Hello, my name is Ethan. I am without a doubt one of the most diehard sci-fi fans you will meet. I have enjoyed anything that has been solid sci-fi, and didn't need a love story or gorgeous actors to prop up the plots.
My experience includes Blake's 7, Star Trek (TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Hidden Frontier, Odyssey, & Helena Chronicles/ all of the films with the exception of the 2009 film by Abrams.) Red Dwarf, StarGate (the film), Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica (the original), Star Wars (both trilogies), Indiana Jones, Space: 1999, Buck Rodgers, and ofcourse, Doctor Who.
When I was the age of 7 (in 1989), I often heard my older brother and Dad talk about a show that wasn't on PBS anymore, called Doctor Who. All I knew was that it was science fiction, but I knew if my brother and Dad liked it, it must have been good.
In the early 90s, when satellite TV was becoming all the buzz, we got news of a new channel solely devoted to science fiction - the Sci-Fi Channel. That's not a mispelling by the way, I know its now referred to as SyFy, but in the old days it was OK and a normal part of society be uncool and geeky, and it was "science fiction," not "SyFy" to be cool. When Sci-fi came on the air, their programming was a gift from Heaven - the early morning hours were filled with Gerry Anderson's Stingray, and other sci-fi cartoons like Transformers. Mid day offered Space:1999, Lost In Space, Buck Rodgers, The Prisoner, Amazing Stories, Tales from the Darkside, and others. Commercial breaks were also a minimum. During the weekdays at 1 PM, the Sci-Fi channel hosted "The Doctor Who Hour." I finally got a taste of this priceless nugget of science fiction. At 1 - 1:30 was an episode of Doctor Who, and from 1:30 to 2 PM was a classic cliffhanger, such classics like "Zombies of the Stratosphere," "Flying Disc Man from Mars," and "The Purple Monster Strikes." The Sci-fi channel could only get their hands on a string of Tom Baker episodes, starting with "Robot," and ending with "The Androids of Tara." Nevertheless, it was more than enough for me to get addicted.
Ever since then, I have been following Doctor Who religiously - inspite of NuWho's many shortcomings brought on by Mr. Davies. I refer to them as "shortcomings" because from a pure bred sci-fi fan's perspective, thats what they were, but to the iGens, soccer moms, teenage girlies, Twilight fans, and channel surfers, they were blessings, because for them, DW without those shortcomings would otherwise be a "boring, geeky show only for nerds." Incidentally, that's more or less what the original series was. It's creator, Sidney Newman, even said, "it's a show for smart kids."
Now that you have my background on golden television, let me explain the purpose of this blog. I have loyally followed the new series of Doctor Who, even though there are many things I disliked about it (it was difficult to find dislikes in old Who). Nevertheless, I always try to view episodes from a classic Whovian's perspective, since that is the only way to tell how much an episode is staying true to what the show was intended to be. Mind you, intended by Newman, not Davies. In this blog, I will rank each episode's closeness to that of the original Who, on a scale of 1 - 10. 1 meaning that the episode was a horrible example of Doctor Who, and not in the least bit paralleled the original series. 10 meaning the episode was bloody brilliant, and that it often unfolded, sounded, and felt like something plucked out of the original series. In the event of a just utter dislike for an episode, "0" may be used, in which case, no review would be necessary - there was nothing appealing about that episode at all. That's unlikely, though. RTD has wrote some stinkers, but I don't think any of them were that bad. Just as I do on my YouTube channel, (sixstanger00) I welcome comments, discussions, and thoughts as long as they are contructive and civilized. So that means no ranting "You suck!!! David Tennant is hot!!! Rose was the best!!!" and ending all of your sentences with seven or eight exclamation marks or question marks.
One final thing, I pride myself on appeciating great television, sci-fi or not, so if you would like to know what some of my other favorites are besides sci-fi, just let me know.
In this blog, I will review every new episode of the revived Doctor Who series, and express my opinion on how well I feel they stack up to the standards set by the original series. In addition to a review, each episode's approximation to a classic-style Doctor Who episode will be ranked on a scale of 1 to 10. 1 being a complete departure from what we expect Doctor Who to be, and 10 being 45 minutes of solid classic-style Doctor Who.
Popular Posts
-
WHOSCALE: 8.5 out of 10 I remember when I first saw the title of this episode before it aired, and I recall thinking that it was goi...
