What can we expect from Moffat-Who? by Emily Monaghan 8/7/08
"Life is short and you are hot"
The greatest asset Steve Moffat will bring to the role of Head Honcho is his skill for character; in particular, establishing very likeable characters in a short period of time. Quite a talent for a show where half the extras exist as cannon fodder. Top prize goes to Blink: Kathy "you told him you were 18!" Nightingale, everyone's inner geek Larry, and especially Billy Shipton. He only has a few lines to cement his identity, yet minutes later people across the country are pretending they've just got something in their eye. He can write leads just as well: the charming Sally Sparrow, supporting Blink so well you barely miss the Doctor; Madame de Pompadour, getting away with kissing, "dancing" and the Doctor being in love(?) with her, all those things Grace Holloway caused heart attacks with back in 1996. The Empty Child introduced us to a Captain Jack who genuinely hasn't been so interesting since leaving Moffat's hands. Silence in the Library has introduced six characters all with the life expectancy of a Spinal Tap drummer, yet he dredges sympathy for sacrificial lamb Miss Evangelista seemingly from nowhere, and gives Proper Dave and Other Dave real character just through their names.
"I let you keep Mickey!"
This goes for the regulars too. Lovely, lovely sparkly Doctor-companion dialogue. The good naturedly antagonistic Doc-Rose-Jack love triangle in Doctor Dances. The other good-naturedly antagonistic Doc-Rose-Mickey love triangle in Girl in the Fireplace. It didn't work so well for Blink, where Martha vanished in the mix, but I've always thought she was an ineffectual and dull character except when placed center stage (she's brill in Human Nature and Last of the Time Lords, but most authors gave her nothing of substance to do in series 3). It seems it's impossible to go wrong with Donna, especially watching her react to the future of face-donation and neural communicators. Don't make me quote it all, I'm sure you have your favourite bit...
"Are you my mummy?"
Expect more catchy phrases in series 5, as every episode so far has been anchored in a key line or command. "Don't blink, blink and you're dead", more recently "stay out of the shadows". Silence in the Library also had the nerve to give us creepy repeated phrases "Hey, who turned out the lights?" and "Donna Noble has left the library. Donna Noble has been saved" at the same time. He's even started with his own running jokes in advance - bananas and dancing (see below for more of that).
"One day, just one day, maybe, I'm going to meet somebody who gets the whole "don't wander off" thing."
Nothing beats having someone who loves and understands the show at the head. Just as RTD's claim that the new series of Doctor Who would feature "the same man who fought the Drahvins, the Macra, the Axons, the Wirrn, the Terileptils, the Borad, the Bannermen and the Master in San Francisco on New Year's Eve 1999", so Mr M. has constantly proved he knows what he's dealing with. Silence's "spoilers", "Why does nobody ever just go to the police!" and Billy pointing out the TARDIS windows are the wrong size. I don't just mean in terms of humour; sneaking in all those cryptic hints about the Doctor's real name just because it feels right, giving him the "lonely angel" tag, and "everybody lives!" show a good understanding of our favourite Time Lord.
"It was raining when we met"
Expect a smart mix of comedy, heart and... ah hell, no interesting analysis here, I just wanted an excuse to use my favourite quote. It's still a good point though; he doesn't sacrifice tragedy for laughs, or vice versa - even the affecting Girl in the Fireplace had its share of smart wit.
"Why is it pointing at the light?"
Name me some great scenes from the new series. Chances are, you're thinking of the moment the tape runs out in The Empty Child, maybe the opening of Blink with the writing, the whole sequence with the DVD easter egg or the lights beginning to flicker in the basement... If there's something the man can do really well, it's set pieces: little chunks of brilliance scattered about. Expect more great solid and memorable sequences from series 5.
"It's not the books, is it? I mean, books can't be alive, can they?"
A universal theme in his episodes so far has been terror in the everyday. Doctor Who likes to do this one a lot, from Atmos to Autons, but the emphasis here is TERROR in the everyday. The earpieces were just a way to get the Cybermen into the story, Atmos a massive Macguffin, and Magpie's TVs weren't scary. Ticking clocks, statues, the dark, small children; all obvious targets, but very well exploited. Expect more in the same vein.
There's a flipside to this praise. Steven Moffat's episodes have all focused on very contained concepts, the sort of "monsters under the bed" horror which incidentally worked so well in Torchwood the few times they tried it instead of bolting an unlikely invasion into 45 minutes. Sorry, rant over. Doctor Who, being at its heart a kids' show about an alien who considers celery the height of fashion, can get away with putting the Earth into dire peril. Having not yet seen him try, it'll be interesting to see how he can handle the biggies, the end-of-series climactic double bills, and how they turn out. Moffat has so far had the luxury of interesting episodes; he can be experimental, because ultimately he's never been in a position where he has to be generic. The same can be said for other fan-fave Paul Cornell; let's see them make challenging television when landed with an "invasion Earth" plot, eh? (and as a flipside to that, wasn't it fun to watch the Davies-detractors shut up and gulp after Midnight?)
He'll certainly bring his own touch to the Big Episodes: the question is, will he merely kink the cliches or go for something completely unusual? Already Silence in the Library has given us the paradoxical casting of the Doctor as the villain (bursting through the doors before the credits, traditional monster role; not to mention sonicing the security camera), the mock reveal of the books as the bad guys and a door the Doctor can't sonic - not deadlocked, just wood. Another question is whether he'll be able to handle an arc. Daft question in my book, when you count the number of concepts he can bung into a single episode and still remain effective.
But it's not all sunshine and roses. Despite my enthusiasm for a change - I always loved RTD, but if he feels it's his time to go then I'm excited to see what new blood will give to the show - I refuse to ignore the drawbacks. The following are all based on actual events and genuine quotes.
"Half this street thinks your missus must be messing about with Mr. Avistock - the butcher. But she's not, is she...?"
Behind the Sofa.org recently published a pre-reboot interview with some new series writers, before there was even a new series for them to write for (reread it here: http://www.behindthesofa.org.uk/2008/05/is-there-a-plac.html) One of the most disturbing quotes was our new Producer claiming it was, first and foremost, "A children's programme. No ifs. No buts. Definitely!". In fact, the way he put it was "Now, a few of you might not like what I'm going to say next. Grip the arms of your chair, grind your teeth and wrap your head around this", and he's absolutely right. We like to have it both ways: we watch this stuff aimed at the 9-13s market, but we praise it when it gets challenging and dark. Which is why the farting in Aliens of London gets consistantly derided, while the edgy, grim "real sci-fi" Genesis of the Daleks is held aloft as our highest beacon.
Despite the quote, I don't quite believe him - at least, not from available evidence. Mr M. has written some of the most defiantly child-unfriendly pieces so far. Most obviously, the terror factor: Blink scored "Off the Scale" on Fear Factor and Empty Child/Doctor Dances came with a warning for parents to watch it in the daytime. A warning I, as an oh-so-brave 15 year old ignored, and then found I couldn't sleep after watching the last ten minutes from behind a cushion. But children do secretly like being scared (Empty Child's in my top 20), and there has never been anything I felt went too far. Maybe Doctor Constantine's transformation was on the line.
No, I mean the sex 'n' violence, and adult themes. Miss Evangelista's fading struggle is virtually a one-off death scene in a kids show. Fine, she's already dead; that's the excuse. But imagine the same scene, only she wasn't killed in "less than seconds"; instead, she's got a wound in a major artery or a bullet somewhere unpleasant. You could leave the scene untouched, and the emotional impact would be as powerful. Only you couldn't show it on kids' TV any more. How many other characters, in the whole history of the show, get three minutes of panicked last words before passing on? Daleks and Cybermen hit you with a nice, clean, fall-over blast; so do new series Sontarans.
What about the other themes? The Empty Child/Doctor Dances combo packs the most gay agenda of any episode yet, not to mention seduction, drunken threesomes, love triangles, the eponymous "dancing". Girl in the Fireplace gets the Doctor closer to a proper canonical shag than ever before, packed full of hints for people who remembered what "dancing" was all about last time around, along with being about loss, death and misery. Expect him to lighten up now he's responsible for everything... maybe? After all, it can't be this creepy all the time... can it?
"Kids want to see Narnia, not the wardrobe!"
I remembered this pithy quote of his for two reasons. The first is that it is well phrased and witty. The second is that it is wrong. The fundamental difference is that a wardrobe really is just a wooden box; the TARDIS has a swimming pool in Evolution, a garden in Genocide, lovely big, leafy cloisters in the TV movie and Logopolis, endless corridors in Castrovalva, companion bedrooms in The Visitation. The most the new series has given us has been the console room and an oversized wardrobe. With the changeover, looks like we're even further away from seeing that massive, ancient, chaotic library which we all know must be in there somewhere.
It's an especially mean comment from one of the few people writing for the new show who have actually used time travel as a plot device, in both Girl in the Fireplace and Blink. The TARDIS is at its worst as a walking plot randomiser. Most episodes follow the pattern of land-leave-lose, have adventure and then conveniently find it in time for the "next week on". But maybe all is not lost; if I recall correctly, the powers that be vetoed his idea of his keeping Arthur the horse in the TARDIS stables. So I'll keep my fingers crossed.
"Children are no respecters of reputation and are bored by tradition, so keeping faith with the past they never knew means nothing. They want, and are entitled to, their own hero and their own show."
Fair enough. But that doesn't mean he's going to cut gratuitous referencing out of the series? Does it...? Despite the fact the word Gallifrey didn't get in until the end of series 2, old-series referencing has steadily been on the increase. Now, naturally, the new series lives and dies on its own merits. But it doesn't negate the flush of love we all feel when the Master reminices about Sea Devils and Axons.
I'm a passionate, flag-waving member of that cabal that believes there is no "classic" or "new", and certainly one is not better than the other - it's all one ongoing canon. Letting the Eternals round up the Carrionites, or walk out on the Time War just give me ammunition to prove it's the same chap who was striding about in Enlightenment. Will Steve Moffat ditch old series referencing entirely? I hope not, although it has been absent in his regular episodes so far. On the other hand, he did get to head up Time Crash - and that gave the new series "Nyssa and Tegan, Timelords in silly hats". Nice to see the Doc remembering Arc of Infinity, even if we'd rather not. We can only live in hope. And speaking of living...
"Everybody lives!"
When this line first came out in The Doctor Dances, it was a true airpunching moment. Because the last thing you want to be is an extra in Doctor Who, and after decades of gutpunching misery as they are wiped out in droves, finally a complete and joyful success. It's what came afterwards that worries me.
Jenny's departure from the show annoyed me by trying to have it both ways: a tragic death, but one undermined by her then resurrection. He didn't write the episode, but he did persuade the author to keep her alive. A few weeks later we had River Song - even more affecting for not involving the lame "step in front of a bullet" trick. But, again, we were cheated of real death. The horrific otherworld that we and Donna were meant to fear, that Miss Evangelista stalks in black with dire warnings, suddenly becomes a glowy-white afterlife. The image of the Doctor realising his future self had come up with a way to save her was priceless, but the way it was done, and the voiceover in particular, undid the pathos of their parting. Even in Blink, the emphasis for both Billy and Kathy was not that they had died, but that they had had good lives
Girl in the Fireplace has proved he can do uncompromising tragedy properly. So please, no more lame almost-deaths. Either kill them or don't. Most of my favourite episodes, both classic and new, are the downbeat massacres; the ones where things get so dire the Doctor starts shooting things, the ones where he has to abandon whole parallel worlds to destruction or resign himself to losing the entire cast at a rate of one every two minutes. And while we certainly can't have that all the time, one every now and then is pretty good.
