Excuse me, Doctor...Who?
Mar. 17th, 2006 11:52 pmI can no longer claim to be a Doctor Who virgin. I've watched two episodes of the 2005 season (the ninth doctor) and the third one is starting right now. (Edit: no, apparently this is a repeat of the first episode. I don't know why the tivo recorded it twice.)
I set the tivo to record these because a) they're showing on the Sci Fi channel, b) I'm curious, never having seen the series, and c) I've gotten a taste of the Doctor and Rose as played by
purplerhino in the
crossing_lostrp game. I figured it was time to dip my toe in the water and see how it felt.
I'd never watched Doctor Who for a variety of reasons. It was my impression, from what I'd heard or read over the years, that it was a cheesy, silly sci fi show done on a shoestring budget by the BBC. That it was an acquired taste that I was previously unable to attempt to acquire without buying a videotape or CD at a con. Something I was unwilling to do sight unseen. But--hey, it'll be turning up on Sci Fi. I can tivo it for free and watch it whenever I feel the urge. Opportunity cost has never been lower.
So I watched. Was it what I expected?
Well, yes and no. It's not a high-budget production. Certainly they spend nothing like what gets spent on a series like Stargate or Battlestar Galactica. On the other hand, it wasn't merely a step up from an amateur high school production, as I'd long imagined it would be. (Think of the original Dark Shadows with a British accent--that's what I envisioned.) On the gripping hand, all I've seen is two episodes from 2005. Computer graphics and special effects are vastly cheaper and easier than once they were. Older series of the show might be just as cheesy looking as I imagine them to be.
It's not highbrow art, but who cares? A lot of what I like to watch isn't. It was entertaining enough that I'll probably watch some more episodes. Killer mannequins, man-eating plastic garbage bins, and sentient pools of liquid plastic are not the stuff of legend, but I've skipped past far worse (on a sadly regular basis) on this same Sci Fi channel.
The Doctor is interesting. Listening to conversations about who was the best (or "real") James Bond over the years, I've concluded that as a rule people who enjoy Bond films tend to "imprint" on whomever they first see in the role. I suspect, for similar reasons, that Christopher Eccleston will always be the real Doctor Who as far as I'm concerned, and all the other Doctors will seem like mere placeholders. Not that I actually expect to see any of the earlier series. I'm not that interested.
I have to say that The Doctor has excellent taste in traveling companions. BIllie Piper (as Rose Tyler) is a very sexy woman. I've seen photos of her before this and she's nice enough to look at but nothing special. When she's animated she's much more interesting to watch.
So...anyway. There you have it. My review (such as it is) of Dr. Who.
I set the tivo to record these because a) they're showing on the Sci Fi channel, b) I'm curious, never having seen the series, and c) I've gotten a taste of the Doctor and Rose as played by
I'd never watched Doctor Who for a variety of reasons. It was my impression, from what I'd heard or read over the years, that it was a cheesy, silly sci fi show done on a shoestring budget by the BBC. That it was an acquired taste that I was previously unable to attempt to acquire without buying a videotape or CD at a con. Something I was unwilling to do sight unseen. But--hey, it'll be turning up on Sci Fi. I can tivo it for free and watch it whenever I feel the urge. Opportunity cost has never been lower.
So I watched. Was it what I expected?
Well, yes and no. It's not a high-budget production. Certainly they spend nothing like what gets spent on a series like Stargate or Battlestar Galactica. On the other hand, it wasn't merely a step up from an amateur high school production, as I'd long imagined it would be. (Think of the original Dark Shadows with a British accent--that's what I envisioned.) On the gripping hand, all I've seen is two episodes from 2005. Computer graphics and special effects are vastly cheaper and easier than once they were. Older series of the show might be just as cheesy looking as I imagine them to be.
It's not highbrow art, but who cares? A lot of what I like to watch isn't. It was entertaining enough that I'll probably watch some more episodes. Killer mannequins, man-eating plastic garbage bins, and sentient pools of liquid plastic are not the stuff of legend, but I've skipped past far worse (on a sadly regular basis) on this same Sci Fi channel.
The Doctor is interesting. Listening to conversations about who was the best (or "real") James Bond over the years, I've concluded that as a rule people who enjoy Bond films tend to "imprint" on whomever they first see in the role. I suspect, for similar reasons, that Christopher Eccleston will always be the real Doctor Who as far as I'm concerned, and all the other Doctors will seem like mere placeholders. Not that I actually expect to see any of the earlier series. I'm not that interested.