"My experience includes Blake's 7, Star Trek (TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Hidden Frontier, Odyssey, & Helena Chronicles/ all of the films with the exception of the 2009 film by Abrams.) Red Dwarf, StarGate (the film), Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica (the original), Star Wars (both trilogies), Indiana Jones, Space: 1999, Buck Rodgers, and ofcourse, Doctor Who..."
ReplyDeleteI love the Star Trek films too, mostly. I pretend #5 never happened, Insurrection was ok but they missed some golden opportunities to develop in-universe narratives (one of the best things about Generations was that it successfully brought together characters from TOS and TNG while introducing new ones), and Nemesis could have been SO much more. And now the new one effectively erases 40 years of established Trek history... it makes my blood boil.
You didn't like Star Trek JJA either? It was a travesty, it was Star Trek for people who have never watched Star Trek, it was one contrivance after another, plausibility be damned as long as seven individuals get together on the bridge of the Enterprise by the end. Grrrr! And it came together under the creative direction of someone who admits to having never liked the show... WTF? ;) The parrallels to Star Wars are obvious even at the most casual viewing, and while I like Star Wars, they're very different beasts, and I hate that the creative team of the new film couldn't respect that. I'd be interested to know what you thought of Enterprise, since you don't mention it here.
I love the StarGate film, but I could never really get into the various TV series. American scifi seems to be a bit more militaristic than Uk scifi (on average), and that seemed to really come through in those shows, and I perhaps find it difficult to get invested in the characters. Star Trek TNG and DS9 are the apex of American scifi IMO because as well as interesting premises and great execution, the characters were instantly likeable, they had some great dynamics between them and they were all explored in depth. TV StarGate was just bland, bland, bland.
Red Dwarf and Indiana Jones (the first 3 films, anyway)... great fun. Do you like The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? Douglas Adams wrote a bit of Doctor Who back in the day, and his other books (eg Dirk Gently) are pretty mad too :D
Oh, and because I enjoy pushing people's buttons...
ReplyDeleteI'm finishing a sentence with lots of exclamation marks!!!!!!
Muahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
;P
@ liminalD: Yes, I've heard of and seen THE ORIGINAL Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I think they made a remake, and seems like I recall watching it, but it must have been as appealing as Abrams' version of Star Trek, because unlike my sci-fi favorites, I've only seen JJA Trek and the remade Hitchhikers once.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the 4th Indiana Jones just didn't seem to retain the magic of the original three.
I'm American, but I am by no means proud of the rubbish we put out on the airwaves and label it "sci-fi." American science fiction in my opinion died out with the end of "Voyager," "Babylon 5," "Insurrection" and "Nemesis." The StarGate movie was awesome, and it was intended to be a sci-fi ADVENTURE. In the film, the military aspect was introduced as a byproduct of the plot, but in the TV series - as you say - they seem to take the militarism a little overboard. Americam Sci-Fi basically has to be this: Guns, Gore, Action, Explosions, aliens coming to earth and us Americans being the bad-asses of the film/series and kickin them back to the stars. Sex and violence (usually gunfire) are also requisites. In short, the aliens is about the only thing "sci-fi" about it.
I mean, DAMN, my country has gone to such great lengths to make "sci-fi" socially acceptable so that manly men can watch a sci-fi show and still crawl in the bed with a tan, curvy blonde at bedtime that we don't even call our OWN SCIENCE FICTION CHANNEL "SCI-FI" ANYMORE!!! It's "SyFy." WTF????!!! Sorry that gets me worked up sometimes...
And oh yeah - about Enterprise....the show was OK, but the Xindi story arcs, the reality TV camerawork, the "this technology looks AHEAD of Kirk's Enterprise but it's meant to be BEHIND him?" look of the ship, the constant teases at sexuality with the resident Vulcan, a semi-rock theme song with lyrics, and ofcourse, Bakula as the lead role were all turnoffs and so Enterprise never could swing my stamp of approval. The first few seasons weren't even marketed as "Star Trek."
ReplyDeleteBesides, when I look at Bakula, all I can think is he's about to say, "oh, boy!" You have to have seen him in "Quantum Leap" to fully appreciate that one, I suppose.