In the excitement of the new series most acclaimed writer getting into a position where he gets more than two episodes a series, let's not forget to give thanks where thanks is due. He put emotion back at the forefront of the show, when in the past we mostly had to grip subtext (and, as flickfilosopher.com puts it, sometimes we had to imagine the subtext too). For the first time, he put the focus on the emotional cost of such a life for both the Doctor and companions; whether the attempt to broach an openly romantic plot and giving companions a family was too kitchen sink for you, or the highlight of the show, it remains a brave effort to do something new. It'll be fun to see what influences stay and what goes - both from his own work and the series plan set up so far.
The Davies-era end-of-season finales by Steve Cassidy 25/8/08
To be honest, the RTD finales have been some of the worst examples of Who anywhere. Big budget, big effects, big production design but somehow puny stories. I said in my review of Last of the Time Lords, how come the bigger the peril gets the smaller the programme gets?
Considering what was to come, this was more than OK. Despite the fact that the entire nation was brought up short by "Super Rose" destroying the Dalek fleet at the flick of her wrist. It was projection of the worst kind. It was RTD's projection of a 19 year old girl who is as important and destructive as the Doctor; the whole plot and peril didn't matter because it could be done with pixie dust. Still, Eccles played a blinder and Jack was enjoyable. Bad Wolf had the whiff of a safe bet just in case the ratings had plummeted by programme 12. Big Brother and Davina McCall would get them back on the TV Quick covers.
AoG ain't too painful, apart from the appalling celebrity cameos. There's a nice buildup with the Genesis Ark and the appearance of the Cybermen. Doomsday collapsed under its own writer's witterings. The big clash of the titans with Daleks versus Cybermen was more of a whimper, with them barely being on screen and some terrible Dalek dialogue ("pest control"), but this was nothing compared with the writer's obsessive love for Rose and her obsessive love for the Doctor. Millions died, London burnt, there were Cybes at the Taj Mahal but all that mattered was Rose, that crappy beach on the Gower and the crying towel.
Utopia/The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords
Utopia works because Jacobi is a class act. The director and fellow actors had a lot of respect for him and gave him space and room. Once John Simm arrive it all goes to pot. It reminded me of Moonraker where every action scene ends in a silly joke and so torpedoes the entire effort. If I cannot take the menace of Simm seriously then why bother watching? The Earth invasion story was tired and hackneyed by now, the Toclafane lacked menace and the Master's antics were childish. LOTTL is close to unwatchable. Too many painful scenes to work. And Dobby Doctor and "Messiah Doctor" should confine Davies to the 666th layer of hell. Where a script editor awaits him.
The Stolen Earth/Journey's End
The RTD end-of-season panto. Let's get the whole cast together, link arms and sing "we're riding along on a crest of a wave" while high-kicking at the audience. The Stolen Earth isn't so bad as the climax. There is some good stuff here and at one point the mass companions work when Harret Jones contacts them. The rest is just a result of pot-pourri writing, where nothing is resolved and nothing is taken seriously - so whats the point? The parameters of Whodom are shat upon and once again we have the mother of all deus ex machinas, this time instigated by the Doctor's chavtatic assistant. Still, Ms Tate finally leaves so it isn't all bad.
The finales give you a bad taste at the end of the season. If the season ended on a two part Tooth and Claw or a Human Nature, then so much the better but, as it is, I came to dread them under Davies, not look forward to them.
Why the new series has hit the mark several times over! by Nathan Mullins 13/11/08
Since the revival of Doctor Who, we have been treated to some of the best epiodes screened since the show disappeared in 1989. The show hasnt recieved such acclaim since it was brought back by one of the most influential writers in the TV industry, Russell T Davies. I never in my right mind thought that Doctor Who would make a comeback but it has done and now, having already completed a fourth series that has already gone on air, the fifth is promised to be spectacular, though without a full series in 2009, we're treated to four or five specials that are said to be 'Wicked!'
Since the show has returned, we've seen the regeneration between the 9th and 10th Doctors which I felt had its ups and downs concerning Christopher Eccleston's time spent on the show but we're now left with David Tennant as the 10th, who is simply the best since the 4th Doctor as played by Tom Baker. He's carried the 10th Doctor for three series already and has proved a success amongst millions of people and fans alike who are now enjoying the series weekly on Saturday nights.
We also now have the luxury of watching the show on Christmas Day which is a joy as we get clips of what's to come and it's just something we've become used to since the show returned. Also, the many faces we've seen who have been on the box for how long have come to be a part of the show as the old show once had. For example, Rula Lenska in Resurrection of the Daleks, Ken Dodd in Delta and the Bannermen, Derek Jacobi in Utopia and John Simn as the Master following Derek Jacobi in The Sound of Drums/The Last of the Time Lords.
The show's ratings have been phenomenal and that's down to the quality of the acting, scripting, the writers and the show's popularity and that's why I believe Doctor Who has hit the mark several times over. It's certainly struck a chord in the hearts of viewers around the world.
How we can all expect change! by Nathan Mullins 15/6/09
How many of us tuned in to the National Television Awards recently? That's where we Doctor Who fans would have heard the news of David Tennant announcing he's officially leaving the TARDIS behind. But, we don't seem to be very shocked by this. Especially as there was so much hype last year when Catherine Tate spoke of his decision to leave, or was she referring to his regeneration in Journey's End? Who knows? Though, I do know one thing. Tennant deserves a lot more praise than we fans dish out. The man's fantastic for staying on for not one year but three, including specials due to air soon, so we have yet to see what they will be like.
As much as I like Christopher Eccleston, his Doctor didn't thrill me like Tennant's, who I just love. The Tenth Doctor has been made into an icon. I don't know how or in what way Steven Moffat shall take the show now Tennant has left, but hopefully Matt Smith will stay on for as long or for even longer as Tennant, depending on how good he is.
Steven Moffat has given a number of interviews, talking about making nostalgia for the future, by getting rid of icons that have been a staple for Doctor Who for many, many years. For instance the Daleks and Cybermen. This is not a bad thing, as the Daleks in particular have been, for far too long, overused in the new series. The episodes given to them have been fantastic, but Mr Moffat is right, we can't have them all the time. To keep the show going, we must intrigue the younger generation, by giving them something to look forward to every time; also, Mr Moffat was talking of making the show much darker and scarier. I think this would be a brave move and I'm glad to see that there has been talk of change, as much as I'm loving where were being taken at the moment.
What with everyone behind the scenes leaving... Russel T, Phil C, David T, we're getting lots of new people filling the gaps. I am sad to see David Tennant leaving but he has said he will most certainly come back, for an anniversary special. Which I'd love to see him do. Until we see the next Doctor return to our screens, in 2010, let's enjoy whats yet to come, and look forward to the future and what it holds!
Visions of the future by Joe Ford 29/8/09
1945, and the Second World War is over. The death toll is inconceivable, the destruction extraordinary and the world has to heal the wounds of 6 years of brutal conflict. Technology progresses in leaps and bounds during wartime and the people were promised a better, brighter future. In fiction, looking to the future was a two sided coin. In Doctor Who's formative years there were a number of television series that promised a brighter future. Star Trek presented a world where man was no longer bound by any limitations and vices and frailties have been overcome, Thunderbirds realised a technological wet dream and the Jetsons lived in a futuristic utopia. To counteract these idealised portrayals of the future, we have the more thoughtful novels of Bradbury and Wyndham featuring a dystopian society where critical thought is outlawed and a post-apocalyptic world where hideous plant creatures have devastated the globe. On the big screen, Forbidden Planet had taught us the lesson of unleashing our darkest urges with the use of alien technology and The Day the Earth Stood Still left us with the warning that our extreme violence has come to the attention of other planets who will not tolerate it extending to their worlds.
Where did Doctor Who stand when it came to exploring the future? Did it surrender to a Roddenberry-esque ideal, with the human race holding hands with every alien species it came into contact with? Did the human race of the future repress their urges and work for the best of humanity? Of course not. There is a swinging pendulum of good and bad times ahead with Doctor Who's vision of the future. It is not always happy place. It often saw the future as a dangerous, unpredictable place where technology was responsible for devastation and the human race failed to learn the lessons of wars gone by. Alternatively, there are times when we are hungry explorers of the universe, where technology is used to benefit mankind and we are given a second chance to make things right.
You need look no further than The Dalek Invasion of Earth in season two for a powerful example of a writer still haunted by the Second World War. This post-apocalyptic world must have been a terrifying reminder of the events just 20 years previously. The parallels are manifold: a bombed-out city, the frightened resistance groups struggling to fight back, the Daleks parading through the streets as literal Nazi substitutes brandishing the Hitler salute and all this from the same author who gave us a morality tale about pacifism and the effects of dropping a large bomb to end a war just one year previously. You could also suggest this scenario is a riff on a similar fictional piece, with England in the grip of invaders and all resistance beaten down, Dalek Invasion of Earth shares similar themes with Wells' War of the Worlds penned in 1898. If you roll these interpretations into one, you have a gripping story which uses past horrors and snatches at fictional works for inspiration to create a disheartening glance at future of the human race. Weak in the face of a superior alien force. Whilst we might win out against the Daleks at the close of the story, there is no denying that without further alien intervention (ie the Doctor), the human race would have continued to be abused and slaughtered until our numbers were exhausted. Watching Dortmun wheel his way out onto the street with his new bomb only to be cut down by Dalek firepower is a terrific visual metaphor for the annihilation of wartime spirit. The Dalek Invasion of Earth could be seen as a parable of how our future could have had looked had the Nazi's won the war. This is a warning, next time we might not be so lucky.
With the opener of season four, we were treated with a number of fascinating approaches on the idea of technology pushing the future of the human race forward, but not always for the better. The man responsible for this outbreak technological pessimism in Doctor Who is Kit Pedlar, a British medical scientist and unofficial scientific advisor to show. With a remit of injecting more hard science into the show, Pedlar encouraged a number of stories that focused on science evolving and endangering human lives. The War Machines promotes the idea of linking up all of the world's computers to a central intelligence, just like the internet, but three years before the ARPANet went live in 1969. Writer Ian Stuart Black (dramatising Pedlar's ideas) explores the dangers of such a move. The Doctor, cutting to the chase as ever, asks "Are you seriously telling me, sir, that you have invented a machine that can think?" and the attempted invasion somewhat ponderously answers the questions of the consequences of artificial intelligence. The real question posed is what happens when a computer is sufficiently clever enough to decide when it can do without people. In the world of embryonic science, it is worth considering that we might be responsible for creating the tools of our own destruction. Whilst I find the idea of creating giant boxlike tanks to spread terror across the world hardly the most sophisticated attempt at machine intelligence taking over the globe, Pedlar's next stab at technohorror strikes much more of a chord in its attempts to terrify with the development of technology.
