Fannish regions of the Internet are all abuzz today, with the introduction of Matt Smith as the next actor to play the lead role in Doctor Who. Sadly, this is not the Matt Smith I went to college with (who would've been a really unusual choice for the part...)-- he's still comfortably obscure to anyone not receiving fundraising letters from the Class of '93.
This is probably as good an occasion as any to make an admission/ provocative statement: I don't get Doctor Who. Probably to an even greater extent than I don't get Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I've watched it on occasion since the days when PBS re-ran Tom Baker episodes, and I just don't really see the attraction.
I don't hate it, mind you-- as I said, I've watched a fair number of episodes over a period of many years. But its main appeal for me is pretty much on the level of kitsch-- chuckling at the charmingly inept special effects, the character affectations, the deus ex machina endings of most of the plots, and that sort of thing. It's goofy and fun, but I have a really hard time taking it seriously.
The show has legions of passionate fans, though, probably at least as many as are in the Cult of Whedon, and some of them are really smart people. So, if anybody wants to try explaining the show's appeal, please leave me a comment.
- Log in to post comments
So, I am not alone, after all.
If all you've seen are the first 8 Doctors, then I understand your opinion, I have the same. But the series starring the 9th (Christopher Eccleston) and 10th (David Tennant) Doctors are an entirely different animal. Good effects, amazing dialogue and story, brilliant characters, and no sacred cows. Many of the new episodes are relevant and dark, and are fantastic parables. I admire Russell Davies for not just reinvigorating Dr. Who, but for realizing just how much potential the series has and letting imaginations run wild.
Title says it all to me: Dr. Who?
My reply: Battlestar Galactica
First, let me admit that I still think that BtVS is one of the best shows ever on television. I came late to Dr Who, though -- I watched some of the Tom Baker ones on PBS when I was a kid, but I never really sought out the new ones. Until I realized I could watch them at my leisure via Netflix's watch instantly thing. I'm hooked. What does it for me is the sheer joy the Doctor takes in *everything*. It's not a show without cynicism, but the writing pretty consistently reminds me that good television doesn't have to be ironic or self-aware. Even when circumstances look really dire (or silly or evil), the Doctor continues to find aspects of humanity that are worth saving and loving. I watch Dr Who, and I despair a bit less.
Why Who? That's a good question. Personally, I like its energy and idealism, I like how it has no real formula (or if it does, that it feels free to undermine that formula). I like to think of it as a madcap romp more than anything else, and don't mind turning off my brain a little each time (okay, we're in Pompeii. okay, we're in a 41st century traffic jam. okay, we're at the end of the universe.) in the name of social commentary and good fun. Is it quality TV? I think that depends on how you describe quality. It's certainly better than current American sci-fi, with the exception of Battlestar Galactica.
What Constance Reader said. If you've only seen the early ones, it's like watching the '70s-era Battlestar Galactica and not understanding what people like about the new version.
That said, if you don't like Whedon, it's not clear what you would like. Do you enjoy any television?
I'll second most of what the common man said, except to heartily repudiate his exception (I can't stand BSG).
I haven't seen a whole lot of the older Doctor, but the newer ones (2005 on) are lots of fun. They are stand alone enough to be interesting in a vacuum, but have enough of a story arc to make it feel like a big story.
It's probably one of those, "Introduced to it at the right time," sort of things, as much as anything else. I do not get, and will likely never get, the first eight doctors-- never saw any until college, and didn't get it, and especially didn't get it with enough force to worry myself over twenty five years of backstory, bad acting, and bad effects.
I got interested in the new ones almost literally by flipping through them accidentally and seeing the right episode, but I still wouldn't think of myself as a fan, per se. Importantly, it turns out that you don't have to know jack about the old doctors to enjoy the new ones. I felt the same way about Buffy as I did the original Doctor stuff-- if someone rebooted it, I'd give it a watch, but there's better stuff out there to spend my attention on than the original show.
In either case, I can see having become a fan if I started watching them when I was younger.
Now, the Sarah Connor Chronicles, on the other hand....
I guess a bigger issue for me is those who don't appreciate teh Buffy. I don't know that there's been a more awesome extended stretch of television than the 2nd and 3rd season of Buffy. Does this anti-Whedon bias (I kid, I kid) extend to Firefly as well?
The new Who is humanist television - I like being able to watch a show that celebrates the glory and horror that it is to be human, and doesn't throw it all at the feet of deity. Even in the episodes that deal with aspects of religious culture, it's still the humans who triumph over the "super-natural", and even the "supernatural" is usually presented as Clarke style magic - an advanced technology or alien being that is in-sufficiently understood.
Throw in lots of campy fun, costume drama, hilarious cultural references, British accents, homages to great literature, and just enough angst to highlight the joy, and what's not to like?
