Few who issues in one post.

mike65

Where are the other 91 theses?!

Mike.

ixoy

OK...

Point 1 (which probably needs its own thread): Can I ask you how the new series lacks the original's ethos? Do you not feel that some of this ethos is just the charm that came from working with miniscule budgets, from making credit titles with shopping bags? Most of the script-writers grew up with the show and their love of it often showed in the novels they wrote before the TV show came back...

Point 2: I really don't like the Millennium-based '96 movie. I thought McGann had good potential but thought the implementation was pretty poor. I loathed them making the Doctor half-human. It was a horrific attempt, I'm assuming, to appeal to an American audience. I also loathed how they crapped over the original series (Eye of Harmony inside the TARDIS? DIE!) and messed up... OK I'll stop the rant. Didn't like it

Point 3: Not faimiliar enough with them to comment.

Point 4: Yup, he was.

aidan_walsh

Not faimiliar enough with them to comment.

Sci-Fi are showing one of them, Doctor Who and the Daleks, the weekend before Hallowe'en if you care to catch it.

popebenny16

1. That point is indeed deserving of a thread on its own, as soon as I can figure out how to do it.

2. The "McCann movie effort" was so bad it should really be ignored. Ioxi has mentioned two reasons, the third being the apparant death (I argue) of The Master. Problem is that BBC made it, it's canon, and more to the point they are doing more audio stoies with McGann. I presume that the half human thing will be "temporary in this re-gneration because I had someones wig in my pocket when it happend" sort of explained away. However, it does give a good basis for the much more emotionally attached Doctor we have seen from Eccleston and Tennant.

3. Well, that re-generation of The Doctor could have preceded the TV ones.... I would imagine that Cushing played him in that way (as a professor) off his own bat, ie, without direction.

4. Yes, but he played The Doctor for so long and no-one since has had a chance really to build up such a reputation.

popebenny16

Moved the post to create a new thread but seems to have lost it, ah well.

Anyway his points were:

1. New Who - V - Old Who : has a thread of its own

2. The "McCann Movie Effort" he was very much aginst it and the Americanisation of the Doctor and his world (Discuss)

3. Why was Peter Cushings Doctor in the two movies (60's movies) so timid and eccentric and out of sync totally with the TV show

4. Tom Baker is the best Doctor - fact.

Putting the questions here, after people have actually replied to them, is very apt in a Doctor Who forum, I think.

ixoy

popebenny16 wrote:

I presume that the half human thing will be "temporary in this re-gneration because I had someones wig in my pocket when it happend" sort of explained away. However, it does give a good basis for the much more emotionally attached Doctor we have seen from Eccleston and Tennant.

The new Doctor is not human in any fashion - never been any indication of it and plenty of indication otherwise with him being the last of the Time Lords.

The whole "half human" thing was "explained" in the BBC spin-off novel "Vampire Science". Something to do with a blood transfusion of human blood rendering him half-human. I think the ninth incarnation is meant to have weaned this out of his system.

Anyone wanting to see how the Doctor as human might work should read the wonderful "Human Nature" (written by Paul Cornell who scripted the excellent "Father's Day").

mike65

Moved the post to create a new thread but seems to have lost it, ah well.

popebenny16 RTFM!

Mike.