Doctor Who on CBC

Question

Heads-up for Canuckistanis:A reminder that Doctor Who is on CBC tonight at 8:00."A good story cannot be devised; it has to be distilled." Raymond Chandler

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]Heads-up for Canuckistanis: A reminder that Doctor Who is on CBC tonight at 8:00.[/nq]
Dr. Who? Isn't he on first?
jaybee

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Heads-up for Canuckistanis: A reminder that Doctor Who is on CBC tonight at 8:00.[/nq]
[nq:1]Dr. Who? Isn't he on first?[/nq]
I don't know.
Joe Myers
"Third base."

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]A reminder that Doctor Who is on CBC tonight at 8:00.[/nq]
This big-budget, high-profile revival of a show that hasn't been made by the BBC for well over a decade garnered a huge amount of publicity and public interest in the UK. Predictably, fan reaction to the first episode was mixed: I'd be very interested to read what anyone here thinks of it.
Bert
http://www.bertcoules.co.uk

Usenet · Answer

@reader1.panix.com:
[nq:2]A reminder that Doctor Who is on CBC tonight at 8:00.[/nq]
[nq:1]This big-budget, high-profile revival of a show that hasn't been made by the BBC for well over a decade garnered ... fan reaction to the first episode was mixed: I'd be very interested to read what anyone here thinks of it.[/nq]
I've never watched the original, but I found the first episode of the remake to be mediocre at best. Everything fell apart in the last 15 minutes. Characters behaving in completely irrational manners only to tie things up by the end credits.
Maybe they should rename the series "Dr. Wha...?"
jaybee

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]A reminder that Doctor Who is on CBC tonight at 8:00.[/nq]
[nq:1]This big-budget, high-profile revival of a show that hasn't been made by the BBC for well over a decade garnered ... fan reaction to the first episode was mixed: I'd be very interested to read what anyone here thinks of it.[/nq]
I grew up with Doctor Who in England so I knowwhat its porovenance is.

Very disappointing after all the hype.
Very nice production values. Well photographed.
The plot was idiotic. Someone had a concept. That's it. No story. And a stupid concept.
If you're going to rip off Terminator II then at least do it with homicidal terminators, not shop window dummies (please!).

All kinds of very convenient coincidences. "We're looking for a big round dish antenna thingie in the middle of London." "Look behind you."

And when we get there we discover that the door to the inner sanctum conviently happens to be right in front of us and someone left it open.
Let's rush in there at top speed.
I am actually quite a big fan of Christopher Eccleston as an actor particularly in "Let Him Have It" and "Cracker." He plays tough and realistic very very well.
In this he was reduced to grinning all the time and running around a lot (they confused Motion with Action an elementary trap). I'm not surprised he decided not to sign up for a second season it certainly would have hurt his career to get lumbered with this role for two years.

Billie Piper is very easy on the eye but when she opens her marf she sarnds like all vem uvver sarf London girls. Flat affect, no melody left me wishing she'd just shut up. But again she wasn't given a lot to work with.
Must have cost a fortune. And that's a problem. Because it's money that gets siphoned away from other, better projects. Unless the ethinking is they can make a fortune with international sales. That may work, but it won't fly in the US. No existing fan base as there was with Harry Potter, and no prospect of survival if it's even picked up which I doubt.
+++
And I'd be very interested to know what you thought of it!

"A good story cannot be devised; it has to be distilled." Raymond Chandler

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]And I'd be very interested to know what you thought of it![/nq]
Well... it's interesting to compare the first episode of the new Who to the show's very first outing back in the early sixties.
Both shows had to introduce the central characters and something of the basic situation; both shows had to grab the audience and make them want to tune in again next week. The difference is that Anthony Coburn's superb 1963 script was able to concentrate entirely on the setup and the hook, whereas Russell Davies not only tried to establish the Doctor and Rose (and a couple of regular supports), he showed them having a complete adventure, to boot. That's a **** of lot to cram in, even if TV does move faster these days: it's not easy to avoid being superficial when you've got to save the world in under forty-four minutes and still leave room for that huge list of special effects credits.

The concept of self-contained single episodes just doesn't give the concept enough time to breathe, I think; there are several two-parters on the way and it will be fascinating to see if they fare any better.
I wanted more darkness and more danger; not once did I really believe that the world (or even a local little bit of it) was in any real peril. And I found the humour somewhat off-key and misplaced.

Episode two is better in some respects: there are some rather good quiet emotional moments, the overall pace is less frenetic, and there are some beautifully drawn supporting characters; but it shares with Rose a certain weakness in plotting: it's essentially a murder-mystery story, but there's precious little in the way of investigating or detecting, and the Doctor just pulls the solution out of a hat.

Episode three should be interesting: it's the first written by a writer other than executive producer/re-creator Russell Davies.
The basic problem, I think, is one of the intended audience. Dr Who started as a quasi-educational kid's show but mutated over the years into something rather more grown up, in intent if not always in achievement. In the years since its TV demise, the characters and situations have changed again through the medium of books and audio drama, to the point where some pretty adult and sophisticated story-telling had become the norm. To see the show aimed once again at a child/family audience, complete with a rather basic level of vulgar humour, comes as something of a shock.

I'm not saying that this is a bad decision - quite the contrary, since the audio and book public is a very specialised and dedicated one, and to cater for them at the expense of the mainstream would be disastrous indeed - but to see a much-loved programme descend to the sort of level at which an all-powerful invading alien force can animate a plastic garbage-bin, make it swallow a person and then erupt with a resounding belch - well, that takes a bit of getting used to.
Having said all that, I hope it's a roaring success and goes on for years...
Bert
http://www.bertcoules.co.uk

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Billie Piper is very easy on the eye but when she opens her marf she sarnds like all vem uvver sarf London girls. Flat affect, no melody left me wishing she'd just shut up. But again she wasn't given a lot to work with.[/nq]
Yeah but you could really feel her anguish and inner struggle when, at the end, she decides at the drop of a hat to leave her mum, her life and her (suddenly cowardly) boyfriend to launch into an adventure with someone for whom she feels neither complicity, trust or even remote interest.

I was on the edge of my seat for the last 15 minutes... waiting for the end credit so I could go to the bathroom!
I did bother to Google Billie Piper afterwards. Seems to be England's latest pop music queen, and she's the darling of the tabloids and paparazzi. Haven't starlets learned not to sunbathe topless by now?
jaybee

Doctor Who on CBC

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions