PeterDavid.net

DVDs will be out on Valentine's day in the United States. And I, personally, didn't say anything negative about the new Who before I saw it, because I, personally, wasn't willing to believe it existed until I saw it. We were burned too many times in the past.

I'd argue that change in TV, Comics, etc usually does suck. However that is part of taking a risk and that is what you have to do to strike gold. However for every success there are hundreds of examples of tv shows "jumping the shark" or story lines in comics that are quickly forgotten. I do agree that fans need to lay off a bit and have more of a wait and see attitude though.

As mentioned, the DVD set will be out in February and I can't wait. I've been...watching them as they came out, and just watched the excellent Christmas episode and it is great.

I think the point you're making is very good. Fans can go off on a tizzy at the drop of the hat and more often then not their fears are laid to rest. It reminds me of the reactions to the first X-men movies when the uniforms were shown.

Great to see the series getting a nice note here in the USA. Yeah thanks to ebay I got the unauthorized privledge to see the 13 eps and for the first time in years got to see some great Who action. Really wish SCIFI or USA would pick it up for everyone to see legitimatily. Again thanks to ebay I've got the Christmas Invasion special already enroute and I'm hoping this is the year the show gets its 2nd season shown here in the US. If not I hope a bad wolf comes and blows their houses down.(just kidding there, too many bad winds blew through last year so none of that now)

There's always that percentage of fans who expect a franchise series to go on for decades without any changes. Which is a hypocritical demand; "their" Dr. Who (or Trek, or X-Men, or...) is the version that was in play when they were kids and first got hooked. Would they have become fans if they had started off with the franchise's original incarnation? Probably not.

But let's also scold those creators and publishers who denigrate and dismiss negative reactions from longstanding fans instead of stopping to consider that instead of Radically Re-Conceiving the Character, maybe they're just turning Coke into New Coke. New Coke wasn't Coke; it was a super-sweet cola. If Coke drinkers liked that sort of thing then they would have been drinking Pepsi to begin with.

Sometimes a big revamps is an example of taking a product (yes, a comic book is a product) that millions of people know and love and turning it into something that nobody has any use for, solely because the maker can't think of any other ideas that'll sell.

(And yes, I can't help but think of the changes that have been made to Spider-Man. I've dropped the book from my pull list and it's not because I'm Resistant to Change and it's not even a form of protest. It's because (a) I hated my first taste of the new product, and (b) I'm under no obligation to keep buying it month after month. No harm, no foul, and I'm sure that all of the Spidey books will continue to sell just fine without my $2.99.)

They won't revitalize the 007 franchise by re-casting James Bond as a hot babe with a bionic arm and a jive-talking robot sidekick. They'll revitalize the Bond franchise by figuring out what it is that makes the character special and making sure that all of your decisions flow from that understanding.

Witness the enormous success of "Batman Begins." They didn't pull off that miracle by doing anything revolutionary or even anything particularly flashy with the character: all they did was make -- finally! -- a damned great Batman movie with a high level of craftsmanship.

It happens all the times with 'fans' and 'critics'. They make up their mind to hate something if it deviates from their glorious ideal.

If I read a film\media review that starts with, "I've been reviewing XYZ for over XYZ years, and this is the worst..." I automatically make a mental note to go and see the thing in question; if only because I'm so vilely set against anyone justifying their so-called expertise to vilify something that isn't 'theirs'.

The new Doctor Who series; when I saw the first episode I couldn't quite decide if I liked it or not. Yes, it felt British sci-fi-like. Yes, Christopher Ecclestone had that something about him. But it was... different.

By the end of the second episode I was hooked. A hidden story in the past, 'fantastic!' aliens, intriguing stories... and as the series went on, 'Bad Wolf' tied into it, to give you something to follow and actually talk about between episodes (the only other show we talk about between episodes is Lost...)

I remember the fan-stink (literally) when, in the 8th Doctor movie they said the Doctor was half human, and he kissed Grace. The fans didn't know what was worse; that their hero could have some sort of 'change' when he changes his body, or that he could kiss a girl when they couldn't...

Still the writer of the new series got his revenge in the final episode...

Rose: You mean they're... half human?
Big Bad: Those words are blasphemy!

(NB: Censored Big Bad for those who haven't seen it yet. Obvsiously, it's not called the Big Bad. That would be Bad. And upset the Buffy fans. And we don't want to upset the Buffy fans...)

When the series was aired there was a very positive reaction to it. I think that most people were just pleased to see it back on screen and to see sci-fi that was not American (no offence but variety and all that).

There are obsessive fans to all shows, sometimes people could do with remembering it's all made up! Well, we hope so otherwise I'll be the first in line to be exterminated.

Like Mr. David, I bought the illicit DVDs, and loved the whole season. (Yes, I'm going to buy the legit ones, too.) I was in Ireland over Christmas and watched the Christmas Special introducing David Tennant as the new Doctor with my wife, who's not a fan, much. It was terrific. Tennant is fabulous as he tries to discover what he's like in this personality, and even my wife thought it was good. This is- and deserves to be- a huge success for everyone involved, and anyone who's a fan should be looking forward to seeing this- or looking for a copy, one or the other.

I've never watched any of the various Doctor Who incarnations, mostly because I have no idea where or when to begin.

I'm enormously tempted to get the DVD set in February and jump in with the latest incarnation. It sounds great to me.

But yeah, PAD, I agree with the sentiment you're expressing. Another prime example of the phenomenon you cite is Battlestar Galactica. When it was announced that Ron Moore and David Eick were reimagining the series, and then that Starbuck was going to be a woman (as was Boomer), fan outcry and boycotts were extemely vocal. Richard Hatch was outspoken about it...understandable, since he's spent about 20 years trying to relaunch the series.

But even he was turned around and became a great character on the show in the form of Tom Zarek.

BSG has become my favorite show currently on television. Absolutely phenomenal and engrossing show, delving into themes of sex, religion, faith, loyalty, family, politics, and more, longtime fans be damned. :)

Whoa! And I thought Australia was late in getting this great new series. Good to know we weren't last for once :-)

(Fair's fair - we sometimes wait 3 or 4 months for mainstream movies to paddle 'cross the Pacific.)

And Michael Cravens stole exactly what I was going to say about Battlestar Galactica. We even had people writing to the newspapers here, complaining about that one....

Glad you enjoyed the new incarnation, PAD (and everyone else). My wife has never watched Doctor Who in her life but even she loved this one! I suppose it's indicative of the quality you get when people with reverence for a product are allowed to proceed, rather than people who just want to make a quick bush. Sorry, "buck". (Freudian slip there....)

JB

PS: Happy New Year!

I think a lot of the negative reaction about Dr Who stemmed from the casting of Billie Piper, but you'd have to live in the UK to comprehend what an awful idea that sounds like on paper.
She wasn't an actress, she was a manufactured teeny-bob pop-star, the sort that exemplifies the worst excesses of the music industry today, the sort that fills the airwaves and music channels with horrible soul-less music so there's no room for real musicians.
For this she was already disliked by many, and add to that the fact that we'd seen zero demonstration of any acting ability from her, and it seemed like a piece of stunt casting to encourage the demographic that bought her music to tune in too.
Of course, after a few episodes aired, everyone realised she was actually damn good and stopped moaning!

"Witness the enormous success of "Batman Begins." They didn't pull off that miracle by doing anything revolutionary or even anything particularly flashy with the character: all they did was make -- finally! -- a damned great Batman movie with a high level of craftsmanship."

Unnnn hunh. I see. Nothing remotely revolutionary or flashy.

You're forgetting something:

The costume.

When the movie costume for the Tim Burton "Batman" was first unveiled back in the day....ohhhhh my God, the howling. The bitching. The pissing and moaning. What do you mean he's in armor?! What do you means he's not in grey and blue? It's all BLACK How boring! It's not spandex, like it's supposed to be; it looks like plastic! And the cowl is just this unmoving thing on his shoulders with no peripheral vision! And what's with those stupid make-up rings around the eyes. Say it with me: WORST COSTUME EVER!

That's what they were saying back then. And that was essentially the costume worn in "Batman Begins." And if the preceding Batman films had never happened--if this was the very first full length Batman feature film in the last forty years--that is EXACTLY what they would have been saying now. You know it and I know it. Would they have changed their minds once seeing the film? Probably. But that's not the point. The point remains exactly what I said in the first place: Fans are quick to prejudge and to condemn that which represents change.

"Batman Begins" isn't back to the basics of Batman. It's back to the basics of the Batman feature film franchise before it got screwed up...basics that, fifteen years ago, the fans were screaming bloody murder about and now they're all, "At last! Batman as he was supposed to be!"

PAD

I believe that one reason fans are resistant to change is that they have idealized ideas about their favorite things. Who fans are pretty accepting of the radical change from Troughton to Pertwee, or the complete reimagining of the Time Lords as Gallifreyans, but that is because the fans largely grew up watching later shows and all these changes happened before they were watching them.

Fans criticized the Paul McGann movie, but really its not that radically different than other changes in the show, and in fact many aspects that people hated (the "romance" between the Doctor and Grace) are actually evident in the new series, just done a bit better. I personally loved the new series and can't wait to see the Christmas episode -- and of course get the actually DVDs next month.

Well, I have seen the first season and the Christmas special already courtesy of friends who can download the episode here in the States. I love the series and enjoy both Doctors. While we can harp on the original naysayers, isn't there something to say about the fact that the people who are creating the series are fanboys who got in the TV business. Russell Davies, the producer and main writer of the show is a long time Doctor Who fan who even wrote a novel featuring the Eighth Doctor, DAMAGED GOODS.

Sigh. I wish that Paramount was paying attention to the success of DOCTOR WHO and hired Peter to bring back STAR TREK.

It's my opinion that Fandom is fundamentally arch-conservative in its philosophy. It always seems to rigidly embrace the status-quo of tried and true models and seems to view any and all change (or acknowledgement that it may occur) as being bad with a capital B-A-D.

I haven't seen the new DOCTOR WHO, but I'll pick it up when it's formally released. I have no problem with buying off eBay; I *do* have a problem with paying $90 or $100 for something that'll be $30 or $40 when it's formally released.

The funny thing about people complaining how different the new DOCTOR WHO is from the original series, is that DOCTOR WHO originally began as a children's series. The early black & white episodes were quite different from the Tom Baker/Peter Davidson/Sylvester McCoy era.

(Of course, fans may have been scared remembering the disastrous DOCTOR WHO movie shown by Fox. Oy...)

i watched the series a few months ago, a british friend sent it to me and we both LOVED it.

there was naysaying before it came out, but once it did, it did smashingly. enough so for there to be a second series and a VERY successful christmas special.

so i think the nay sayers lost :)

Regarding the changes to Spider-Man...

I've read the first 9 issues of The Other and we still haven't seen the changes. So I have no idea how anyone can declare they don't like their first taste of the New Spider-Man, when we really have had very little taste at all of the character. A couple pages in issue #9, but it's really hard to judge.

The last three issues (starting with PAD's Friendly Neighborhood #4) should reveal what has been created, and then I will be able to judge.

(I do feel that the strategy of 4 issues for 3 authors has drawn this origin story out much further than necessary, and has weakened the result.)

One of the main reasons we get jittery when someone does a new version of a loved classic is that, more times than not, they do it horrifically badly. Like "Dear God, gouge out my eyeballs with a spoon!" bad.

Plus, in particular, Doctor Who had a history of being re-invented gouge-inducingly badly - to the extent that at least one bit of companion casting (Bonnie Langford) looked like a deliberate attempt to kill the series.

And then there was the movie...

However, when I heard the new series was being writer-driven, I was confident it would be good. All involved seemed to be fans, which was cool.

Even the Billy Piper casting wasn't a worry, as she had actually appeared in the Canterbury Tales, done by the BBC's Snooty High-Class Drama Department - and you don't get in those them there things without you can actually act some.

