Doctor Who Vs. The rest of TV Sci-fi

[Sp00n]

Doctor Who wins on sheer imagination, enjoyability, longevity and universal accessibility.

[markfiend]

I got bored of Doctor Who quite quickly once Billie Piper left.

It's just a kids' program when all's said and done.

[0xBADFEED]

Martha > Rose

[Sp00n]

It's just a kids' program when all's said and done.

In the words of Stephen Moffat, "That's what makes it such a brilliant program!"

What's wrong with being a kids'/family program?

It means it can avoid all the gratuitous sex and violence found in programs like Battlestar Galactica("I don't know you, but we're trapped on a shipo, running from monster who can kill us at any second, wanna have sex?"), with a plot of the same or higher complexity (That's right, watch the end of Season 4 of Doctor Who and the end of Season for Galactica... they're the same! At least Doctor decides to have a good reason for the "God did it" ending) and be enjoyed by people of all ages and watched as a family program.

So I ask you sir, what is wrong with it being 'just' a kids' program?

[ash.gti]

I like my sex and violence present in every TV show I watch.

Incidentally I haven't had a TV for 2 years, so... there really aren't any TV shows I watch at all.

[headprogrammingczar]

New Season 1 had good character development, not to mention Chris Eccleston's kickass acting skills. The first season took itself seriously, then when David Tennant took over, the writers just gave up on good writing. There were occasional good episodes in Season 2, but they were few and far between, and even those were overwhelmed by Tennant's over-the-top non-acting. This isn't even mentioning how much better Rose was at acting than Martha, either. Now, if this thread was "Stargate: SG1, seasons 1-6 (maybe 7 and 8 too) vs. the rest of TV Sci-Fi", then maybe there would be competition there. Maybe.

[Sp00n]

A)There have been more than 4 seasons of Doctor Who. We're up to 30.

B)Tennant's acting is much more subdued come Season 3

C)And I'd rate Martha's acting on par with half the cast of BSG.

[Emu*]

Torchwood = Doctor Who + gratuitous sex + guns

[Sp00n]

Torchwood = Darker and edgier Doctor Who

[You, sir, name?]

The new series are watchable, but can't hold a candle to the old trippy Jon Pertwee episodes. (The Tom Baker and Sylvester McCoy episodes are good too, but lack a certain nerdiness)

[markfiend]

So I ask you sir, what is wrong with it being 'just' a kids' program?

Fair enough.

But basically, what headprogrammingczar said.

[ian]

Watching Doctor Who would be an effective form of torture to use on me.

[thicknavyrain]

I quite liked the Doctor Who with the scarf but it'll never be as funny or cool as say Hitchhiker's Guide or Red Dwarf.

[aleflamedyud]

Doctor Who. Fucking duh.

[headprogrammingczar]

Doctor Who. Fucking duh.

David Tennant. Fucking NO.

[shieldforyoureyes]

UFO and Space: 1999 are also amazing.

[Gripe]

I guess I have learned to accept that the new series of Doctor Who is aimed at a younger audience than that of old. I grew up in the eighties mostly during Tom Baker's time. There is something to be said for shakespearean actors as sci-fi protagonists.

David Tennant has really grown on me. At first I found him to be an annoying, manic twerp, to be honest. However, his vigour and passion for the role eventually won me over. It will be very interesting to see the new series with Stephen Moffat at the helm. I am thinking a return to days of old -- or at least a temporal paradoxical plot twist or two.

For those who are only just getting into Doctor Who as an adult: sadly, you may have missed out. Without the nostalgia, the show probably doesn't cut it.

[Sp00n]

I guess I have learned to accept that the new series of Doctor Who is aimed at a younger audience than that of old. I grew up in the eighties mostly during Tom Baker's time. There is something to be said for shakespearean actors as sci-fi protagonists.

Doctor Who is aimed towards the entire family, in exactly the same manner it has always been. Well, except maybe during Eric Saward's reign. But the less said about that, the better.

David Tennant has really grown on me. At first I found him to be an annoying, manic twerp, to be honest. However, his vigour and passion for the role eventually won me over. It will be very interesting to see the new series with Stephen Moffat at the helm. I am thinking a return to days of old -- or at least a temporal paradoxical plot twist or two.

I'm scared for Stephen Moffat at the helm.
Especially with his complete and utter lapse in writing skills resulting in Silence in the Library.
Nothing but reused or extremely predictable ideas.

