Classic Who vs. NuWho

General Doctor Who discussion hosted by Planet Mondas Forum.
User avatar
-JMW-
 
 
Posts: 5137
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:58 am
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

LizR wrote:
-JMW- wrote:I was referring to production schedule - this was far more rushed in the sixties by the nature of television production in general. When we refer to the actual plotting structure it's usually termed "pacing".
OK, fair enough, I don't pretend to know which is the correct technical term. My original comment was about the way some stories barely get started before they're over, often with a wham bam thank you ma'am resolution that feels as though it's been pulled out of a hat, to mix metaphors.

Hence I'm quite keen on CC giving us longer episodes, which (if used properly) will allow the pacing to be more suited to a structure that generally involves introducing a new situation, new characters, a problem to be solved - and only then getting on with the actual story.
Thanks.

If Chris C opts for a single story narrative over the entire season then that would afford the build up you desire.
I doubt we'll return to the plodding plots of some of the classic era stories though. TV has moved on.
__________________________________________________________________________

grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

JMW
__________________________________________________________________________
Plain Old Dave
 
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:46 pm
Location: East Tennessee
Contact:

bige wrote:Continuing a very popular topic from the old forum.

Which of the series do you prefer??? For me, without a doubt, Classic Series.
Same here.

-Easy to get involved in stories you don't have to have watched a YEAR of to understand
-Companions that are NOT The Most Important Person In The Universe; Jamie was a random Scot, Harry, a Lieutenant in the RN, Sarah Jane, a reporter. Truly random common people.
-Stories written as STORIES and not as character development pieces. You didn't watch DW to see what would happen between the Doctor and Sarah Jane, you watched to see what adventures they would get into.

I may just be becoming the PM iconoclast, but I have never watched a complete episode of Sherlock, Game of Thrones, or any of those idiotic zombie things. It's said TV has "evolved" past simple stories, simply told. If that's so, and I don't necessarily think the modern public wouldn't appreciate a newly made Hinchcliffe/Williams style ep, a "more sophisticated" viewing public is a shame.

I tolerate NuWho, but am a Doctor Who fan.
User avatar
shuzbot
 
 
Posts: 13751
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:42 pm
Location: Timbuktu
Contact:

Does anyone else feel that the new series has a certain dairy life feel to it? People are constantly going back and reassessing the merits of even the most derided stories from the classic series, Time Lash, Underworld and so on. But, I don't feel that really happens with a lot of the new series stuff. I think this may partly be to the more plot-driven aspect of the original series.
User avatar
-JMW-
 
 
Posts: 5137
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:58 am
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

shuzbot wrote:Does anyone else feel that the new series has a certain dairy life feel to it? People are constantly going back and reassessing the merits of even the most derided stories from the classic series, Time Lash, Underworld and so on. But, I don't feel that really happens with a lot of the new series stuff. I think this may partly be to the more plot-driven aspect of the original series.
I expect it really depends upon the forums/threads one attends most...if one has a proclivity towards the classic era, then one will seek that out most and it will seem most prevalent. Even here there are people reassessing the 2005+ run in specific threads.

Last year I re-watched the entirety of new Who with my daughter - wonderful stuff, revisiting it all through. We often pick up a old fave from the Eccleston/Tennant/M.Smith era, especially when we note an actor on TV who has appeared in a fave episode, or a foe/event that is revisited in the latest run.

We had our own "Master" review season, watching all his incarnations. Although a flawed Jesus-like plot resolution, the Utopia/Sound of Drums/Last of the Timelords trilogy (and that whole season) is uplifting.
My daughter developed a fascination with seeing Amy pregnant again too, so we re-watched "Amy's Choice" and then the S6 arc stories.
__________________________________________________________________________

grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

JMW
__________________________________________________________________________
User avatar
LizR
Irony Maiden
Irony Maiden
Posts: 20844
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