The new series has a tendency to be sillier than it needs to be, sacrificing plot and character consistency for the laugh from time to time. And the done-in-one episodes almost all seem too rushed - the natural length of a Doctor Who story is 4x 23 minutes or 2x 45 minutes. With cliffhangers, dammit.

But other than that, I think the series is utterly fantastic, with all concerned kicking serious SF booty all over the shop. And it's been a roaring success in the UK - even Michael Grade, unofficial head of the Doctor Who Hatred Club, liked it.

And anyone who can make Daleks badass again gets my vote.

And next series! Sarah Jane! K9! Cybermen!

Life is good.

PAD,

I hope the very vocal minority of whiners on internet messageboards aren't souring your concept of "fans".

I imagine that, in reality, most "fans" are interested in new ideas and willing to give them a chance. I know I am.

"What is it about fans, anyway, that there's always so much nay-saying and prejudging?" I think it's part and parcel of the false sense of entitlement many of these fans have, they feel like they own something because they enjoy it. This expresses itself in everything from grumbling about the assumed awfulness of something they've never seen or read to assuring themselves they know what they want (which is disproven over and over by companies who create their tastes) to demanding the right to disseminate fanfic based on someone else's creative work, copyrights and trademarks be damned. Their hearts are probably in the right place, but just about anything that comes out of a false sense of entitlement is, in the end, not a good thing.

"BSG has become my favorite show currently on television. Absolutely phenomenal and engrossing show, delving into themes of sex, religion, faith, loyalty, family, politics, and more, longtime fans be damned. :)"

So why not create a new universe with different characters, also examining those themes in a similar manner, rather than screwing around with established characters? THAT'S what bothers me. It appears to me the ONLY reason it is called BATTLESTAR is to try to capitalize on the old series, rather than have a completely different series where no one will whine about the changes because, well, it is all new, not something old reworked.

I didn't cringe when they announce the new Doctor. I have been through enough of them to know there will be some I like, some I don't, and "this, too, shall pass" as it were.

But, overall, though I didn't mind him at all, I do have problems with this latest series. Don't much care for his sidekick this time around (personal taste is all) and, though the visuals are vastly improved, the editing needs work in places, not as tight as it could be, and the writing definitely could stand reworking.

OK, I have not seen anywhere near all the previous series, so maybe I missed something, but ...

SPOILERS:

Having that forcefield demonstrated as being so effective in the latest in the 'final' battles against the Daleks was a good thing. But ... who would design an nearly impregnable pill-box and forget to mount OFFENSIVE weapons? OK, they were safe, but just hunkering down in a bunker isn't much use if you can't strike back.

Too, the eventual resolution of the situation pretty much takes the tension out of future stories where we know unbeatable opponents can be similarly taken out by this new deus ex machina. So the Doctor dies as a result. Big deal. He regenerates. He has a limited number of regenerations? He's been exposed to so many mutagens over the centuries, they can have him discover he has more than the usual Gallifrean regen limit. As with the time travel ending to the first SUPERMAN movie, this waters down enormously the potential future threats he'll face.

PAD,

I guess I was one of those naysayings on the Burton Batman costume, not because of the pattern or the color, but because it was so freaking overly padded that Keaton couldn't even turn his neck. One of the primary differences between Batman and Batman Begins is that they actually cast an actor who looked like he could fill out the costume instead of one of the director's personal friends.

As for Doctor Who: Haven't seen it yet, so I won't be judging it one way or another.

hi.
happy new year everyone. this is offf topic but i simply must know.

what is the difference between a producer, an associate producer & an executive producer? I tried wikepedia but it really didn't help.

thanks

joe v

To PAD or anyone else who might can answer.....

I am a huge Doctor Who fan and plan on getting the series when it comes out in February.....but I have one question....

Why isn't this show being broadcast on BBC America? If it is the outlet for British programs in the United States then a person would think it would be the ONLY place it would even be considered being televised on.

Maybe I simply do not know the behind the scenes business aspect of it.

This is my first post PAD, I have been a lurker for some time and a fan for years. I remember seeing you at a Friendly's diner in Maryland in 2000 while dining there with my wife....I assumed it was you however because its not every Friendly's that serves fully armored Klingons in the next booth over!! LOL

Keep up the great work!

Thank you Starwolf! Couldn't have said it better myself.

I like to think that I am a rational fan (almost oxymoronic, isn't it?) but there are some things that really set me off. C'mon! I stopped watching BSG because I couldn't reconcile the greatly loved (if poorly written) series of my childhood with the semi-porn it has become. If it wasn't calling itself BSG, I would probably be watching it regularly, instead of only tuning in to see the Pegasus episodes. In other formats-Nick Cage as Superman, anyone? Who here sees that as a good idea? Too often, a "re-imagining" is simply a way to try to cash in on the name of the show, movie, book, or comic without really holding true to the central themes and premises. Other's haven't been so bad-one of my favorite lines from X-men is still "what did you expect? Yellow spandex?" But the vast majority of the "re-imagining" I have seen strikes me as nothing but crap.

I loved Doctor Who when I was a kid. Oh, the memories of Tom Baker battling Daleks with a craggly smile and an impossible scarf. The new Who lives up to this childhood legend. Cool ideas, fantastic storylines that expertly mix drama and humor, and a great sense of fun really breathe new life into a timeless character. I do wish Christopher Eccleston was coming back for season 2. But the new guy performed well in the Xmas special. I'm sure the show will still be top notch.

But let's also scold those creators and publishers who denigrate and dismiss negative reactions from longstanding fans instead of stopping to consider that instead of Radically Re-Conceiving the Character, maybe they're just turning Coke into New Coke. New Coke wasn't Coke; it was a super-sweet cola. If Coke drinkers liked that sort of thing then they would have been drinking Pepsi to begin with.

Funny you should bring that up. The reason that Coke changed your formula is that Pepsi tested better than Coke in blind taste tests. The new formula tested better than both Coke and Pepsi in blind taste tests. The founder of the Old Cola Drinkers of America, who filed a class action lawsuit against Coke over the change, chose the new formula twice in blind taste tests.

By bringing up New Coke, you've only proven Peter's point - people fear change so much that they'd rather have something inferior than something different.

Regarding fandom in general, I think there are two main problems:

a) People who continue to watch a series out of "loyalty"/force of habit, even though they no longer actually like it. (This is basically why I continue reading Garfield strips, since they rarely make me laugh nowadays.) So, whether they count as "fans" is somewhat debatable at that point.

b) The "wine connoisseur" syndrome, where you need to demonstrate your tastes by being selective. If you say "Hey, I'll drink anything as long as it's got alcohol", that makes you seem uncultured compared to people who say "Hmm, a pleasant enough Bordeaux, but the grapes were clearly picked a day late". I've certainly seen this in general terms, e.g. book SF fans who look down on media SF fans, or media SF fans who look down on Star Trek fans.

Regarding Dr Who in particular, I had some concerns about the new series, but they were mainly based on early rumours/reporting. "It's written by the guy who did 'Queer as Folk'! Julian Clary will be the new Doctor!" I haven't seen 'Queer as Folk', but this all made me a bit nervous. I'm British, and I wasn't bothered by Billie Piper being cast, but I have to admit that I own one of her albums... I actually liked the Paul McGann film, but I also think that Timothy Dalton was the best Bond actor, so I think my tastes diverge from the mainstream quite a bit.

Anyway, I've been very impressed by the relaunch, and I think that Captain Jack is a fun character. I particularly liked the way that they handled the Dalek episode, since the addressed the "Daleks can't go upstairs" myth in a way that didn't require new viewers to know any history but also didn't contradict anything that had been shown before.

Speaking of contradictions, I wonder how much of the "fear of change" is due to people being burned with poor continuity? E.g. if you've read lots of comics where issues blatantly contradict what came before, that could lead to a situation where you feel like a "guardian" of the series, and certainly a feeling that you know more than the people who are ostensibly in charge. I sometimes find that I watch an adaptation (e.g. book->film), and my initial reaction to a change is to say "No, they've got that wrong!" However, I do my best to squelch it, on the basis that it's normally a deliberate choice, rather than the producers being unaware of the source material.

Anyway, ending on a positive note, I have seen people say "Ok, this sounds terrible, but I was completely wrong about the Galactica relaunch so I'll give this a shot", so this situation will hopefully improve.

Honest question here, as I don't have Sci-Fi Channel.

Why do people keep writing 'BSG' when refering to Battlestar Galactica, which is 2 words?
Are they subconsciously thinking BFD?
Or are they comparing the headache they get from watching it to MSG?

(Okay, so that last bit wasn't serious, but I do want to know about 'BSG'.)

Well, as one of the few french fans of the Doctor, I really loved the new version. Yes, we managed to see it in France, thanks to cable and satellite channel France 4 (although, in spite of the fact that each episode aired four times in a week, none of the airing were in the original english, despite the fact that Jonathan Creek -recommanded, BTW, if you like "impossible crimes" stories- was not even dubbed). There were so many great things that reminded me of the old show (I managed to catch the Pertwee era and the beginning of the Tom Baker era thanks to BBC Prime), and so many good things that were different (Dalek managed to make me feel sad about one of the most terrifying enemy of the Doctor). I hope we'll get The Christmas Invasion soon here.

And about your question about fans? Peter, we've been burned so many times before that we tend to err on the cautious side. But I'm glad to say that this fan has never been burned by you.

Honest question here, as I don't have Sci-Fi Channel.

Why do people keep writing 'BSG' when refering to Battlestar Galactica, which is 2 words?
Are they subconsciously thinking BFD?
Or are they comparing the headache they get from watching it to MSG?

(Okay, so that last bit wasn't serious, but I do want to know about 'BSG'.

Well, if you don't watch the show, and you can't even phrase your question without being insulting (presumably because of your deep hatred of a TV show... *sigh*), then why do you care?

Honest question...

"So why not create a new universe with different characters, also examining those themes in a similar manner, rather than screwing around with established characters? THAT'S what bothers me. It appears to me the ONLY reason it is called BATTLESTAR is to try to capitalize on the old series, rather than have a completely different series where no one will whine about the changes because, well, it is all new, not something old reworked."

It uses the same concept as the old show. If it had been called something else it would simply be called a rip-off.

As a life-long Doctor Who nut, I was excited about the new series from the beginning. The producers really love the series and have done their utmost to bring us an incredible, fun, exciting show. They did a great job keeping the elements that make it Doctor Who, while giving the show a topnotch modern production and the best writing the series has ever had.

My wife, who was long ago indoctrinated into Who fandom, loved the show and we hooked her whole family on it! Even people who don't normally like genre stuff have been won over by the sheer quality of the new show.

It is a great time to be a Doctor Who fan! Now we have two seasons (at least) of the 10th Doctor AND a season on the Captain Jack spinoff, Torchwood, to look forward to. Yay!

"Batman Begins" isn't back to the basics of Batman. It's back to the basics of the Batman feature film franchise before it got screwed up...basics that, fifteen years ago, the fans were screaming bloody murder about and now they're all, "At last! Batman as he was supposed to be!"

PAD

I don't know, man. Because, you see, I like Batman Begins about a million times more than the Tim Burton films. I bought Batman Begins on DVD, yet own none of the previous Batman movies on DVD. That's how much more I like it. Of course, to me, it has a lot more to do with Batman's personality and morality than anything. The Batman in Batman Begins actually seems somewhat likable and has some sense of superhero morality (his "I won't be an executioner" bit). The one in the first couple Batman movies under Burton didn't have that. He just seemed crazy, rather than heroic to me. Of course, I just don't care for Burton films in general.

PAD Said:

That's what they were saying back then. And that was essentially the costume worn in "Batman Begins." And if the preceding Batman films had never happened--if this was the very first full length Batman feature film in the last forty years--that is EXACTLY what they would have been saying now. You know it and I know it. Would they have changed their minds once seeing the film? Probably. But that's not the point. The point remains exactly what I said in the first place: Fans are quick to prejudge and to condemn that which represents change.