And for his treatment of Smith...
Doctor = God, anyone?

Don't get me wrong, I like Steven Moffat, but I detest his overwriting to ensure that every line is as witty as possible and I hate his deification of the Doctor.

For those who are only just getting into Doctor Who as an adult: sadly, you may have missed out. Without the nostalgia, the show probably doesn't cut it.

I often wonder myself if I would like Doctor Who if I had not been brought up on it.

But then I realise that I'd be a very different person, so the point is moot.

[You, sir, name?]

Doctor Who is aimed towards the entire family, in exactly the same manner it has always been. Well, except maybe during Eric Saward's reign. But the less said about that, the better.

I disagree. I think the youth-orientation of doctor who came with time. The Jon Pertwee stories were largely sci-fi for adults that was enjoyable (sometimes) also for younger people. Those stories were darker and grimier than what you'd expect with Tom Baker and Peter Davidson, with the villain just as often being human nature as The Master.

What came before Jon Pertwee was just the product of lots of lots of drugs, so let's not dwell on that.

[Game_boy]

Doctor Who is awesome. Because it's so varied that if you don't like one week, next week will be completely different. There have been episodes that fit into each of the main TV genres - horror, drama, detective, fantasy, sci-fi, etc. - and you the whole setting, plot and the characters change every episode meaning the series never settles into a routine or does filler episodes. The "family" thing just means no sex (but does sex always looks fake and is embarrassing to the viewer at no benefit to the plot) and no unnecessary violence. But anyone who watches a show for those two things alone is doing it wrong. The depth of plot and characterisation are just as strong if you look close enough.

The good news is that the writer who did 100% of my favourite episodes (Moffat) is directing. I loved "Blink" and "Silence in the Library" - each one, on a regular show, would otherwise have been diluted over half a series.

[Sp00n]

What came before Jon Pertwee was just the product of lots of lots of drugs, so let's not dwell on that.

But... some of the B&W stories are amongst the best!

[Hegollodobye]

While it is true that Dr. Who has an excellently diverse plot, that makes it a little annoying to compare. It can have aliens one episode, government conspiracy the next, then some kind of weird historical fanfic. Like, "Woah! What if all the monarchs of England have actually been werewolves? Dude! That would be awesome!" And it is awesome, but its not the same as having something like Firefly or The X-Files, where you get used to and like having something similar for a character to have to deal with, over and over, and so a different kind of character development.

So it's sort of like comparing one of those scary apple-grape hybrids to apples... or grapes... Well, it's not a perfect metaphor...

But what I find much more pressing is something I realized a little while ago: time lords have only 13 lives to regenerate, and the doctor is on something like his 10th or 11th.

[You, sir, name?]

What came before Jon Pertwee was just the product of lots of lots of drugs, so let's not dwell on that.

But... some of the B&W stories are amongst the best!

The stories are mostly decent (with exceptions). The Web Planet is an interesting example. It has to have some of the most ridiculous costumes in any production of anything throughout history. The ant-people look moderately silly, but they can't hold a candle to the bee people. They look like the actors are wrapped in a fluffy rug, and then rings are thread over the rug (like those from empty tape rolls).

This is what I'm talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GDnIXXqYyg

I can't really identify the source of this extremely bad prop and scenery design. Maybe the BBC was in money trouble or something at the time? I can't find any contemporary productions suffering from this problem.

[Sp00n]

Oh, the Web Planet.

I still love. It was a risk. It failed, but damn it's entertaining.

[Pez Dispens3r]

Yeah, where's the love for William Hartnell? He perfectly embodied what an advanced alien was thought to be at the time... an imperialist, patriarchal arsehole. I loved the way he constantly belittled his crew or lost his temper at them. It wasn't until Eccleston that you saw a Doctor that could get so angry. Pertwee was a silly man driving a tasteless car and using lame space judo. Also, there were plenty of good episodes, like the Sensorites and the Dalek Invasion of Earth.

Also, link!

[You, sir, name?]

Pertwee was a silly man driving a tasteless car and using lame space judo.

And I love him for it. His mannerisms are awesome too. He acts and speaks like he's from a late 19th century novel. Ironically, it's like he's straight out of The Time Machine.

The third doctor episodes are also made better by Roger Delgado's awesome performance as The Master (Ainley's Master just seems like a hollow shell of Delgado's character. It was a nice effort, but it wasn't meant to be,) and let us not forget the many UNIT and Lethbridge-Stewart episodes.

