Convince me that Dr. Who isn't the worst shit ever - Page 2

I think the bottom line here is, it's far from the worst shit ever.

That honor goes to HEROES.

God I hate HEROES.

No, Devin. Why don't you convince me to convince you? Why should anyone bother when you start off with such a confrontational thread title? I've got an idea. If it already seems like "the worst shit ever" to you, why don't you not watch it, and spare us the pointless thread?

As a couple of people have said above, it's almost an impossible task to explain WHY you should like it. You either give it a shot, and fall in love with the premise, or you don't. Because if you don't, there's no way you can overlook the shoddy special effects of the earliest stories, where props were often made of cardboard covered with tinfoil.

It's about a Time Traveller, who has a spaceship that looks like a Phone Booth. It suggests the possibility of a larger universe, and the fantasy of escape from ours, just by stepping into something ordinary through to something fantastic. Just like Star Wars did (with Luke in his ordinary teenager whiny life, whisked away into a Galaxy). If you don't get that, you can't get Dr. Who, and you can't forgive any of it's flaws.

I disrecommend trying to watch them in original serial form, as an adult, but in the PBS uninterrupted movie form (though I don't know if that is commercially available). I didn't like Dr. Who on commercial television, interrupted by commercials and then by closing credits every half hour. It's better if there are no commercials, but the closing credits every 20 minutes is still annoying. PBS's grand movie versions, with no interruptions, was the best way to watch it. I fell in love with Tom Baker's Dr. Who, and still think he's the best Doctor ever. I liked the following Doctor's to lesser and lesser degrees, but went back to the three earlier Doctors and enjoyed them immensely. The very first Doctor was a grumpy old man with a cute as buttons girl-sidekick in spandex and an amazingly delicious butt that the camera gratuitously lingered on, and the show contrived many situations where she was required to bend over in blatantly exploitative ways. But it's premises were mind-bending, for their time (though I'm sure the Star Trek series' have worn them thin by overuse).

It's not a show you watch if you've got better things to do. It's a show you watch because you don't, and it's something you love to do when you don't have anything better to do. I sure had better things to do in college than watch Dr. Who 4 hour movies on PBS in the evenings. But man, I loved to do it.

Well Devin, as a casual fan, and having only seen the current run I'd say you're not really missing all that much if you never watch an episode.

Even the 'best' episodes people are recommending.

While I'm here - is the "new" Eccleston/Tennant run supposed to be in continuity at all with the Tom Baker videotape shit run on PBS back before I had ass hair?

You never know why someone is hired for a job. Kasdan got RAIDERS and EMPIRE because of CONTINENTAL DIVIDE. Plus, Moffat's not just the writer of DR. WHO. COUPLING. JEKKYL. Both are brilliant and not in the British use of the word. As far as I'm concerned, JEKKYL's the only genre TV in recent years that holds a candle to LOST.

Um, you did ask people to convince you it was NOT the "worst shit ever", and the only people who would try would be people who do NOT think it's the "worst shit ever". Thus, calling it "the worst shit ever" was quite counterproductive as a starting point. You were sure to get SOME blowback from people who would otherwise have been quite willing to try to convince you. You sure didn't make it sound like the effort was going to fall on open ears. And now you are fighting with one of the people who might otherwise have tried to help you out.

Simple Edit "Try to convince me that Dr. Who is worth getting into."

In the culture you live in, calling something "shit" is fighting words. And you aren't an idiot, so you know that.

Jekyll was awesome. I was just using the Tin Tin thing as a point to illustrate Moffats episodes at any rate are worth checking out because they really are amongst the best examples of incredible genre writing for episodic television.
The point made earlier about the Doctor being one of the few characters who tries to go with non violent solutions to problems is an excellent one, made even more awesome by the fact that any time he does have to resort to violence, entire species are usually wiped out.

I think I've only seen "The Girl in the Fireplace" and that was some amazing shit.

Yeah, before the Tom Baker "videotape shit" they had Dr. Who "Black and White videotape shit", and before that, even shitter dramatizations of H.G. Wells stories on radio, with no video AT ALL, and before that, the shittiest of shit, books that you had to read, without video or audio!

When are the holographic sensurround immersion capsules arriving?

I hope none of you have kids and have to attend a school play. Imagine your chagrin at the poor acting and special effects.

I must've missed the implicit assumption we're mostly talking about the new (new?) series -- is it because like Star Trek TOS the effects are just too cheesy and present that much of a barrier to a new watcher?

Personally, my recommendation would be to start with the Tom Baker run where Leela makes her intro (The Face of Evil) and make sure to watch them in "movie" format (as opposed to single episodes). If it needs to be a single episode, I'd actually pick Pyramids of Mars.