The Tenth Planet suggests perhaps the ultimate horror, the future of the human race as faceless beings, biology replaced with technology, emotions superseded by logic. The Cybermen were born and for a generation of children it would never be safe to go under the knife again. It echoes the educational nature of The Day the Earth Stood Still; after all, Mondas is revealed to be Earth's twin. This is another warning: there are limits to replacing body parts with artificial alternatives; a line will be drawn where our identity as human beings is lost and our ability to feel is sacrificed. The main draw of the Cybermen for me is that fear that they will forcibly strip you of your identity, peel away the emotions and leave you a robotic slave. One of millions, with nothing to define you. "You will be like us" is a chilling Nazi-esque creed, and their instant and lasting popularity proves that then and now, the idea of losing our self awareness and being shuffled into a pack is still hitting home.
Pedlar takes this idea of technology controlling our lives to a new level in his next contribution, inventing a giant weather controlling device situated on the moon. He practically ignores the main strength of the Cybermen here, failing to use them as bodysnatchers but as an invading force wanting to wipe out all life on Earth. This is an attempt at a claustrophobic thriller, but the stakes are only so high because the device they are protecting is controlling the world's environment. Once again, this is the human race playing God and using technology to control the uncontrollable. Reports of storms, hurricanes and floods devastating the planet throughout the story prove how disastrous this level of technology could be when it malfunctions. With these three stories, Pedlar examines the dangers of messing with nature, he looks at how we communicate, our identity and the environment and suggests the terror that lies ahead if we start playing doctor and try to control them with technology. In all three cases, he pre-empts similar warnings made about technology in 2001: A Space Odyssey, the troubles that can crop up when man builds machines, the inner workings of which he does not fully comprehend and the danger of creating technologies that are not fully controllable.
Alternatively, there is a spurt of stories towards the end of the Troughton era that revel in the giddy 'we are about to step on the moon and look at what it will bring us' optimism. Promoting its revelations about the future in its title, The Wheel in Space sees Space Wheels set around the solar system benefiting the human race with a variety of functions (monitoring stellar phenomena, weather data and a resting place for deep space vehicles). There is a strong feeling of a people who are obsessed with what is come rather than what has been; Zoe's education is narrow and career-obsessed, with logic and memory superseding any historical teachings. The sense of excitement around the luxury of space habitation echoes the nail-biting space race that was taking place at the time.
Possibly the most positive portrayal of our application of future technology is explored in The Seeds of Death. Famine and the exhaustion of fossil fuels have been conquered by synthesized carbohydrates and protein (sounds delicious) and solar batteries. T-Mat travel revolutionised the distribution of people and materials around the world, while it was an effort to rid the world of its pollution (petrols cars are now confined to museums) and famine (now the world's goods could be fairly distributed). Whilst this application of technology allowed us to iron out worldwide issues, the human race became narrow minded about the idea of space travel. As the story unfolds, we see the danger of relying solely on one form of technology and the go-ahead is given to build a fleet of rockets and once again reach out into space. Again, the future looks bright indeed.
The Space Pirates hops forward even further into the future and sees the human race so accustomed to space travel that we have regulated space ways and divided areas of space into administrative and strategic sectors, monitored by Beacons. Atomic motors power the most impressive of vessels and the Space Corps are on hand to fight space piracy. Like the desire to buy the latest car design today, emphasis is put on the acquisition of the hottest space vessels and only reactionary old plods like Milo Clancey want to see a return of the old days. The Space Pirates aired just a few months before the moon landing and sees Robert Holmes predicting a vast expansion into space beyond its first step on the lunar surface.
The early 1970's and the Cold War has been raging for 20+ years. The US and the Soviet Union are locked in a state of conflict, propaganda flies, coalitions are formed and weapons development has become the order of the day. Defensive spending goes through the roof and the nuclear arms race becomes a public and terrifying threat hanging over the world. One writer who seems particularly moved to educate the science-fiction community to the horrors of such a war is Malcolm Hulke, author of some of the most gripping morality tales in Doctor Who's canon. Doctor Who and the Silurians is noted for refusing to tell its story in black and white, with both the human race and the Silurians causing atrocities in their attempt to lay claim to the planet. The use of plague weapons and attempted genocide as storytelling tools mark this as a particularly hard-hitting piece of science fiction. The climax is especially damning of humanity and whilst I mirror the Doctor's appalled reaction when he realises that the Brigadier has blown up the Silurian base, I have to wonder if in reality would we do anything less if we felt threatened enough.
Frontier in Space is a less subtle but more optimistic attempt to examine the Cold War, with two superpowers locked in an escalating dispute. The entire conflict is revealed as a proxy war, with the Master masterminding the conflict between Earth and the Draconians to weaken both sides sufficiently for the Daleks to step in. Similar conflicts were brewed during the Cold War to avoid direct conflict between the two factions and the escalation to a nuclear war (the Greek Civil War, the Korean War). Two very strong statements are made during this story, which relate to the conflict that was taking place in real life. The Master's weapon of choice is fear and he manages to create an atmosphere of terror that is far more effective than an entire arsenal of weapons. Fear that the other side has an advantage and that they are edging into your territory; with the use of a (slightly) melodramatic newsreader, Hulke comments on the use of propaganda to fuel the people's hatred and their unity in forcing the government to act. Hulke's ability to humanise the enemy is perhaps his most positive statement here. As portrayed in Frontier in Space, both the humans and the Draconians are seen to be honourable races, only showing strength when their hand is forced. It was worth remembering that by the time Frontier in Space aired the Cold War had been entangled by politics and propaganda and despite what was being reported neither side was a black and white enemy.
This period also saw the Soviets and the US in a race to forge more and better nuclear weapons and it is in a story steeped in nuclear pessimism that Hulke makes his most damning appraisal of humanity, The Sea Devils. Hulke populates his story with a ridiculous and bureaucratic buffoon in the form of Walker, Parliamentary secretary whose only ambition within the confines of the story is to destroy the Sea Devils with nuclear missiles. Whilst the Doctor strongly (and verbosely) opposes yet another attempt at genocide, the story urges us to consider if we will ever step out of an age of such conflicts whilst close-minded conformists like Walker are in power. Shockingly, it is only when the Doctor appeals to the politician's ego, suggesting he can prevent a war and give all the credit to Walker, that the nuclear strike is momentarily halted. Walker throws away any chance of a peaceful resolution and leaves the Sea Devils with the opinion that the only language the human race use is violence. The missiles are fired and species annihilated. Despite the feeling of the majority, one man's actions dooms the human race to be guilty of genocide. Again. The actions of one man blight us all.
Whilst Frontier in Space is set in 2540 so can afford to be a more positive spin on warfare, the Silurian/Sea Devil stories are supposed to be set in the 'near future'. Hulke's assessment of humanity seems to be that we are easily manipulated into war; we position congenital idiots into important positions and that we are ready to apply desperate measures with enough provocation. Rather than share our knowledge, culture and environment, we would rather stick a knife into the belly of those that would threaten to reshape them. Hardly the most cheerful appraisal of our future. Hulke's stories teach us we have face up to our instincts (to destroy what is different) and learn from them.
Again, this is an era that looks at both sides of the coin. Colony in Space sees the Earth in the grip of future shock, Alvin Toffler's imaginatively coined term for the acceleration of technological and social change that leaves the human race shattered and disoriented. 100 billion humans are living like battery hens with 300 floating towers housing 500 million apiece. It is a communist future, free thought is outlawed and the Earth has been polluted beyond recognition. The story follows a group of colonists who have chosen to break free of such a restraining society and make a life for themselves on another planet. One of the colonists states that back on Earth they didn't have a room but now they have land and fresh air. Tellingly, the only threat to the colonists is IMC Corporation, ruthlessly strip mining worlds now the Earth's resources are exhausted. Colony in Space pits the two sides against one another, resourceful progress against reactionary destruction in the style of a land-claim western. With the colonists triumphing and seeking political approval at the climax, it is an optimistic peek at a terrifying future.
There are stories that attempt to paint the human race as the good guys but reactionary characters stand in their way. The Sea Devils was a good example of this and The Mutants is another, set near the end of the Earth Empire where the human race is waking up to its mistakes, having exhausted the Earth and pulling out of worlds it has colonised to return home and rectify these problems. In the character of the Marshall (Paul Whitsun Jones giving an operatic performance), we have an antagonist who wants to continue to hold another race in the grip of the Earth Empire. The Marshall's order to bombard the surface with deadly rockets to make the air breathable to human life (regardless of the fact it is poisonous to the natives) is a rather unsubtle metaphor for British colonialism in the past, walking up to other cultures and stepping on them for their land and resources. Whilst it seems that the human race in the 30th Century is starting learn that this method of expansion is not morally acceptable, the reactionary decisions taken by the Marshall threaten to hark back to a darker time. One man is all it takes to have delusions of grandeur and wipe another species out and we have seen plenty of dictators in the shape of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler with the ego and the creed of the Marshall. Look at the legacies they left us with.
Forget reading a textbook; if you want a history lesson about the seventies just watch the Pertwee Doctor Who stories! Politics reared their head in seasons eight and nine, about the time the Cold War was heading into its most politically charged period. Day of the Daleks suggests a Third World War, where the deaths of a number of politicians could ignite the already-rising tensions. The story takes the idea of the Earth on the brink of War to its grim conclusion, hopping 200 years into the future and displaying the Earth after two centuries of war, a wasteland of fear and depravation. It is one of the rare uses of time travel in the show to teach us a lesson about sorting out our future; there is a particularly didactic scene at the story's close where Sir Reginald Styles and the Doctor might as well look out of the television and talk to us directly about creating a better future. Whilst a science-fiction plot device sees this war averted, the message is that we are more than capable of doing this on our own.
Barry Letts and Terrance Dicks have made no secret of their desire to promote the environmental concerns in the early 1970's and pumped for a number of near-future stories that dealt with these issues. The three stories I feel best illustrate what they were trying to warn us about tackle the problem at all ends of the spectrum, the subtle, the obvious and the downright bloody ridiculous. Inferno takes the idea of searching for alternative energy supplies to a demoralizing extreme. In the near future, a scientific institution knocks on the door of Lucifer himself, drilling down into the Earth's crust to release untapped energy in the form of volcanic gas. Ingeniously, the story takes a leap a few hours into the future (a literal glimpse at what is to come and an enthralling plot device which adds a new dimension to the story) where the project is completed and the drill has practically cracked open the planet like an egg and unleashed a primordial force deep from the heart of the planet. Houghton might elaborate on the savage intelligence of the deposits for fictional purposes but his warning about penetrating deeper into the Earth's crust to find a fresh energy source are right on the nail. He cautions us from injuring and exhausting the planet beyond its toleration. The Doctor succinctly points out once the world has gone up in flames: "Listen to that! That's the sound of this planet screaming out its rage!" As far as Doctor Who is concerned, pioneering natural resources destructively (thrusting a knife into the surface of the planet to see what comes out) ultimately destroys rather than supports life.