[Pez Dispens3r]

Pertwee was a silly man driving a tasteless car and using lame space judo.

And I love him for it. His mannerisms are awesome too. He acts and speaks like he's from a late 19th century novel. Ironically, it's like he's straight out of The Time Machine.

The third doctor episodes are also made better by Roger Delgado's awesome performance as The Master (Ainley's Master just seems like a hollow shell of Delgado's character. It was a nice effort, but it wasn't meant to be,) and let us not forget the many UNIT and Lethbridge-Stewart episodes.

Delgado's Master was just missing a railway line and a tied-up damsel. I never really *got* the Master character. You can only get beaten so many times before you give up, and the Monk's motivations were more interesting as a rogue Time Lord. I understand the Master was necessary for episodes to keep occurring on earth (otherwise the Doctor's adventures would be limited to finding an ancient buried space craft every week, or we would only get to see him come across such challenges as having a bad time of it on the tube), but then I always preferred temporary location episodes anyway. In those stories his companions are his family, instead of his work colleagues, and he's motivated by curiosity instead of loyalty.

[You, sir, name?]

Spoiler:

Pertwee was a silly man driving a tasteless car and using lame space judo.

And I love him for it. His mannerisms are awesome too. He acts and speaks like he's from a late 19th century novel. Ironically, it's like he's straight out of The Time Machine.

The third doctor episodes are also made better by Roger Delgado's awesome performance as The Master (Ainley's Master just seems like a hollow shell of Delgado's character. It was a nice effort, but it wasn't meant to be,) and let us not forget the many UNIT and Lethbridge-Stewart episodes.

Delgado's Master was just missing a railway line and a tied-up damsel. I never really *got* the Master character. You can only get beaten so many times before you give up, and the Monk's motivations were more interesting as a rogue Time Lord. I understand the Master was necessary for episodes to keep occurring on earth (otherwise the Doctor's adventures would be limited to finding an ancient buried space craft every week, or we would only get to see him come across such challenges as having a bad time of it on the tube), but then I always preferred temporary location episodes anyway. In those stories his companions are his family, instead of his work colleagues, and he's motivated by curiosity instead of loyalty.

Every Holmes needs a Moriarty. And The Doctor needs The Master to keep what has happened to David Tennant's Doctor at bay: As much as I appreciate his enthusiasm, I can't help but feel that something negative has happened to the character over Tennant's years. Getting back on topic, The Doctor is by definition smarter and better than the rest of the world in most ways, and because of that, unless something drags him down (an enemy he can't quite beat), he's simply going to float away on a cloud of his own awesomeness.

The Daleks have a similar function, but they aren't quite that effective at putting the doctor down a peg. An arch enemy needs to be very similar to the protagonist for the fullest possible impact. The Daleks are so overwhelmingly strong and many that even beating a few of them partially is a great victory that inflates the protagonist's awesomeness. But even if you beat The Master, you only foiled his latest scheme, and you really didn't accomplish any lasting victory.

[headprogrammingczar]

Every Holmes needs a Moriarty. And The Doctor needs The Master to keep what has happened to David Tennant's Doctor at bay: As much as I appreciate his enthusiasm, I can't help but feel that something negative has happened to the character over Tennant's years. Getting back on topic, The Doctor is by definition smarter and better than the rest of the world in most ways, and because of that, unless something drags him down (an enemy he can't quite beat), he's simply going to float away on a cloud of his own awesomeness.

The Daleks have a similar function, but they aren't quite that effective at putting the doctor down a peg. An arch enemy needs to be very similar to the protagonist for the fullest possible impact. The Daleks are so overwhelmingly strong and many that even beating a few of them partially is a great victory that inflates the protagonist's awesomeness. But even if you beat The Master, you only foiled his latest scheme, and you really didn't accomplish any lasting victory.

This is why we needed a Master episode before they killed Eccleston off. Eccleston knew how to really act, and he could have done an incredible job with an episode like that.

[You, sir, name?]

This is why we needed a Master episode before they killed Eccleston off. Eccleston knew how to really act, and he could have done an incredible job with an episode like that.

Indeed. There has been several unfortunate turns, story-wise, as of the last few years.

The destruction of Gallifrey was a pretty bad idea. The meddling influence of the time lords was very healthy for the doctor's character, forcing him to sully himself with matters that go against his character. I don't know, maybe it was intended to add depth to his character? Either way, it failed. Eccleston pulled it off decently, but it's not Tennant's strong suite. Now he's either running around like a kid high as a kite on sugar and caffeine, or brooding about how much it sucks to be alone in the universe.

