Things required to get the new DW into canon?

[Chancellor Valium]

Kinda inspired (or mercilessly ripped from) Inf Imp's thread, I thought I'd start this one.....

No.1 requirement I think would have to be scrapping the last season :mrgreen:
Alternatively, a regeneration would have been nice...

[PointyHairedJedi]

Okay, ignoring the issue of DW and "canon" totally, what is it about the new series that you feel is so radically wrong that it needs to be changed? I'm curious to know (though I suspect RTD has a lot to do with it).

[Chancellor Valium]

Originally Posted by PointyHairedJedi

Okay, ignoring the issue of DW and "canon" totally, what is it about the new series that you feel is so radically wrong that it needs to be changed? I'm curious to know (though I suspect RTD has a lot to do with it).

RTD is in fact the crux of the matter. His scripts would be fine for, say, Crossroads, but as science fiction, they're utter utter tosh. He manages to muck up a simple "alien threat to the world" plot even! I mean, it is authorial noobishness on a bizarrely huge scale....To put it bluntly, he has crap scripts and crap plots.

[Anonymous]

So, I take it the bulk of your solution would be to find a new series producer and writers?

[richardson]

DW?

Could you please put that into non-abbeviated form?

It's all right with the un-unnoticable generes, like SW, and ST, but I've never heard of DW...

[mudshark]

That would be Doctor Who.

[Chancellor Valium]

Originally Posted by richardson

DW?

Could you please put that into non-abbeviated form?

It's all right with the un-unnoticable generes, like SW, and ST, but I've never heard of DW...

:shock:
Pointy? Add another charge :twisted:

[PointyHairedJedi]

Let's see, that takes us up to.... thirteen amps now, I believe.

[Chancellor Valium]

Originally Posted by PointyHairedJedi

Let's see, that takes us up to.... thirteen amps now, I believe.

I meant to the case....but I suppose.....13 amps? Prepare the ECT room :twisted:

[richardson]

*Gets zapped, his bones show up like an X-ray.* Just asking a simple question! This IS a democracy! *Gets another jolt.* !taht od ot dewolla m'I

[Scooter]

Wow, I've been off the site long enough, mired in my own little world, that not only did two staff members leave but there's actually a DW discussion thread in the forums. What are the chances of that? (Nyssa: "Several billion to one against." Me: "Shhh, I was speaking rhetorically.")

Anyway -- I'm not sure I see the problem, in the sense that "canonicity" has certainly always been an elastic concept at Doctor Who. And I am very much opposed to the idea of saying that individual stories are crap, much less entire incarnations, because they constitute a departure.

The abiding principle of being a Doctor Who fan is accepting each incarnation of the Doctor on its own terms. I went through that with the Sixth Doctor, and despite "Twin Dilemma" and "Timelash" tried to meet him on his own ground and not deny him solely because there was a departure from the past. Likewise the Seventh, Eighth and Ninth. I have concerns about the Tenth, too, but I owe it to Who to meet him on his own ground and see where the TARDIS takes me.

Personally I could make a case that Eric Saward was much more detrimental to Doctor Who than Russell Davies (because he kept the Doctor on the periphery of the action), or JNT for that matter. But what's the point?

[Chancellor Valium]

Yes, but "Season One", or "Season Twenty-Seven/Eight/Nine" is entirely shite. There is not a single episode which will stand up as watchable by comparison to the old series.

[whoiam]

I can remember going through the reviews and episode guides at gallifreyone as the new series came out... from the reviews there, I don't think that everyone shares your opinion of *all* the episodes of the new series being comparatively rubbish.

The episode "Dalek" and the two-parter in WW2 London "something-or-other" and "The Doctor Dances" both got essentially unanimous praise, and "Father's Day" and another whose name escapes me (the third Slitheen episode) got 'generally' good reviews. (in the case of the slitheen one, by 'generally' I mean everyone liked it apart from 5 mins at either end...).

The rest of the series got a kind of good-natured slating, though.