Why Dr. Who?
1. The principals are usually experienced actors as opposed to people who look good on tv.
2. The underlying concepts while not hard sci-fi, are nonetheless imaginative and intriguing (a necessity due to the lack of [good] sfx).
3. While no slouch in the special abilities/deus ex machina devices, the Doctor's biggest advantage (especially in the Tom Baker era) is his brain -- smarts, a universe of knowledge, and a more detached attitude compared to, say, an action hero.

There's lots to say about the writing and the characters but that's too subjective to make a persuasive argument.

"Shit"= "stuff", "episodes", "canon". I didn't mean it as "excrement" or "garbage". Now answer my fucking question.

Yes. Same character with same history, but the stories are made for an audience who has no idea what happened in the 25 seasons of the old show.

Why should I even care if Devin watches Dr. Who? I don't buy into this I love something so I should share it bullshit anymore. I've been burned too many times when I've tried to share something I love with people who don't share my good taste.

As far as the 2000 episodes thing goes... I've only ever watched the new series. I'll tell you this as much as I love Dr. Who the three part Dalek arc from issue three WAS pretty much the worst shit ever.

Devin, regarding the writing; Hypothetically, if there were a Doctor Who feature film made, written by Steven Moffat (the GOOD one), and you had to see it as your job as a critic, then you would enjoy it, maybe even love it. As a tv show that you have to watch in your free time when you would rather be doing something else, it's really a toss-up.

Regarding the character; I know you like Marvel, and Doctor Who always struck me as being more at home with the DC comics. He's otherworldly and immortal and brilliant, though at times he can be quite relatable as well. For me he's just the right combination of the man I am and the man I wish I could be. He strikes a chord. I love this character as much as I love Spock. And when you love a character that much, you'll still pay to see something as wretched as Star Trek V. This is why I watch the show despite the shit, and this is way you can't expect everyone else to do the same.

So good luck if you decide to take the plunge. There's gold in them hills, I hope you can find it.

Well, that would have been more confrontational.

As it is, if you can't see why, for any show or movie, "convince me this isn't the worst shit ever" isn't more confrontational than "why is this worth watching?", then you are either being willfully obtuse, or you're retarded.

Which is it?

Lighten up dude. Seriously.

The advantage to watching in "movie" format is that it irons out all the artificial cliffhanger moments (which were mostly jokes that resolved into something not particularly alarming, or were easily out-maneouvered).

Devins asking about the new series specifically. He mentioned that he has seen the original when it aired on PBS.

Could you give a reason why you think the (new?) show is? And are you talking about the new show that started in the last few years with Eccleston, or the entire span of the series from the beginning? What do you mean by "supergay" ... do you mean simply "lame" or "mannered" or "having deliberate homosexual subtext" (the show beginning with Eccleston). I remember reading something about Eccleston being uncomfortable with the "gay Doctor" rumors, and insisting that he was playing the Doctor as having the hots for Rose. So if you are homophobic, there's some reassurance for you. But I don't know what you mean by "gay" or "supergay".

Why would ANY "Who believers" care about someone with that attitude? You are admitting that the question, and this thread, are rhetorical. You don't believe anyone can convince you. I gave it my best go in my first post upthread .... can I get any feedback as to whether any of that was convincing, or do you only want feedback on the new incarnation.

could we get some feedback as to the reasons already given, so we know whether any of them were convincing, or is this just a grand waste of our time to prove your rhetorical declaration that it's (all? just the latest version?) a pile of dogshit? Why should we participate?

It's campy family-orientated teatime science fiction with occasionally decent writing. There's some great concepts - but it's been freely admitted its not hard sci-fi, and even the fabled Moff cant write a truly solid ending (in my eyes). He's easily the strongest writer of the bunch by a long shot though.

There's little to recommend to an American who wasn't raised with it and already views it as being total ass. The preconception of the series will probably hurt your viewing.

Then again, I don't know what your alternatives on TV are at the moment.

People keep mentioning Supernatural as an alternative.
It's better than that.

Heres a pretty good bit of writing on the fourth series that could go a way to convince you to give it a shot. Source is kinda reputable.
http://chud.com/articles/articles/17...OUR/Page1.html

I'm from the UK (Not that it qualifies me for anything) and Supernatural is by far and away the better show. Aside from the admittedly lack luster Season 1 of that show it has better humour, monsters and delves into morally murky waters. The acting is also far far better (Suprisingly). Even it's dramatic episodes "What is and what should never be" for example are much better handled than anything in Who.