-JMW- wrote:If Chris C opts for a single story narrative over the entire season then that would afford the build up you desire.
Blimey, that would have to be a well written story to stand up. I don't recall saying that I want something that builds over ten episodes or whatever, I'd be happy with stories that worked better over one episode, which IMHO an extra 18 minutes might help. Although a number of threads being revisited could work over a series, as part of an overarching story arc that required our heroes to become involved in a series of linked adventures. It all comes down to the ability of the writers - I believe CC is intending to go for something more like the US on that front?
"[this story] dates from the period in which science fiction fans did not take themselves quite so seriously as nowadays, and those who made religion from an enthusiasm were generally mocked for it." -- Michael Moorcock, from the introduction to "Elric at the End of Time" (1983). Lucky that comment could never be applied to modern SF fans... :roll:

My crosswords are on my homepage & Android phones - install Alphacross and select "Māyā's Cryptic Puzzles" :D
Plain Old Dave
 
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:46 pm
Location: East Tennessee
Contact:

If Chibnall opts for one story told over an entire season, I daresay I will be done with NuWho, at least til there's a different showrunner. It would be hard to see such a season as designed for anything other than selling DVDs to nitwits that can't be bothered to schedule ONE HOUR out of their week to watch a TV show they allegedly are fond of.
User avatar
DdWho
 
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:20 am
Contact:

[Posts moved from the Series 11 Spoiler Thread.]
-JMW- wrote:
oldschool wrote:
-JMW- wrote:
oldschool wrote:So how does development and characterisation of no less than three companions progress in 10 maybe one hour episode ? Well it doesn't. Walsh is the key player here. To be honest, he's a decent actor but I suspect he'll be brought in for the humour. He's there to deflect attention away from the main character if she's not up to the job and to have fun trading off the other two nonentities.
Great result for Chibbers but dreadful consequences for the rest of the dwindling viewing public.
The same way as....
Hartnell era Who
The Walking Dead
Star Trek
Early Troughton era Who
Buffy
Twin Peaks
Pertwee era Who
Stranger Things
Red Dwarf
Peter Davison era Who
Broadchurch
Daredevil
etc etc etc....

It's referred to as an "ensemble", and characterisations are usually onion-peeled over several weeks.
Sticking with the Who theme, in the black and white days the programme was on almost every Saturday night of the year. That's a far cry from cramming everything into a stand alone 50 minute episode nowadays for 10 weeks.
As for Red Dwarf, it was basically the same characters in every series, they weren't developed in just a few episodes, it was over a much longer period of time.
Yet, Red Dwarf managed it straight off the bat with only six half-hour episodes per year - surely it was doomed to fail in the first two series if there was no time to develop these characters. However, we know that fans took to the crew quickly.

I think those who claim that ensemble casts can't develop character are demonstrably wrong - as the examples above prove. I understand that the immediacy and slicker style of the show does grate with those who have become attached to much viewed existing material, but this is yet another storm in a teacup complaint from those who want to grab any brickbat they can find. It's based on ignorance, so let's just see what happens when we actually have footage on screen before we gush praise or vehemently condemn it.
Multi cast is pretty much the norm for Doctor Who. When you look at it in depth the idea of there being just one companion is pretty much an aberration. There were two or three companions in the 60s, the whole UNIT team in the early 70s then Sarah and Harry. We had Sarah on here own for a while but even once Leela and Romana were in train we had K9 at least too. Then in the 80s we had three through much of Davison.

The idea of a single female companion is pretty much a JNT thing from the late 80s and perhaps the weaker part of the 70s if you ignore the tin dog. There is pretty much only one season in the 70s which has just one companion and is actually stand out.

The memory cheats people.
User avatar
iank
 
 
Posts: 6153
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 1:40 am
Contact:

The problem with the argument is that the 45 minute format also seems to work fine for other shows, including genre shows. But it falls on its ass in New Who, as this "ensemble" likely will, because the program is run by incompetent hacks. :D
(Doctor Who) has been hijacked and redefined as a lucrative modern franchise. They've literally taken a square peg and painfully made it fit a round hole by taking enormous liberties with much of its fundamental essence. There's no turning back now.

