Slashdot Mirror
First Impressions of the 11th Doctor Who
Mirk writes "The first episode of Doctor Who's new series 5 has just aired on BBC1 in the UK. This is an important episode for the show because so much has changed: Matt Smith plays the new Doctor, replacing David Tennant, and Karen Gillan portrays a new companion, Amy Pond. Maybe most important, Russell T. Davies is replaced as showrunner by Stephen Moffat, who is known for acclaimed Doctor Who scripts including The Empty Child and Blink. Here is an early review of the new Doctor, companion, showrunner, and series."
The new Doctor is quite impressive! A little bit on the stranger side, but fans of Doctor Who are no strangers to strange Doctors!
is hot.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Pic 1 ;)
She is not really a police officer or a nun nor a nurse.
While Matt Smith seems capable of playing the Doctor, the new TARDIS on the other hand really was disappointing.
I'm sorry but a pinball plunger, an old typewriter and a decor that looks ripped from a kid TV show just doesn't suit the supposedly alien look of the inside of the TARDIS. Too many earth parts, levers and buttons too obvious. The new TARDIS is a pale joke compared to the previous one.
How do people like it? All of the new episodes (never watched the old, so can't comment) just, to me at least, seem like dull, predictable, poorly-written, poorly-acted and overall not very good TV. I just don't get why people like it. I have caught an episode every now and then and it just seems so... poor.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
I think they went a bit too overboard with the "Tardis is dodgy" thing. Last tardis interior was a nice mix of steampunk and random bits. This one just seems to be random bits.
Lets not even mention the Tardis Rotor (the thing that pumps up and down in the middle of the console) because it now looks like a giant glass time dildo.
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
Always liked Christopher Eccleston more, he was much cooler. Tennant was also darn good though. Matt Smith got off to a decent start but as far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on him, after all we've only seen one episode so far. Didn't like the new intro music at all, a time vortex doesn't have smoke, for one, and the music was a lot worse - it didn't quite have that Doctor Who feel to it. The episode also seemed more low-budget than episodes from previous seasons, but that could be because it was the first time I've watched it in FullHD. My impression is that the acting performance was strong but almost everything else was a bit lacking, including the script. It was a still good, but I hope it gets better because I've come to expect a lot more from the show.
Indeed - "Box falls to earth; man falls out of box; man eats fish custard"
What's not to like?
"She's furniture with a pulse"
Here is a rather more intelligent take: http://iainjclark.livejournal.com/222121.html#cutid1
(for me: someone shoot Murray Gold and put a call into to Christophe Beck to write decent music)
"And the final score is no TARDIS, no screwdriver, two minutes to spare, Who Da Man!?"
The episode also seemed more low-budget than episodes from previous seasons, but that could be because it was the first time I've watched it in FullHD.
No, my reaction also was that the effects in this one were a bit naff. I thought that of the very first episode, too, though. Remember Mickey wrestling with the Dumpster? And the Nestene Consciousness wasn't very impressive. I figure they're just saving their budget for the best bits to come.
Breakfast served all day!
"We saw some amazing actresses for this part. But when Karen came through the door, the game was up - she was funny, clever, gorgeous and sexy. Or Scottish, which is the quick way of saying it. A generation of little girls will want to be her. And a generation of little boys will want them to be her too." -- Steven Moffat
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
The Doctor is 900 years old. There are dozens of seasons.
Start with 2005, work forward. THEN go back and watch some of the classics. I like Tom Baker, but an Unearthly child is also worth a look.
Also, if you've seen even one episode, this is priceless.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Blink
That's the one that got the current writer promoted so is a good prelude to the current series.
Unfortunately they aren't all as good as that.
[Intentionally left blank]
That makes this significant because up until now, only specials were done in HD. The BBC had previously said it was too expensive to make Doctor Who in HD due to all the special effects, so obviously we've reached a turning point where the money made from selling overseas has made it viable in HD. Win.