Furthermore, as previously discussed, rogue time lords like The Master and The Rani was very healthy in keeping Doctor Who from becoming The David Tennant* Is Awesome Hour. (*Substitute David Tennant for other actor portarying The Doctor at leisure)

[Sp00n]

First off, remember this isn't a "New" Who Vs. "Old" Who thread. Though it might as well be. Thread title change?

And, as much as I like the Master, Doctor Who doesn't need him. He is, rather like the Daleks, a lazy plot device to symbolise 'evil'. He's for use by writers when they need a bad guy, but couldn't be bothered thinking of a proper motivation other than "He's evil! Deal with it!".

Good Master stories are those that revolve around the Master's motivations and relationship with the Doctor. Examples include:

-Utopia/Sound of Drums/Last of the Timelords
-"Master", the audio play by Big Finish
-And, yeah, I'll bite, most of Roger Delagado's performances. Though there are some rather awful stories.
-And Survival deserves mention, due to Ainley's amazing performance

Each Master should act as the antithesis of the current incarnation of the Doctor...

-Delagado was a Bond villain, whereas Pertwee was Bond
-Pratt/Beavers was a decayed, angry mess, whereas Tom was energetic and humourous.
-Ainley was just plain insane and 'evil', whereas Davison was the epitome of virtuous and innocence
-And Simm is 'evil' Tennant


And Doctor Who never needs the Rani. Ever.

[Philwelch]

Sex and violence aren't always gratuitous, they're part of the human condition, and shows like Battlestar do a good job of showing that. Hell, even in Star Trek there are insinuations that the heroes are capable of being sexual beings. And if you *want* idealistic, goody-goody heroism, the crew of the Enterprise is just as idealistic and peaceful as the Doctor. They just happen to inhabit a universe more like our own, where sometimes you do have to fire a phaser.

Frankly, it's somewhere on the order of fantastically contrived writing that the Doctor even survives an episode without using weapons.

The most watchable Doctor Who episodes (of the new series) are the ones with Jack Harkness, if only because Jack Harkness is the only character in Doctor Who who's actually interesting. Torchwood is held down by the fact that they surrounded Jack Harkness with a bunch of boring idiots who spent most of the first season endangering humanity for stupid reasons. And the fact that Jack Harkness doesn't ever go on any adventures outside of 21st century Wales, which in a science fiction context is not all that interesting, no matter how many weevils you throw in there. (You'd think an immortal, bisexual time traveling con man would get himself into more interesting adventures, at least!) I won't even get into how a supposedly top-secret, non-government entity gets to drive wherever they want in the Torchwoodmobile and immediately take over, and yet no one thinks to question their authority or arrest them for not having the proper gun permits. You'd think a real covert organization would at least try to work undercover, or at least not drive around in a Range Rover with "TORCHWOOD" engraved on it.

[Whynaut]

I see I'm in the minority here as a fan of Tennant's Doctor over Eccleston's. Yes, he gets a bit over the top at times, but he really captures the essence of the Doctor's troubles: as a being on a different level, he is unable to take anything non Dalek or Master related seriously, and the companion is his one link to earth. To be done right, the Doctor has to treat everything as one big adventure. Eccleston took himself way too seriously with the role, but Tennant lends just enough gravity to keep the show grounded, while still lending that sense of playfulness that separates it from BSG or other overly melodramatic Sci-Fi (don't get me wrong, BSG is still incredible).

As for the point of this tread, it would have been a tough call, except for Donna Noble, the (IMO) worst companion I've ever seen.

Doctor Who, even with Donna, is still great, but does it outweigh BSG+Firefly+Star Wars/Trek...? I think not.

[animeHrmIne]

I'm a 15-y-o American, so I unfortunately have very little means of watching pre-9 Doctor Who (And have not as of yet had a chance to act on the means I do have *rants about eight-graders who own Baker seasons and don't mention it until THE LAST DAY OF SCHOOL*), so my opinion may be a little off. However, between me and my friends we do own every episode of Torchwood and Doctor Who post-2005. Legally, royalties to the BBCA and everything.