- ozymandias, The Leisure Hive 2010
User avatar
-JMW-
 
 
Posts: 5137
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:58 am
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

iank wrote:The problem with the argument is that the 45 minute format also seems to work fine for other shows, including genre shows. But it falls on its ass in New Who, as this "ensemble" likely will, because the program is run by incompetent hacks. :D
Except "it falls on it's arse" is merely a narrow viewpoint and not a fact.
Many people enjoy the format - a format that is hardly rare nowadays. The show is coming up to it's eleventh season - quite a feat for something that "falls on it's arse".
__________________________________________________________________________

grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

JMW
__________________________________________________________________________
User avatar
DdWho
 
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:20 am
Contact:

iank wrote:The problem with the argument is that the 45 minute format also seems to work fine for other shows, including genre shows. But it falls on its ass in New Who, as this "ensemble" likely will, because the program is run by incompetent hacks. :D
Doctor Who has been doing 45 min stories since the 60s and 70s. And those stories had three or two regulars. I'm surprised people are unhappy about returning so closely to how the show was in the 60s and 70s with a big cast and sometimes 45 min stories. :lol:
User avatar
LizR
Irony Maiden
Irony Maiden
Posts: 20844
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

DdWho wrote:
iank wrote:The problem with the argument is that the 45 minute format also seems to work fine for other shows, including genre shows. But it falls on its ass in New Who, as this "ensemble" likely will, because the program is run by incompetent hacks. :D
Doctor Who has been doing 45 min stories since the 60s and 70s. And those stories had three or two regulars. I'm surprised people are unhappy about returning so closely to how the show was in the 60s and 70s with a big cast and sometimes 45 min stories. :lol:
Were there 45 minute stories in the 60s? I suppose "In the spaceship" - still mostly they were longer! And I think given the nature of the genre being longer will help, unless of course the incompetent hacks are the problem.

Time will tell...
"[this story] dates from the period in which science fiction fans did not take themselves quite so seriously as nowadays, and those who made religion from an enthusiasm were generally mocked for it." -- Michael Moorcock, from the introduction to "Elric at the End of Time" (1983). Lucky that comment could never be applied to modern SF fans... :roll:

My crosswords are on my homepage & Android phones - install Alphacross and select "Māyā's Cryptic Puzzles" :D
User avatar
thecypher
 
 
Posts: 1494
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 12:50 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

-JMW- wrote:
iank wrote:The problem with the argument is that the 45 minute format also seems to work fine for other shows, including genre shows. But it falls on its ass in New Who, as this "ensemble" likely will, because the program is run by incompetent hacks. :D
Except "it falls on it's arse" is merely a narrow viewpoint and not a fact.
Many people enjoy the format - a format that is hardly rare nowadays. The show is coming up to it's eleventh season - quite a feat for something that "falls on it's arse".
It's not a narrow viewpoint at all, it's an opinion - an opinion I happen to agree with. 45 minutes isn't enough time to set up new characters, a new planet and a new monster - plus tell a story.
"That’s monstrous! Vaporisation without representation is against the constitution!"
User avatar
-JMW-
 
 
Posts: 5137
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:58 am
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

thecypher wrote:It's not a narrow viewpoint at all, it's an opinion - an opinion I happen to agree with. 45 minutes isn't enough time to set up new characters, a new planet and a new monster - plus tell a story.
...and yet it's been done successfully!

I can see where you are struggling though, so I'll help out...
Forty-five minutes may not be sufficient to tell a more "epic" story, one that demands the viewer take a "journey" through developments to come out of the other side with a "phew!". The reward often being just getting through the padding to the oft predictable denouement.

It's essentially "Lord of the Rings" style storytelling vs. "Harry Potter" (albeit not in scope/expense).
Both are enjoyable though if you have the sense(ibility).
__________________________________________________________________________

grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

JMW
__________________________________________________________________________
User avatar
thecypher
 
 
Posts: 1494
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 12:50 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

-JMW- wrote:
thecypher wrote:It's not a narrow viewpoint at all, it's an opinion - an opinion I happen to agree with. 45 minutes isn't enough time to set up new characters, a new planet and a new monster - plus tell a story.
...and yet it's been done successfully!
.. On other shows, just not Doctor Who - as Iank pointed out. Worked for Stargate, worked for Star Trek.. not Doctor Who - which is interesting. Stargate, Star Trek and Doctor Who all had established elements.