Should you watch Who? No Devin you shouldn't. If you're going to watch it at all then just watch the episodes recommended and leave it at that because on the whole it goes from average->bad pretty consistently. And that right there is the shows biggest failing. It's never consistent, either in writing or perfomances. In every episode where David Tennant is good (The girl in the fireplace) there's a fuckton where he decends into 'Carry on...' levels of mugging to the camera. It's not his fault though it's the material he's given. People go crazy about the shows good episodes because on the whole the show is rarely good. Dip into any episode from the recent run and chances are it'll be bad. Simple as that. You didn't stand for that on Heroes so why stand for it here?

If you're really going to try it at all then I suggest waiting until Stephen Moffat becomes the show runner and try it from there.

Probably good advice actually.

Phil: The new series is in continuity with the old series, but there are never any narrative links to the older series just the occasional nod and wink to the fans.

The thing with Doctor Who is that even in the terrible episodes there's a concept, or a piece of acting, or a few lines which are fantastic. When Doctor Who episodes fail it's not because the writers aren't trying, it's just that there original concept/pitch was way off base and they're pursuing it with utter enthusiasm despite how bad it is.

Supernatural is truly, truly, terrible though.

The biggest strength of Dr Who is that it's among the few genre shows aimed at a mass family audience instead of a bunch of geeks, and is a lot more accessible, less po-faced and generally lighter of touch than self-important garbage like Heroes.

It's more varied and less trapped in a formula than any other genre series I can think of, has stories with valid sci-fi or interesting fantasy ideas from time to time, and has a morality focused on broad-mindedness and pacifism instead of the petty politics most space opera indulges in.

The sheer open-endedness of the structure also means the quality is much more variable than tightly-focused, short-running shows like Battlestar Galactica, but the thing's aimed at casual family audiences, not just obsessive fans who watch every episode.

It's also among the oldest pieces of genre television- only Quatermass, The Avengers and A for Andromeda predate it, to my knowledge.

Two words: David Tennant. I liked the Eccleston episodes, but Tennant is leaps and bounds beyond that. He nails just the right balance between immensely powerful, knowledgeable alien being and wide-eyed little kid wonder. Even after everything he's seen -- this character has been around for 40 years, and every episode is part of his backstory -- he still can be amazed, awed and delighted by something new. And when he sets his mind to do what's right, Tennant really brings forth that conviction. Even the weaker episodes are carried by his sheer enthusiasm -- the script might let him down, but he never let's it down.

I actually think Devin would like Doctor Who if he gave it a chance, considering his love for old school Star Trek. Just ignore all the shit from the past 85 years and start with the rebooted Christopher Eccleston season. It's good fun, full of monsters and aliens, and even has some genuine emotion to it. It's definitely better than most U.S. sci-fi shows, aside from Lost and BSG.

Mere 'ideas' mean nothing without the execution though. When they pull it off the show does work. The problem, again, though is that it's not done enough to have the season work as a whole. It also has this tendency to replace 'funny' with 'wacky', proof if needed of who exactly the show is being aimed at. There's nothing wrong with it being a family show, it's when it becomes a children's show that it grates.

For a better look at the shows failings check out this segment of Charlie Brooker's screenwipe. He's a fan of the show but picks up on its major failings. It's only a minor segment on it but it gets some of the more jarring points across.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79XAEN9gAx0

Though I hate the show I will say in its defence that the latest Season worked best of all (I avoided the previous season to that save for the finale - again an interesting series of episodes with the most shockingly bad final act you could think of - just fucking dire). I really liked 'Midnight' for instance because it strayed from its usual comfort zone. A lot of fans seemed to dismiss the episode but I thought it was quite effective, as was 'Turn Right'.

This latest Season (Season 4 I guess?) gets the best idea of what the show should be like but it still isn't there yet. I'm cautiously optimistic as to what Moffat can pull off but I can't see the show turning around completely.

Because Simon Pegg is in it? Or was in it long enough for him to be an action figure sitting on the shelves of Newbury Comics.

Thanks for asking about the continutity, Phil. I have a friend that loves this franchise so much that he constantly talks about it to the point that I refuse to call him anymore.

Listening to him try to explain the doctor's companions, how Sarah Jane's series ties into the mythos, why a picture of Christopher Eccelston's doctor from the 60's is shown in the pilot episode when, in fact the doctor was in a different "regeneration" form at that time......


Blah blah blah. I couldn't bring myself to watch more than three episodes.

Obsessive Dr.Who nerdery is probably the least attractive of all nerdery, and I say that as one who enjoys the show. They're like Trekkies but more twee.

He's a time-traveler. He can pop into the 60's, or any other decade, whenever he damn well pleases.

Outside of his Edgar Wright collaborations, I don't think Simon Pegg is really all that good.

Pegg was only in the one episode, and that episode honestly doesn't have much going for it otherwise, even to a semi-fan like myself.