Far less subtle and even more condemning is The Green Death. Environmentalism is stamped all over this story, a story which doesn't just use an allegory of modern-day concerns but actually has its characters debating pollution and allows us to see a horrific by-product of its waste. Episode one sees Doctor Who abandoning its escapist roots and engaging in a real concern (that is possibly why the Doctor is crow-barred out of the action for much of the episode) and a lot of what it tries to say is still relevant today. If the Earth was reliant on alternative technologies such as wind farms and drawing energy from the tides in the sea, would we have faced the sickening images of wildlife drowning in thick black oil during the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989? The Brigadier sums up the majority opinion of exploiting the world's fossil fuels: cheap petrol and lots of it. Raping the planet of its natural elements, just so we don't have to walk. Perhaps fronting this eco-revolution with a bunch of welsh post-graduate hippies was not the most restrained of attempts to tackle pollution and, just like Day of the Daleks, there are a few moments where (if you squint) you can see the characters stop talking to each other and start wagging their fingers directly at you. Over 400 nuclear power stations are still active and there are approximately 250 million vehicles on the road today. With CFCs and petrol fumes eating away at the ozone layer, eventually this will become a global catastrophe. The Green Death was rooting environmental concerns into children, the trouble was it never succeeded.
When we come to Invasion of the Dinosaurs, all attempts at credibly handling the idea of environmentalism are thrown out of the window. It is possibly Doctor Who's most ambitious script (Time-Flight excepted) and certainly the most original way of dealing with population control. With the use of time travel, beam dinosaurs into London and force its evacuation whilst simultaneously convincing a group of celebrities that they are on a spaceship en route to a new planet (when in fact they are smuggled away in a fake spaceship in one of Britain's nuclear bunkers) then, using the same time-travel technology, roll back time to a pre-industrial Earth where those same celebrities can repopulate a clean and free planet. You have to wonder what the reactions were when Grover and Whitaker were workshopping this idea in the planning stages. Putting it simply, murdering 99% of the world's population so we can try again and get it right. On screen, this is a colourful and dynamically executed adventure but its handling of its theme is by far Doctor Who's most far fetched. With its strong opposition to progress and attempts to return the Earth to its previous state, this is one of Doctor Who's most reactionary stories. Its ideals are optimistic but wiping out the people who caused the problems this planet faces is not the answer.
Late in the show's run with the arrival of Eric Saward came a number of ideas of how the show should present the human race in the future. Like most of his scripted stories, he pumps for mood over intelligence but he shines a light on a militaristic, rough-edged humanity, one that is used to fighting for what they have. Earthshock sees the military storming in on what they believe to be a massacre at an archaeological site and Resurrection of the Daleks is set primarily on an Earth prison ship. The former is populated by aggressive soldiers, tactically minded and ready to shoot first and think later. The latter is even more depressing; the crew of the prison ship sit about smoking, complaining and generally getting slaughtered by the Dalek taskforce that attacks. The death count in both stories is alarming; it is like a Tarrantino flick in space and the continual combination of humans and guns suggests a human race that has headed out into space and taken a few knocks. The ultimate expression of this dystopian future is Warriors of the Deep. Possibly a comment on the Iran-Iraq War that was devastating the Middle East or perhaps the still-raging Cold War, two power blocs are at odds and the one we visit in this story have an underwater sea base with nuclear weapons aimed and poised to fire at the other side. As a love letter to Malcolm Hulke's contributions to Doctor Who, this script is just about perfect, featuring an attempted proxy war, the deliberate systematic destruction of one species by another and the threat of nuclear destruction. The story culminates in one of the finest endings of any Doctor Who story, the pacifist fifth Doctor surrounded by corpses, having stopped the missiles being deployed and simply stating, "There should have been another way." Such a simple statement but one that drives home the pointlessness and devastation of war. Whatever its shortcomings are on screen, Warriors of the Deep remains in print one of the best lessons of the hopelessness of war that the series attempted. Pleasingly, neither of the power blocs is named, leaving the viewer to fill in the blanks.
Why did this sudden level of violence and hardware infect Doctor Who's glimpses ahead? Eric Saward's comment on the future seemed to be that this was the consequences of nurturing a bloodbath like the Cold War for so many years, that we would as a society be infected by violence and point a gun rather than shake a hand. Or were these stories written by writers who had become accustomed to brutality in the media and were taking the next step to inviting it into entertainment? The eighties was a time of loud, brash, colourful statements (the sixth Doctor was just around the corner) and this bloodthirsty take on humanity is as shocking a statement as Doctor Who ever made.
Underrated at the time but a story whose ideas are far more interesting on paper than they were executed on screen, The Mysterious Planet reworks the ideas from The Face of Evil into an encouraging look at the far future. We are presented with an Earth knocked from its orbit and nearly devastated by a solar fireball caused by the Time Lords. The cause of this calamity is not as interesting as its consequences, which see the human race split into two factions: subterranean technocrats vs. a tribe of savages. It's nice to see a writer thinking about the effects on the human condition if a natural disaster struck, rebuilding with the tools of the body or with the tools of the mind. Post-holocaust imagery (the abandoned underground station, the lush overgrown surface of the planet) and suggestions (Peri being considered for several husbands to help repopulate the planet) help to build a picture of a world where the human race has survived and prospered under extreme condition. Even in Doctor Who's escapist years, there was space to explore the human condition in the future and see us come out smiling.
I really enjoy stories that suggest an optimistic future but still have their dark undertones. The Ark enjoys a variety of strong concepts, featuring a giant spaceship relocating the civilisations of the Earth to another planet because of the expansion of the sun. An awesome achievement by any standards, but this thrilling exodus is tempered by the strict regime of this society, conformity or death and the treatment of the Monoids, who whilst living peacefully with humans are tantamount to slaves and doing much of the dog work. Inferno, Day of the Daleks and The Ark all enjoy the narrative leap into the future, be it a few hours or 700 years. This affords the viewer the opportunity to see what will happen if we don't change things for the better. In the case of The Ark, the human race sees the error of treating the Monoids as second class citizens, their roles being reversed.
The Ark in Space and The Sontaran Experiment allow us to see the application and the consequences of class selection. The former story shares similar ideas with The Ark and seems to be Robert Holmes portraying the human race with much confidence. The idea that the human race has put all of its differences behind them, abandoned racism, sexism and all the other isms that keep us at odds is extremely appealing, echoing Gene Roddenberry's ethos in Star Trek. However, it soon becomes clear that certain advantaged people were selected for the cryogenic process, leaving the rest of the population behind to cope. In The Sontaran Experiment, we meet the descendents of those that were left behind, who have created an expansive Empire of their own, leaving the Earth unpopulated for the privileged to return to almost as a statement of their dismissal. The Doctor might make impressive speeches about the human race being indomitable but he should have reserved it for the next story; those who embarked on the Ark were supposed to prosper by leaving the less desirable elements behind. It would appear in the future we cannot escape what it means to be human. Even when humanity abandons its own, it thrives.
There are so many other examples of humanity's hiccups and triumphs. The Sensorites sees both sides of humanity, the greed (a handful of humans attempt to poison the Sensorites) and compassion (after dealing with this mistake they promise to leave them in peace). The Macra Terror sees a human colony brainwashed in an Orwellian nightmare. Fury from the Deep offers a time of great prosperity with no wars and plenty for everyone. The Enemy of the World features an Earth in the grip of famine and political games where one mans lust for power would allow suffering on such a huge scale. The Ice Warriors again sees us mastering technology that can hold back a new Ice Age. The Sunmakers features invasion by economy; who would have thought how we spend our money could bring the human race to its knees? The Invisible Enemy sees the human race leapfrogging across the galaxy like a tidal wave. Frontios is humanity's last colony, fighting to stave off extinction. The list goes on.
Looking at these stories as a whole, it becomes clear that the achievements of the human race in the future are extremely optimistic. The evolution of technology is boundless; from our first steps into space to habitation on the moon, from colonisation on other worlds to regimenting the space lanes, from an expansive Earth Empire to an exodus of biblical proportions, we never stop learning, achieving, adapting to new environments. Doctor Who sees the human race with a drive and ambition to expand and survive. So many stories in the classic series parallel the events of the time, taking them into future and escalating their consequences. Looking forward at our future, we constantly have examples of the human race looking backwards to past conflicts for inspiration. The stories bounce between the optimistic and the reactionary, with the positive angle losing out as much as it wins. The new series is still enjoying this formula today, with the Ood stories exploring and conquering slavery and the Utopia arc suggesting an unhappy answer to the humanity's quest for salvation. Doctor Who enjoys a wealth of future-based stories that refuse to take a monochromatic approach to storytelling. Humanity will always triumph ultimately but it will also take some knocks on the way and, despite leaps in progress, we will never escape what it means to be human, for good or for ill.
"Beau Brummel always said I looked better in a cloak" by Neil Clarke 6/2/10
I can't say I'm desperately well-dressed, but I do like clothes, and therefore I like that the Doctor likes clothes. It's unsurprising clothes are important to the character; given his variants, it's natural that the outfits he wears define and differentiate his incarnations.
I'm not aware of any major discussion of the Doctors' costumes, but as a visually minded person I tend to notice elements of 'visual continuity' as much as I do the regular kind. It's not ordinarily something I'd think about in a conscious way, but I can't help but inadvertently mentally cataloguing Hartnell's different cravats or Colin's waistcoats; it's just part of the way my minds works, so it's an aspect of the character I find interesting. What's really got me thinking about clothes is Matt Smith's costume. At first, I was immediately relieved that something old fashioned had been chosen (as opposed to, say, a 'yoof' hoodie uniform or regulation-trendy skinny jeans); the Doctor's costume has always been such a signifier of his unconventionality that I still feel cheated by Eccleston's outfit.
Since it was initially revealed, it's become more and more apparent how trendy Smith's costume is - but I don't think it really matters. It's fashionable in terms of a specific Topman/i-D demographic, so in fact it's quite clever of the production team to have smuggled in an 'old fashioned' costume under the auspices of what is currently fashionable. I imagine the 'old fashionedness' will outlast the trendiness; in future, people will probably only see its student/professor contrast, rather than the preppy/tweedy trends it's derived from.
It is strange how very 'on-trend' it is; the All Saints work boots, the jacket, the bowtie; you can't get away from models dressed exactly like that in every magazine going. In fact, when the costume was released, The Guardian (yes, yes, I'm such a bleeding heart liberal; it's okay, I didn't buy it) did a little satirical piece introduced with the line 'Here is the latest Burberry model...' going on to cite the look's overall trendiness - or rather, berate the costume designers for such blatant box-ticking, saying that the Doctor should be above such things (a concern I find pretty funny coming from a mainstream newspaper).
As I say, the costume will likely become so ubiquitous it'll surpass the styles it's mirroring (it already feels very familiar), though I am ambivalent about the decision to make it so close to current trends. (As opposed to, say, the Fifth Doctor's outfit alluding to the 80s Brideshead thing, rather than completely lifting a style.) It does make it harder to judge objectively, too; I really like it, but is that partly because it's fashionable, you're exposed to similar things everywhere at the moment, so it just seems 'right'? No matter, in purely DW terms, it works: the fusty tweediness, yes; the boots have a good strong Pertwee/Tom precedent, but, being laced, are also different enough, and give the whole thing a bit of edge, contrasting with the Troughton-like bowtie (sort of skinhead-cum-academian). Nice range of textures, too; presumably a high definition consideration, or am I reading too much into this? Good to see something other than a white shirt, anyway. Hilariously, The Sun (and, no, I definitely didn't buy that) did a spread rather desperately trying to make out that the costume includes elements of every single previous Doctors' outfits, including the Seventh Doctor's white shirt (which is hardly a defining element of his look anyway). Even though Smith's is clearly not white in the picture they'd published. Ah, The Sun. Bastion of accuracy.