"Batman Begins" isn't back to the basics of Batman. It's back to the basics of the Batman feature film franchise before it got screwed up...basics that, fifteen years ago, the fans were screaming bloody murder about and now they're all, "At last! Batman as he was supposed to be!"

That, and the even nastier backlash against the casting of Michael Keaton, are good examples of dumb, nonsensical, knee-jerk negativity against the basic concept of change.

(As an aside, though...the changes you cite have been the status quo for close to twenty years, now. Sure, the rubberized costume was a big deal in 1988, but today? Naw.)

For all of the surface changes of "Batman" and "Batman Begins," they didn't attempt to turn Batman into something he fundamentally isn't, like a happy-go-lucky playboy or an international superspy. Folks got over Michael Keaton and the rubber suit because the film stuck to what has made Batman a unique and important character for most of its 60-year history. Batman didn't wear armor in Detective Comics #27 and he didn't have the cool car...but you could plug that guy into the 2005 movie and he'd fit right in.

Just imagine if the trailer had depicted Bruce Wayne as, say, a sort of lighthearted, crimefighting Willy Wonka. In that case, some Batman fans would have had a very sensible reason to conclude "This movie isn't for me."

That reaction isn't an example of dumb, knee-jerk resistance to change, and I don't think those fans should be dismissed for looking at the situation and then making a choice. Otherwise, how many issues of a $3 comic should they be forced to buy before they're finally allowed to say "I'm just not interested in this concept of the character?" They're not organizing a boycott and they're not publishing long, angry screeds against a comic or a movie that they've never seen. They're simply choosing to spend their cash on things that they think they're going to enjoy.

I've read the first 9 issues of The Other and we still haven't seen the changes. So I have no idea how anyone can declare they don't like their first taste of the New Spider-Man, when we really have had very little taste at all of the character. A couple pages in issue #9, but it's really hard to judge.

I would never make any sort of blanket statement against the New Spidey. But...

(SPOILERS)

...

Personally, I truly disliked the Big Reveal. The idea that Peter Parker has always been part-spider, and that he's never addressed or acknowledged it, instantly made the character 50% less interesting to me. Then in the final couple of pages it became half as interesting yet again; the ongoing mystery about whether the "new" Peter Parker represents the human-who-became-spider or the spider-who-was-repressed comes across to me as utter mumbo-jumbo and nothing more than a cheap, overly-theatrical distraction from everything that made Peter Parker a terrific character.

This is the Internet, so it's probably important to stress that I didn't burn the comic in disgust, I didn't write my Congressman urging him to take action, and I wouldn't even be posting about it here if it weren't a good example in service of a larger point. I simply shrugged and removed the book from my pull list.

To be honest, I've been gradually enjoying the book less and less over the past year, so unless "The Other" had proved to be hugely engaging and invigorating, I probably would have dropped the book in the next few months anyway.

I'm sure that the same storyline that got me to drop the book will lead others to pick it up for the first time. Good for them, seriously.

So why not create a new universe with different characters, also examining those themes in a similar manner, rather than screwing around with established characters?

Why should they?

THe whole point of art is to interpret a theme from an individual artists' viewpoint. We don't chain an actor to a specific portryal done by a previous actor (what? You think Olivier did the definitive version?); various writers had reinterpreted and done different versions of the same stories (um, Shakespeare?); various films have been done as variations and reinterpretations of previous material (Kurosawa and Ran).

If Shakespeare can be reinterpreted and redone, why should we embalm genre works like GALACTICA as the sole and only way? If we can redo the theme BETTER, why shouldn't it be done?

RE: The Batman Franchise...

The first movie featuring Batman as something other than 'camp' was a good idea. I recall in 1988 that there was some 'fan' outcry about things not being what they were "supposed to be." After seeing a preview, someone called into a radio show on the subject griping about how it wasn't silly and there was no Robin. Comments that anyone familiar with the original Batman would find strange and consistant with someone who was only familiar with the craptacular TV show from the sisties. Then there are those like me who saw the movie and said, "Cool. They should have called it "The Joker."

Number 2, Batman returns.
All I'll say is that The Penguin always struck me as something more than a sewer urchin but, hey, that's just me. The movie was still enjoyable, if something of a joke. This movie also marked the beginning of the re-injection of the silliness. I'll still watch it to this day. Not because it's great, but rather because I was satisfied with Michael Keaton's performance.

Number 3, Batman Forever.
Just my opinion, but this film had no class at all. Visually it was OK if your lifelong dream is to live in a circus. Overall it seemed that someone must have said, "Pass the cheese," and then said dairy product made it's way into the script and the visual design. I also got the impression that this film was an experiment in cast recognition. Val Kilmer, Tommy Lee Jones, Jim Carrey, Nichole Kidman, they're all good actors. This move is not a good vehicle for any of them.

Ah, Batman and Robin.
Grumble, sigh and argh.
Again, we get a solid cast that is inundated with cheese.

Batman Begins.
Ok, PAD, I'm in that camp you described above. The camp that uses the word "Finally" when discussing this film.
Up to this film no one was able to play Bruce Wayne/Batman with the same dichotomy that Michael Keaton did. In fact I feel that Christain Bale is the best thus far. This film was long on story and short on ridiculous eye candy. For me that's a huge plus. This script was well written. I find that it captured the darkness of Batman better than any of the prior films.

But make no mistake. I'm not engaging in boycott's, hate mail campaign's or the like. Even though I had presuppositions going into these films I still went to these films and tried to keep an open mind. Even though the Governator was cast as Mr. Freeze.

In addition, PAD, I must say that your works have yet to disappoint me. Sure I was a little bent when you did away with Ensign Janos and Mark McHenry, but that's more because those two provided a helluva lot of laughs. As someone who really digs a good story, though, I recognize the value of them being written out (for a while, because anything can happen in print).

I'm also a Star Trek fan and some of the recent decisions made in that franchise were fantastic. Star Trek: Enterprise and the three part story arc could have saved the show were the damage not already done.

Not being a Doctor Who fan myself, I won't comment on that part of the discussion.

I think the fans of any franchise are more than financial base. Certainly they shouldn't have creative powers but I often think that the brains behind some of these franchises would be well served by using a few fans as consultants on continuing projects. Just a few. Particularly when it comes to continuity. But still just a few. Let's face it fans can be pretty well 'out there' at times. Bitching before they've viewed the product is just prejudicial and tells me more about them than they tell me about the product.

On the brightside, I'm done commenting for the moment.

Many Regards,

Mitch

... And, dammit, I liked the body armor Batman costume from the git go!

There, now I'm done.

Mitch

PAD, about the Batman Begins costume. Alot of Batman fan's (myself included) were dissapointed they went with Semi-Rigid Armor again, but the vocal monority (again) didn't think Batman should wear "Pajamas" as they call the traditional costume. They think Batman should be Iron Man pretty much. Alot of that can be placed on the heads of ambitious anime-raised non comic reading but "fan's of the character" type people who cant just buy Batman/Bruce Wayne getting by on his own skill in a fight, he has to be bulletproof. I honestly think them retaining the Rubber costume had more to do with studio mandate for merchandising than anything Nolan brought to the project.

The one thing scratching my head is "Fans" complaining about the new Superman costume. Appartently, even though it looks like a traditional costume to me, the color and tailoring change the whole thing and make it an abomination.

The stronger and more established the fanbase is, the more likely it is that especially hardcore fans have trouble to open their minds and hearts to a new version of the program they love.

I remember the outcries when TNG first appeared. Star Trek without Spock and Kirk? To some fans, it sounded absurd, nearly like betrayal. Star Trek on a space station? I remember a lot of fans were extremely skeptical. And, yes, the new Battlestar Galactica is another good example.

I sometimes read comments that in essence point out that the new version is "ruining" the old, making it "obsolete". I think that is a very narrow minded attitude. Each series exists in its own right and can be enjoyed for what it is. For example, it is perfectly ok to love TOS and also what came afterwards. Maybe not all of it but some.

But I also think, such reports shouldn`t be taken too seriously. Whenever there are reports of fans on TV, you can bet that the reporters are first of all looking for the ones in costume, trying to find the ones who seem a bit crazy and, well..., fanatic. The normal, average fan is simply much less interesting.

SFX magazine is the only British SF magazine I am not subscribing and I wouldn`t put too much weight on what they are saying about fans and gossip. The other ones were much more positive about the new Doctor Who, the new assistant and the stories.

Doctor Who has never been shown in Germany where I grew up. My British husband introduced me to it when I moved over. I liked some of it but definitely not all. Doctor Who often reminded me of TOS: I liked the idea behind the series but a lot of it seemed dated, some of it in a bad way - like the treatment of women. I wasn`t so much worried about the new doctor, I was hoping that the modern, new Doctor Who would break the tradition of the screaming, helpless assistant who is in my opinion not very assisting at all. (I wished Leela (have I spelled that right? On the other hand, the female one-eyed, purple haired lady in Futurama would be a good choice :))wouldn`t have been the exception of the rule but the norm).

People are emotionally attached to series they love and I think a certain amount of wondering and worrying if changes are really for the better is normal. There will always be fans who you can`t satisfy but I think quality speaks for itself. It also convinces most of the "It`s gonna suck" viewers after they have watched a few episodes if the quality is indeed there.

Nowadays, I read very little criticism about the new Doctor Who. My husband, me and our daughter love the show and "The Christmas Invasion" was a highlight of the holidays for us.

We will buy the box very soon. We only have to wait because we spent too much money recently. And we can`t wait until the new season starts later in spring!

By bringing up New Coke, you've only proven Peter's point - people fear change so much that they'd rather have something inferior than something different.

Who says that Classic Coke was inferior to New Coke? I tried them both, found the new stuff to be sickeningly sweet, and then I stopped buying the brand because the product I liked was no longer available.

And here you see the reason why New Coke failed so miserably: company executives kept stressing over and over and over again to each other that this new product couldn't fail...look! Mathematical proof that people prefer New Coke to the old stuff! Numbers, and everything!

The numbers only said that if you can get 1000 people to drink two glasses of cola without knowing which was which, more than half will prefer the New Coke glass to the Classic one. But that's almost meaningless when you're talking about subjective opinions. Maybe Joe Random would prefer the taste of the new stuff...but he's not legally obligated to do a side-by-side taste test on his own, and if you insist that he switch from the brand that he already buys, there's absolutely no assurance that he's going to switch to your new brand. And New Coke was a brand-new product.

Most of the analyses I've read of the New Coke debacle conclude that the problem wasn't that of open revolt from Coke drinkers, but the fact that people failed to be excited by Coke's dazzling "Statistically, more people prefer this formula" slogan. Essentially, the company succeeded in turning millions of 100% loyal customers into free agents. Instead of automatically buying Coke as usual, they bought whatever was cheapest. Meanwhile, they weren't giving Pepsi drinkers any reasons to sample New Coke.

Armchair quarterbacks claim that the company would have had far greater success if they'd made the change without telling anybody, and just tried extra-hard to get loyal Pepsi drinkers to give Coke a try...like, by putting more ad and promotion money into traditional Pepsi markets.

It gets back to the main point, here: you can't simply trust a consumer to keep buying a product just because the same logo is there on the package. At some point, a customer became loyal to this product. There was a certain quality, real or imaginary, that they perceived in the thing.

I like Coke because it's not as sweet as Pepsi. When Coke says "We're reformulating our cola to make it sweeter" they've removed my reason for buying it. Similarly, there are reasons why I like "Amazing Spider-Man" or "Fantastic Four" or "The Avengers." If Marvel announces huge changes that cause those reasons to become inoperative -- or worse, if they announce that they're making the book more like books that I know and don't like -- they're removing reasons for me to continue to buy.

It's not a Fear of Change; it's a legitimate choice.

"The first movie featuring Batman as something other than 'camp' was a good idea. I recall in 1988 that there was some 'fan' outcry about things not being what they were "supposed to be."

Oh, man, is that an understatement.