"The Girl in the Fireplace", which was also his, was so good, it was almost too good to be a Doctor Who episode.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
The Dalek was not showing an English flag. It was in fact the British flag. England is no more the whole of this country than Texas is the whole of the USA. I agree that there are many Texans and English who may not fully appreciate the differences but people on /. are generally less parochial...
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
I'm with you on Troughton, but Hartnell? I was more amused by his constant messing up of his lines. They really should have chosen an easier name for Ian than "Chesterton" - did Hartnell EVER pronounce it correctly? And, of course, Barbara and Susan were pretty much relegated to sound effects (screams) - especially Susan.
Actually, in a way, it was good they never had the budget for retakes in the early years. You could see the actors and actresses were really trying hard to get it right the first time.
Still, they did a good job of storytelling in the earlier episodes, I agree. The new ones are flashier, hipper, better special effects, but lack that "the special effects suck because we focused on telling a good story" thing that made Doctor Who, well, Doctor Who. Not that I dislike the new ones, but they are a different thing for a newer generation.
The new intro looks like the Tardis is flying through a colon made of plasma, though. Just sayin - maybe they should rename it the Turdis. :)
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
"all right, I'm never saying *that* again..."
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
...a time vortex doesn't have smoke...
Traveled through a few time vortexes have ya?
No sig for you!!
not to mention the theme itself, go read up on how it was actually made in the days before synthesisers and music-editing computer software. It was practically made before electronics were commonplace.
And you tell that they spliced individual notes together on analogue tape to the youth of today who expect to click the 'make music' button on your favourite music package and they won't believe you... (after saying "what's analogue tape")
Sorry, but your opinion is in my eyes bullshit.
I think the current series is really great
Sure, it’s not on the story complexity level of Revolver or the wow effect of Fight Club, or the thrills of Matrix...
But I don’t expect that from a weekly TV show.
And no, you don’t know more about good stories than I do, because I learned what makes a story good because of my job. (Of course I also don’t consider you bad. Because I don’t know you.)
By the way: Wannabe experts always thump that the story is so important. But in reality, the story is only one aspect. It is really the whole experience. A rollercoaster ride has no story at all, but is still a lot of fun.
So the aesthetics (including sound, behavior, everything that is styleable) are an important part.
And the technique/technology too.
In full games there also is gameplay as a fourth part.
Those parts strengthen each other. So even the charm of a character can be an essential part of what makes a whole show great.
Plus, it is very important to note, that every story has two parts: The part that Spok would enjoy. And the part that Troi would enjoy. A movie can have a complex emotional story, that us logic-loving male geeks would not even see as a story at all. Nonetheless it is just as important.
Ok, maybe that helped you get some perspective. If not, please enjoy life anyway, OK? You only have one! ^^
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Yeah, its definitely a children's show. that's why its broadcast on pre prime-time slot on holidays, and then on Saturdays in the 5-6pm slot. That's typically before the sports start. Incidentally, its the same time-slot that the A-Team was broadcast, so you can kind of see the target audience age (and the reason why there's always some form of totty sidekick present for the Dads who have to watch it with their kids)
However, I think the 'modern' doctor series have done remarkably well in appealing to an older audience as well.
Doctor Who is my one weakness. Well, my big weakness, anyway.
It's what makes me a NERD! -Not just some garden variety geek fanboy, but a full-on Nerd. My girlfriend looks at me funny and wonders where the other me went when Doctor Who comes up. I don't expose that part of myself to her very often, but I did make her watch a couple of episodes just to show her what I was all excited about. She liked "The Girl in the Fireplace", and I described the Rose arc to her. -Her reaction to that was the correct one, (no, she didn't walk out on me. She fell into story-listener mode and caught her breath at all the right parts as I described them. I tell stories fairly well and can sometimes even do decent voices. This was one of those times). And I made her watch the first twenty minutes of this new Matt Smith show. Figured she'd like the food-tasting scene. She did.
Best two scenes in the episode. . .
Amelia: "I'm not scared!"