I love the Doctors' costumes, actually - all of them. I'm really pleased that the Eleventh Doctor's been given a look - potential Hoxton wankerishness aside - that chimes with his predecessors' eccentricities rather more than the Ninth or Tenth do. The way the Doctor dresses really does mean such a lot within the programme, as shorthand for his 'otherness,' not just as an alien, but as a TV hero. With the exception of the Ninth's, each costume very plainly states that this isn't a character who's going to function in exactly the way you'd expect.
The First Doctor's outfit is, rightly, the most straightforward, and, although it's easy to consider them broadly similar (check trousers, black jacket) the Second's is a deceptively clever variation on it. It manages to be an anarchic subversion of the original 'Edwardian' silhouette, whilst also maintaining enough continuity to not be alienating. Similarly, the Third Doctor's initial, season seven costume is another fairly minor twist on the same basic approach (interesting though that Pertwee favoured a plain Nehru jacket): still Edwardian, black jacket, just dressier, with the addition of an opera cape. Capes are fab; all kudos to Pertwee for pulling that look off. Especially in his later costumes, when he obviously had the run of the costume department, he should look awful (coloured ruffled shirts, velvet jackets, AND checked Inverness cloaks?!), but he does actually look pretty cool.
In fact, it's impressive that somehow he avoids looking like a total ponce, perhaps because he's often quite dour and plays the role very straight. I guess, to an extent, his style is akin to Matt Smith's in that it chimes with general tendencies of the period: frills and velvet and so on. (At least he avoided flares.) I'm not sure about the bouffant - although at least it's kind of unique and doesn't date as readily as other contemporaneous 70s dos; the 70s did no one any favours - but I'd like to be able to stride around like that when I'm 55. (Martial arts might also be a bonus, then.)
Of these costumes, it's the little variations that I particularly like (something there's been less and less of as the marketing of the show has become more controlled and canny); for example, I really like the white version of the First Doctor's astrakhan hat, and his Panama, and he looks particularly great when he wears his cloak and little wire-framed glasses (like the Fifth and Tenth Doctors in their brainy specs). I must also be one of the few people who actually loves the Second Doctor's early 'stovepipe' hat (or, more accurately, according to DWM, a Paris Beau, Capotain, or bird-catcher's hat - not as catchy, though), partly because of its bizarreness, but probably also as it was so short-lived and only few picture exist of it (perhaps I'd be less keen if it had become totally ubiquitous). Even tiny variations like the Second Doctor's fur coat or cloak, down to his woolly hat in Fury from the Deep, are representative of the series' earlier off-the-cuff production, in a way that wouldn't really happen later on.
The Fourth Doctor's various costumes are odd, really, because no one looks beyond his almost cartoon-like features, hat, and scarf; the costume itself just isn't that defining. Consider that no one ever really describes him as being Victorian in appearance, even though during season thirteen, that's exactly what his outfit is like. I'm not so keen on the initial short jacket, though I love his cardigan and straggling necktie. Baker's costume is great in terms of its variability; it gives the character a richness, not to mention a realism, and, pleasingly, especially early on, really looks like he's been raiding a charity shop. Lots of detail too: cravats, neckties, the TARDIS key as a pendant, high waisted trousers, different hats and coats. Lovely. I'm less keen on the simpler coat and open-necked shirt of seasons sixteen and seventeen, but the variation is nice.
I'm also a big fan (again, one of few?) of his stylised season eighteen look. It's interesting though that John Nathan-Turner initially wanted a completely new look; wonder what they were considering? It is fairly ridiculous - and take it as read that the question marks are hideous - but it works as a reinvention of an existing look. The massiveness of the Russian-army-style greatcoat looks great on Tom (nice green patterned lining, too!), and the red shoes and argyle socks/burgundy boots is a nice variation.
The Fifth Doctor's costume, on the other hand, I absolutely loathe, for a variety of reasons. More so even that the Sixth's. It's the first time a Doctor wears a single unchanging costume, which is just a terrible idea (at least Tennant's, though essentially the same, has some variation). I'm not sold on the 'sporting motif' thing anyway (a polo outfit would've been better), but it's so flimsy and badly made, especially those pyjama bottoms! And the jacket doesn't even appear to be lined. The whole thing looks like a fancy dress version, not the real thing! Actually, having said that, purely from the point of view of the design, it works (in the DWM strip it's quite effective). It's just that, in practice, the red and beige is horrible, and as an Edwardian cricketing outfit, it's so patently inaccurate; I hate that it's someone's contrived idea of that concept (a frock coat with a cricket jumper), when they could have done some research and put him in a more believable jumper and stripy blazer combo. His panama hat is quite good though, if underused. The high-waisted trousers, shirtsleeves and braces look of Planet of Fire is an improvement, too.
I really do think the Fifth Doctor's outfit trumps the Sixth's as worst ever. The Sixth I've come to like if you view it as a magician's outfit, and in its brashness creates a nice tension with Colin Baker's difficult persona. In fact, I like it more the more ridiculous it gets (ie, the starry necktie/metallic purple striped waistcoat combo from Terror of the Vervoids). The problem with it, though a little more substantial-looking than its predecessor, is that it's so obviously a designed whole, like it was bought as an off-the-peg outfit. If it looked like various thrown-together items, that'd at least make more sense.
The other thing is that no one ever reacts realistically to it. In a physical sense, there's no reason why he couldn't turn up in The Godfather or a kitchen sink kind of scenario in his patchwork coat - as long as people reacted realistically to it. Personally, I think that'd make it easier to swallow; as it is, with most incidental characters not even mentioning it, it damages suspension of belief; it feels like the show is being dishonest to us. Even if it happened everywhere he went (which actually couldn't be a worse running gag than series four's, 'We're not married!'), at least that'd add a veneer of realism, knowing that the people he meets are thinking the same as the audience. In fairness, it is probably true of all the Doctors' outfits that people seldom react realistically to them, but this is most apparent when it comes to the Sixth. It does seem the production team realised it didn't function in a realistic sense, but then shot themselves in the foot by trying to ignore that, rather than acknowledge it. (His cloak in Revelation looks great though.)
I know a lot of people dislike the Seventh Doctor's costume, too, but I have quite a soft spot for it, perhaps cos I find the pullover a lot easier to ignore than the shirt collar question marks (although, coincidentally, I did just come across a load of rehearsal photos from Ghost Light where McCoy is without the jumper and it does look a billion times better). It's a bit too bright and light to start with, but I do like how genuinely dishevelled it is. Interesting too that it's much later than any of the others; I wonder if this was commented on at the time? It's quite thirties in style, and the tie, as opposed to cravat or bowtie, is quite modern. I read that it was meant to look normal from a distance and then stranger close up, which I think works: the paisley overload, lapel watch, etc. And how cool are the two-tone brogues? His TVM costume is interesting as a variation, though I agree with what McCoy said at the time about it being 'an American idea of an English gentleman'. I prefer his white linen suit from the NAs though; it bugs me that we'll never get to see that in real life. The godawful montaged effort on the cover of The Shadow of the Scourge doesn't count.
As for the Eighth Doctor, there really isn't much to say. A lazy Edwardian default, but made a bit Byronic, to mix in some sex appeal. Fine, whatever. The Ninth, however... as I say, I'm ambivalent. As a one off, I like it for how unusual it is; I'm just glad it didn't set a precedent. Now we've had a suited Doctor and are about to get a tweed-clad one at least the Ninth's leather has become a variation rather than a new precedent for "modern" Doctors' outfits. It does sort of work - the hard-wearing traveller thing - but I just wish he wore a shirt or sailor jumper (and completed the U-boat captain look) rather than those horrible Next tops. I suppose at least they avoided the frock coat silhouette - unlike the TVM - which there has been far too much of up to this point, to the extent that it's become a shorthand default for the Doctor's eccentricity, and as such, stopped meaning anything (cf any spoof you care to mention, and David Morrissey's 'next' Doctor outfit - which made it immediately apparent that he wasn't a real Doctor, as it's just too by-numbers).
The Tenth is a bit Next too. Bad times. I remember being so relieved when pictures of his costume were released, but now it does seem rather banal and safe - and not just through overexposure. Apart from anything else, the world and his wife wear Converse All-Stars! Probably up to and including Amazonian Indians. They just don't have the hip edge they're presumably meant to inject. Also, like the Fifth and Sixth Doctors, it looks a bit too obviously run up by the costume department, rather than being a real tailored suit (and coat). The coat I kind of like, but is a bit too contrivedly 'iconic'; long, for flapping in dramatic breezes, etc.
I don't know quite what to feel about the blue suit either. I tend to like the atypical variations, so there's something to be said for it for that reason, but, although it's unusual, again that feels like a slightly cynical stab at automatic 'Doctorishness'. It's a bit too bright. In fact, Tennant's just a bit too clean and perfect really. Bit too modern. Especially his hair; trying a bit too hard to be cool. At least Smith's hair is kind of inexplicable already, so it can't really date. (On the subject of hair, Troughton wins hands-down for coolest do - though Hartnell's wig is pretty inspired, as it's the most atypical element of his costume as a whole.) I sort of wish they'd made more of the 'punk with a hint of rockabilly' thing from Tooth and Claw, given Tennant a bit more edge (what, Elvis quiff, signet rings, tattoos, eyeliner?). Having said that, his quiff in The Idiot's Lantern looked a bit rubbish. Edginess isn't something you could really say comes naturally to David Tennant.
So, what have we learnt? I'm not sure. But I enjoyed talking about it! While I'm at it, I always see costumes in films that make me think, "Aha, that'd be great for a (hypothetical) Doctor": particularly Toshiro Mifune's white suit and flat cap in Kurosawa's Stray Dog; the short, 1930s wide-shouldered checked jackets from Brighton Rock; James Dean's simple jumper and chinos with a watch on his trousers from East of Eden (which is strangely iconic); or even Paterson Joseph's steampunk gentlemen from the BBC's Neverwhere, with half-bleached and half-dreaded hair. That'd be a bit of a departure, but that'd make it ace. Think of how many numerous options for doing something unprecedented there are. Better still, regenerate him into a woman and let the fun really begin!
Revenge of the Frock Coat Dogma by Andrew Wixon 5/3/10
There are some soft spots it seems you can never completely protect, and for the likes of us one seems to be the always-contentious issue of what the new guy's going to wear. I last put finger to keyboard on this topic just after Chris Eccleston's casting in a (by my standards) well-received item entitled the Frock Coat Dogma, wherein I argued... well, ye editor has gone to the trouble of hyperlinking said article, so you might as well pop back and see for yourself.
Of course, a few months later the joke was on me, as my glow of self-regard as a forward-thinking fan evaporated in the face of a leather jacket and jeans. I remember sitting rather disconsolately at a local group meeting where we all huddled round nursing our pints trying to persuade ourselves that that wasn't actually The Costume, it was Eccleston's own gear he'd been wearing for a photo-call... Slightly embarrassing to recall it now, of course, but back in 2004 the world was a hugely different place. The Frock Coat Dogma still held sway, whereas now...
