Doctor Who - Spoilers!

[ProgMatinee]

i'm just asking for the info, not trying to uncover or dispute anything.

It seems the answer to my original question rolls up simply as both sides knew early on that it was a 1 year thing.

Next question, how about the miniseries guy? Was that always known it would be a 1 off or was there expectation that it would continue. I haven't seen the miniseries yet, don't even know if there is a regeneration at the end.

 

[barbelith]

Next question, how about the miniseries guy? Was that always known it would be a 1 off or was there expectation that it would continue. I haven't seen the miniseries yet, don't even know if there is a regeneration at the end.

Do you mean the TV movie? McGann signed on for three years in the event the backdoor pilot went to series, although obviously that never happened. It's structured as a pilot though - the Doctor doesn't even bring his new companion in case she was recast!

 

[ProgMatinee]

Do you mean the TV movie? McGann signed on for three years in the event the backdoor pilot went to series, although obviously that never happened. It's structured as a pilot though - the Doctor doesn't even bring his new companion in case she was recast!

similar to the current specials where Doctor just meets someone new each time. Its interesting to see they had the contingency contract for McGann but not for Eccelston. Eccelston did a fine job, but the team indeed must have been in dire straights to not be more picky in either demanding CE sign for longer terms or keep looking for someone that would sign longer, plus they must really have not thought highly of the product they were about to offer. I can't imagine BBC planning to hire a Doctor for just 1 year as a strategem for the franchise.

Speaking of, what about Martha Jones...why did she just last 1 year as a main character. Obviously she liked Who enough to guest in future episodes...I thought she was a great companion.

 

[barbelith]

Its interesting to see they had the contingency contract for McGann but not for Eccelston

They were made in different times and different contexts. The BBC didn't really make the TV movie and their approvals process for McGann was basically a rubber stamp. That was all down to Universal, which actually wanted to make a series (hence the contract) although FOX would only commit to airing a pilot. It didn't get the necessary ratings and so there wasn't a show.

When the BBC decided to relaunch the series in 2005, there wasn't a realistic expectation it would be a hit. Doctor Who was the butt of jokes. There was no family programming anywhere. Saturday had transformed from the jewel in its schedule to a ratings abyss. But it really wanted to work with Russell T Davies, who at the time was considered the cream of the crop in terms of drama scripting. He would only agree to come to the BBC for Doctor Who. The BBC agreed to one season, never expecting anything to come of it and assuming Davies would then produce the kind of drama he'd become famous for on other networks.

Davies knew an actor of Eccleston's caliber was required to give the relaunch credibility, and Eccleston's famous reticence to do series rather than serials worked in his favor since nobody really expected a hit. Davies was also clever enough to structure a season that could work as a self-contained unit while still allowing for a second season in the event the first was a hit.

It may be difficult for US viewers to understand this thinking five years later, but limiting the contract to one season opened up Doctor Who to a much higher caliber of actor. Bear in mind the BBC asked Hugh Grant first - and they could never have expected he'd come on for more than one season!

Speaking of, what about Martha Jones...why did she just last 1 year as a main character. Obviously she liked Who enough to guest in future episodes...I thought she was a great companion.

Martha is great. The plan there was always to keep the actress around for two seasons but the companion in the TARDIS for one. Davies was very open about this when he announced her stint on Torchwood and her guest role in series four. I think she did eight episodes that year, and with the way the production blocks work out this would all have been planned very early on. Davies was experimenting with the format. Some fans disliked Martha and started rumors she was fired, which is nonsense. Who hires someone for eight episodes after firing them?

 

[ProgMatinee]

interest info thanks. for me Martha is my fav of the new companions. Rose a bit too naive and Donna too obnoxious. Martha was the right amount of daring, curiousity and independance.

 

[pixletwin]

Barbe, you give great and thoughtful responses to questions. It is too bad that you have slip in jabs and your dumb commentary as well. I don't believe anyone here is a "conspiracy nut" and no one here claims to have any insider credentials (as you seem to).

I posted a commonly held belief in fan circles (which seems as plausible to me as what you reported... "professional" or not we are still dealing with humans and you can't white wash that fact with the word "professional" as if being a professional eliminates them from the same professional uncertainties which exist for everyone). A belief which is more the result of lack of any info from those involved than from the need for a good "nut job" story.

Per Martha, she was great in Series 3 and in Torchwood.. but everything she has done in WHO since has been cringe-worthy IMO.

 

[ProgMatinee]

Freema didn't get much room to work in Tennant's finale, did she? Here's a gun, go run around...

For all the "Return of the King" style closure they seemed to try in that last special they really didn't spend much time on either Martha or Rose.

 

[pixletwin]

and thank goodness for that.

 

[ProgMatinee]

and thank goodness for that.

why is that? i thought they spent too much time fretting about giving us closure to Donna. I don't dislike her completely, but I'm not sure how the Doctor's character moved on from Rose being the most important person in his life to Donna. All of season 3 it was Rose this Rose that. During season 4 I thought there was obviously supposed to be a connection between Donna and the Doctor but when we hit the finales it seemed shoehorned in that Donna now replaced Rose as his most important companion or something. Seemed like they couldn't work Rose/ Billie Piper in to do the final goodbye for Tennant so they puffed the DonnaDoctor,DoctorDonna thing even harder.

 

[bcm77]

Audiences are supposed to like the current version of the show. How on earth is that jumping on a bandwagon?

I'm more referring to the newer fans that go on like the show never existed pre RTD/Tennant, particularly those in the US most of whom who I suspect only like it due to it's format being the same style over substance BS that makes up their TV schedules.