[/rant]

I started out with Tennant, and I enjoyed him immensely. He was a brilliant actor in my opinion, and his development of the character over time was great (10.5 reverting back to a season 2-esque Doctor, while 10 remained the same, in Journey's End). I think that David Tennant brought life back to the show, and ensured it's continuance for years to come. (Hopefully, anyway. I'm so psyched for Matt Smith, Karen Gillan, and Stephen Moffat!)

That being said, I think that Eccleston had the better Doctor. 10 was too perfect. Whereas with 10, the companions were there just because the Doctor was lonely, 9 actually used his companions. Example: In World War Three (admittedly not the best episodes, but they help prove my point), where Harriet and Rose are throwing facts about the Slitheens and the Doctor is "narrowing it down". Ten would have just gone on a long rant that included all of those facts, while Harriet and Rose sat back looking bored. The dynamic of the show with Eccleston was much better.

And what's this about "just a kid's show". Sure, this isn't Torchwood, with scenes like from Adrift (Hot House) or Out of Time (Diane), but that dosen't mean that it is suited only for children. Not only are the psychological (Midnight and Mob Mentality) and social (Jack Harkness and Sexuality) questions that this show brings up extremely mature and relevant to today's society, but they bring this about without blatant sex and violence. (Not to say that I don't love sex and violence. I maintain a permanent residence on the Isle of Slash)

Now, to address the debate of this thread: I think that it depends on whether it means “Sci Fi ever on TV” or “Sci Fi that is on TV right now”. For the first, I would say that Doctor Who is definitely one of the best, but in my mind it could never stand alone against Star Trek plus all of the other shows I have never watched but assume are amazing (I’m new to sci-fi fan-girl/boy-ing. I was subliminally raised on TNG, but I only began watching Doctor Who this year (due to good peer pressure) and TOS these past months (I was not allowed to see the movie until I had seen at least a few episodes of TOS.)). As for the second option, “Sci Fi still on TV today”, I believe it stands a far better chance, as I can think of none of the truly great Sci Fis that are still on (such as Firefly, TOS, TNG, (And I believe that either Stargate or Battlestar ended this year. Again, forgive my ignorance, I was a fantasy nerd before this year.))

[Mithrandir]

I'm suprised Star Trek hasn't come up yet. I'm probably not qualified to argue because I've only been able to watch about 2 episodes of Doctor Who. But in their defence they did look entertaining.

[nitePhyyre]

Ok, I started watching Doctor Who this year. I started with the 9th, 10th, and 11th, Then I downloaded all the first ones, and I have just watched all of William Hartnell And Patrick Troughton.
Doctor Who is awesome. But it is fantasy. Not fair to compare it to Sci-Fi. The TARDIS is alive, and the sonic screw driver. He is a wizard with a wand who rides a dragon. Sure they use technobabble, but I have never seen any element of science in this fiction.

@ headprogrammingczar: In 2006, readers of Doctor Who Magazine voted Tennant's Doctor "Best Doctor" over perennial favourite Tom Baker.
(I like 9 and 10 equally I think.)

[You, sir, name?]

@ headprogrammingczar: In 2006, readers of Doctor Who Magazine voted Tennant's Doctor "Best Doctor" over perennial favourite Tom Baker.
(I like 9 and 10 equally I think.)

Tennant started off decent, but he really went downhill quite rapidly (RTD's meddling probably is to blame as well).

[Le1bn1z]

I am shocked and appalled at that slanderous treatment of BSG on this thread. There's nothing wrong with a darker look at humanity, and BSG was magnificently rich in its moral, social and dramatic complexity.

I'm a Doctor Who fan, but sadly I've found that the series has become repetitive and gimmicky in the worst tradition of pulp Sci-Fi shows like Stargate.

I mean, yeah, its funny and cool, but it hardly has 100% dominance of sci-fi as far as I'm concerned. Some episodes are definately below par for BSG, Firefly or even Star Trek TNG.

Say what you will, TNG and Doctor Who are more or less on level, Patrick Stewart standing toe to toe with David Tennant or New Not As Good Doctor any time. You may deny it, but THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!

[Ewett]

It is true that the latest series of Doctor Who (those from Eccleston onwards) have not been able to stand up to the original series, apart from the latest Doctor Matt Smith who in my opinion is one of the better Doctors. And up until the last series Doctor Who, other sci-fi programs such as SG (all of them for me anyway), BSG and some Star Trek have all been on equal footing. Firefly out shines them all (mostly).

NB. This comes from someone who grew up inbetween series releases of Dr.Who and BSG so I got to see both the original series and the newer series of both programs equaly.