Is the Dogma finally dead? Have we freed ourselves of Doctorly preconceptions? In the wake of the casting of young-me-laddo with the crazy hair, it seems appropriate to revisit the subject. So. The Frock Coat Dogma in the Rusty Years.
Well, obviously, the first thing to be said is that the Doctor himself barely wears anything remotely resembling a frock coat throughout the four seasons and associated specials just concluded. I say "barely", as there is of course that photo of the Eccy Doctor we get a glimpse of back at the very start of things... and one can argue that this doesn't really count as he's just adopting local dress (although one inevitably wonders what was so special about this particular occasion). I think we can put this down to Rusty's very sensible desire for our hero not to look like John Leslie (as he put it himself) and to generally tone down the "frothing eccentric" angle of the character.
It is, though, interesting that apparently Dave Tennant's first stipulation on taking the role was "I want to have a big coat down to my ankles!" Interesting, but hardly surprising given the great man's fannish pedigree. He is, of course, a fantastic actor, and took the show to new heights, etc etc, but I suspect that part of the reason he's been so comprehensively crushed to the bosom of fandom is because he's never tried to hide the fact that he is, to some degree, one of us, and gets excited about Doctor Who in a way that - most obviously - Chris Eccleston visibly didn't. I think it will be interesting to see how the reputations of the ninth and tenth Doctors' eras change over the next few years now that they are both complete. I suspect that no matter how much we may admire the Eccleston series, we will never really love it in the same way we do other, less-accomplished seasons with Dave T in them.
The Rusty Years have been notable for their "nothing's sacred" approach to characterisation and plotting, and the show did do things with the Doctor's character one would never have seen coming; he actually has a character, for the first time in decades, rather than just existing as a set of plot functions and personality quirks. He becomes emotionally scarred! He has sort-of romances all over the place! He goes on (oh dear) emotional journeys! All a very long way from the rigid, set-in-stone Frock Coat Doctor, who just runs down corridors a lot and shouts.
And yet, and yet... there are Frock Coats in the Rusty Years, and they are indicative. I speak not of those in The Unquiet Dead, as these are merely period detail, and it would have been odd not to include them. The same is true of most of those in The Next Doctor... but not quite all. I am really talking about the two most significant frock coat inhabitants of our time, Jackson Lake and Professor Yana. (It is a fair point to say that the Professor never actually wears his coat on screen, and you'd be hard pressed to notice he even has one unless you look for it. It's still there, though.)
The most obvious connection between this duo beyond their choice of apparel is the fact that neither of them is quite who they believe they are when we first meet them. Is Rusty therefore using the frock coat as a symbol of self-delusion? I think not. The other thing that they share is a deep and initially unarticulated connection with the Doctor, and this is where the frock coat becomes an interesting symbol.
One of the many brilliant incidental things about Utopia is the way Professor Yana is built up as a Doctor-analogue, but not just the modern Doctor; Yana's basically wearing a variation of the Hartnell costume, he has that old-school "Well, my dear..." diction, and so on. The frock coat is of course part and parcel of this.
Even for a prosperous Victorian gent, Jackson Lake's choice of frock coat is bit ostentatious, but let's not forget that he's a Victorian gent who's trying to be the Doctor. For this story to work at all, it has to seem at least possible that Lake could in fact be a future incarnation. Imagine if Lake had come on with a bow tie, tweed jacket, and crazy hair; that just wouldn't have worked in that particular story. For The Next Doctor to work (which I still don't think it actually does, but anyway) it needs a "next Doctor" who's that kind of stereotype figure.
Which is a very long-winded way of saying that, for all his reinvention of the Doctor as a dramatic figure, when Rusty wants us to start thinking of the Doctor as an archetype, or another character to echo him in some way, then he wheels on the Frock Coats. When I started writing this I was all set to conclude with a stern warning to the effect of "not dead, only sleeping", or "the price of good characterisation is eternal vigilance", or whatever. But now it seems to me that rather than trying to kill the Dogma dead - which I doubt is possible or even really desirable - Rusty has found a way to use it to energise and improve his writing. Good for him.
And, as I mentioned up the page, young-me-laddo is in a tweed jacket and bow tie (which inevitably got some bad press when it was unveiled; some things never change), which indicates that Moffy at least is not in the sway of the condition that he helped to name. Which promises to be good for all of us.
The Russell T Davies Era of Doctor Who by Daniel Saunders 18/4/10
It has become a commonplace to begin all discussion of Russell T Davies' achievements on Doctor Who by noting that he took a show that had become a laughing stock and returned it to its place as a national institution and not only that, but that he also single-handedly revived the family drama format. This is all true, although the case can be overstated. For instance, it was BBC 1 Controller Lorraine Heggessey who took the decision to bring back Doctor Who, before Davies was involved in the programme in any way. It was also people other than Davies who took the decision to give the programme a far more substantial budget than it had ever had previously, which (combined with improvements in special effects technology) have helped even the most pedestrian episodes of the new series look more impressive than much of the original series. However, in this essay, I want to look at the Davies era in the same way we look at the Williams era or the Cartmel era, that is to see it in the context of Doctor Who as an evolving television series, not in the wider context of the television environment.
Stronger characterization than in the original series, manifested in greater 'emotional realism' (a somewhat loaded term) is often said to be the greatest contribution of Davies' Doctor Who, not just by fans, but by non-fan commentators too. There is more than an element of truth in this assertion, but it is not entirely accurate. Characterization was certainly the key strength of the 2005 season. Across that season, for the first time since the early Hartnell era, we saw the Doctor grow as a character; not the sudden change of a regeneration or the appearance of the dark seventh Doctor in season twenty-five, but a gradual, story-by-story development that saw the battle-scarred ninth Doctor come to terms with his survivor syndrome and turn down the chance to destroy the Daleks for good. We also witnessed the emotional impact of travelling with the Doctor on those around him, both his companions and their relatives who stayed at home.
However, not all of this was good and not all that was good was subsequently maintained. The novelty of looking at the companions' home life soon wore off and scenes of Jackie and Francine complaining about the dangers of TARDIS travel soon became repetitive. The fan criticism of these types of scenes - that they were just a way of attracting a new audience (usually said, resorting to gender stereotyping, to be female), rather than stemming from any creative need - seemed to be true. This is a little unfair. Stories like Dalek and Father's Day showed that moving, emotionally-literate stories could be told within the traditional Doctor Who format of fast-paced adventure stories. It is also true that over time the 'domestic' aspect of the programme was reduced. Donna's family was far less a feature of the series than the Powell Estate. Nevertheless, the programme at times seemed to be manipulating the viewer in an attempt to produce an emotional response often helped by hammy acting and unsubtle incidental music.
Worse yet, the strong characterization of Davies' first year was not maintained. Instead of witnessing characters grow in a progressive fashion, they have moved back and forth according to the demands of the production team, not the internal logic of the narrative. Rose, a confident, independent young woman in the 2005 season, became jealous and possessive of the Doctor the next year. The Doctor seemed to achieve catharsis and leave his survivor syndrome behind at the end of Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways, yet the production team seemed to like it so he relapsed regularly through the tenth Doctor's lifetime. The Doctor's Daughter was commissioned specifically to show Stephen Greenhorn that the Doctor could change, yet the events of the story have no lasting impact on him, not least because the story was followed by a comedy episode (that said, the production team had already neutered the story when it was decided that the titular daughter would not be the Doctor's 'real' daughter; imagine the impact if Susan's mother was reunited with the Doctor, but turned out to have betrayed his ideals).
Other characters did not fare any better. When she first appeared in The Runaway Bride, Donna was an unbelievable caricature, a woman so stupid that she failed to notice the Earth being invaded on two separate occasions. Such stupidity was clearly untenable in a regular character (although it might have stopped the usual tedious and inaccurate newspaper reports that the new companion is the "most independent one yet"), but we are supposed to believe that the events of her first story altered her outlook on life into something radically different by the time of Partners in Crime.
Equally disappointing was the appearance of the Master. After the 2006 season, I opined that Davies would find no room for the Master in his version of the programme. The Master was too poorly motivated, a caricature villain with no real depth to hold the audience's attention. However, if by any chance I was wrong and Davies did resurrect the Master, it would be as a much more complex and interesting character than he was in the seventies and the eighties. Unfortunately, I was wrong on both counts. The Master was brought back, but the subtextual motivation of the original series was brought to the forefront: the Master does what he does because he is mad, pure and simple. This is not very satisfactory. Madness as used here is a catch-all term to allow Davies to do whatever he wants with the character. It does not bear any relation to real-life mental illness. We never get a sense of what the Master wants to get out of his plans. Does he want power, or revenge on the Doctor or what? Why is he so intent on building a "Time Lord" empire when he never liked the Time Lords before? Is he also suffering from survivor syndrome? We are never told, and while it is not good to spoon-feed your audience, not answering any of their questions is not a good alternative.
The best example of Davies' increasingly broad-brush approach to characterization can be seen in his treatment of women. Davies only writes about two types of women: the selfless heroine who is willing to give up everything for her lover and the stubborn, argumentative 'battleaxe.' In the former category come Rose and Martha. In the latter category are Jackie, Francine and Sylvia (Donna is a sort of battleaxe-in-training), as well as guest characters like Yvonne Hartman, Harriet Jones and Cassandra. The only real exception is Lady Christina in Planet of the Dead, who is not quite either. There is no one in a Davies script like River Song or Professor Rumford, a character defined primarily by her intellect.
A more insidious example of Davies' approach to characterization has come in his reconstruction of the Doctor-companion relationship. Once, the Doctor travelled with his companions because they were platonic friends. It was that simple. Now we are supposed to believe that the Doctor "needs" his friends to stop him turning into some kind of monster. The idea that he just likes their company was quietly abandoned for the first three seasons that Davies worked on and was only partially returned to with the arrival of Donna.
Perhaps to fill the vacuum once taken up by platonic friendship, the Doctor-companion relationship has also been sexualized. It is harder to talk about this subject than any other connected with the new series. In my experience, those fans who like this development can make quite unfair and irrelevant assumptions about the psychological needs, not to mention the personal lives, of those fans who dislike it. Obviously, to anyone who grew up with the original series, this cannot help but seem a massive change to the programme's format. The early experiment of The Aztecs aside, the Doctor's asexuality was a key character point, making him almost unique in contemporary fiction. The idea that he travels with his companions simply because he fancies them (as seemed to be the case with Rose) or because they fancy him (Martha) changes the whole dynamic of the format. The Doctor was once a wise old man, a Merlin, a Gandalf, a Sherlock Holmes, the type of person who did the thinking and let more conventional heroes like the Brigadier and Jamie handle the mainstream heroics. This has now been undermined, but nothing particularly interesting has been put in its place. Where once the Doctor was distinctive, now he is just like every other hero on TV. Even if his libido is never mentioned again, we now know that it is there. The casting of ever younger and more attractive Doctors is a symptom of this rather than a cause.