 

[ProgMatinee]

i think "style over substance" is totally subjective.

just because a story in old Who took 6 mini episodes to complete the overall plot doesn't mean they truly added more "substance". Some of those storylines are drawn out with a lot of silly stuff...or just clunky effects that took 2 minutes to show what now can be shown in 30 seconds. Also a lot of the time spent opening a new segment of the old show is used on reminding you what happened previously. They can cut all that out now with the 1 hour episodic format. So I disagree that nu-Who lacks substance. There's as much exposition and character developement as the older episodes I've seen. I don't consider Tom Baker's Doctor taking 3 minutes to climb down a 20 foot rocky cliff to be adding more "substance" than Tennant taking 3 seconds to run down it.

 

[pixletwin]

I think the old series could use an overhaul similar to what the original Star Trek has enjoyed. How cool would renewed FX be in classic who? I would love it personally... They could also edit them a bit to make the story telling a bit tighter.

 

[ProgMatinee]

I think the old series could use an overhaul similar to what the original Star Trek has enjoyed. How cool would renewed FX be in classic who? I would love it personally... They could also edit them a bit to make the story telling a bit tighter.

i like correcting some stuff like they have already on some of the DVDs I watched. But there's a certain kitsch to a lot of the pacing. Stuff like Sontorans taking 30 seconds to take off their helmets. The minute long scenes of the 3rd Doctor driving around in Bessy.

My personal complaints on it are probably some of the things BCM77 loves.

I think it would be funny in a Benny Hill way if they sped up the reel during parts of people climbing up and down the hills or the clunky robots and aliens getting in and out of their spaceships and stuff. For me its just so painfully slow, and I'm not a ADD type, I like good pacing, but what are those scenes offering?

 

[barbelith]

Barbe, you give great and thoughtful responses to questions. It is too bad that you have slip in jabs and your dumb commentary as well. I don't believe anyone here is a "conspiracy nut" and no one here claims to have any insider credentials (as you seem to).

But it's quite literally a conspiracy theory. We are being asked by some to believe Davies, Tennant and the BBC conspired behind Eccleston's back to replace him.

I posted a commonly held belief in fan circles (which seems as plausible to me as what you reported...

Myths are myths. It doesn't matter how many people believe in them; that doesn't make them any more true. This right here is the root of the problem - people are so intellectually lazy that myths are repeated as truth, and allegations gain merit based on their plausibility rather than whether they fit the facts. Any one of you could have spent three minutes on Google and found sourced statements telling you exactly what I told you. But instead we get a fan myth repeated as fact and taken as fact.

 

[pixletwin]

I don't see the conspiracy theory at all. That's an exaggeration on your part. I don't see where that is implied at all. I saw the theory as uncertainty vs. necessity.

 

[barbelith]

I don't see the conspiracy theory at all. That's an exaggeration on your part.

Not at all. The myth holds that Davies, Tennant and the BBC conspired to replace Eccleston. The story wouldn't make sense otherwise, because if he was kept in the loop he wouldn't have any cause for hard feelings. It's also a conspiracy theory in another sense, because it asks us to believe in a cover up (that the myriad public statements to the contrary are lies etc).

But it's a much juicier story than the real version of events, so no wonder it's had legs over the years.

 

[bcm77]

I think the old series could use an overhaul similar to what the original Star Trek has enjoyed. How cool would renewed FX be in classic who? I would love it personally... They could also edit them a bit to make the story telling a bit tighter.

There's already been a few Classic DVD's with the option of updated FX and whilst the ones I've seen are done well enough to not stand out the way all the stuff in the Star Wars Original Trilogy Special Editions does I prefer to watch the stories as originally aired.

Part of the appeal for me is seeing what was possible and what wasn't before CGI came along and made every sci-fi show look like they came off the same production line.

As for editing episodes it think should never happen and certainly not because most Nu-Who fans appear to lack the attention span to watch a 4-6 part serial.

Those of us that prefer the Classic era are constantly told we should accept the new format or stop watching etc etc so I think the same kind of thing should apply for those wishing to get into the Classic series.

 

[barbelith]

I'm more referring to the newer fans that go on like the show never existed pre RTD/Tennant

Why shouldn't they? It's a contemporary show for contemporary viewers. I prefer the original personally, but I think it's silly to expect audiences to soak up 26 years' worth of episodes just because they enjoy 42 minutes of a Saturday evening.

 

[bcm77]

Why shouldn't they? It's a contemporary show for contemporary viewers. I prefer the original personally, but I think it's silly to expect audiences to soak up 26 years' worth of episodes just because they enjoy 42 minutes of a Saturday evening.

It's the general "if you aren't with us, you're against us" attitude amongst those people that annoys me as much as anything else. Unless you like absolutely everything about the new series and think Tennant is the greatest thing EVER you get looked down on, outright insulted and generally treated like crap especially if you prefer the Classic series.

This kind of thing is more than evident with the way some people in this thread respond to my comments but it's much worse on the so called "fansites".

 

[pixletwin]

It's the general "if you aren't with us, you're against us" attitude amongst those people that annoys me as much as anything else. Unless you like absolutely everything about the new series and think Tennant is the greatest thing EVER you get looked down on, outright insulted and generally treated like crap especially if you prefer the Classic series.

This kind of thing is more than evident with the way some people in this thread respond to my comments but it's much worse on the so called "fansites".

Now Brendan, there are actually plenty of people (the majority in fact, I would say) who are perfectly fine with someone liking brand x over brand y. It's the choice of words one posts which typically gets people's hackles up.