What a breath of fresh air!!! I, too, became enamored of the Doctor during the Tom Baker era. The draw of the show was ALWAYS what was said and how the Doctor found another way out of trouble other than blasting everything in sight. The "cheesiness" of the sets never occurred to us as it was the message conveyed not the props. Plus, if you were not able to suspend disbelief for an hour or two then you wouldn't "get it" anyway!! ... Keep at it and screw the rest!! J.A. Harvey, Indianapolis (also in guestbook).
I beleive you guys
are judging the new WHO movie too harshly. I admit it was
extremely "Americanized", and that it didn't have that
Who "Feel" to it, but they did try! It was Doctor
Who! although it was different and not very Who-ish.
This was a good movie in my opinion. I think that their
goal was to try to modernize it not to make it American, but to
try to attract an audience. Times have changed since Mr.
McCoy held the reigns, and Fox tried to address that fact, by an
attempt to update it. For example, Tom Baker was the most
well-liked and famous Doctor, but if Doctor WHO aired not in
1963, but instead aired in 1996 starring Tom Baker I doubt it
would've lasted more than a couple of months! Doctor WHO
has always changed.
On the other hand
I realize this movie did have excessive violence, and was much
"darker" than it should have been (and what they did to
the TARDIS was awful-it looked like a medievial castle complete
with bats!). I see both points of view here, but I think
all the criticism was uncalled for. And it was this that
ruined the chance for a series! But there is hope
yet! On the website "Outpost Gallifrey" I read
that there might be a chance yet!
Now that I've
said my piece there, I would like to know why so many people
hated the 6th Doctor! He was my favorite, and I think he
was the combonation of all the Doctors personalities, but I'm
sure there are those who disagree so please comment! Chad Lindsey, USA (state
unknown!).
"Americanization"
is a troubling concept, one which many American aficionados of
British television cannot stand. Douglas Adams ran into the
problem when he tried to make an American "Hitchhikers'
Guide to the Galaxy," and Grant Naylor ran into the problem
with the American "Red Dwarf." This isn't to say that
some shows haven't come over to the US and done terribly well;
"Steptoe and Son" became "Sanford and Son,"
and "Till Death Do Us Part" became the wildly
successful "All in the Family." But most shows, like
"Are You Being Served" ("Beanes of Boston")
died on the drawing board.
The problem is fairly simple. American networks treat their audiences like complete idiots. This isn't to say that Americans want to be treated like complete idiots, but when you treat someone like a complete idiot for a long time, eventually they get used to it, and finally they forget that there's any other way to be treated. American television is a lot like American fast food--cheap, loud, accessible, filling, and not very healthy in the long run. It isn't difficult to digest. The viewer is very passive.
Now I don't know if
the British feel the same way about British television. Maybe
it's just the cultural difference, but British television doesn't
feel like it's treating Americans like complete idiots. Hence
British television's small but hard-core cadre of American fans
fed up with being treated like complete idiots, and the general
American viewing public's stereotype of British television as
stuffy, highbrow, and intellectual. And the brain gets some
exercise, even for shows like Doctor Who (which are
anything but stuffy, highbrow, and
intellectual) just bridging the Atlantic difference.
Doctor Who NEVER treated its viewers like complete idiots, even its British fans. Even if the sets wobbled too much, that was part of the character of the show itself--it never took itself too seriously, even when it was dead serious about its themes. Tom Baker commented that Doctor Who was watched on several levels--you had the seven year old behind the couch, the nine year old watching through his fingers, the twelve-year-old saying "Shut up, I want to watch this," and the parents in the background saying "Isn't this delightful."
The attention of the American audience, though, is hard to get, which is why Doctor Who will never have more than the ten to twenty million fans it currently enjoys over here. We don't just have an appetite for pretty pictures; I'm sure a lot of people watch the Star Trek Generations After That One or Babylon Five just for the pretty pictures, but Babylon 5 doesn't treat its audience like complete idiots either, and it was that that I was hoping for.
There were a lot of elements coming together that had to make this work; many were close, but few were direct on target. It needed enough flash and zip to attract the attention of an American audience without becoming so "Americanized" that it alienated its British one. I think even while I was watching it, despite my optimism (and despite my thus far rigorous defense), I knew that the film was a bit of an empty suit. American and British viewing audiences react to wildly apposite elements. After all these months, the film has sort of become what I sort of suspected it would become if it failed to inspire a new series--a Peter Cushing-esque curiosity of little or no significance to the series. But every time the little rabbit pokes its head out of the hole, someone tries to RIP IT OFF. You don't have to be as smart as a rabbit to stop poking your head out. Would it be all right, pretty please, to turn all that energy to something positive for the series?
(Sigh.)
I mean, I'd be happy
to present for you a paper on all the things I thought were WRONG
with the film. You're right; it was a fairly vacant thing. But a
lot of people just aren't letting go, and their savage outrage of
what, in almost two years of retrospect, has become a rather
inconsequential bit of television history and, like the two Dalek
movies of the sixties, a hiccup in a far-less-than-flawless
continuity. But hasn't Dr. Who seen enough criticism in recent
years, and isn't this really part of the problem?
Ah, well. Maybe it'll turn out I'm
talking through my hat. I WOULD like to see Dr. Who return; I'm
hoping it'll return with the same or similar set pieces (I loved
that console room) and with the same or similar actors (McGann
was great and the Eighth Doctor shouldn't go to waste). But, as
Gharman said of the Daleks, it will only survive if it deserves
to survive. The outrage hasn't died down on this debacle in TWO
YEARS. Wouldn't it make a pleasant change to say something
positive? ANYTHING positive? Ben
Goodridge, USA (state unknown!).
All right! I'll lay off the Fox Movie now I've said my piece! To be honest it offends me no more than many poor NAs - I was just hoping for so much more. As for being positive, I hope we are doing something positive for the programme by bringing the Doctor back in our own way... Now all we need is the BBC to follow our lead ;-) Howard, FloorTen.
ALSO:
Click
here to read Ben Goodridge's other massive reply (in defence of
Fox)!
Rod Hannah agrees
with us! Click here to read his points!
Good points, chaps! Please
keep your opinions coming!!!