I have to say that The Doctor has excellent taste in traveling companions. BIllie Piper (as Rose Tyler) is a very sexy woman. I've seen photos of her before this and she's nice enough to look at but nothing special. When she's animated she's much more interesting to watch.
So...anyway. There you have it. My review (such as it is) of Dr. Who.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-18 12:35 pm (UTC)*shrug*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-18 08:13 pm (UTC)Well, maybe the tenth doctor, since Rose is in that one too.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-18 01:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-18 02:04 pm (UTC)Like I told
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-18 08:16 pm (UTC)Well...
Date: 2006-03-18 04:32 pm (UTC)It had often excellent scripting and acting, in the British Theatre tradition. And an amazing range of concepts and approaches, made possible by its format.
The difference with "Bonds" VS "Doctors" is that The Doctor is the SAME man. It's not another person PLAYING him. The Doctor really DOES change his appearance periodically, and so a new actor coming into the role has to deal with the continuity; they have to take the Doctor from who he was when they took over to the Doctor that they intend him to be. And the same is true for the next one.
Eccleston did a very good job, but I think it's a real shame he didn't continue with the role. He had just managed to define the Doctor well by the time the season ended; at least half the season is dedicated to him "working through" who he is and why he ISN'T like the Doctor of old, and how to find his way back to BEING the Doctor.
In a sense, it's a shame you never started with the earlier ones; starting with Eccleston and the modern-day actual budgets, you may never find it possible to appreciate the earlier ones, but some of those were truly wonderful mood and concept pieces -- "The Horror of Fang Rock", the E-Space sequence (especially "State of Decay"), the many appearances of The Master, The Pyramids of Mars, Evil of the Daleks, The Green Death... and many more.
For me, the defining Doctor is Tom Baker; but that's because he (A) played the role longer than anyone else, and (B) he was the one whose image was associated with the show more than anyone else. My FAVORITE Doctor is either Tom Baker or Jon Pertwee. Eccleston, had he continued, might have been able to work his way into that category. He's probably number three for me, tied with Patrick Troughton.
Re: Well...
Date: 2006-03-18 08:20 pm (UTC)Yeah, even I know who Tom Baker (he of the curly hair and eye-searing scarves) is. And he's who I thought of when I heard Dr. Who mentioned for lo these many years. Though I suspect now that it'll be Eccleston that I envision.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-18 04:46 pm (UTC)The older series really were done on a shoestring budget - witness the incredible technological powers of.. tinfoil! - and my parents did think of it as cheesy. I do, now, but I still love it and will do Dalek impressions if suitably moved. Nostalgia's funny that way. I also covet my friend Jess' Tom Baker-like scarf, because he's the first Doctor I remember (weird, since he stopped playing that character when I was 4.. *eep* I really did get hooked early..).
As for the new series, it's easy to watch while doing umpteen other things. The BBC really don't have the budget to make it look as good as Stargate or BSG, because it would cause too much of a public outcry - the channel is publicly funded via the TV license fee rather than showing adverts every 15 minutes - but they've done well in keeping it modern but cheesy enough to keep older fans happy :)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-18 05:03 pm (UTC)I'm a Doctor Who fan from the old school. I grew up wit Partwee, Baker and Davidson. But Eccleston really stole my heart as The Doctor. He is both energetic and dynamic, and full of pathos as this version has to be.
Is it high drama? Hell no. Though it has dramatic moment. The Cheeze factor has always been a big draw to the series. (Green painted bubble wrap, plastic mannequins(these days could have been more human looking, but then it would have detracted from the cheese), and a bitchy trampoline are just part of the appeal.
It isn't for everyone. I know that. But then I know people who really detest the new Battle Star Gallactica because it's missing the old series cheesiness.
Anyhow, I was thrilled to see your review. And I'm really glad you at least took a look. And even if you HATED it, I'd still annoy you with the Doctor and Rose on
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-18 05:49 pm (UTC)LOL!
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-18 08:24 pm (UTC)I avoided the remake of Battlestar Galactica (the miniseries) the first time around precisely because I couldn't imagine how it could be done WITHOUT the cheesiness of the original. (I confess to watching the original, but mostly so I could hoot and mock and point and laugh with my friends.)
Then Ron Moore turned it into something worth watching.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-20 01:33 pm (UTC)I wasn't particularly impressed, but everyone keeps telling me that it will get better.