always stuck to the template of the character of the Doctor, and tried to do something new within that.

New Who however hasn't bothered to maintain any kind of template, because ALL CHANGE IS GOOD, and as a result it feels disjointed.

Tennant fans aren't going to want to watch Smith. Smith is a totally different character. He has a totally different moral code. (Tennant refused to let guns be used, even if he and his friends were going to be eaten alive by monsters, whilst Matt Smith got sexually aroused at River using guns to mow down hundreds of bad guys!)

There are also very few connections between Matt and David's eras in terms of story. The earth invasions are quietly erased, no Davies era supporting characters appear, all of his story arcs are dropped etc. The changeover from producers is literally like a different show. (A lot of RTD era fans HATED Matt's time as a result.)

This never happened in Old Who. The eras all flowed into one another, because the writers and producers all saw it as being the one show. Look at Pertwee to Baker in comparison. Sarah is there for a year with Pertwee to ease the transition, UNIT the staple of Pertwee show up in 5 Baker stories, the Brig's in two, Benton's in three, even Bessie shows up in a few of Tom's early adventures etc.

Its not until Tom's third year when Sarah leaves that it cuts ties with Pertwee, but by then Tom is well established. Troughton to Pertwee meanwhile, not only where UNIT with Troughton, but Pertwee's era follows on from Troughton's last story.

Tennant to Smith however have no ties with each other really, which is why I suspect it shed millions. Imagine if Tom's era had dumped the Brig and UNIT right away, and Sarah wasn't there to ease the transition. Its viewers would have tanked too as it would have been too big a change for the Pertwee fans.

Worse still in the long term people arent going to be as interested either. Do you think if a young boy or girl watches Pisstaker they are going to equate her as being the same character as Matt or David, like I did with Hartnell and McCoy?

Similarly even Matt, slapping Clara on the bum, and going on about how horny he is when looking at guns is not going to register as the same character as Tennant.

Old Who is something that people want to see all of, because it feels like one character's adventures, New Who feels like 3 different series, vaguely linked where nothing matters.

One writer can spend years building up that the 21st century is where everything changes, only for it not mean a thing in a years time. Again in Classic Who, the odd blip aside there was nothing like that. UNIT weren't erased from existence for instance in Tom's first year.

You can't run a show by the all change is good mantra. Sooner or later you'll drive away your own fans if there is nothing concrete for them to latch onto, which New Who ultimately did even before the sex change.

I agree when all points raised here, and think it brilliantly encapsulates why New Who will not translate well to future generations. Its lack of consistency in its world building and characterisation is a fundamental flaw and ensures that long-term interest will not be sustained. Although I still think that its immediate flaw was RTD commissioning it as a series which celebrates mediocrity and vacuity in pop culture, as opposed to celebrating intelligence and imagination, as I outlined in my first post. This is why I become disappointed when one declares New Who to be superior due to featuring more ‘sophisticated’ effects (as Eccleston put it in that moronic BBC Breakfast interview from 2005), even though New Who is so fundamentally ordinary and unchallenging at its core. The original programme would not only embrace the counter culture of its time period as I discuss in my first post, but also frequently include allusions to challenging philosophical and scientific concepts through genuinely sophisticated dialogue.

See the Master’s rumination on existentialism in ‘The Daemons’, or the allusions to Carl Jung in ‘Warriors’ Gate’, or the ponderances on the nature of death in ‘Revelation Of the Daleks’ (which was itself based on ‘The Loved One’, a satirical novel acclaimed within its era of literature). To introduce kids to such ideas, whether it be implicit or not, is indicate of an intelligent and respectable programme at its core. I can’t think of an instance where New Who will ever inspire its audience to read up on philosophy or literature, as it has no such value to speak of at all. The ‘All change is good’ mantra derives from such an anti-intellectual stance derived from a postmodernist way of thinking- if New Who had set itself apart from such a moronic corner of modern culture, and had instead challenged and broadened the minds of those watching, perhaps such an awful mantra wouldn’t have become instilled into the programme in the first place.