Doctor Who:

Cast: The Doctor and companion(s)
Ship: The TARDIS

Star Trek:

Cast: Entire crew
Ship: Enterprise

Stargate:

Cast: SG-1
Base: Cheyenne Mountain

So where does Doctor Who go wrong with 45 minutes?
"That’s monstrous! Vaporisation without representation is against the constitution!"
User avatar
-JMW-
 
 
Posts: 5137
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:58 am
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

thecypher wrote:So where does Doctor Who go wrong with 45 minutes?
It doesn't. It's just different.
Blink, Dalek, The Empty Child (2 parts), The Eleventh Hour, The Girl in the Fireplace , Silence in the Library (2 parts), The Doctor’s Wife, The Waters of Mars, Asylum of the Daleks, The Time of Angels (2 parts), Utopia, The Impossible Astronaut (2 parts), The Angels Take Manhattan, The Unquiet Dead, The Girl Who Waited, Partners in Crime, The God Complex, The Beast Below...and so many more!

All enrapturing stories, well told, and appreciated by fans (see DWM polls)!

Just because you don't appreciate something, doesn't make it "gone wrong".
__________________________________________________________________________

grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

JMW
__________________________________________________________________________
User avatar
shuzbot
 
 
Posts: 13751
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:42 pm
Location: Timbuktu
Contact:

Once again, JMW, you are failing to recognise that when people use terms like good or bad it is shorthand for not to their tastes. You could also argue that just because something is popular doesn’t mean that it is good, c.f. ad populum fallacy.

For somebody who likes to constantly point at people's post and shout 'subjective' you do like to argue your opinion as if it were fact.

Now please try and keep it respectful, I am trying to catch up on my knitting.
User avatar
thecypher
 
 
Posts: 1494
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 12:50 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

-JMW- wrote:
thecypher wrote:So where does Doctor Who go wrong with 45 minutes?
It doesn't. It's just different.
Blink, Dalek, The Empty Child (2 parts), The Eleventh Hour, The Girl in the Fireplace , Silence in the Library (2 parts), The Doctor’s Wife, The Waters of Mars, Asylum of the Daleks, The Time of Angels (2 parts), Utopia, The Impossible Astronaut (2 parts), The Angels Take Manhattan, The Unquiet Dead, The Girl Who Waited, Partners in Crime, The God Complex, The Beast Below...and so many more!

All enrapturing stories, well told, and appreciated by fans (see DWM polls)!

Just because you don't appreciate something, doesn't make it "gone wrong".
Except it's not just me, is it? Series 6 and 7 were mostly single parters and they both flopped. We can also forget the two parters because.. they're two parters. I'm talking about 45 minutes. Everything. Cast, story, planet.. all in 45 minutes. I can't help but notice that most of the 45 minute stories that worked are from the pre-Moffat era.. so perhaps I should revise my earlier statement.

Perhaps it is wiser to say that Moffat, and the writers under him, were bad at writing a Doctor Who story in 45 minutes. Moffat wrote some good single-parters under T Davies, but for some reason his imagination and sense of pacing went down the garbage chute when he took over.
"That’s monstrous! Vaporisation without representation is against the constitution!"
User avatar
-JMW-
 
 
Posts: 5137
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:58 am
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

thecypher wrote:Except it's not just me, is it?
It doesn't matter if it's just you, or if it's the few dozen of you who snark at the series. You are by far in the minority.
Series 6 and 7 were mostly single parters and they both flopped.
Yet the show continued and continues to fare exceedingly well in the charts in comparison to most other fiction, and in comparison to much of the classic era. So, no - not a "flop" at all.