It is difficult to tell if turning the Doctor into a conventional square-jawed hero is a cause or an effect of the cult that Davies has created around the character. It first appeared in his speech at the end of Bad Wolf . ("I'm gonna rescue her. I'm gonna save Rose Tyler from the middle of the Dalek fleet. And then I'm gonna save the Earth. And then, just to finish off, I'm gonna wipe every last stinking Dalek out of the sky!"). However, it was only with the arrival of the tenth Doctor that the Doctor began to be presented as godlike, almost as a force of nature. It can be seen in his pompous speech to the survivors of the Titanic. ("I'm the Doctor. I'm a Time Lord. I'm from the planet Gallifrey in the constellation of Kasterborous. I'm 903 years old, and I'm the man who's gonna save your lives and all six billion people on the planet below. You got a problem with that?") Other examples include the Doctor's apparent apotheosis at the end of Last of the Time Lords, in which, revived by the power of prayer (essentially), the Doctor floats around dispensing justice and mercy, and his being borne aloft by a host of angels in Voyage of the Damned, but a more pernicious case is the end of The Fires of Pompeii, in which the Doctor is actually deified, which rather goes against the programme's usual message that anyone setting themselves up as a god must be evil. Frankly, it seems that it is not just Rose Tyler who is in love with the Doctor; the production team seem to be besotted too.
Perhaps as a result of being presented as infallible and indestructible, the tenth Doctor often comes across as smug and self-satisfied. This is particularly the case in the 2006 season, in which he and Rose only have eyes for each other. The nadir is Tooth and Claw, in which they laugh about werewolves minutes after someone has been torn to pieces saving their lives. They leave making jokes about haemophilia in one of the most tasteless moments ever in Doctor Who. In other stories, the tenth Doctor often overwhelms other characters by his sheer presence and occasionally comes across as a bit of a bully, although this may be because the incidental characters are often reduced to ciphers. At any rate, he certainly believes his own legend, telling the Vashta Nerada to look him up in the library.
All this is not quite as unprecedented as it might seem. The Doctor was increasingly legendary within the fiction of the programme from at least The Three Doctors. The Doctor is usually a little arrogant and occasionally pompous. Several incarnations have even been accused of bullying. I suspect the difference is twofold. Firstly, the fiction is actively supporting this legendary interpretation of the Doctor's character. The third and fourth Doctors would often boast about their abilities, but when they did you knew that something would go wrong (see the Doctor's lashed-up radio transmitter in The Sea Devils, for example). That never seems to happen to the tenth Doctor, who is almost always proved right. The second problem is David Tennant's performance. I know that Tennant is apparently number one Doctor to both fans and the general public, but I have never warmed to him. This is not dislike of the new, as I was raving about Christopher Eccleston within minutes of Rose. I find Tennant's performance a mixture of unfunny false eccentricity and arrogance with occasional despair - not an appealing mixture, especially given how self-centred it seems. The eccentricity seems designed (by writers and character) to make us think "What a wonderful, quirky guy! I love him!" Even the despair is self-centred; he seems to care less that Gallifrey is gone and more that he is alone (even though he seems to have more friends around than ever before). I have tried desperately hard to like the tenth Doctor and it is true that David Tennant is giving his all in a role he has coveted since childhood. But I find the character to unlikeable, too loud, too full of himself. I finally know the bewilderment and isolation felt by people who do not like Tom Baker's performance.
The plots of the Davies era have also been an area of innovation. Despite starting with a remake of Spearhead from Space, several of the stories in the 2005 season were innovative, at least for televised Doctor Who. Dalek, although based on the audio Jubilee (which I have not heard and so can not compare) cast the eternal conflict between the Doctor and the Daleks in a new light, highlighting the way that the Doctor's values had been distorted by the Time War. Father's Day was a time-travel story (itself a surprising rarity in the original series) that was cast in much more personal terms than usual. The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances was extremely original in the details of its plot and especially its surprising ending. Even Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways, which superficially starts as a remake of Vengeance on Varos before moving into a standard invasion of Earth, has some unique points, notably the postmodern use of real television presenters (before this kind of thing became tedious) and the subplot about Rose being sent back to the twenty-first century and trying to return. The following season built on this originality, giving us the playful Love & Monsters (which neatly deconstructed the experience of Doctor Who fandom), a rare parallel-universe story in Rise of the Cybermen/The Age of Steel, and quirky and moving time-travel story in The Girl in the Fireplace.
However, recent seasons and the specials have seen the programme become more set in its ways. It was probably to be expected that some innovation would be lost as the audience's preferences became clear, in the same way that the radical experimentation of the Hartnell years was replaced by a series of alien invasions and bases under siege for much of the Troughton era. Even so, too often the production team seem to be making Doctor Who by numbers, producing exactly what the audience wants with nothing surprising or unusual. Even The Waters of Mars, praised by many for its examination of the Doctor's actions, is really playing with ideas previously seen in The Fires of Pompeii and even Father's Day (although the earlier story seems to be working from a different - and less problematic - theory of time). There are only four stories since The Runaway Bride that seem to me to be at all innovative: Human Nature/The Family of Blood, Blink (both of which are based on stories from other media) and the late surprises of Midnight (which felt like an experimental fringe play, in a good way) and Turn Left, both of which were a shock coming so soon after the deeply traditional The Doctor's Daughter and The Unicorn and the Wasp.
Obviously one can not experiment every episode; there needs to be a baseline of consistency to maintain an audience, but recent years have seemed very tired and derivative. The production team seem increasingly to hold to the narrow view that the programme is mainly about the monsters and perhaps about the Doctor-companion relationship, a rather narrow view even if it was held by certain production teams in the past.
Corresponding to this lack of innovation in the plot has been an over-reliance on returning characters. The last five years have seen the return of the Autons and Nestene Consciousness, the Daleks, the Cybermen, the Master, the Macra, Sarah Jane Smith, K9, the Ood and the Slitheen (this site's spoiler policy prevents me talking about The End of Time, but I am sure that by now you have heard what happens there too). Many of these have been reused more than once, with the Daleks being seen in every full season. Fanboy ideas (Daleks vs. Cybermen! A crossover with Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures!) have been brought to life with no solid plot to give substance to them. Worst of all was The Stolen Earth/Journey's End, which, like The Five Doctors before it, resembled a convention more than a story.
Returning characters can work if we see new dimensions added to their make-up, but this has rarely happened. It was perhaps forgivable for Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks to remake The Evil of the Daleks, given that the Troughton story is forty years old and largely missing. Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways raised the possibility of religious Daleks, an interesting idea if done subtly, but this was apparently thrown out as a quick jibe and later ignored; a pity, as a writer like J. Michael Straczynski might have done something interesting with it. Likewise, the Cybermen had an origin story, but afterwards were reduced to simply being muscle. The Master, as I mentioned above, is now simply insane, while School Reunion remoulded Sarah (or Sarah Jane, as she now prefers to be known) into Rose twenty years down the line. The independent journalist who used to launch investigations independently of the Doctor (see The Time Warrior, Planet of the Spiders and Robot) is now lovelorn and unable to move on with life without her Time Lord.
This lack of attention to the originality of the premise of each story has been matched by a slapdash attitude towards the plotting. Convenient plot devices and deus ex machina endings crop up everywhere. This is a problem dating back to the "anti-plastic" that saved the day in Rose. This is simply cheating the viewer. The author of any fiction, but particularly this kind of semi-intellectual adventure/mystery hybrid, is supposed to give the audience an ending they did not expect, but that they could have predicted if only they had been thinking as astutely as the hero. Producing a solution by magic (or pseudoscience) makes it impossible for the audience to guess what will happen, thus breaking the unspoken agreement with them. As H. G. Wells said, if anything can happen, then nothing is interesting.
Many of these plot devices are based on scientific inaccuracy. The production team have been criticised a lot for this, but it is worth looking at why a programme about a time-traveller (not exact a scientifically accurate premise) can get away with some things and not others. In my opinion, what is needed is consistency. The author needs to establish the rules of the fiction early on and stick to them rigidly; remember Wells' point about needing to keep things interesting. As a case study, it is worth comparing The Evil of the Daleks with its twenty-first century near remake, Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks. The black and white story is, scientifically, nonsense. Maxtible and Waterfield create a working time machine out of a cupboard full of statically charged mirrors! Human nature can be recorded on a bit of wire! Yet, having established the rules, the story proceeds in a straightforward manner. There are twists, but nothing we could not have seen coming if we had been as clever as the Doctor. Moreover, everything sticks with the mock-Victorian aesthetic. The result is deeply satisfying. The twenty-first century story, on the other hand, does not seem to know what it is doing. Is its plot device a solar flare, gamma radiation or lightning? Moreover, a crucial bit of plot - that the Doctor's DNA can somehow be transmitted electrically down metal - comes out of nowhere just to provide an ending. By the time the Doctor is throwing together random chemicals to save Lazlo, the audience is feeling cheated (there is no good reason, in narrative terms, why the Doctor can save Lazlo's life but not make him human again). The story simply does not cohere.
Where the Davies era has experimented is in the nature of its settings. The 2005 season was criticised at the time for taking place entirely on Earth or on space stations orbiting the planet. Later seasons widened the programme's scope somewhat, but the stories often returned to Earth's past, present and future. Despite the criticism, this is not necessarily any more limiting than the Earthbound UNIT stories of the early seventies or the emphasis on 'outer space' stories in the late seventies. In some ways, it is less limiting, as Davies has made much use of the time-travel element of the programme to explore the Earth's history, both real and a projected future history. Every season has seen at least one historical story, contrasting with the seventies, which saw only six stories set completely or partially in the past (and that is including the S.S. Bernice scenes from Carnival of Monsters). The historical stories have shown an unfortunate tendency to focus on familiar eras and people, but this accusation can be levelled at all Doctor Who.
However, the (comparative) attention to detail in historical stories has not been matched in science fiction ones. None of the writers are particularly interested in giving us detailed alien societies. What we usually get are simplistic metaphors for contemporary issues (Planet of the Ood, The Doctor's Daughter) or jokes. Davies in particular is more interested in silly names than world-building (to be fair, he does come from a part of the world that considers Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch to be a sensible place name, if only to attract tourists; in this context, names like Raxacoricofallapatorius and The Mighty Jagrafess of the Holy Hadrojassic Maxarodenfoe begin to seem sane). When Davies tries to be a serious science fiction world-builder, most notably in Gridlock, he fails due to his inattention to detail. In Gridlock, the world outside the motorway is supposed to be dead, yet within minutes we have met the pharmacists and the woman buying Forget. If people being outside their cars is a rare as Brannigan implies when he sees the Doctor, how do the pharmacists make their money? And where have Milo and Cheen come from, given that they are only now joining the motorway? (I could also point out that the recycled food does not really work, given that energy would be lost to cater for the bodies needs, not to mention entropy.)
It is difficult to tell from this whether Davies is significantly better at writing in a known setting, whether past or present, or whether he is just not interested in science fiction world-building. The two possibilities may be linked. It is also interesting that other writers have largely followed Davies' lead and avoided alien societies, preferring for the most part to set futuristic stories in human-dominated environments, although this may be a product of Davies' unprecedented control over the creation of the stories in each season.
However, Davies' use of contemporary settings is not without its flaws either. There is a real problem with the level of verisimilitude in the present day stories. The thrill of the contemporary stories, which Davies insists is a crucial part of the appeal of the programme, is that of a world which is recognizably that of our own coming under attack. However, this has been undermined by the number of public invasions that have taken place in the programme's version of the present day. In Doctor Who, only an idiot could not believe in aliens (this is the central joke of The Runaway Bride), something that is not the case in our world. This should produce a world very different to our own, yet - perhaps because of Davies' reluctance to build worlds - this has not been explored. The implication would seem to be that the production team do not know what they want, verisimilitude or their own particular version of the twenty-first century. The result has been some rather confused stories. The Sontaran Stratagem/The Poison Sky is supposed to be about a down-to-earth menace in a realistic setting, but then Captain Scarlet's Cloudbase appears to blast the aliens with ray guns.