I was on a panel at a convention back then, and we were asked what we thought of the prospect of Tim Burton directing and Michael Keaton starring. And every other person on the panel excoriated the notion. And I said, "Y'know, Burton is a director, and Keaton is an actor. And just because they're mostly known for comedy doesn't mean they can't do a more serious interpretation. So I have no intrinsic problem and am willing to wait and see the film before deciding."

And I nearly got booed off the stage. Only time in my life. Even the other guys on the stage looked at me as if I'd just admitted to raping a nun. I mean, it was venomous.

The reaction from fandom was so furious in general that, in a ten minute promo reel for the film, they even addressed it as a "controversial choice that had many fans openly questioning whether Michael Keaton was up for the role." They then cut to the clip from "Beetlejuice" in which Alec Baldwin and Geena Davis ask him his qualifications and he starts off in a normal voice talking about everything he's done and slowly descends into his growling Beetlejuice voice and ends with, "And I've seen the Exorcist 57 times and it keeps getting funnier EVERY TIME I SEE IT! Now whattaYOU think? Think I'm qualified?!"

Believe me, it was more than "some fan outcry."

PAD

Wahoo!! Finally, the UK gets something before anyone else does, and not just before, but WELL before :D

Sorry, it's just such a rare occasion for us :)

Anyway, I watched the new series of Dr Who when it was shown ovwer here (I'm in the UK, if you didn't guess) and I loved it, as did all my kids. My 9 yr old daughter was thrilled to bits this Xmas when Santa brought here a toy SOnic Screwdriver, not to mention several books about Dr Who as well.

I was also lucky enough to get the full series boxset for Xmas off my kids and it's lovely, some great extras, if somewhat dogy packaging, dunno what you guys and galsd across the pond are gettin yours in.

Best of all, the Xmas special was great, Tennant looks like he's gonna fit right in and the new series starts soon as well, apparently, so there's a whole lot more to look forward to as well :D

ANd I just spotted this is getting released soon over here as well, to start the whole shebang off, so to speak...

http://www.r2-dvd.org/article.jsp?sectionId=2&articleId=7201

Obvioulsy being done to cash in on the new popularity of it all, but damn, look at those extra features!! Can't wait to pick this one up!

Who is the new darling of British Sci Fi? Yes, he is :)

Illicit DVDs?? Say it ain't so...

(Where do I get 'em?)

Coming in a little bit late ... but hey, I was back teaching today while most of you slugs got a federal holiday. So there. :-)

While I think Peter's overstating the case a bit here and there (no doubt because of personal experience, from things like the Batman panel he mentioned and especially things like the changes he introduced to the Hulk), I also think that by and large he's got a point. I'm not sure I'd limit it to fandom, though -- I think most PEOPLE are basically conservative (in the non-political sense) and somewhat ... well, not resistant to change, but at least a little wary in the face of it.

As far as specific cases go, let's see --

Spider-Man/The Other: Reading it faithfully, but I'll admit it's not gigantically grabbing me. Peter's bits were mostly laying groundwork while doing other things, pretty much all of which were more fun than the main storyline. (Aspects of the main storyline strike me as similar to "Kraven's Last Hunt", only a LOT more ponderous... and I say this as someone who's liked most of JMS's run.)

The original "backlash" against TNG: boy, do I remember this. I grew up watching TOS in reruns, but was a sophomore in college when TNG started up. I knew some folks who pretty much refused to watch it, or at least refused to be anything but contemptuous while doing so (though "Encounter at Farpoint" didn't make that difficult for them :-) ). I also remember some similar backlashes that struck me as just seriously weird: I recall some folks on Usenet to refused to give Voyager a chance because they had a black Vulcan, for instance.

Keaton as Batman: wasn't sure it was a terrific idea based on things I'd seen previously, but thought it was worth a shot on the strength of Burton's visual style and Nicholson. Frankly, I'm still not sure Keaton was a fantastic choice, but he was perfectly decent in the role (and a damned sight better than Val Kilmer was later, though I'd chalk some of that up to the dialogue Kilmer had to sell).

The new Galactica: haven't had a chance to see it yet (sigh). I'll admit that I was extremely skeptical about it, not so much for the changes as for the "we're going to do this again, but SEXILY this time" sort of marketing campaign that was going on. I've had approximately eight zillion friends since say it's worth seeing, though, so I'm hoping to do so soon.

The new Who: really, really, really looking forward to it based on word of mouth. I came into Whoviana very late in the game -- during the Colin Baker to Sylvester McCoy transition, I think -- so I saw enough wholesale changes in a short period of time to keep me from being too committed to one particular approach. (I wasn't thrilled with the McGann film, though, even if McGann himself was good.)

Anyway, that's my too-many cents.

TWL

I'll admit it, when I saw Michael Keaton and Tim Burton attached to the film, I was skeptical, but I did go see the movie with an open mind.

And I still think the result was horrible. Keaton's portrayal of Bruce Wayne as the wishy-washy social misfit who is looking for someone to give him a hug just grated on my nerves, so yes, I will add my voice to chorus of people crying "finally" after watching Batman Begins.

Of course, after seeing several of Burton's films over the past 20 years, I'm now convinced that the wishy-washy social misfit who can't stop crying about not getting enough hugs as a child is the only character motivation that Burton knows how to direct.

As for Battlestar Galactica, I had the chance to watch a few episodes of the original series on the Sci-Fi channel last year for the first time since I was a kid and realized something that escaped the nine-year old who first viewed them:

They're not very good.

Seriously, maybe four or five episodes of that series was worthwhile, but on the whole, it's a Cylon Basestar full of cheese.

As the new series stands, then, I can't view it as blasphemy or some kind of betrayal because they did some gender switching or brought in some moral ambiguity. It's just a better product with richer characterization and less camp.

Um, Tim....as far as GALACTICA is concerned...I'd recomend watching it during leisure time. I find it takes a fair amount of focus to follow stuff and think it through. Doing it for the first season was rewarding for me; I simply haven't had the time to do it for the second season (even though Michelle Forbes is playing a series icon).

"What is it about fans, anyway, that there's always so much nay-saying and prejudging?"

What is it about creators, anyway, that there's always so much lumping the bad, histrionic fans, with the quiet, reserved, or optomistic ones?

i bought the british dvd set. i just play them on my pc, with my tv and monitor being the same 26 inch sharp lcd, it works great, and its legal.

i liked the episodes i watched off the internet enough that i preordered it back during the summer.

For cryin' out loud, Doctor Who is all about change. The only consistant things in the series are the TARDIS in the shape of a police call box (and even then, an episode or two allowed for the chameleon circuit to change its shape), and that the Doctor will always battle for truth and justice. Other than that... our hero changes. Beloved characters come and go, some even perish. Just as you think things have reached a status quo... something occurs in the Doctor's universe that totally rocks the foundation.

Doctor Who is the one TV series in prime time where not only do fans not fear the change of its leading man, it's a moment to be celebrated!

By the way, we just saw The Christmas Invasion, along with the BBC Children in Need prologue. As much as we're going to miss Chris Eccleston, David Tennant is going to sooth it all over!

if anyone was wondering, i use dvdidle to un region code my dvd drive. i highly recommend it.

Going back to the old/new issue -- whether fans want change or the same -- they're disappointed with both. If the work never changes, fans lose interest because it's too repetitive: Batman tracks down and beats up the Joker, the Hulk overcomes opponents by getting mad and becoming much stronger, etc. But when the work changes, fans get upset: Why isn't Batman tracking down the Joker? What is the Hulk doing making plans? It's impossible to come close to pleasing everyone.

The question with change, for me, is: Is it done well? When PAD made the Hulk far more intelligent than the "Hulk smash!" character, he managed to improve the book tremendously. When Captain America was replaced by a bloodthirsty psychopath (was that book still covered under the comics code then?), it was awful. My favorite change/non-change was when Grant Morrison managed to rewrite the entire Doom Patrol history without changing the facts (by making the Chief behind all they'd been through). Did Superman need to be turned into an energy being -- then two? (And did any fan really believe that would be the new version through the year 2000?)

I want to see the new BATTLESTAR GALACTICA because, based on what I heard from friends and critics, it's an extremely intelligent show with compelling characters (two qualities missing from Star Trek for a while). I want to see the new DOCTOR WHO because I've liked the show before. I did not see the remake of THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE because I didn't think a classic could be improved by modernizing it.

I don't know why the outcry against Body Armor Batman - I always thought it was kind of a callback to Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns. "...why do you think I wear a target on my chest - can't armor my head..."

PAD:
"Believe me, it was more than "some fan outcry."

Oh, I have no doubt about that. I wasn't trying to minimize the noise made at the time. It's just that body armor always made sense to me because there was no super power for Batman to fall back on.

If it were me out there fighting creeps and thugs and muggers, not to mention criminal gangs and super powered villain types, I think I could safely say spandex and comfy jammy pants would take a back seat to the body armor option.

Isn't that a part of what bringing some of these heroes out of the cartoon/comics and into live-action about? You know, adding a (sort of) real world element?

It's the same as the leather clad X-men. If it's going to be more real worldy then yes put them in leather armor for some protection.

For Superman it's not such a big deal because the dude is bullet proof to begin with so body armor is not as necessary (I'm digging what I've seen of the new costume, so far). Well... that only holds if he's not in Smallville where all things are "meteor rock."

For Spider-Man it's a similar circumstance. Spider sense = dodge bullet/punch/kick. Here someone might get in a tizzy over organic web shooters. Hey, I admit I had my doubts but they also managed to get Parker/Spider-Man's personality down pretty well so it was no big deal because that's way more important that our hero's outerwear. For the record, I was thrilled that Spidey was a smart-ass once he got into costume.

Now let's be honest. We've all seen how "those Hollywood types" can bastardize things. For example, I always expected that TV's The Incredible Hulk/David Banner would be off looking for the one armed man that killed his wife because that show was more The Fugitive than The Hulk. I realize that it was done in that manner because of the limitations in funding and visual FX of the time, not to mention the thought process of studio execs. But that all added up to the show having an uncentered feeling about it. I am gratified however that the Hulk still had a soft spot.

Ok, I seem to have wondered off course.

Yes, some fans overreact and they are the ones that will get attention because they are making all the noise. Which answers Jon's question posted above:
"What is it about creators, anyway, that there's always so much lumping the bad, histrionic fans, with the quiet, reserved, or optomistic ones?"

I suspect that fan's who can get over their initial misgivings don't feel the need to turn a question around in that manner to try to make a point.

Salutations,

Mitch

"What is it about fans, anyway, that there's always so much nay-saying and prejudging?"

- Because it's kewl.
- It makes them sound like an expert.
- By saying it's bad beforehand, they can make it personal. It's like saying "they are doing it this way just to piss ME off".
- If it is bad, they can say they were right.
- If it's good, they can say that it's not as good as everyone else thinks.

I think a lot of the negative reaction about Dr Who stemmed from the casting of Billie Piper, but you'd have to live in the UK to comprehend what an awful idea that sounds like on paper.

Oh, we can comprehend it. Imagine if they announced tomorrow that there would be a new Trek series with Brittany Spears as a lead...

Why isn't this show being broadcast on BBC America?

The BBC is trying to sell the show to an American network or cable channel so they can make some money. So far, they've failed.

As for the FOX telemovie, it was crap. McGann was great, but the story was crap. The whole thing was "Americanized". Maybe that doesn't mean anything to most Americans, but I grew up watching Who show on PBS - the fact that it was British was part of the appeal.

It's why I'm loving the new Who so much.

I have the same sort of issues with the recent HHGttG movie - while it had Brits involved, it was more Hollywood than what made Adams' material so enjoyable.

I'd probably get the same reaction if a new Trek series was done entirely in Britain.

If that makes me some piss-poor fan who can't handle change, well, that's too bad for the rest of you.

Peter, you KNOW the reason for the pre-negativity. Yeah, sure wanna be kewl, appear the know-it-all, but I suspect there's another deeper reason:

FEAR--of disappointment, yet again.