Where are you getting your bogus information?
We can also forget the two parters because.. they're two parters. I'm talking about 45 minutes. Everything. Cast, story, planet.. all in 45 minutes. I can't help but notice that most of the 45 minute stories that worked are from the pre-Moffat era.. so perhaps I should revise my earlier statement.
Then the classic era is inapplicable if you only want to count single parts of stories....and they were, for the most part, of only 25 mins duration. Did/does the classic era not manage to captivate you in a single episode? Do you continue with a story or switch off, because as you state there is no time for "cast, story, planet".
Perhaps it is wiser to say that Moffat, and the writers under him, were bad at writing a Doctor Who story in 45 minutes. Moffat wrote some good single-parters under T Davies, but for some reason his imagination and sense of pacing went down the garbage chute when he took over.
As with your other comments, this is merely your (and other disgruntled fans) opinion.
Perhaps it is wiser to stick to facts, or just accept that one's perception of something may be different to another person...and both equally valid.

You seem to be essentially asking "why do I prefer classic Who?"....well I tried to posit a possibility (in that a more drawn out saga garners a journeyed experience) but ultimately only you can answer the question.
__________________________________________________________________________

grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

JMW
__________________________________________________________________________
User avatar
-JMW-
 
 
Posts: 5137
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:58 am
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

shuzbot wrote:Once again, JMW, you are failing to recognise that when people use terms like good or bad it is shorthand for not to their tastes. You could also argue that just because something is popular doesn’t mean that it is good, c.f. ad populum fallacy.

For somebody who likes to constantly point at people's post and shout 'subjective' you do like to argue your opinion as if it were fact.
No, I like to reference some facts to bolster a point.

Indeed, popularity doesn't make something "good" or "bad" - but it does indicate whether one's opinion of is mainstream or marginal.

"Cypher" asked "where does Doctor Who go wrong with 45 minutes?" and I answered him/her, in that it doesn't "go wrong"....because it's purely subjective.

If you care to look at his follow up, you'll note that he's desperately trying to re-frame his point and forgetting that in an X vs. Y equation such as this, the scrutiny subjected to one, must be equally applied to the other.

It's nice to know I'm still adored enough to warrant your attention though, so thanks for the words of encouragement ;) 8-)
__________________________________________________________________________

grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

JMW
__________________________________________________________________________
User avatar
Martin_Kinsella
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
Posts: 4912
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:25 pm
Contact:

-JMW- wrote:
shuzbot wrote:Once again, JMW, you are failing to recognise that when people use terms like good or bad it is shorthand for not to their tastes. You could also argue that just because something is popular doesn’t mean that it is good, c.f. ad populum fallacy.

For somebody who likes to constantly point at people's post and shout 'subjective' you do like to argue your opinion as if it were fact.
No, I like to reference some facts to bolster a point.

Indeed, popularity doesn't make something "good" or "bad" - but it does indicate whether one's opinion of is mainstream or marginal.

"Cypher" asked "where does Doctor Who go wrong with 45 minutes?" and I answered him/her, in that it doesn't "go wrong"....because it's purely subjective.

If you care to look at his follow up, you'll note that he's desperately trying to re-frame his point and forgetting that in an X vs. Y equation such as this, the scrutiny subjected to one, must be equally applied to the other.

It's nice to know I'm still adored enough to warrant your attention though, so thanks for the words of encouragement ;) 8-)
Mainstream views are pretty meaningless though in the sense they ebb and flow. Fashion is a great indicator of that. Anyway I liked the Xmas special with the widow and the pilot in, must be the only one.

That is not to say I think you don't have a point. Most of the good examples of 45 minute Dr Who from the new series you cite I have really enjoyed. Doctor who can do the 45 minute format of storytelling very well and has done but it is doing it less and less.

It is just since the second Matt Smith season I have found it less and less of a joy to,watch and more and more of a habit. People do seem to be turning off more. I know viewing habits have changed but the share is down and the numbers are down too. I just want a good story well told. Or something totally batshit like Rellik. It is not modern TV I dislike. I watch more new and original drama now than ten years ago and mostly enjoy it. I just think Dr Who, since Matt Smiths second run, has been less and less enjoyable and clearly not for me. I don't care that much about Whittakers casting. She is a run of the mill actress doing run of the mill TV. Perfect for the show.
J'aime Le Chameau Orteil.
Post Reply

Return to “GENERAL DOCTOR WHO DISCUSSION”

  • Information