[Zeke]

I too beg to differ, Valium. I've only seen three episodes so far, but they had plenty of good sci-fi in them. The pilot was great (I've watched it twice now and even based a scene of Cliffhangers 7 on it), the second episode was wacky but fun, and "Dalek" was marvelous, if a bit misguided near the end. ("He's not the one pointing a gun at me"? He was pointing the gun at the DALEK to SAVE you. Blatch.)

Now granted, I'm coming into this as a new Who viewer. But I tend to think that if something stands up well on its own merits, it deserves credit even if it doesn't serve its larger context quite as well. Mega Man X7, for example, does basically nothing to advance the complicated storyline of the first six games -- but while that's annoying, what should matter more is whether it's a good game. Similarly, Season 3 of ENT dropped all the plot threads from the first two seasons in favour of a self-contained storyline -- but the result was the best season of Trek in years. That's a trade I'm willing to make.

Besides, judging from some of the Who fivers I've read, the first eight Doctors had some pretty silly adventures. ("The Ark," anyone?) Surely the Ninth Doctor can't be that much worse.

[Chancellor Valium]

Originally Posted by Zeke

I too beg to differ, Valium. I've only seen three episodes so far, but they had plenty of good sci-fi in them. The pilot was great (I've watched it twice now and even based a scene of Cliffhangers 7 on it), the second episode was wacky but fun, and "Dalek" was marvelous, if a bit misguided near the end. ("He's not the one pointing a gun at me"? He was pointing the gun at the DALEK to SAVE you. Blatch.)

Now granted, I'm coming into this as a new Who viewer. But I tend to think that if something stands up well on its own merits, it deserves credit even if it doesn't serve its larger context quite as well. Mega Man X7, for example, does basically nothing to advance the complicated storyline of the first six games -- but while that's annoying, what should matter more is whether it's a good game. Similarly, Season 3 of ENT dropped all the plot threads from the first two seasons in favour of a self-contained storyline -- but the result was the best season of Trek in years. That's a trade I'm willing to make.

Besides, judging from some of the Who fivers I've read, the first eight Doctors had some pretty silly adventures. ("The Ark," anyone?) Surely the Ninth Doctor can't be that much worse.

Yes, yes he can. While the other Doctors had SOME bad stories they also had a lot more truly fantastic (I hate that word now!) stories, with actual PLOTS, dialogue which wasn't 60% single-entendre and 40% plain bad (although Time and the Rani comes close to s7 of TNG in technocrapple).the majority of this last season was...craptaciously appaling.

Also, Zeke, remember that you have read the fivers written by other people. A fiver is, by definition, a parody. The real stories are not accurately reflected. The new series of Doctor Who has cut just about all ties it can with the old, had possibly the most outstandingly brutish doctor imaginable without casting Ross Kemp in the part, overpowering homosexual overtones, and while such overtones are fine in themselves, are as I said, overpowering, 70s-style stereotypes of sexuality, and the distinct feeling that this has all of the green-around-the-ears of Season 1 broadcast in 1963, but done in 2005. The only saving grace of the past season for me was that Billie Piper played her part so well. Doctor Who has had some downright-awful stories, some crap scripts, and failed special effects in the past. Then that was to do with budget. Now it's that Russel T Davies is crap. I'm sorry, but it's true.

[Zeke]

Interesting -- I've been fairly unimpressed with Billie Piper, and quite impressed with Chris Eccleston. Mileage varying, I guess.

I can certainly see how Eccleston is "brutish" compared to past Doctors. But isn't that sort of difference the whole point? If you're going to recast one character over and over, you need significant differences between the actors, or it'll just be dull. I found the casting choice weird too, but Eccleston's Doctor wasn't just wacky -- he could be plenty serious when he needed to be. Maybe he didn't prove himself to you, but to many viewers he did.

Besides, we're geeks. We have to put up with this stuff all the time. Take videogames. How many different Links have Zelda fans had to get used to now? How many Mega Men? How many Samuses? Or take comics. How many ways have Superman and Batman been reinterpreted and reinvented over the years? How many takes on Spider-Man have we seen? If you don't keep a little mental elasticity, you can miss out on some great stuff.

[PointyHairedJedi]

Zeke, it's possibly just easier to do as I did and agree to disagree.