Better to expect the worst and at least having the satisfaction of being right--than expecting the best and tasting the bitterness of disappointment,

Then some are hypocritical pessimist, who publically predict the worst while privately hoping for the best.

The heart and mind are sensitive organs, Peter, and people devise varied and interesting ways to protect same.

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Great Pumpkin, Great Bird of the Galaxy, etc., is any wonder why some people grow up disillusioned?

Oh, we can comprehend it. Imagine if they announced tomorrow that there would be a new Trek series with Brittany Spears as a lead...

I dunno, could it possibly have sucked more than Voyager or Enterprise?

Oh, we can comprehend it. Imagine if they announced tomorrow that there would be a new Trek series with Brittany Spears as a lead...

We've already seen it: Whoopie Goldberg on Next Generation. I cringed when I heard it, but after seeing her, I knew I was wrong. She was perfect.

I'll tell you where I got my, er, "unofficial" DVDs. I made 'em. And they look great. And as a result, I've given gifts of "New Who" to a number of friends, and started building fandom for the series when it's not even available here.

Come February, I'll buy the Official DVDs, and encourage all who received the gifts to do the same.

I _wasn't_ wild about Eccleston's costume, though, and I really don't much like the new TARDIS interior.

But a series isn't about sets and costmes. It's about stories and characters and -- if you're very, very lucky -- some sort of actual thematic content.

New "Who" scored there in spades.

I assume Mr. David was asking a rhetorical question. For someone who's been in the biz as long as he has, it should have been the first lesson. Fans are naysayers because genre fans, for the most part, are conservative. Politically and sociologically. (Why all the attacks on Mr. D's political stances? He should post banner ads for Faux News, since that's the informative source of most fans.)

And as such, they are stuck in a conundrum. They want their new Trek, Who, Angel, whatever, to be "the same" as the old one. In other words, to give them the same thrill as when they discovered the original. But to get that thrill, something has to be new, and that offends their fear of the unexpected. Thus, every succeeding Trek series that was introduced brought a queasy mix of expectation and loathing as the predominant fan reaction.

If you detect any bitterness in the above, well, I just get irritated at those people who claim to be advancing onto the future...but who keep looking backward.

Speaking as a longtime fan of Angel, I'd be thrilled if Whedon were to make a new series about the adventures of Puppet Angel.

[b]I don't know why the outcry against Body Armor Batman - I always thought it was kind of a callback to Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns. "...why do you think I wear a target on my chest - can't armor my head..."[/b]

My beef is the Whole semi-rigid armored battlesuit he's worn in the films is more unrealistic than what he sports in the comics. Most conventional body armor is cloth like in nature, And is more or less folded to add strength. Batman is an agile, stealthy character who wouldn't wear a cumbersome suit ever venture into Gothams streets.

The character of Batman is cooler being a guy who can dodge bullets from thugs because he's so sneaky and fast than just standing there laughing off gunshots. The frustrating thing is for all the talk about the armor in BB, when did he ever get shot?

I watched the new _Doctor Who_ series on CBC (likewise the Christmas Invasion), and liked it. Just as I liked the original series, which I watched on PBS in college. One thing I’ve _always_ liked about the series is the occasional changes. Those changes kept it fresh.

About the same time I started watching the series, I bought the book _Doctor Who A Celebration_ by Peter Haining, and read about the show’s history, interviews with the (then-five) actors who’d played the Doctor, and an episode guide. All of which whetted my appetite to actually _see_ some of the episodes described. Especially those involving regeneration.

The decision to allow the Doctor to regenerate, thus letting a new actor step into the role was brilliant, albeit risky. Even Patrick Troughton, the second Doctor, felt it would be a disaster. Fortunately, he was proven wrong. Each time I “met” a new Doctor, I looked forward to seeing what new direction the show would take. The same was also true, to a lesser extent, when there was a change of companions.

I don’t have a “favorite” Doctor. I like them all (though each has his particular strengths and weaknesses). One thing I find particularly appealing about the character of the Doctor is the realization that every actor taking on the part is playing the same character, albeit with a slightly different personality. It’s amusing to think that the tetchy William Hartnell Doctor is the same character as the Tom Baker Doctor, who casually walks up to two Kaleds in the episode “Genesis of the Daleks”, and says, “can you help me? I’m a spy.” (or words to that effect). Likewise, I love the juxtaposition in “The Five Doctors” when the first and fifth Doctors are together in the TARDIS. Peter Davison, the younger actor, is playing the _older_ version of the character.

I also like when one Doctor does something that echoes one of his predecessors, just to subtly indicate that despite outward changes, it’s still the same person. On occasion, Peter Davison would flip a coin when he came to an intersection while exploring (and would usually frown, turn the coin over, nod in satisfaction, and head down one of the branching tunnels). His successor, Colin Baker, performed the coin flip in one of his episodes (I forget which). I have no idea if it was scripted or an ad lib, but it was a nice touch.

And, of course, you’ve got to love the TARDIS. With it, the Doctor can have adventures _anywhere_ in any time period. Most of which, by some strange coincidence, resemble quarries.

Are there things I don’t like about the series (both new and old)? Sure. Ever since John Nathan Turner became producer beginning with season 18 of the original series, the Doctor- and to a lesser degree his companions- always wore the same outfit. Not the same _style_ of clothing, but the same outfit (excepting Sylvester McCoy’s jacket change). As if it were a uniform. Unless we establish that he’s a member of the Albert Einstein/Seth Brundle school of fashion, I’d prefer to see the Doctor wear different clothing from time to time.

But that’s a minor point; and if the 10th Doctor spends his entire existence wearing the same suit, it won’t stop me from enjoying the show. Or, if I don’t enjoy his run, that wouldn’t be the reason.

As I said, I liked the recent season of the new _Doctor Who_, just as I liked “The Christmas Invasion” and the original series. Some episodes are better than others, but overall, I find _Doctor Who_ very enjoyable. And when I watched the first episode of the new series last April, I didn’t go in with any worries or concerns about how it would be “ruined.” (likewise the McGann T.V. movie). Rather, I just sat down to enjoy the Doctor’s return.

By the way, if anyone’s interested, the shooting scripts of the recent season are now available. I bought a copy at Borders a few weeks ago.

Rick

P.S. if multiple Doctors don’t usually get along, what would happen if the various incarnations of The Master got together? Which one would be first to lose his patience with the others and whip out the Tissue Compression Eliminator

RE: The StarWolf's problem with the last episode of Season 27 Who.

(SPOILERS)

"But ... who would design an nearly impregnable pill-box and forget to mount OFFENSIVE weapons?"

The TARDIS doesn't have offensive or defensive capabilities on its own. The forcefield was generated by the "tribophysical waveform macrokinetic extrapolator" - the cosmic surfboard that they confiscated from the last Slitheen in the episode "Boom Town." Hope that helps.

RE: People buying illicit DVDs on eBay

Hey guys, if you have no problem with securing an unavailable TV show early, go for it. However, don't PAY for it. That's just silly.

Look around the internet a bit--all the episodes are out there for download completely free.

Look around the internet a bit--all the episodes are out there for download completely free.

I have to say I agree.

Even with dial-up, you can get these files if you're patient.

No sense in paying for it.

And yes, I have downloaded copies, of which I've sent out a couple of DVD's of the episodes to others.

I would like to get the series when it comes out on DVD next month, but the cost (if it is was what was originally reported) might be a bit prohibative for awhile. And if Red Dwarf, Series VII is retailing for $50, then $100 for Doctor Who, Series I does seem likely.

Roger -- thanks for the advice re: the new BG. Of course, I haven't a clue when this "leisure time" you speak of is going to crop up, which is a hindrance.

(And you must be busy if you're putting off watching Michelle Forbes. I remember your ... interest from way back when.)

Craig --

I have the same sort of issues with the recent HHGttG movie - while it had Brits involved, it was more Hollywood than what made Adams' material so enjoyable.

To a degree, but I think it also suffered from being shoehorned into a two-hour slot. I thought the essential Britishness of the piece still came through pretty well, and enjoyed the film quite a bit.

(That's another good example of wariness, though. I was doing my share of cringing when I saw the "cute" Marvin in the initial press shots. Fortunately, he worked fine given Alan Rickman's voice.)

TWL

>I don’t have a “favorite” Doctor. I like them all (though each has his particular strengths and weaknesses)

Yes, though it seems to me there would be a certain set of personality traits required to go bouncing around the universe that Sir Gallahad way. Tome Baker's version seemed to exemplify them best. Some of the others I had a a harder time swallowing as really wanting to to gallivanting around time/space sticking their nose in other peoples' business.

> the cosmic surfboard that they confiscated from the last Slitheen in the episode "Boom Town." Hope that helps.

Yes, thanks, missed that one obviously. Although I do seem to recall the Doctor commenting in earlier lives that the TARDIS was supposed to be nigh-on indestructible anyway.

I have no conscience problems grabbing things for free of the Internet, but only if they simply aren't available hereabouts. Once they finally make it down the pike to the local retailers, I'll plunk down the cash for a legit copy and delete the earlier one.

Fans are naysayers because genre fans, for the most part, are conservative. Politically and sociologically.

When was there a study done that showed significantly over 50% of genre fans were conservative politically? Please provide the source.

I know Libertarianism...ala Heinlein...is popular among science fiction fans...but that's not conservative. (A conservative, even today, would be horrified at the sexual morality of Heinlein's later novels.)

There was no real fan outcry about upcoming Doctor Who before it aired. Having Russell T Davies as Head Writer smoothed a lot of worries and casting Eccleston smoothed a lot more.

BTW, for those who liked the series may I recommend

Casanova (written by Davies, starring David Tennant and Peter O'Toole)

Son Of Man (written by Davies, starring Eccleston)

Queer As Folk (the UK original, which rocketd Davies to stardom)

Coupling (the UK original, writen by Steven Moffat, the author of The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances)

The League Of Gentlemen (co-written and co-starring Mark Gatiss, who wrote the Dickens episode)

All available on DVD. Region 2 for some but hey, why would anyone not by a multiregion DVD?

"Son of Man"? Wasn't it called "The Second Coming"? If that's the one you're talking about, yes, it was *brilliant* (and "Casanova" is hugely enjoyable too).
Also, newly available in Region 2 is the recent live remake of "The Quatermass Experiment", co-starring David Tennant and Mark Gatiss, with Jason Flemyng (Dr. Jekyll in "LXG") as Quatermass.

Starwolf,

On your problem with an unarmed but very well protected Tardis the weapons aren't forgotten but purposefully not put on. It's a cultural thing really, the Time Lords are insular to such an increible degree that the Doctor's desire to see thing with his own eyes and actually meet some of the creatures out in the universe was considered a capital crime, not just his interfering with the problems of other species. The Timelords would use a Tardis for observation whilst staying hidden any use of weapons would be considered drawing too much attention to them. You protect the TARDIS and hide it and just remove yourself from danger but generally don't fight back, it's a siege mentality really. Of course there might be armed TARDIS but the Doctor's dosen't have a military craft, he was always supposed to have stolen an outmoded one when he left Galifrey.

One question I have the Tardis used to have it's own force field, it's used quite a lot in the earlier series so why didn't it have it's own one in the new version. I guess like the chameleon circuits, it another thing that has gone wrong over the years and the Doctor hasn't been able to fix it.

On your other question about using the power of the Tardis again to fix any large scale problem, it was explained in the Christmas Invasion, that it wasn't possible at least for Rose, without destroying half of the universe. So they have a sort of reason in place why they can't use that everytime, they have a big problem to solve.

Dalek would definetly be the best Dr Who episode ever. Especially seeing Eccelston cover a wide gamut of emotions starting from terror of the dalek to outright hatred in wanting to see it die.