Doctor: "'Course your not, you're not scared of anything! - Box falls out of the sky, man falls out of the box, man eats fish custard... and look at you. Just sitting there. So you know what I think?"
Amelia: "What?"
Doctor: "Must be a helluva scary crack in your wall."
And. . .
Doctor: "Twelve years! I'm not six months late. I'm twelve years late."
Amy: "He's coming!"
Doctor: "You said six months. Why did you say six months?"
Amy: "We've got to go!"
Doctor: "This MATTERS. This is important! Why did you say six months?!"
Amy: "WELL WHY DID YOU SAY FIVE MINUTES?!"
Wonderfully done! When big, important characters meet each other for the first time in a story, it's important to make it explosive or at least interesting. This was one of the reasons in the Phantom Menace, when Obi Wan and Anakin first met, it was stunningly stupid. (Remember how that went? It was a hand shake.) But this meeting was fantastic!
Anyway, as I figured, it takes about three viewings to "click" with a new Doctor, assuming that the Doctor is worth clicking with. And I think he is; the production values, casting, writing and acting were all top-notch for Doctor Who, but the Newness of it all takes a bit getting used to and certainly colors a viewer's reactions. The first Tennant episode, for instance, left a sour taste in my mouth the first time I saw it. But after a season of Who, going back to it was a joy. This leads me to thinking that the enjoyment of a show or film is far, far more than the sum of its parts. This is where Joseph Campbell and his various theories regarding mythology come into play. By the third viewing, the characters become familiar and comfortable. Matt Smith was very well cast; he's confident enough to walk through a scene and own it, and the new girl is going to challenge him nicely. And I hope to see some of the people of that little town become semi-regulars in the future. (I really like the new idea that family and friends matter in the DW universe.)
This is going to be a wonderful ride, I think! Hats off to everybody who put this together. -And thank goodness for 'pirate' distribution. The US broadcast version was cut down, I heard, to fit in more commercials. Lame.
-FL
I don't keep a television in my house. Is there anywhere on the net to watch Dr. Who streaming that anyone could recommend?
You are aware that the McGann TARDIS is based on the one from Tom Baker's season that began with "The Masque of Mandragora"... the season that saw the end of Sarah Jane Smith's tenure and the start of Leela's. It was based on that wooden set (that warped in the off-season) along with what you saw in "The Deadly Assassin."
All that aside, I found the new Doctor and companion to be well done and the opening story quite entertaining. Could I pick it apart? Sure. Doesn't change that it was fun and well done. Many thanks to Russell T. Davies for regenerating the series and to Stephen Moffat for continuing it.
OCO is Loco
Moffat also did The empty child/The doctor dances in the first season and Silence in the library/Forest of the dead in season 4. Considering he consistently made awesome episodes in the past I was very pleased that he's now main producer of the show.
Personally I consider both Blink and Girl in the fireplace to be extremely good. For me Blink wins out by a bit; but that's just me. What's fascinating is that Blink doesn't follow the normal Dr Who cast all that much, but he manages to introduce us to several new people and make us care more about them in 45 minutes than most shows manage for their standard cast in several seasons.
For starting Doctor Who I'd recommend going with the 2005 reboot. Every season after that kind of builds on top of it, and while the episodes are largely separate there are a lot of continuing plots as well. If you want some of the backstory I recommend watching the "Doctor Who Confidential" episodes as well. There is one for every episode and it's as 1 hour per episode. These give a lot of information and flash backs into the vast Dr Who library as well as interviews with the cast and former cast of the show. It really is an impressive "behind the scenes" presentation.
The season premier worried me because it seemed too much like the series premier. It is as if the new writers don't know how to fill the shoes of their predecessors, so they are recycling elements from the previous seasons that they know were popular among fans. These similarities include:
A heroine who is the "girl next door" and strong-willed, but still somewhat naive and vulnerable.
A schmuck boyfriend/fiance of the heroine who struggles with being overshadowed by the Doctor. This Mickey #2 has been living in the Doctor's shadow since he and "Rose" Pond were children.