[Chancellor Valium]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Interesting -- I've been fairly unimpressed with Billie Piper, and quite impressed with Chris Eccleston. Mileage varying, I guess.

I can certainly see how Eccleston is "brutish" compared to past Doctors. But isn't that sort of difference the whole point? If you're going to recast one character over and over, you need significant differences between the actors, or it'll just be dull. I found the casting choice weird too, but Eccleston's Doctor wasn't just wacky -- he could be plenty serious when he needed to be. Maybe he didn't prove himself to you, but to many viewers he did.

Besides, we're geeks. We have to put up with this stuff all the time. Take videogames. How many different Links have Zelda fans had to get used to now? How many Mega Men? How many Samuses? Or take comics. How many ways have Superman and Batman been reinterpreted and reinvented over the years? How many takes on Spider-Man have we seen? If you don't keep a little mental elasticity, you can miss out on some great stuff.

Zeke, yes, you need a little change. But what Russel T. Davies has done is completely change the Doctor's underlying character, which is present in EVERY previous incarnation, to suit his own agenda. I don't find any fault with a wacky or serious Doctor, I can deal with either or both at the same time (just NO MORE multi-Doctor stories. EVER! PLEASE!), but my problem is with Russel T. Davies' appaling plots (Boom Town, please, take this knife, and go into that corner...), and horrible scripts.......I mean, what kind of a person writes the word "FANTASTIC" into every episode at least once? Aside from Pip & Jane Baker, I mean...

[Scooter]

Indeed. CV is welcome to think that the Ninth Doctor is entirely without redeeming virtue, just as for a long time the same was held to be true of the Sixth, and the Seventh, even (for die-hard Tom Baker fans) the Fifth. If you cannot accept change in Doctor Who, you are doomed to be disappointed and are liable to write off an entire category of the show, but it's your loss.

I will continue to believe that this is a mistake and even a repudiation of what Who has come to mean. As Zeke points out, the new series has brought a lot of interesting stuff to the table, and I personally--a died-in-the-wool Who fan for most of my life who was both excited and apprehensive about the new version--came away from the new 13 episodes with a lot of stuff I liked and a lot of stuff I didn't. I was happy with that, because that's been my reaction to every season of Doctor Who since I first began watching it. That in itself was a funny sort of continuity. There was fun stuff, exciting stuff, silly stuff. The Doctor's fallibility being explored intelligently I welcomed wholeheartedly. I've been waiting for ages for something like "Boom Town," in which the Doctor is confronted with the consequences of his actions in a personal way. And if I didn't like the deus ex machina of that episode, does that mean I should toss the whole season on the fire? No.

And what happened to having fun with the parts of Doctor Who you personally think are not up to your own gold standard? You watch "Horns of Nimon" for the humor and the places it's trying to go, you watch "Nightmare of Eden" for the OTT Nazi villain and the bell-bottomed monsters (even Tom laughed at them when he saw the clip in "The Tom Baker Era"). You watch "Survival" not for the stupid motorcycle duel but because it asks interesting questions about home and survival. You watch "Mindwarp" not for the Valeyard's ridiculous dialog but because the episode itself is a puzzle for the viewer. And so on.

(Clearly I'm not following PHJ's worthy dictum.) Anyway I think it's simply wrong to say the new season offers nothing at all of value, but that's just my opinion, and we both have a right to think what we want. As someone who was once violently allergic to Colin Baker, I can understand where that reaction comes from. Come back to me in five or ten years and tell me again what you think of this season.

[PointyHairedJedi]

Originally Posted by Scooter

--a died-in-the-wool Who fan

Dyed-in-the-wool. Gosh, that irritates me in the most irrational fashion. Not as badly as "click" or "peeked" though. :twisted:

You make an interesting point with regard to time, Scooter. It's the first Who for approching two decades, and still of course very fresh in everyone's minds. Among the fans at least that sort of situation naturally lends it self to polarisation - it will be extremely interesting to see what the die-hard fans and die-hard detractors alike think in a decade's time (when hopefully season 10/37 will be on the air ) when they've had time to reflect a little.