The New Doctor Who [Archive]

prydain

02-14-2006, 06:46 PM

Well I have never even been to Britain, lol, but I am learning to appreciate some British things - well, TV, anyway - I now watch HEX, and I think the UK version of The Office is ok (I much prefer the U.S. version), and I checked out Black Books after Vilandra mentioned it and am now a huge fan - it's one of the funniest shows I've ever seen.

I *love* sci-fi and fantasy, but I usually lean towards the fantasy and supernatural stuff. There are "true" sci-fi shows that I like - Stargate, Threshold, Invasion, and several movies...but Dr. Who just sounds...really odd. My mom is a fan though...she used to watch the old one on PBS (I think it was PBS - they show lots of British stuff).

I'll give Dr. Who a chance on Sci Fi this March and write my opinions here. But if the acting is anything like the typical 60's space show, I will definitely not watch it.

N4H

02-14-2006, 08:58 PM

Well as I said I'm not a fan of the second season so far, but as I also said I've only seen the Christmas special.

The first season though I'd definitely recommend checking out. That's what the Sci-Fi is showing, right - the first season of the "new" Doctor Who?

It isn't like a Tim Minear series where have to stay with it for the first four episodes at least, before it clicks into gear. Watch the first ep of Doctor Who. You'll know if you're going to like it, love it, or hate it.

It isn't mainstream so get used to that idea. It's different.

As far as the acting goes, no problem. If there is anything wrong with the show, it's definitely not the acting.

There's this character called Rose Tyler. If you can warm to the show at all, you're gonna love her. She's something different than your average actess - and different in a way that's real easy to warm to. It's like, have you ever met a girl who isn't what you'd call classically gorgeous, but sexy as hell. That's Billie Piper (I think that's her name).

Oh yeah the guy who plays the doctor is good too - idiosyncratic, a little cranky, yet at the same time funny, and warm.

Maybe that's why I disliked the first peek at the new season so much. I was so into the first season.

Actually, no. That wasn't it. With the Christmas special I found it real hard to suspend my disbelief. I found it silly.

prydain

02-14-2006, 09:13 PM

Hardly anything I watch is that mainstream. The Inside wasn't what I would call mainstream. People don't like watching crime shows that sick on TV. That's why Millennium always struggled. The Office is not a mainstream sitcom and has had to fight to find enough viewers to survive.

Actually, very little sci-fi could be considered mainstream because most only have a limited niche audience.

But anyhoo, I'll look more into this Dr Who show. I wonder when Sci Fi's planning on putting up their website for it.

N4H

02-14-2006, 11:16 PM

Actually, very little sci-fi could be considered mainstream because most only have a limited niche audience.

That's interesting. Actually I was thinking more Genre in general. In that sense if you're going to say something like say Ghost Whisperer isn't mainstream, then how are you going to notice something like Wonderfalls as original when it comes along and breaks the mold.

I think it works with Science fiction as well. I think mainstream science fiction does exist.

Stuff like Smallville I would call mainstream, because it comes at the audience looking for a mainstream audience with a formula which is the kind of thing the larger audience, has seen before, can be comfortable with, and is willing to accept.

Something like X Files on the other hand came along, with it's own unique feel, and perspective. It took chances. X Files might be thought of as mainstream now, but that's because it helped to create what we now think of as the mold. When it first turned up, my impression is the audiences hadn't seen anything like it before.

Personally I think there is a standard for what the larger part of a mainstream audience is used to, has been trained to accept, and is comfortable with in Science Fiction. We know this, because when something like X Files, or Doctor Who first come along we go, "Whoah...this is something different."

prydain

02-14-2006, 11:36 PM

What made the X-Files more mainstream is that it tried to be broad, sort of like Lost. It was a mystery show...a crime show...a supernatural show...and a sci-fi show. It covered a lot of bases. My dad hates most sci-fi but likes The X-Files because it's like a crime show and he likes the character development.

Going back to Lost, what makes it a hit is that it's a character drama. The sci-fi takes a definite backseat and doesn't overpower the story at all. Personally, my tastes would have the sci-fi be amped up a lot but that would hurt ratings.

Ghost Whisperer is a hit because it gets the Touched By an ANgel audience...it's not scary or anything...it's a drama with a small supernatural angle to it, and it has the "hopeful" elements people like.

Wonderfalls...would never be as popular as The X-Files. It's too odd. I love it and it's one of my favorite dramedies, but it would never be very mainstream. It blends too many elements together and is too out of the norm.

However, one of these days, especially if the war keeps going, I think sci-fi will do better on TV. We are seeing a revival but it may not last long. The same thing happened when The X-Files was a hit...TONS of sci-fi shows for a few seasons but they all got canceled pretty quickly.

Have you noticed that most genre shows average only 4-8 million viewers? Threshold got about 8 million. Invasion gets anywhere from 8.9 to 11 million since it's a family drama first, Surface gets around 8 million, Supernatural gets 5 million, Night Stalker got 5 million, Point Pleasant dipped to 4 million, Tru Calling got 4 million, WOnderfalls got around 4 million, etc.

