Who And Who
In this entry I will offer a comparative commentary on both the original and revived series of Doctor Who (now that there has been plenty of both). I find that each incarnation of the program exposes the pros and cons of the other.
The starkest difference between the original and revived series is one of duration and speed. The old show is too slow while the new one is too fast. The original series usually had short 25 minute episodes but one serialized story would take many episodes to tell. Particularly in the black-and-white era a story could take several episodes. A lot of that felt like padding and most of the cliff-hangers were underwhelming. I think the optimal length for the old show was four episodes. In contrast the new show has 40 minute episodes and usually tells a story in that short time. This is too quick and is also accented by a kind of editing and incidental music that seems to celebrate a sense of panic. I prefer the length of a two-parter (80 minutes is close to the 100 minutes of four old episodes) featuring one truly chilling cliffhanger. The problem however is that the new show tends to reserve two-parters for 'epic' adventures in which the Doctor resets the cosmos or scares off an army with a speech!
The new show plays with long story arcs across whole seasons and beyond. This contributes to a sense of momentum and draws one back to the show just to discover the tantalizing secrets hinted at. But it can be frustrating and sometimes I miss more isolated 'monster of the week' tales. Or how about 'planet of the week'? The new show is far more centred on Earth than the old show was and sometimes wild adventures on exotic worlds become joking references made in passing. This is a pity because they now have the special effects to do more than ever in depicting a whole universe of wonders.
The effects were pretty basic in the original series and even the brunt of jokes. However the producers compensated with some creative design. The revived series has continued the tradition of a unique quirky look but is far better rendered. However sometimes they take lazy shortcuts. Too many monsters were things like a computer graphics wasp of gigantic size rather than an original wasp-like alien critter. Overall I'm happy with the new look beyond some very fussy preferences over continuity. I more consistently have issues with character behaviour and interactions.
Like many newer shows, the revived series focuses on 'feels' but I think this is sometimes at the expense of 'thinks'. The original series characters never seemed to have lives of their own and this lacked realism. But this was simply a story-telling convention that let the adventures be the focus (much in the same way nobody went to the loo in older stuff). In the revived series everyone has lives back home and faces consequences from travelling with the Doctor. This was fresh and new but I feel it has sometimes gone too far. Much of that is due to the central character. We have seen the Doctor become both a willing figure of romance and a childlike savant puzzled by personal interactions. Both I think detract from what the character should be - a paranormally perceptive alien you can admire but never truly relate to.
The civilization that character comes from is so advanced that its technology may as well be magic. In science fiction of that kind it is important to define the limits of your setting but I think the revived series has complicated matters with more than a hint of magical realism. We are told that Clara 'blew in on a leaf' and I undertood that to be a poetic way of describing the cause-and-effect that resulted in her birth. But kids watching this fantastic space adventure could easily take it literally. Or maybe we are supposed to since Clara became more of a cosmic phenomenon than a person. As an adult I am confused - possibly I need something more blatant.
On the other hand, I wish the messaging in the revived series was subtler. Doctor Who has always had ethical content but in the original series this was demonstrated in actions and as part of conversations. In the revived series it tends to take the form of speeches directed right to the camera. Be kind (but only ever give someone one chance to be good) we are told and it feels like a lecture. Even kids I suspect want something more sophisticated than this.
Another trend the revived series embraces is regular references to both contemporary culture and its own legacy beyond story confines. I find this detracts from both the timeless quality of the show and my sense of immersion. On some level the Doctor seems to be aware that he is fictitious. I will still happily watch this fiction as new seasons are released. But I wish for something that more harmoniously blended aspects of the old and new. However the program in all its forms continues to entertain.
The starkest difference between the original and revived series is one of duration and speed. The old show is too slow while the new one is too fast. The original series usually had short 25 minute episodes but one serialized story would take many episodes to tell. Particularly in the black-and-white era a story could take several episodes. A lot of that felt like padding and most of the cliff-hangers were underwhelming. I think the optimal length for the old show was four episodes. In contrast the new show has 40 minute episodes and usually tells a story in that short time. This is too quick and is also accented by a kind of editing and incidental music that seems to celebrate a sense of panic. I prefer the length of a two-parter (80 minutes is close to the 100 minutes of four old episodes) featuring one truly chilling cliffhanger. The problem however is that the new show tends to reserve two-parters for 'epic' adventures in which the Doctor resets the cosmos or scares off an army with a speech!
The new show plays with long story arcs across whole seasons and beyond. This contributes to a sense of momentum and draws one back to the show just to discover the tantalizing secrets hinted at. But it can be frustrating and sometimes I miss more isolated 'monster of the week' tales. Or how about 'planet of the week'? The new show is far more centred on Earth than the old show was and sometimes wild adventures on exotic worlds become joking references made in passing. This is a pity because they now have the special effects to do more than ever in depicting a whole universe of wonders.
The effects were pretty basic in the original series and even the brunt of jokes. However the producers compensated with some creative design. The revived series has continued the tradition of a unique quirky look but is far better rendered. However sometimes they take lazy shortcuts. Too many monsters were things like a computer graphics wasp of gigantic size rather than an original wasp-like alien critter. Overall I'm happy with the new look beyond some very fussy preferences over continuity. I more consistently have issues with character behaviour and interactions.
Like many newer shows, the revived series focuses on 'feels' but I think this is sometimes at the expense of 'thinks'. The original series characters never seemed to have lives of their own and this lacked realism. But this was simply a story-telling convention that let the adventures be the focus (much in the same way nobody went to the loo in older stuff). In the revived series everyone has lives back home and faces consequences from travelling with the Doctor. This was fresh and new but I feel it has sometimes gone too far. Much of that is due to the central character. We have seen the Doctor become both a willing figure of romance and a childlike savant puzzled by personal interactions. Both I think detract from what the character should be - a paranormally perceptive alien you can admire but never truly relate to.
The civilization that character comes from is so advanced that its technology may as well be magic. In science fiction of that kind it is important to define the limits of your setting but I think the revived series has complicated matters with more than a hint of magical realism. We are told that Clara 'blew in on a leaf' and I undertood that to be a poetic way of describing the cause-and-effect that resulted in her birth. But kids watching this fantastic space adventure could easily take it literally. Or maybe we are supposed to since Clara became more of a cosmic phenomenon than a person. As an adult I am confused - possibly I need something more blatant.
On the other hand, I wish the messaging in the revived series was subtler. Doctor Who has always had ethical content but in the original series this was demonstrated in actions and as part of conversations. In the revived series it tends to take the form of speeches directed right to the camera. Be kind (but only ever give someone one chance to be good) we are told and it feels like a lecture. Even kids I suspect want something more sophisticated than this.
Another trend the revived series embraces is regular references to both contemporary culture and its own legacy beyond story confines. I find this detracts from both the timeless quality of the show and my sense of immersion. On some level the Doctor seems to be aware that he is fictitious. I will still happily watch this fiction as new seasons are released. But I wish for something that more harmoniously blended aspects of the old and new. However the program in all its forms continues to entertain.
Labels: Nostalgia And Reminiscences
posted by Dan at
28.8.22
|
0 Comments