Old Who is different - mostly campy, with occasional flashes of brilliance and pathos. I watched it when I was a kid and liked it well enough, but not passionately. Worth watching these days mostly because the new Who draws on old episodes for background and depth a lot.
Now, Buffy -- that I just don't get. The movie was a hoot, but the series just fell flat for me.
If all you've seen are the first 8 Doctors, then I understand your opinion, I have the same.
I've seen more Tom Baker episodes than any of the others, but I've probably seen half a dozen of the David Tennant ones. They're a little darker than the older ones, but I don't find them qualitatively different. They still strike me as agreeably goofy and not much more. The effects remain charmingly inept, the acting is still pretty broad, and most of the plots seem to wrap up in a fashion somewhere between "deus ex machina" and "Oh, gosh, look at the time!"
That said, if you don't like Whedon, it's not clear what you would like. Do you enjoy any television?
At the moment, the only non-sports television I watch consistently is The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. If that (though the new DVR should make it easier to keep up with those).
It's not that I find Whedon objectionable, or anything. I just don't find him half as clever as most of his Internet fans do, and certainly not clever enough to lift Buffy past the premise, which just doesn't do it for me. Firefly was fine, though it doesn't stand up to careful thought, and the movie did some serious violence to the continuity.
The sheer rabidity of Whedon's fans leads me to disparage his shows a little more than I might in a vacuum. They're perfectly ok, as far as they go, but not brilliant or transformative.
You dont get Buffy? There is no hope. Of course not liking the Ecceleston Doctor is fine - I despise him, but I grew up with the Doctor - I can still remember the last Pertwee episode going out. The Dr rocks, as does the Buffster.
Sharp-as-a-whip black female medical doctors? (<3 Freema)
NO NO NO NO NO!!! David Tennant as the 10th Doctor was a real panty-dropper. This new Doctor is some kind of weird Criss Angel look alike. I am completely unamused!!!
there's a harlan ellison essay that was published as a foreword in a bunch of the novelizations some time back here's the only part I could find on line. if you can find the whole essay, he does go into greater detail
I think the general thing about doctor who, (speaking as a very definite fan of the whole series) is that it is simply suggestions of wonder. that and at times it can be very scary in a relatively safe sort of way. remember that during the 60's and 70's the common location for the viewer was from "behind the sofa." the 3rd season episode "Blink" managed to recapture some of that.
I tend to agree with much of what PennyBright said. but you know, you don't have to like it. It's not for everyone... (and I preferred Ecclestone to Tennant... though not by much.) Matt Smith does look promising though in the interview, the things he does with his fingers... very fitting... though personally I was hoping for some one older...
I watch Doctor Who (the new series) regularly, but I can see why people would dislike it. Russell T Davies, who up until recently produced the show and was the lead writer, is not that talented of a writer. The effects (while much better than the days of yore) are still not that great. The storylines are often quite campy or ultra-angsty, and some of the actors are just...well, kind of ham-handed.
On the other hand, there are little gems of dialogue here and there, and it's a profoundly optimistic show. The show had two surprisingly entertaining actors for the two newest Doctors. It's like a comic book; most of it isn't that great, but the few stories here and there are quite good.
If you really want to see the good parts of Doctor Who and see if you like it, take a look at the episodes written by Steven Moffat, the new producer and lead-writer of the show. He's a marvelously good writer, and his episodes are definitely the best of the breed, with a kind of pseudo-horror twist. He's much better at dialogue and plot than most of the other writers on the show, but even then, it's a distinctly campy experience, and I think it's part of the charm. I'm really looking forward to where he takes the series.
As for BtVS, I just find it addicting. Mostly, the interactions between the characters, esp. the witty banter, is what I found the most fun, and the development of the characters over time as they grow up and move on to new roles and relationships. Plus, it's kind of cringe-inducingly fun to see Whedon destroy his characters' lives. And though the show is quite campy, that's part of the fun, too. Demon that can't be destroyed by any weapon forged? How about a giant bazooka?
Ultimately, the interest of most science fiction is what will the future bring and how will we deal with it. How would society change under different circumstances. How would/should we react to it. How do we face paradox and resolve it. Exploring possibilities and reflecting on them. Yes, the villains are throwbacks and not particularly interesting but creation of an alien psychology is difficult, perhaps impossible for humans. He is a traveler and this allows the exploration of a new situation with every episode. How it is resolved is secondary to the world opened up, a world of what if. Most other science fiction is tame and not nearly so imaginative by comparison.
I liked Buffy too, full of its teen angst, wit, and exploring all the mythology of Vamps. How could anyone write a show on Vamps without it being a tired rerun of everything already done on it. How can one bring something new to the subject. It is very difficult but Buffy was able to do that.
The Sarah Conner Chronicles is one I was surprised by. After 15 minutes of dash and slash how does one maintain interest? It is about exploring what makes us human and what makes them not. beyond the obvious.