If all you want to do is see him in non-Wright UK television, go for his Black Books episode.

Maybe the excellent two-parter from season 3 featuring the lovely Jessica Hynes would be more to his liking.

EDIT for something actually relevant:
Waiting for Moffat to take over is a good idea. The show might start getting respect in the critical community, and on the whole will seem less like teenage girl fanfiction. God, I fucking hate Russel T. Davies.

I simply disagree with that. After years of believing that Supernatural was just a bunch of Smallville-type bullshit, I decided to give it a shot - starting with the current season. Whatever the earlier problems were, it's fucking great now.

I got the first season of the reboot to review, the one with Christopher Eccelston, and I found it to be like an entire season of Tribble-type episodes. It's light but fun. I don't remember much from it, excepting a good modern pop song gag. I would argue it is for children. I think you're better off trying to find Ultraviolet (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0169501/) and not only for Stringer Bell.

A lot of you are so butthurt. So, so butthurt. I don't get why you're on Chud if you have that need for handholding. I would need to be given the Ludovico technique to make it through Buffy. Especially since I would have to watch it in order, and I hear the first season is the worst. And that show strikes me as the gayest thing ever. Especially since one of the best episodes is a musical.

This isn't that. I grew up with Dr. Who on PBS, and it always struck me as the suck with the garbage can monsters, though I loved the credits (and the music).

I watched the first two episodes expecting a good sci-fi romp given the impressions I've read here but found it pretty dumb and uninspired. I agree with Andre that it strikes me as more for children.

This talk of Supernatural being good now is unsettling because I tried season 1 and it was excruciatingly bad. I wanted to like it, I gave up on it, then tried AGAIN and gave up AGAIN.

So, if the show is actually good now, can someone direct me to an episode to watch that is proof of this improved quality? I really don't feel like getting burned by this show again.

Well... I like Dr. Who because it is supergay. What's wrong with being supergay?

I honestly haven't seen a lot of people in this thread upholding the show as anything other than light escapism. What's butthurt about that?

Yeah where is the butthurt? I'm one of the biggest fans of the show on the boards and I've freely admitted it can be dire shit at times. The best argument that I can ultimately come up with to give the show a chance is despite the fact it can be the drizzling shits it has enough gold to make the thing worth sitting down for. It's fun, simple as that.

Now, if what Devin is complaining about is the perception of WACKINESS in the most recent incarnation of the Doctor, it's "wackiness" that put me off some of the previous incarnations (the very last Doctor, before this revival, was one I could not watch at all, because he was dressed like a clown, and his adventures played to wacky music all the time...I think I may have missed the entire run of two Doctors after Baker (I didn't mind the Peter Davidson Doctor though, directly following Baker). That's what was great about Baker's Dr. Who ... he was eccentric, but but had a genuine sense of gravity in his performanc, and the stories were usually taken quite seriously. Wackiness sucks, and if that's what is meant by "supergay", I'm totally with Devin on this.
I actually haven't seen that MUCH of the new series ... the only samples I've seen were Eccleston's, and they didn't seem that bad at all. The wacky stuff that was highlighted upstream with the DVD review link on CHUD made me have a bit of an allergic reaction to the wacky tone in evidence.

But I still want to try these new shows. Because it's still about a guy in a phone booth travelling through time and space.

Not to derail, but no, not true. First season is perfectly solid, it's just not as ambitious as later seasons. You might not see why people are insane in love with that show from the first season.

It is kinda gay though. But gay in an awesome way. If that makes you squirmy, watch the far more heterosexual (but not as good) Angel instead.

Getting back to Who, I watched the Eccleston season. Kept waiting for it to get good. "The Empty Child" or whatever it's called got my hopes up, but after the farting aliens came along I just rode out the season out of inertia. Too bad, Eccleston and piper had great charisma.

One of the things that baffled me about that show/season was how they kept avoiding sending the characters to exotic times and far-flung galaxies, spending most of their time kicking around Wales instead. Granted, they have a low budget, but that didn't stop the old show.

Speaking of which, I *am* sort of interested in the "classic Who", even though I realize it'll probably be laughably dated when I watch it. But I find a lot of British genre writing of that era to be pretty clever, possibly to make up for the incredibly low budgets, possibly because British TV writers used to be a lot better than American ones. Andrew Hickey keeps a blog about comics 'n' stuff and he goes on a lot about the old Who (he seems to hate the new one), making me wonder if, yes, being British isn't a prerequisite for truly enjoying the show. But he also makes it sound occasionally intriguing from a writing POV. I mean, Douglas Adams used to write for it, it couldn't have been ALL bad.

There's been some mentions of it so far, but can anyone recommend some of the classic Who episodes for a newbie with a high tolerance for bad FX?