The new Who: copycat or continuity?
Mar. 25th, 2006 12:00 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearI finished watching Dr. Who The Unquiet Dead (episode 3 of the new series) on Sci-Fi (yes, I'd seen it before). Its certainly one of the best of the new series and was the first to really show they could capture what made the original series work.
When it finished, I felt rather...driven...to watch an older story. I was called, in a sense, to watch the 1976 Tom Baker & Leela classic, Image of the Fendhal. The differences hit first, of course. The pace was so much slower back then, taking 5 minutes to introduce sideline characters rather than 15 seconds, and even then there was much in the way of backstory left out.
But then the similarities started to hit.
When it finished, I felt rather...driven...to watch an older story. I was called, in a sense, to watch the 1976 Tom Baker & Leela classic, Image of the Fendhal. The differences hit first, of course. The pace was so much slower back then, taking 5 minutes to introduce sideline characters rather than 15 seconds, and even then there was much in the way of backstory left out.
But then the similarities started to hit.
- A time fisure
- which the doctor says can lead to the impression that a place is haunted
- and where someone living in or near it has psychic abilities, and
- an alien has taken advantage of it to take control of the resident population, including
- the only attractive non-companion female in the story (who dies as a result),
- and, finally, the doctor wins by convincing a skeptic that its all real, just he's not ready to explain the alien science behind it all.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-25 04:53 pm (UTC)I've been half-watching the new series on Sci-Fi; I never caught onto any of the Dr. Who series. But I was a ST:TNG fan, and they more than once re-used or re-examined an original series plot. It often failed, but not because the plot was old -- it's all in the execution, really, isn't it?
no subject
Date: 2006-03-26 01:01 am (UTC)(BTW, just rewatched Ghost Light. Sorry, don't like it any more than I did the first time. But I'll go looking for Fendhal to see how that stacks up...)
no subject
Date: 2006-03-26 01:45 pm (UTC)at least, in contrast to the ST:TNG, Dr Who hasn't run into something from the past series and said "its like nothing we've ever encountered before", which is precisely what Data said in Farpoint when they ran into something that could have been seen as a fast-acting version of the Tholian Web.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-26 01:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-26 01:47 pm (UTC)not saying i know anything specific, just that RTD (producer, head writer) has gone back on his word once already.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-26 02:43 pm (UTC)Sorry, this is just not an episode I'm going to warm to.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-26 10:03 pm (UTC)You could say "What are the odds of two time fissures connecting to some place in England with some malevolent force that wants to come through and slaughter the world?"
Or, you could say, "It's a big universe. Time fissures are all over the place. The only ones that cause reports of hauntings are the ones where something is trying to come through. The things coming through are naturally out to protect their own survival, and have no reason to care about the people on this end, or even see us as people.
I love the new Doctor Who because of the quantum leap in cheap-ass special effects that happened during the hiatus. Of course, when your show goes off the air for something like 20 years, you're bound to learn a few new tricks.
As to the changes in pacing... The old Doctor Who was built on 30 minute installments of long story arcs. Most stories had between 3 and 6 parts, with a cliffhanger at the end of each installment. Some of the longer stories are maddening because of their speedup-slowdown-speedup-slowdown-speedup-slowdown pacing. New Doctor Who is built on single episode stories that fit into a 60 minute frame. There are some larger story arcs accross several episodes, but each episode is its own story. Naturally, the pacing is different. You don't always get the same amount of development, and it doesn't take the Doctor very long to figure out what's going on.
What gets me is that they're billing the DVD set for the Chris Eccleston season as "Season One." Hello? Didn't this show run for 25+ years before it went off the air? Isn't this picking up where the old show (and the Fox Movie) left off? How is this Season One?
Doc
no subject
Date: 2006-03-26 10:56 pm (UTC)because technically and by official bbc standards, this is in completely new hands. the show is being produced by BBC Wales, with a financial investment from CBC (Canada), in a total handover of control of licensing rights from BBC Drama that were producing the show originally. in addition, they have effectively re-titled the show also because if the show was considered an "official" continuation of the original, the licensing rights would revert to current contracts with BBC-Lionheart and PBS and it would not be affordable to send the show to America.
its tricky and it all has to do with licensing revenues and real world business requirements and nothing to do with actual continuity within the Doctor Who universe.
some people in fandom are still calling it season "27", but that holds no official status at all.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 01:26 am (UTC)Like when the comic books decided to take their most popular titles and start over at issue #1.
Doc
no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 02:32 am (UTC)comic books make new #1s out of old series for sales for collectors values. the concept is not the same.