A Doctor who is youthful, overconfident, and presumably over-friendly with his companion as time progresses.
I am hoping that I will be proved wrong as more episodes air. I've been a fan of Doctor Who since the Fourth Doctor though, and will remain one regardless of where these new writers take the show.
Several years back I let my son watch an old Tom Baker episode, Pirate Planet. He became obsessed. So after we exhausted what was available on dvd/netflix from his episodes, we started in on the new ones on Netflix Watchnow. We loved Christopher Eccelston and I was sure his replacement would be a disappointment. I couldn't have been more wrong. My son loved David Tenant's doctor so much, he has a pinstriped blazer, converse sneakers, and sideburns. He used to carry his toy sonic with him everywhere. He cried when the 10th doctor "died." This morning I downloaded the new episode and Matt Smith officially has the full blown endorsement of at least one American 6 year old boy (and his dad). Though I hope he manages to interpret the doctor in his own way. He had a bit too much of the DT manic goofiness going.
Oh and where the !@#$%! do I order up a kissogram!!!??!
-- QED
..Hugh Laurie be a Doctor? That would be interesting.
Essentially it felt as if Douglas Adams had written it, which is never a bad thing.
Of course, Adams used to work as a writer and script editor on Doctor Who, and several of his books (particularly "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" and "Life, the Universe and Eveything") contain material originally intended for Doctor Who.
Stephen Moffat certainly returned the favour with "The Girl in the Fireplace" which I felt was particularly Adams-esque (and possibly lifted a couple of ideas from Adams - the amnesiac spaceship computer from "Mostly Harmless" and the incongruous horse from "Dirk Gently"). You should check out that episode if you like Adams.
(In fact, the new episode featured something almost, but not quite entirely the same as a Somebody Else's Problem field).
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/05/2864086.htm
One of them compares the regeneration of the Doctor to the appointing of a new Archbishop of Canterbury.
Actually, I thought the exact opposite.
The sets/makeup/costumes all finally look like they were designed to be filmed in HD (and I don't even watch it in HD -- the 2005-era sets must have been made on an incredibly low-budget)
The CG/compositing work is also definitely improved (there's one shot toward the beginning that shows the Tardis zooming through London that I thought was particularly well-done). The Atraxi did look a bit low-budget, but not embarrassingly so -- I liked them, and wouldn't mind seeing them (or their awesome booming voices) recur in future episodes.
The direction and camerawork seem to have been improved -- most of the lingering "soap opera" feel is gone, and everything feels a whole lot more "mature."
That all said, I'd like to see more Mickey and Jack in the current series (especially since Torchwood seems to be on indefinite hiatus). Paradoxically for a sci-fi series, DW has very few few strong male characters apart from the Doctor himself.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
...Everyone who is in the US and saw the premiere last night please raise your hand now in a two fingered salute to whoever the executives are that have decided they still can't give us same day showing of Doctor Who on BBC America!
Screw BBC America. The show should be back on SyFy where it belongs here in the States.
SyFy is usually part of the basic cable package of most providers and the HD channel is usually part of the basic HD packages. BBC America is not part of most basic packages and BBC America HD is hardly available with any of the cable/fiber/satellite providers.
Sure, BBC America promotes the series more than SyFy did but that really does not matter since BBC America cannot even equal the ratings SyFy got - with hardly any promotion - even when BBC America combines 3 different airings as a single rating statistic.
And it is totally ridiculous that BBC America, a 100% wholly owned subsidiary of BBC Worldwide, cannot televise the show on the same day as it does in the UK. They were only a day or so behind the BBC proper with the inferior Torchwood - Children of Earth miniseries a year ago.
I really do not like the fact that the BBC is allowing BBC America to use the show as a means to build a following for the entire channel at the expense of growing the show's own fan base. It certainly didn't work well for UPN a decade ago when they did the same with Star Trek Voyager...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*