It's not so much change or 'the illusion of change' that sometimes gets fans all persnikety. It's when the change feels forced or naively designed for the short-term ('All new, all different but exactly the way you've always liked it...'). If change grows naturally out of something, if the evolution of the concept can be seen and traced that's one thing, but we can all point to TV and comics where there's been a fundemental and sudden shift (or a claim of such)and that the 'new' product bears little resemblance to what has gone before. Occasionally that can be good, but it's too often a case of hijacking a known commodity and stapling it to something totally different in the hope of having your cake and eating it. Alternatively, something is proclaimed as groundbreaking when it's actually more of the same.

Of course, it's all wonderfully 20-20 hindsight. I loathed the pompous Battlestar Galactica missionstatement before the mini-series aired but the result was outstanding. Dr Who had me a mite sceptical but it got better as the series went along, resulting in a reinvigoration of the concept, rather than just a re-imagining or remake.

It's all down to the PR. Tout something as it is, rather than what you want it to be and there's a much better chance the product will be respected. Fans will give almost anything a chance (even with grumble) if they aren't misled or deluged with hype.

John

I second that on the original Coupling!

Have all 4 "series" (Seasons here in the US) on DVD and still re-watch them regularly and can't stop luaghing/enjoying them!

Ah, yes, Second Coming.... well I was close.

I wonder if they'll ever release Takin Over The Asylum - Ken Stott and David Tennant - must be over ten years old that.

Rick Keating - ISTR the coin flip thing goes back to Troughton.

A couple of comments on the Doctor Who thing.

Firstly, I think everyone should check out the quite fantastic official site:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/

which in addition to the usual wallpapers and sound files, has a Podcast commentary for The Christmas Invasion episode and - under Confidential in the Video section - over six and a half hours of Making Of documentaries.

Next, I'd have to say that only a small minority of fans had doubts before, during or after the series aired. They're really, really vocal (and oddly fixated on the presence of gay characters) but only make up about 4% of the fans when polls are actually conducted.

Similarly, in 2003 Doctor Who fansite Outpost Gallifrey ran a poll amongst 5,000+ fans where each story was rated from 1 to 5. This was suplemented a month ago with a new poll just for the new series stories. What it found was that the fans consider The Empty Child (the one with the gasmasks) the third best story ever; the season overall the fourth best ever; and that the 'Eccleston Era' represented the best run of episodes any Doctor had ever had.

The naysayers like to take up a lot of bandwidth giving the impression that fans don't like the new series but the evidence is that they really, really do.

In fact the only thing that's *generally* disliked are the "Next Time" trailers after a cliffhanger...

Now, on the indestructablity of the TARDIS -- as mentioned above the Time Lords don't use weapons (there's even one story where their homeworld is invaded and they spend a large chunk of it trying to figure out how to build a weapon!) but the TARDIS is generally considered indestructible. *However*, since the Daleks fought a Time War with the Time Lords, we can presume that the missles they fired were special, anti-TARDIS missles that the Doctor needed something extra to repel.

On SFX Magazine -- I absolutely love it! And they've actually been extremely enthusiastic about the new show. In fact, it's the New Buffy -- in that it's the show that some readers always moan there's too much coverage of. The last issue has 19 pages given partly or wholly over to Who in some form or other!

You can check out their reviews of the series here:
http://www.sfx.co.uk/tv_reviews/a-z/

And, since this is principally a comics forum, I'd recommend the Doctor Who comic drawn by Mike Collins that appears as part of Doctor Who Magazine every month.

You know, I enjoyed the first couple of episodes. I thought the Dalek episode was extremely well done. However, overall, the show wasn't that great, IMO. Something just didn't click with me. I did enjoy Eccelston as the Doctor, though.

Fan response wasn't that great? Most of the fan response I encountered was absolute unfettered enthusiasm in the fact that there was new Doctor Who at all. Also much approval of the fact that the Doctor would be returning to a more Britain-centered program (by and large the 96 movie seems to meet with Who fan disapproval). I can tell you that all of the die-hard Who fans I know (personally) were all for it. We all endeavored to obtain the episodes through "unauthorized" means, as no one in the states seems interested in showing them. Which is perplexing to me, because Doctor Who paired up with Galactica would make for a "fantastic" friday night line-up on sci-fi. More so than Farscape and Lexx. I'd probably stay in most Fridays (in winter) for that one.

Now Galactica, on the other hand, met with a very hostile reaction from all the sci-fi people I know. In particular they seemed to focus on the fact that Starbuck was now going to be a sex object (what happened was that they fixated on Number Six from early promotional stuff and believed that she would be Starbuck). I tended to be the lone voice who said, Hey, let's give it a chance. About three minutes into the mini I was hooked. I just now finished watching the last of the season 2 dvd's (I missed season 2 the first time because it was on in the summer) and can't wait for Friday night.

Posted by: K at January 4, 2006 07:38 AM

Rick Keating - ISTR the coin flip thing goes back to Troughton.

I don't recall Troughton ever flipping a coin, but perhaps you've seen episodes I haven't. When I first saw _Doctor Who_ in the mid 1980s, there were only five Troughton episodes known to exist. Since then, at least one believed lost- "Tomb of the Cybermen-" has been found and released on DVD.

Still, if Troughton did do the coin flip- especially with the follow up of turning the coin over because the Doctor wasn't satisfied with the result- then Davison's Doctor doing the same thing was a nice echo of that.

Rick

I'm actually going to go a bit crazy here, and say: Sometimes the fan pessimism is right, and it's the optimist fans who are knee-jerk insisting "This has to be great, you have to get behind it and support it or they won't make anymore!"

Case in point: The Batman movies. Honestly, looking back on them, I can't think of a single one I've liked, and that's including 'Batman Begins'. (I've watched it with five people, and they all find Christian Bale's Bat-performance to be...well, at least three suspected he'd been drinking heavily, and a couple suspected head traumas. Oh, and they all found the Batmobile-porn chase sequence unintentionally hilarious. "Try to keep calm. Now I'm going to jump this parking ramp!") Now, this is obviously just my opinion, and with the caveat that I'm brilliant and always right, I wouldn't expect everyone to follow it. :)

But the fact of the matter is, it wasn't an opinion I formed as part of a fan herd, mooing the same way everyone else mooed, it was one I formed over time, and even changed over time. (When I was 14, I loved the '89 Batman movie. After seeing actors who can actually do action sequences, and directors who can direct them, that opinion has radically changed.)

I think what I'm trying to say here is that there are four possible ways that an opinion can form: One, disliking something just because it's different, and insisting anyone who likes it has no critical faculties. (Peter has quite rightly pointed out how and why this is irritating and stupid, I feel no need to elaborate.)

Two, disliking something because you genuinely think it's bad based on the evidence. (Case in point: The Dukes of Hazzard movie. I felt no need to go see the movie as some sort of test of my ability to accurately judge it, based solely on the trailers. I felt I'd judged it quite right. Was I "knee-jerk pre-judging" it? Or was it so self-evidently awful that the trailer left stink trails behind it?)

Three, loving something just because it's the newest version of it, and insisting that all criticism of it is just type one (see above). (I freely admit, I liked the 1996 Doctor Who TV movie because, at the time, it was new Doctor Who and seemed like the only chance at more new Doctor Who, and I wasn't willing to look critically at it. And I knee-jerk defended it, even against reasonable criticisms of it.)

Four, loving something because it's new, exciting, and just absolutely spectacular, with great acting, awesome special effects, crackling good scripts, and quite possibly the best story in the history of the series in 'The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances'. And that's been my reaction ever since I found out Russell T Davies, author of the excellent (but sadly-out-of-print) Seventh Doctor novel 'Damaged Goods' would be behind it all.

My caveat (and it is more of a caveat that a complaint) to PAD's post is that one should always try to take each type as its own, and never assume that someone hates something because it's new or loves it because they're sheep. Sometimes people like things because they do, and sometimes the people who decided to cast Keanu Reaves as John Constantine really do deserve to be put into body casts. :)

There's always been fans of Doctor Who that are very vocal about their opinions. However, most of them were singing praises to the new series once they saw it.

As for why no one in the US has picked it up, SciFi didn't feel it was right for them (not enough sex? Not enough action? They never said anything in detail), BBC America is really a BBC licensee via Discovery Networks. Half of the stuff on there aired on other British networks (ITV, Channel 4, etc.), not the BBC. They reportedly are in talks with the BBC to air it, though, so it may show up on there this year. Personally, I think that if they promoted it right, they'd get the biggest ratings they've ever gotten. The BBC worldwide distribution arm has probably been wanting more money for it than anyone was willing to pay, much like has happened with the original series and it's disappearance from US TV screens.

One other thing that may raise the show's profile in the US, is if the series gets nominated for a Hugo award this year. Since all of the members of the 2005 WorldCon in Glasgow are eligible to nominate, it should make the ballot as long as one or two specific episodes get nominated (either Dalek or Empty Child/Doctor Dances).

Lee Whiteside
SFTV.org Webmaster
Nebulas Award Weekend 2006 Chair

It was showing on CBC, wasn't it? I'm not a Who fan, but I did see an episode (mannequins from outer space or some such thing).

It was showing on CBC, wasn't it?

Yep

I'm not a Who fan, but I did see an episode (mannequins from outer space or some such thing).

Those would be the Autons controlling the mannequins, and it's from the first episode, "Rose".

Actually, BBCA is wholely owned by BBC Worldwide, but is distribed by Discovery. (Strangly, Animal Planet is a co-owned venture)http://www.bbcworldwide.com/aboutus/corpinfo/annualreps/review2005/bus_channels_03.htm
I mention it as there does seeme to be a belief that BBCA is owned by Discovery. (but there's all sorts of partnerships between DCI and BBCWW).

RE: BSG vs some other initials..
I imagine is that it's because often shows are intialized with three or more letters than with just two...LSH, TNG, TOS, DS9, SG1, and so on.--and while "Battlestar" is 1 word..it's a compound, made up word from two..so BSG.

RE: Batman
Y'know, I never had a problem with Michael Keaton cast as Batman..I knew him as a brilliant actor who'd deliver the complexity to Batman I wanted. I had major problems with Nicholson, though. I thought (?)second choice(?) Willem DaFoe would have been a far better choice for appearance and menace. (I don't know if he was truly second choice, or if that's just one of those fan myths)

Spider-Man The Other: seriously....THAT'S the big change..the half thing?....with that and the upcoming divorce/widowing/ring of retcon erasing of Mary Jane and the wedding, why am I wanting to try reading Spider-Man again?

BSG vs Doctor Who:
The "New" Doctor Who is just more Doctor Who...no differnt really then when Peter Davison took over from Tom Baker. It's still maintains the same themes that the originals did.

I was with the new BSG until in the mini-series bored me to death by streaching maybe 2 hours worth of story into a 4 hour 2 night "event". It retells the "story" of the original, but it's ignored the themes. Throughougt the original, there's "hope". They're searching for Earth, a quest they believe in. The new one, the search for Earth is a lie they were told. They're now retrofiting that maybe it wasn't a lie onto the series, but it's hardly the same. The only reason that the humans are even still alive against the overwhelmingly supperior power of the Cylons is that the cylons have a plan..oh yes..they have a plan..seriously..I've seen the blueprints..looks marvelous.

If it wasn't for the fact that they made the evil killing machines conservative Christians, I'd have bailed compleatly on the show.

Andy Ihnatko - remains one of my favorite tech columnists. Just thought I'd mention it:-)

Sometimes the fan pessimism is right, and it's the optimist fans who are knee-jerk insisting "This has to be great, you have to get behind it and support it or they won't make anymore!"

I think part of the issue here is that both the pessimism and the optimism tend to be woven out of whole cloth on many occasions, or at best based on fragmentary evidence.

Since most of my online writing's been Trek-related, I'll use that as an example. As I said before, some people said in advance that Voyager was going to be dreadful because it had a female captain, or because Tuvok was black. That, to me, seems like pessimism based on not a lot of evidence.

On the other hand, some friends of mine said, "it's the same writers who are doing most of TNG, and I'm not thrilled with what TNG's done lately so I doubt I'll like this." That may or may not be justified pessimism in the face of the final product, but it's certainly well-founded and based on actual experience.