Excellent post that I wholeheartedly agree with but in fairness, both Professor Lazarus and the Doctor quote from TS Eliot's 'The Hollow Men' in (the otherwise execrable) 'The Lazarus Experiment' (2007):

Lazarus: I find that nothing's ever exactly like you expect. There's always something to surprise you. Between the idea and the reality, between the motion and the act
Doctor: Falls the Shadow.
Lazarus: So the mysterious Doctor knows his Eliot. I'm impressed.

That’s very true actually. I guess I didn’t give New Who as much credit as I should- although having watched Apocalypse Now last night and seeing Eliot’s ‘Ths Hollow Men’ being implemented in an intelligent and Jungian manner (via the layering of the ‘shadow’ via Kurtz’z half lit face and hindered posture amidst his reading of the text) as opposed to via a throaway line, it does seem a bit half arsed. Although I’m curious as to what The Lazarus Experiment would have been like if done in the original series, especially given the borderline allegorical way in which Warriors’ Gate alludes to the suppression of imagination whilst also evoking Jean Cocteau’s inherently philosophical filmography (see ‘The Orphic Trilogy’) in its direction and script.

Bernard Marx wrote:

Kaijuko wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:

burrunjor wrote:All good points raised here, but I think the biggest reason New Who failed in its own right, and not just in comparison to the original is the mantra "DOCTOR WHO IS ALL ABOUT CHANGE."

Speaking as a 90s fan who came to the show through random video releases, I was able to get into the show as a whole because it always felt like the same programe. I could believe that Tom Baker was William Hartnell, that Jon Pertwee and Slyvester McCoy were the same guy. I was interested in seeing how Jon Pertwee ended up exiled, how McCoy's adventures began as Hartnell etc.

The makers of Classic Who may have made the odd mistake in terms of continuity, but they always stuck to the template of the character of the Doctor, and tried to do something new within that.

New Who however hasn't bothered to maintain any kind of template, because ALL CHANGE IS GOOD, and as a result it feels disjointed.

Tennant fans aren't going to want to watch Smith. Smith is a totally different character. He has a totally different moral code. (Tennant refused to let guns be used, even if he and his friends were going to be eaten alive by monsters, whilst Matt Smith got sexually aroused at River using guns to mow down hundreds of bad guys!)

There are also very few connections between Matt and David's eras in terms of story. The earth invasions are quietly erased, no Davies era supporting characters appear, all of his story arcs are dropped etc. The changeover from producers is literally like a different show. (A lot of RTD era fans HATED Matt's time as a result.)

This never happened in Old Who. The eras all flowed into one another, because the writers and producers all saw it as being the one show. Look at Pertwee to Baker in comparison. Sarah is there for a year with Pertwee to ease the transition, UNIT the staple of Pertwee show up in 5 Baker stories, the Brig's in two, Benton's in three, even Bessie shows up in a few of Tom's early adventures etc.

Its not until Tom's third year when Sarah leaves that it cuts ties with Pertwee, but by then Tom is well established. Troughton to Pertwee meanwhile, not only where UNIT with Troughton, but Pertwee's era follows on from Troughton's last story.

Tennant to Smith however have no ties with each other really, which is why I suspect it shed millions. Imagine if Tom's era had dumped the Brig and UNIT right away, and Sarah wasn't there to ease the transition. Its viewers would have tanked too as it would have been too big a change for the Pertwee fans.

Worse still in the long term people arent going to be as interested either. Do you think if a young boy or girl watches Pisstaker they are going to equate her as being the same character as Matt or David, like I did with Hartnell and McCoy?

Similarly even Matt, slapping Clara on the bum, and going on about how horny he is when looking at guns is not going to register as the same character as Tennant.

Old Who is something that people want to see all of, because it feels like one character's adventures, New Who feels like 3 different series, vaguely linked where nothing matters.