"Besides, when I look at Bakula, all I can think is he's about to say, "oh, boy!" You have to have seen him in "Quantum Leap" to fully appreciate that one, I suppose..."
ReplyDeleteHaha! True! Though I think he and the rest of the cast grew into their roles and it was just getting good when they pulled the rug out from under it. I didn't like the finale much at all, though it was nice to see Marina Sirtis, Jonathan Frakes and the Enterprise-D on TV again one last time (even if Frakes and Sirtis were showing their age). Oh and I really cringe at Enterprise's theme song every time I hear it ;)
Great that you're putting your thoughts on Who down in Blog form dude, I look forward to reading through them :)
Cool post, but ORIGINALLY the doctor was intended to be an anti hero, and the main hero was to be Ian. this is evident in "an unearthly child", when the doctor tries to kill a cave man, and in "the daleks", when he tries to leave Barbara in the dalek city so he would not die of radiation poison. therefore, no episode since "the daleks" is what doctor who was intended to be.
ReplyDeleteI can't help feeling that you're approaching Doctor Who from entirely the wrong angle. Doctor Who was devised as an educational, entertaining programme for children; something to go between Grandstand and Jukebox Jury. History and science were the two subjects to be explored and Sydney Newman emphatically wanted no Bug-Eyed Monsters, a wish that granted for all of 5 episodes, as in The Survivors we meet the Daleks. Newman was furious with their inclusion but, due to their popularity, relented and allowed Verity Lambert a freer reign with the production, essentially bowing out as a creative influence. So, the show Newman envisaged very much fell at the first hurdle. Over the intervening 26 years or so, many producers, writers and script editors changed the format many times: the Time Lords, UNIT, the Doctor as Merlin and even regeneration allowed the show it's flexibilty of format and style. At no point in the show's history as it ever been consistent. Yes, at the time, most stories were only shown once, and people weren't that bothered by the fact that Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart retired in 1977 when Sarah Jane came from 1980. Also, a word about the idea that Doctor Who should be just for sci-fi fans: the BBC is concerned with making popular programmes, and for it go on BBC1 Doctor Who must be seen to be popular. The corporation isn't going to waste time making a programme if only 0.5 million are going to tune in; the show needs to be all-embracing or it just wouldn't work. OK, I accept that some stories lack a bit of oomph, but the story that is being told is always worth watching, even if it's not the story you were expecting. The idea that the romance elements are just for fangirls and Twilight fans is sorely misguided. I am a 38 year old British man and I have romance in my soul, and therefore appreciate these particular plot-threads immensely. The BBC is also funded by public money, much like PBS, except that the BBC is funded by the TV Licence, which is a compulsory payment to be made by anyone who owns a television, regardless of whether they watch the BBC or not. Bearing that in mind, it would be a madness to make a "boring, geeky show only for nerds". I admit I don't know the US "nerd scene", as it were, but I do know that science-fiction is a relatively niche market in the UK, and to make a programme that just appeals to a niche market just wouldn't be economically viable. Also, you mention that you are fan of hardcore sci-fi, which is fair enough, but Doctor Who isn't hardcore sci-fi. It's a fun romp through time and space, with 'irrelevant' comic moments galore: the Doctor's unintentional engagement to Cameca in The Aztecs; the broad farce elements with Nero and Barbara in The Romans; the Christmas interlude in The Daleks' Master Plan; the Doctor reading Oolon Coluphid's A Brief History of the Universe in Destiny of the Daleks; Teach Yourself Tibet in Tibetan from The Creature from the Pit. In fact, it wasn't until the JNT-era that humour was faded out of the show. Not everything in the show needs to be plot-relevant, but it does need to be accessible. In any case, I would say that hardcore sci-fi would be the works of Issac Asimov, Arthur C. Clark, Philip K. Dick and L. Ron Hubbard rather than the works of Terry Nation, Robert Holmes, Douglas Adams, Chris Chibnall, Steven Moffat etc. I also think it's a bit strange for an American fellow such as yourself to try and understand an essentially British TV phenomemon; it's akin to Monty Python; you may laugh at it, but you can't really hope to understand the cultural references. For example, you may not know that Kenneth Kendall was a genuine newsreader, or that Kirsty Wark is also a genuine newsreader. Maybe you couldn't care less, and that's fine, but to try and compare apples to oranges without investigating further is only half a job, in my opinion.
ReplyDelete