I agree with your overall point, though: not all pessimism is unfounded, and not all optimism is the result of people being sheep.

TWL

Of course not all changes are for the better. To me personally, the most frustrating example is Andromeda. I loved the first season. I still liked the second season a lot. But then it went rapidly downhill and I didn`t even bother watching the last seasons. It was just too painful, annoying and frustrating.

It was similar with Earth, Final Conflict. Great start but soon after the first season, I couldn`t stand it any more.

Especially after Andromeda, I am indeed skeptical when changes and new directions are announced that are supposedly so much better. But I usually can tell pretty quickly if these announcements were accurate - at least when it is about my personal preferences and taste.

I'm not sure PAD has the best perspective on this after the hatchet job he did on Commander Courage.

Some things you can tell are bad just by hearing about it.

PAD's post has some resonance for me after seeing some fan's reactions to the new Doctor Who series on Outpost Gallifrey. After reading some of their posts, I was convinced that a large majority of Who fans hated the new series. More than that, they hated Russell T. Davies for stealing "their" series away from them and making it popular for a mainstream audience again. I've been a fan of Who since I was 12 years old - it's been the secret lynchpin of my imagination for two decades now. So seeing one of my favourite TV series rise to prominence again is just wonderful. And 'The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances' is right up there with 'City of Death' as being one of my favourite stories anywhere.

And when it comes to conservative fan reactions, I ashamedly admit to pleading guilty. I wasn't predisoposed towards liking the new BSG series. I changed my mind after watching the mini-series three times in a row. And the first season was even better.

Of course not all changes are for the better. To me personally, the most frustrating example is Andromeda.

[Gandalf] "Name it not!" [/Gandalf]

I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule, but as a general rule I'd say that any "bold new direction" which involves firing the creator of the series is likely to turn out as a bad idea in the end. (Picture B5 if JMS had been tossed midway through season 2. His writing may not be perfect, but I think that's a pretty frightening thought.)

TWL

HOLD ON theres a new Dr. Who? WOW i must have been out of it for a long time...

"I'm not sure PAD has the best perspective on this after the hatchet job he did on Commander Courage."

Oh, I had totally forgotten about that! 'Codename: C.O.U.R.A.G.E.'?!?! What was up with that one, Peter? Mortgage late that week? I mean, you did your best with that concept, but it was just an abomination right from the start.

Glad the movie version got canned, to be honest.

I've just heard that, in addition to the comic in Doctor Who Magazine, they're launching a new comic called Doctor Who Adventures!

Now, if only we knew some DW enthusiast who was also an accomplished comics writer... hmm..

Is there any chance for you to collobarate with Panini or Doctor Who Magazine for a comic strip or two...?

"Those would be the Autons controlling the mannequins, and it's from the first episode, 'Rose'."

Thanks, Craig. It was reviewed favorably in the Seattle P-I, which is why I watched it. However, ever since Comcast moved CBUT to channel 99, it's all I can do to remember where the goddam thing is. I recall reading in the self-same review that this was going to be the only season with this particular actor as Dr. Who, as he didn't like the part? Is that correct?

“I recall reading in the self-same review that this was going to be the only season with this particular actor as Dr. Who, as he didn't like the part? Is that correct?”

Christopher Eccleston did do just the one season as the Doctor, but I never got any indication he didn’t like the part from watching the intros he did for the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company) broadcasts. Maybe he was _acting_ in those promos, too, but he seemed genuinely enthusiastic about having been a part of the series.

About the time the second episode aired, someone at the BBC put out a statement, attributed to Eccleston, that he’d decided to leave because of fear of typecasting. As it later turned out, A) this statement was released without Eccleston’s O.K., B) (as I understand it) that everyone involved had known Eccleston would only be doing one year before filming had even begun; and C) (as I understand it) his departure was supposed to be a surprise, so that the end of the season regeneration would also be a surprise.

_Why_ Eccleston intended to only do one year, I have no idea (assuming the idea originated with him and not Producer Russell T. Davies). But again, his CBC intros seemed to show a man enthusiastic about the series.

Rick

P.S. It’s curious, the character’s name is _The Doctor_. It’s the _show_ that’s called _Doctor Who_. Yet for the first 17 seasons of the original series, and the first season of the new series, the end credits list the applicable actor as playing “Doctor Who.” I’ve never understood that. With the exception of one episode during the Hartnell era (“The War Machines”) he’s never referred to as “Doctor Who” in the whole history of the series. So why identify the character as such in the credits?

And no, asking “Doctor Who?” as a question, such as, “Hello, I’m the Doctor.” “Doctor? Doctor Who?” doesn’t count.

For the record, it was the Doctor himself, in the first episode, “An Unearthly Child”, who first used the phrase. Ian Chesterton, assuming the Doctor’s surname was Foreman, addressed him as Dr. Foreman.

“Who?” The Doctor muttered. “Doctor Who? What’s he talking about?”

Who fans who've been put off by the outcry at Outpost Gallifrey would do well to check out

http://unitnews.co.uk/

it's a much more congenial forum for Who fandom and pretty much everyone there adores the new series (and well they should, it's been terrific so far).

just don't mention any "unofficial" copies there or you'll be banned post-haste.

i'd also highly recommend the Big Finish audio adventures.

to quote Gary Russell, a script editor for the Big Finish audios, "A small but powerful bit of fandom is really run by a bunch of tossers."

-will

I second the recommendation for the Big Finish Production cds. At least some of them. I love the Colin Baker audio adventures including THE HOLY TERROR which is written by Robert Shearman, the same writer of DALEK from last year's series. THE HOLY TERROR pulls off an audio adventure with the Sixth Doctor and his comic strip companion, Frobisher, the shape changing penguin.

And no, asking “Doctor Who?” as a question, such as, “Hello, I’m the Doctor.” “Doctor? Doctor Who?” doesn’t count.

And yet, that seems to be the way the show got it's name. :)

"Those would be the Autons controlling the mannequins"

Well, actually the Autons would BE the mannequins, controlled by the Nestene.

My post vanished so lets see if I can remember any of it...

BBCA is actually wholely owned by BBC Worldwide. It is distributed by Discover networks, but they don't own any of it. BBCWW and DCI do co-own Animal Planet, so there's all sorts of cooperation between the two companies. (I mention this because I see this misinfo showing up in a number of "Why doesn't BBCA show the new Doctor Who).

www.bbcworldwide.com/aboutus/corpinfo/annualreps/review2005/bus_channels_03.htm

re: The "New" Doctor Who
It was really not much more than when Peter Davison took over for Tom Baker..just a new Doctor...I did find it a bit funny about Billie being cast, as I do know her as a teen pop star (I have one of her albums--hey, I liked "Honey to the Bee" first time I heard it. Then I got the album..and heard it a second timel...boy, was that a waste of a bmg purchase), but really, it was more like "She still has a career? Who knew?"
But the "New" Doctor who is still the same at the core. It's about one or two persons, making a difference. Despite all of the trappings, it's about someone standing up and making the world a better place.

BSG - I imagine BSG is used instead of BG because people like 3or more initials. initials. Peter David is PAD. TNG, DS9, VGR, LSH..And "battlestar" is a made up word--so it's 2 words stuck togehter.

"New" BSG - I was very much a wait and see about the new BSG. I was leary about the changes I'd heard about, but was in a "Spider-Man the movie is not Spider-Man the comic" mind frame about it. I was fine, til the miniseries put me into a coma stretching maybe a 2 hour story into a 2 day snooze fest.
While the new BSG uses the story of the original, it's ignored the themes. The original, is about hope. Their world is lost, but they strive for their paradise. In the new one, that quest is a lie. Adama doesn't belive in Earth..he lies to the people. In the original, Zac dies a hero, sacrificing himself so Starbuck and Apollo might be able to warn people of the Cylon attack. In the new one, he dies because he's an incompentent who got where he was by sleeping with his teacher.

The best part of the new one was the trapped on Kobal part, with characters who for the most part weren't from the old series, trying to survive against overwhelming, but not unbeatable, odds. It was compelling. In space, the only reason the humans survive is because the Cylons have a plan..oh yes, they have a plan. Really..I've seen the blue prints..fantastic. (I think the plan is to get as many seasons made as they can). They are so overwhelming it makes no sense for the Galactica to survive. There's still replicants..I mean human cylons onboard, yet none just blow the place up.

OTHER-for real? this half/half thing mentioned in the spoilers? Oi! With that and the all but guaranteed upcoming divorce/widowing/erasing of Mary Jane, why am I interested in reading Spider-Man again?

Andy Ihnatko - one of the best tech collumnists around! Just saying is all.

Rich

"Son of Man" was the 60s Dennis Potter play that caused a big uproar at the time.

Rob

Also following on Rich's recommendations, I would think "The League of Gentlemen" would appeal to someone with a very dark sense of humour after a VERY unique Britishness.

But be warned the film is awful and it is as if it was made by someone else. Worse than the transition to film of the British sitcoms of the 70s! I didn't think that was possible.

Mind, my viewing of the film was also impaired by the group of 10 year olds (yes, they were let in to see it despite the certificate) who guffawed at stuff that wasn't even intended to be funny! Worse than canned laughter!

Rob

BSG is also part of the logo of the show in the main titles and can be seen in patches on the jackets of the crew.

"And "battlestar" is a made up word--so it's 2 words stuck togehter."

Aren't they all?

I had this discussion with my boss at work a few weeks ago. He mentioned that Kwanzaa (sp?) is a "made-up holiday". I asked him- aren't they all?

League of Gentlemen..Was alan Moore's series a play on that title, or just a coincidence?

I think the League of Gentlemen/LXG (don't really like that abbreviation and I feel Mr Moore probably feels the same way!) was a probably a coincidence - both may relate to the 1960 Ian Carmichael film of the John Boland novel.

Both the initial publication of LXG and the League's transfer to TV from radio were in 1999, so their initial genesis in Alan Moore's mind and the Edinburgh Festival respectively may have been at the same time a few years previously.

Rob

Oops! Not Ian Carmichael - was getting mixed up with School for Scoundrels for some reason - it starred Jack Hawkins (Just checked!)

Rob

I don't recall Troughton ever flipping a coin, but perhaps you've seen episodes I haven't. When I first saw _Doctor Who_ in the mid 1980s, there were only five Troughton episodes known to exist. Since then, at least one believed lost- "Tomb of the Cybermen-" has been found and released on DVD.

I think there were always more than that. I remember that the BBC aired 2 separate 4 episode stories in the mid 1980's. Mind Robber and something else.

He mentioned that Kwanzaa (sp?) is a "made-up holiday". I asked him- aren't they all?

Well yes, but most aren't made up by a single individual within living memory.

700 years and still handing out 'What the Hell is Kwanza?'

Well, I'll bite. I looked forward to the new Dr. Who, wasn't dismayed by Eccleston's modern dress sense, liked the acting (even by Billie Piper), and generally found the show to be mostly crap. Not because they're "different," or because I Fear Change, but because a lot of them were just poorly written.

Oh, there were some great episodes. "Dalek" was great, and so was the two-parter set during the blitz, and "The Unquiet Dead" - the one with Charles Dickens - was the standout. But with the exception of "The End of the World", all of Russell T. Davies's scripts were plagued by an inability to balance character development with plot, a painfully hamfisted approach to satire, and a surprising preponderence of toilet humor (the rubber fart monsters got real old real fast).

And the last episode - dear god. The first series ended with one of the most stultifyingly goofy arc resolutions I've ever seen in television (you're using your omnipotence to send yourself a message through time and space, and THAT'S the most direct one you can think of? what happened to frigging telegrams?), a massively anticlimactic deus ex machina, and a death/regeneration scene so awkwardly prolonged it became unintentionally hilarious (think Monty Python and "I'm not dead yet!").

So please don't assume that I'm down on the new Who because I'm an anal retentive fan who just can't handle changes to his precious childhood memories. I just don't like crap writing.