One writer can spend years building up that the 21st century is where everything changes, only for it not mean a thing in a years time. Again in Classic Who, the odd blip aside there was nothing like that. UNIT weren't erased from existence for instance in Tom's first year.

You can't run a show by the all change is good mantra. Sooner or later you'll drive away your own fans if there is nothing concrete for them to latch onto, which New Who ultimately did even before the sex change.

I agree when all points raised here, and think it brilliantly encapsulates why New Who will not translate well to future generations. Its lack of consistency in its world building and characterisation is a fundamental flaw and ensures that long-term interest will not be sustained. Although I still think that its immediate flaw was RTD commissioning it as a series which celebrates mediocrity and vacuity in pop culture, as opposed to celebrating intelligence and imagination, as I outlined in my first post. This is why I become disappointed when one declares New Who to be superior due to featuring more ‘sophisticated’ effects (as Eccleston put it in that moronic BBC Breakfast interview from 2005), even though New Who is so fundamentally ordinary and unchallenging at its core. The original programme would not only embrace the counter culture of its time period as I discuss in my first post, but also frequently include allusions to challenging philosophical and scientific concepts through genuinely sophisticated dialogue.

See the Master’s rumination on existentialism in ‘The Daemons’, or the allusions to Carl Jung in ‘Warriors’ Gate’, or the ponderances on the nature of death in ‘Revelation Of the Daleks’ (which was itself based on ‘The Loved One’, a satirical novel acclaimed within its era of literature). To introduce kids to such ideas, whether it be implicit or not, is indicate of an intelligent and respectable programme at its core. I can’t think of an instance where New Who will ever inspire its audience to read up on philosophy or literature, as it has no such value to speak of at all. The ‘All change is good’ mantra derives from such an anti-intellectual stance derived from a postmodernist way of thinking- if New Who had set itself apart from such a moronic corner of modern culture, and had instead challenged and broadened the minds of those watching, perhaps such an awful mantra wouldn’t have become instilled into the programme in the first place.

Excellent post that I wholeheartedly agree with but in fairness, both Professor Lazarus and the Doctor quote from TS Eliot's 'The Hollow Men' in (the otherwise execrable) 'The Lazarus Experiment' (2007):

Lazarus: I find that nothing's ever exactly like you expect. There's always something to surprise you. Between the idea and the reality, between the motion and the act
Doctor: Falls the Shadow.
Lazarus: So the mysterious Doctor knows his Eliot. I'm impressed.

That’s very true actually. I guess I didn’t give New Who as much credit as I should- although having watched Apocalypse Now last night and seeing Eliot’s ‘Ths Hollow Men’ being implemented in an intelligent and Jungian manner (via the layering of the ‘shadow’ via Kurtz’z half lit face and hindered posture amidst his reading of the text) as opposed to via a throaway line, it does seem a bit half arsed. Although I’m curious as to what The Lazarus Experiment would have been like if done in the original series, especially given the borderline allegorical way in which Warriors’ Gate alludes to the suppression of imagination whilst also evoking Jean Cocteau’s inherently philosophical filmography (see ‘The Orphic Trilogy’) in its direction and script.

Yes, all true and please don't think I'm attempting to defend NuWho - the Eliot quote is just one gem in the usual deluge of disposable pop culture references.  In general, TLE is very poor indeed, even by NuWho's low standards (as is usually the case when Gatiss' name is attached to an episode) and probably owes more to a Quatermass fixation than anything else (though a very dumbed-down, superficial understanding of Nigel Kneale's iconic stories). Oh, and RTD's insistence that the episode should resemble a typical Marvel Comics plotline '"a good old mad scientist, with an experiment gone wrong, and an outrageous supervillain on the loose."
Now, using Quatermass and old Marvel Comics as inspiration (not to mention Eliot: "I am, Lazarus, come from the dead.." - 'The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock') should have produced a great (or at least memorable) episode - yet 'The Lazarus Experiment' is shallow and silly and utterly unconvincing - a pointless runaround with truly awful special effects.