Of course, one way in which Doctor Who has attempted to achieve an air of verisimilitude is through pop-culture references. This is not entirely new, going back at least as far as the appearance by The Beatles in The Chase and being used a lot in the spinoffs of the nineties and noughties, but their use in the new series is notable on several counts. The references are very frequent, the Doctor is often the source of the references and real celebrities have made cameo appearances in the programme. These references certainly help to ground the programme in the present day. However, postmodern in-jokes are arguably not clever now that so many different novels, films and television programmes have used them, doubly so given that they are no longer making a point about the nature of fiction or intertextuality but are just there for a cheap joke and a bit of publicity. They will certainly make the programme seem more dated in just a few years time.
What is interesting is that the 'high cultural' references that were once so much a part of the programme (especially during the fourth and sixth Doctors' eras) have almost totally vanished, now being restricted to the celebrity historical episodes. As many people noted, Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead sees the Doctor land in the biggest library in the universe and talk about... Jeffrey Archer, Bridget Jones and Monty Python's Big Red Book (who thinks "books... ah, yes, Monty Python"?). It is difficult to avoid the impression that Davies and the other writers are deliberately championing popular culture over 'elite culture'. Whether this is a good or bad thing is another question entirely, of course, and not part of this essay's remit, but it is difficult to avoid the impression that Doctor Who no longer offers the solace it once provided for clever, bookish children.
As I have noted several times in this essay, in many ways the 2005 season feels very different to subsequent seasons and specials, and not just because a different lead actor sets a different tone (in fact, the ninth and tenth Doctors have a lot in common in terms of scripts, with the differences arising largely from the actors' performances). It is difficult to avoid the impression that the authors of the 2006 season, although themselves fans (more so than some of the other writers who would later join the team), were desperate to avoid alienating a non-fan audience. To this end, they kept continuity to a minimum and concentrated on establishing a new direction for the programme. Like most of the greatest Doctor Who writers, producers, script editors and directors, they were just trying to make good television and left the 'essential Whoishness' of the programme to be formed by itself.
Gradually, Davies and the other writers and producers realized that they had a hit. They began to buy into the legend that is Doctor Who, to produce Doctor Who that is like Doctor Who, or at least like Doctor Who would have been if it had had CGI and a big budget in the seventies. Davies in particular began to live the fannish dream, giving us a Cybermen vs. Daleks battle, the Master conquering the Earth and Davros trying to destroy all universes, only to be defeated by a team up of favourite characters, new and old. Shipping, once a minority pursuit, has moved from a fan activity to subtext in the television programme and then on towards the main text in the cringe-worthy ending to The Stolen Earth/Journey's End. Now there is less need to sell the programme to the public with strong, original plots and good characterization, now that it has become a National Institution, Davies has become a Doctor Who addict needing a bigger hit each time. Just look at the way the season finales (a word I had never heard used for British television until the trailers for Last of the Time Lords) get bigger each year.
Despite all this emphasis on spectacle and epic stories, for me it is the small-scale, unusual stories that have tended to be most successful in recent years, stories like Blink and Midnight - and it is worth pointing out that however negative I have been about the past few years' output, the programme has produced a couple of worthwhile stories each season, albeit not always written by Davies. I just hope that the new production team takes the 'back to basics' approach of season twenty-seven, rather than the 'bigger and bigger' tactics of recent years.
The Russell T Davies Era of Doctor Who by Billy Barron 3/5/10
In every past era, I could pretty much be positive or negative. Davies made me happy and later so unhappy.
I'll start with the good. Series 1 is the absolute best season of any Sci-Fi show ever in my book. The only one that could come close is Babylon 5 Season 3. The acting was fabulous. All but one of the episodes were interesting (Boom Town was a big nothing). We had good comedy. We had character development. We had action. We had well-thought-out stories. We finally had a second good Dalek story after all these years (Genesis of the Daleks being the other). We had the Bad Wolf thing sneak up on us. We had the no deaths story;when was the last time that happened? The Edge of Destruction? Eccleston surpassed the Bakers as my favorite Doctor. Rose was my favorite companion of all time.
Beyond Series 1, casting continued to be pretty good through the Davies era. Even Kylie Minogue did a good job in another otherwise terrible story. The FX people did excellent work as did the music.
But I really feel like Davies had one great season in him and that was it. The general problems were that most of Davies' stories suffer from the same issues. First, he knows how to build a problem but no clue how to solve it. Out comes the Davies Ex Machina. Second, he is not subtle. I was really tired of having the same themes being shoved down my throat: the Doctor is lonely, Rose is the love of his life, etc. Third, I've always felt that Doctor Who was the best when we didn't have reoccurring villians all the time (e.g. Tom Baker era). Fourth, the show started making the Doctor too important in the Universe. And finally, the need to try to outdo the previous season in scope.
What happened in Series 2? Tennant was excellent, but everything else went downhill. To start with, Rose became totally irritating. I was happy when she was gone. How could this be when a year earlier I thought she was the best ever? The only other companion I ever remember souring on before was Adric although that wasn't nearly to this extant. But the other big problem was with the stories.
New Earth was a snoozefest. Tooth and Claw was generally good but why were the Doctor/Rose so childish? School Reunion was complete fanwank. It retconned Sarah Jane and not in a good way. The only good bit is that it helped get the Sarah Jane Adventures on the air which I do enjoy. But then again it probably helped cause that awful K9 series as well.
Then came the most annoying regular episode of the season: The Girl in the Fireplace. Most importantly, it completely threw the Doctor/Rose relationship out the window and felt out of place. Maybe sometime I need to write a review to describe how much I hate that episode.
The next episode of note was The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit which was the highlight of the season. But then it was followed by the trainwreck of Love & Monsters.
The two-part finale had only one good scene which was the Cyberman/Dalek trash-talking scene. Some of the concluding scenes might have worked if I still cared about Rose by that point, which I did not.
Series 3 hit the highest highs and the lowest lows. Smith and Jones was a great episode. Blink is my favorite Doctor Who episode of all times. But to counter that, Gridlock was pure torture to watch. Human Nature/The Family of Blood is enormously overrated (I thought they were boring).
But the run of episodes from Utopia to Voyage of the Damned was the worst string of Who episodes in the entire history of the program. Season 19 is the only thing that can come close. However, as much as I hate every episode in Season 19, they are better than The Sound of Drums, Last of the Time Lords, or Voyage of the Damned. And the exception to the good casting: Simm was pure Over The Top awful. Note: I wouldn't tag them with the worst episode ever; The King's Demons and Mindwarp are worse, but they are not far behind either.
Series 4 was very odd in that every story was average as were the first two 2009 specials. Rose came back and I didn't care in the slightest. The Waters of Mars was pretty good. The End of Time was completely forgettable, probably because it had almost zero plot (common Davies failing).
One thing that bothers me to no end is that I feel that Tennant was top notch but largely wasted on quite a bit of subpar material. On the other hand, if we had a subpar Doctor (e.g. Davison who I can't stand), how many more of the Series 2-5 episodes would have been unwatchable.
One final semi-side comment about Sci-Fi in general: I can't stand the half-assed story arc. Shows work best when there is no arc (e.g. classic Who), you don't realize there is an arc (new Who Series 1), or completely commit to the arc (Bablyon 5). When you tried to have an arc but don't really stick to it, it hurts a lot. Deep Space 9 is a non-Who example of this - it was a good show but how much better could it have been if they either stuck with the arc or completely got rid of it. Series 2-5 was pretty much the same issue though Series 3 was the worst. There was the Saxon hints that would sometimes show up but were just irritating and did not add anything to the plot of the season.
In conclusion, I thank Russell for outstanding Series 1 but wish he had walked away immediately after hiring Tennant as his later work was a case of the bad outweighing the good. I hope the Moffat era is better though the repeated non-subtle Moffat themes are already showing up.
Change is here by Nathan Mullins 10/6/10
Recently, the unveiling of the new Doctor Who logo has sparked a lot of interest among fans. Some like the new logo, whereas others hate it. I myself love it. It looks, or so according to some fans, like the 70's logo, combined with the 1996 TV Movie opening logo. So the combination of both, in thinking that both are classic logo's, in today's new age, gives the show a new dynamic. The show is always changing, and moving forward, yet there are still nods to the past. If we happen to have the lead actor's head in the title sequence, like the 'old' days, then I would be satisfied.
But that's not to say that I'm not impressed, because I can honestly say that I am. I've seen images, taken from online websites, where Matt Smith and Karen Gillan are seen strolling down a street, and the character of Amy Pond is seen sporting a policewoman's outfit. I like the idea of a police woman travelling through time and space, in a Police Box. I can almost imagine how the two happen to meet. Here's how I see the Doctor and Amy meeting....
The episode sees Amy chasing a criminal, and she captures him, and finds a police box standing on a street corner. She captures the criminal, and sets him inside the police box, when she realises where she is, and then she meets the Doctor. That's what I am guessing. Of course, that may not be the case, and I may have just ruined the start of the new series for myself, but at the moment, everyone I know seems to be thinking on the same lines as me.
But we're moving away from the article itself. In response to the change of logo, and the leaked pictures, most of us have a fair idea of what we presume the Doctor will be wearing. We've all seen the pictures in DWM (Doctor Who Magazine) and we all have our own opinions on his outfit. I personally love his new outfit. The tweed jacket won me over, as did the bow tie and the trousers. His whole attire is wonderful, and fabulously different to David Tennant's Doctor. However, there is something I'd like to see more of in the new series, and that is a change of 'costume' every now and again. Bear in mind that John Pertwee's Doctor use to have a change of costume almost every episode. As did Tom Baker's Doctor, in relation to a new season, and Sylvester McCoy's Doctor had a change of jacket, to add to his darker personality.
That's just a small request, aimed at those from the offices in Cardiff, working under Steven's reign, if you happen to read this.
Matt and Karen look awesome together. From what I have already seen, the new era of Doctor Who looks set to be brilliant. The new TARDIS too, is another nod to the past. By that I meant the outside of the TARDIS. If you thought I meant the inside, I'm afraid that whilst I am writing this, there are no pictures available of what the inside of the TARDIS is set to look like, for 2010.
But overall, I think the BBC have kept the whole production, covering the new series, firmly under wraps. They have let loose some pictures, and information, and even given us a small treat, in response to Matt Smith shouting back at a Dalek, in what lots of fans have said may be from Matt Smith's first episode. Heck, the BBC had to cancel a Doctor Who book not long ago, as it gave away too many references to the new series, starring Matt Smith, and a possible return of the Daleks.
But in response to everything I have said above, I honestly cannot wait for the 2010 series of Doctor Who. In 2009, we had David Tennant's finale as well as a new season of the Sarah Jane Adventures as well as an animated treat and even the Waters of Mars.What a year! To say that we did not have a full series of Doctor Who in 2009, is unbelievable.
The year has been and gone so quickly, or so it seems. Roll on 2010!