Re: Eccleston's departure from the role

There's a lot of varying reports on this, in no small part due to the unauthorized press release the BBC sent out; however, AIUI, the season finale was slightly reshot once Tennant was cast, which scotches the idea that it was always planned that way. (IIRC, the ending was originally written to leave the Doctor's fate ambiguous, so as to leave the season on a cliff-hanger; however, they had ample warning that Eccleston was departing, and so re-wrote it to be an unambiguous regeneration sequence.)

Without saying anything more, I provide two significant facts: 1) The series did not get an American release or distribution, which they had factored in for in their budget. 2) David Tennant, the Tenth Doctor, is making about half what Chris Eccleston did.

Make of these things what you will. :)

I'm probably coming into this discussion very late having just returned from London, so forgive any major lapses in grammar due to a combination of jet lag and having the back of my airline seat kicked for eight hours by a kid with ADD.

I couldn't help chiming in here, because the subject of Doctor Who fandom kept cropping up over the holidays, not from a lack of a life but because my wife is working on the series and was on her two week Christmas break from it while I was over there. I'm not all that sure that Sheelagh wanted to spend her down time talking about Doctor Who, but when you're working on a long-running series, it tends to bleed through into every moment of your working life, as I'm sure Peter will attest.

The aforementioned Gary Russell quote sums up my feeling about fandom in general, where I think the outspoken annoying fans are far outnumbered by the normal fans who just enjoy seeing new episodes of their favorite series. And of course there are the small number of real losers who basically give fans a bad name. Like the people who showed up during location filming this season armed with laser pointers that they used to disrupt the night's filming until security escorted them out. Or another night when the production was driving away from the location until to see fans turning over garbage fans in their wake, hoping to find old call sheets or other documentation left behind. If one fan like that can tarnish the reputation of a hundred relatively normal, well-adjusted fans, I have no doubt that one unhappy and outspoken person can eclipse the voices of a silent but happy majority.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I actually got my start as a so-called journalist interviewing Doctor Who people nearly 20 years ago. My very first professional sale was the official Doctor Who Magazine, for which I interviewed the late Dalek creator Terry Nation, and I still have a photo copy of that check, embossed with figures of Spider-Man and the Hulk (the magazine was originally published by Marvel UK). And anybody who was unsure of my fan origins need only find the ceramic TARDIS bank hidden away in the bedroom or the rubber Vervoid head sitting over my desk right now, which was rescued from a BBC dumpster several years ago when the makeup department was being dismantled.

I mention all of this to show that even though I now make a living in this ridiculous business, there's still a small part of me that is still a fan. It's the part of me that cheered back in March at the launch for the new series when the opening titles came up for the first time, or the part of me that got goosebumps at a screening at the press screening of The Christmas Invasion when they showed clips of the Cybermen and Sarah Jane Smith. Okay, I also cheered when Sheelagh's name came up in the credits too, but that's just being a good husband.

But more importantly, Russell T. Davies the current producer is a Doctor Who fan, and there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that he loves the series. He's also a tremendously clever writer, who understood that Doctor Who had to change with the times, and that meant having to make some changes that were sometimes unpopular. Does that make him any less a fan? Considering he managed to bring the series back as well as making it a huge success, I think the answer is absolutely not. And incidentally, David Tennant is a huge Doctor Who fan as well. He may be playing it very cool in recent interviews, but ask him about his first day of filming, when he got congratulatory letters from Tom Baker and Peter Davison and you'll know what a big fan of the series he is.

Just to address a couple of points made by previous posters, I believe the BBC was hoping for a much bigger sale in America than BBC America. I'm not entirely sure of this, but there were rumors that the Beeb was originally going to tie sales of the new series to a huge package of early episodes, which would certainly have been enough to scare off potential buyers if that was indeed true. I would imagine they'll have a much easier time this summer, when they'll have 26 episodes plus a Christmas special, which would make a much more attractive package. In the meantime, the BBC must have realized that it didn't make sense to release the Region 1 DVDs in Canada and not in America, so thank goodness for small favors.

Regarding Eccleston's sudden departure, I don't think anybody realized he was going to leave so soon, Eccleston included. I think the demanding schedule of extremely long shooting days as well as six-day weeks proved to be too much, as well as a few major family problems that cropped up during filming. By all accounts, Tennant is having an easier time of it, but the demands of production have not gotten any easier this season.

Finally, if there are any Billie Piper nay-sayers still out there, I think they will finally be silenced this season. I think Billie did a superb job in The Christmas Invasion (in which Tennant's Doctor is essentially off-stage for the first half), and there's even better stuff to come, I promise.

I'm not entirely sure of this, but there were rumors that the Beeb was originally going to tie sales of the new series to a huge package of early episodes, which would certainly have been enough to scare off potential buyers if that was indeed true.

This seems to be the case.

When it was announced that the BBC was trying to get a US station to pick up the series, it seemed to be either stated or implied from the start that, with the new series, the station had to buy the old as well.

Which is why there are now only two PBS stations airing the old series here in the States - the BBC would not renew contracts with the individual stations. When the last two contracts (Iowa Public Television and Maryland Public Television) expire, that's the end of the old Who series in the US.

First time on this forum having followed a link from the Outpost Gallifrey site.

We all think that PAD would be a great writer for the new Who.

As regards Ecclestons departure. It wasn't planned from the start and a lot of production people and BBC big wigs are seriously annoyed with Christopher Ecclestons decision.

Ultimately since his departure he has given the impression that he did not like playing the Doctor from the word go. "Quotes" have suggested that Ecclestons thinks that family TV is beneath him. Also he found all his promotional duties were a tasteless and dull part of his contract.

Iron Lungfish: I generaly disagree with you regarding the series...I really liked it, but I do agree on 2 parts, the farting aliens did get old fast, and I was dissapointed by the anti-climax of the "Bad Wolf" reveal. After the build up and the websites and all...feh.

Think comics/SF/TV fans are pessimistic about remakes/revivals/reimaginings? Google "2006 Dodge Charger" and see what kind of reception it got from enthusiasts because it has four doors, because it doesn't look like the 1999 concept car, because it doesn't come with a manual transmission, because it doesn't look exactly like the 1968-70 version, because it doesn't cost under $20,000...it'll make the Dr. Who naysayers look positively ecstatic.

Paul

“As regards Ecclestons departure. It wasn't planned from the start and a lot of production people and BBC big wigs are seriously annoyed with Christopher Ecclestons decision.
“Ultimately since his departure he has given the impression that he did not like playing the Doctor from the word go. "Quotes" have suggested that Ecclestons thinks that family TV is beneath him. Also he found all his promotional duties were a tasteless and dull part of his contract.”

Which is weird, if these quotes are accurate, given that when his name was announced (based on press reports I read at the time), he seemed enthusiastic about the part.

I don’t know much about Eccleston’s past work, only that I recognized him from _The Others_. If he’s been in other films I might have seen, neither his name or face jogged any memories of them.

Whether Eccleston’s short tenure was known from the get-go, and whatever the reasons for his relatively quick departure, I enjoyed his season as the Doctor. If he left the production team and the BBC in the lurch, presumably breaking his contract in doing so, then he deserves criticism for unprofessional behavior. On the other hand, if the news of a planned departure was prematurely leaked by those who should have known better, then that same criticism should fall on his/her/their shoulders.

Rick

Apologies if this ends up posting multiple times. I had initial connection errors, but that doesn't mean previous attempts aren't floating around in cyberspace

"I was dissapointed by the anti-climax of the "Bad Wolf" reveal. After the build up and the websites and all...feh."

SPOILERS for Bad Wolf reveal

In the recently-released, _Doctor Who, the Shooting Scripts_ Russell T. Davies wrote that very early on, he knew that Rose would end up becoming the "Time Goddess", as he put it; so there wasn't a last minute change from some other planned character.

My own theory was that it would turn out to be The Master, though I have to admit I missed most of the Bad Wolf references the first time around (the CBC re-ran the season over the summer, actually starting before the initial run had ended). The first time, I'd missed the penultimate episode, "Bad Wolf", entirely; so when I saw it the second time, and the teaser for "The Parting of the Ways" had an off screen voice say, "they (the Daleks) survived through me", my first thought was that voice would A) be Bad Wolf, and B) be the Master.

But I didn't have any trouble with it being Rose.

Davies also admitted that he didn't initially tell the crew what the words "Bad Wolf" spray painted on the TARDIS meant, in case his idea turned out to fall flat. He found, however, that, without really knowing what "Bad Wolf" meant- or if it meant anything- crew members were finding ways to slip those two words into other episodes, suggesting things like the German version of the term on the bomb in "The Doctor Dances." Davies said he found that aspect somewhat Bad Wolfish in and of itself.

I'm paraphrasing, since I don't have the book in front of me, but I can provide a direct quote if there's a hue and cry for one.

Rick

Just to follow up on a couple of recent posts re Ecleston's departure, I was at the BBC's press launch for the New Who back in March I think, at which Eccleston addressed a couple of hundred journalists about the series. In hindsight, it's interesting to look at his comments considering at that point- before the first episode had even aired- he already knew he was leaving!

to be fair, my comments on Outpost Gallifrey were based on some ridiculous reviews i read there. the sort of thing that gives SF fans a bad name.

however, i've subsequently joined the forum itself, and while there's a small handful of unreasonable people, overall it seems to be a very good group.

-will

"Whether Eccleston’s short tenure was known from the get-go, and whatever the reasons for his relatively quick departure, I enjoyed his season as the Doctor. If he left the production team and the BBC in the lurch, presumably breaking his contract in doing so, then he deserves criticism for unprofessional behavior. On the other hand, if the news of a planned departure was prematurely leaked by those who should have known better, then that same criticism should fall on his/her/their shoulders."

The rumour is that Eccleston was always only going to do one series (which is how they got an actor of his stature in the UK in the first place) with a surprise regeneration at the end of the series. However, after the massive success of the first episode (critically, and viewing figure-wise) Eccleston got drunk with a Mirror journalist and leaked that he was leaving.

Such a shame. If that had been pulled off, people would have been talking about it for years.

Re: Eccleston's departure.

It's been confirmed in a couple of sources (most notably DWM) that Eccleston met with the producers to tell them he wouldn't be returning just before Christmas 2004. This was during the filming of the Empty Child episode. No reshoots of the final scenes of PotW were required, although they did film alternate versions (including one where Rose dies) in order to put the tabloids off the scent.

RTD and others have implied, however, that Eccleston had told them prior to being cast that he would *probably* only do one season so they weren't completely unprepared.

RE: League of Gentlemen

There can actually be some confusion. "The League of Gentlemen" is a 1950s crime caper were ex-soldiers from the British Army conspire to rob a bank. "The League of EXTRAORDINARY Gentlemen" is the Alan Moore comic book and terrible movie about victorian superheroes.

"The League of Gentlemen" is also the name of a group of comedians/actors who were fans of the 1950s movie. When they moved from the stage to get their own BBC TV show, the series was called The League of Gentlemen as well. Finally, they made a movie called "The League of Gentlemen's Apocolypse".

Which is all pretty confusing, really.

Just posted on Aintitcool.com:

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22185

BBC’s New DOCTOR WHO
Coming To SciFi In March!!

...The channel will begin transmitting all 13 regular 2005 episodes at 9 p.m. Fridays, beginning March 17.

As a result, the U.S. DVD release of the season, originally slated for Valentine's Day, will now bow on July 4.

Since most of the people here seem to be so in love with Doctor Who, what would be a good DVD or book to start with for someone who's never seen anything to do with the show before?

Go in straight with the new series. The DVDs for New Doctor Who were put out individually before being collected with extras, so the original ones are cheap on eBay. Volume 1 with Rose and The Unquiet Dead are a great start.

Eccleston's departure has been spun. It was always intended for whoever played the Doctor to last one season, so RTD could do a regeneration story for a new audience.

Oh and the season finale was not reshot. The "reshoot" was the piece they did for Comic Relief, which shows Rose's initail reaction to the Tenth Doctor.

ebony gangbangs ebony porn stars