I bet most of those are the same Nielson households watching.

Genre is traditionally looked upon as being for nerds or whatever, but it's slowly emerging into the mainstream. Hopefully it will make a few leaps and bounds, and soon.

But like I mentioned earlier with war, in the 50s and 60s sci-fi shows were extremely popular because people wanted an escape from reality.

N4H

02-14-2006, 11:56 PM

Yeah well ratings are tricky, because of the different networks. Networks like the WB, or UPN, hit fewer households, even Fox to a lesser extent.

I don't know if this is still the case, but as I recall at one time Smallville was the highest rated drama on the WB. I think this may also have been the case with X Files, and Fox.

Here's an interesting one. You say it's probably wrong to think of Sci-fi as mainstream, and I agree with you. At the same time you say some Sci-fi/Genre is mainstream and I agree with you.

So the question becomes once more, is it OK to refer to a Genre series as being mainstream, or not mainstream?

Mr Pointy

02-15-2006, 03:20 AM

N4H - I didn't think I'd disagree with you on SF shows, after all you steered me in the direction of Wonderfalls and Lost, but the Christmas ep of Dr Who was just so much fun :)

David Tennant (IMO) is one of the best of the current Brit actors and a self-confessed massive Who fan to boot. He wouldn't have been my ideal choice for the role but I think he acquitted himself well in that awkward ;) first post regeneration ep despite being unconscious for much of it. Billie Piper is going from strength to strength and the writing varies from good to absolutely superb.

I think it does help, as dashboardprophet suggested above, to have grown up with the Doctor and to know that the show has a tradition of putting a "just for fun" story in amongst the more serious stuff...

Mrs P doesn't like David Tennant btw but she doesn't think a lot of him in general ;) My eight-year-old grandson, however, loved him to bits - well there was a sword fight and the Skywalker-esque arm amputation :)

...things to look forward to in S2...the return of K9 and Sarah Jane, the cream of British acting and writing talent queueing up to be involved, the return of the Cybermen...oh, and a certain Anthony Stewart Head is to play the part of a villainous school head-teacher :)

I'm hesitating to recommend this now but, what the hell :), keep a look out for another BBC show that we're seeing at the moment in the UK - "Life on Mars". It's a drama about a cop in 1970s Manchester with a bit of an SF twist - he was actually a cop in 2006 who was involved in a car accident and may be in a coma, mental institution or a time travel incident. Mrs P and I are finding it to be compelling viewing. Great writing, great acting, some brilliant comic moments, more 70s nostalgia than you can shake a stick at, great soundtrack...I'm not ever so sure that it will translate over the Atlantic but worth a look in case it does :)

prydain

02-15-2006, 07:37 AM

Well that would depend on the show and the elements it uses. If the show is very broad and can appeal to even those who aren't genre fans, and it makes sure it's not too weird so people can accept it somewhat, then that would make it more mainstream I think. Lost is definitely mainstream. They used every element they could to ensure it would appeal to the masses.

But something like Supernatural only has a limited audience because it's just a action/horror series. It's scope is not very broad, it focuses on a specific young audience.

I don't think I'm making much sense, lol.

goldenboy

02-15-2006, 08:18 AM

It seems like "genre" almost has two meanings these days.

Are the CSI's genre shows? I'd say so. The Law & Orders too. Those all seem to be as mainstream as you can get...in league with American Idol and the Superbowl. Any drama that has a narrative "formula", relys on certain conventions and character types and a particular mood is within some sort of genre, right?

Or are we using that word in the mutated, modern sense (a substitute term for fantasy, sci-fi)?

It seems like X-Files and Buffy and even Lost are almost anti-genre (in one sense), in that they tend to be hard to categorize in terms of a precise mood, convention, formula...I dunno.

N4H

02-15-2006, 09:50 AM

You know, it's almost like some terms - Genre, mainstream - are redefining themselves as media evolves.

goldenboy

02-15-2006, 10:34 AM

This is partially tied to the postmodern phenomenon, I think. New dramatic concepts can involve mulitple "classic", clearly defined genres, mix them all up.

CSI: a classic crime procedural—a specific genre, in the traditional sense of the word.

Buffy: Horror, action, sitcom, soap, mystery, etc...what genre is that, precisely? The postmodern "polygenre", maybe.

prydain

02-15-2006, 12:42 PM

When people say a "genre" show, they mean anything that is scifi, fantasy, or horror.

However, when you ask what genre any given show is, that could be like: drama, comedy, crime, etc.

But it's becoming more and more common for fantasy, scifi, and horror to just be referred to as "genre".

Does that make sense?

goldenboy

02-15-2006, 01:04 PM

Yeah, that's right.

Is that because historically, there's been a stigma attached to fantasy/sci-fi/horror? It's a euphemism of sorts? Or just a helpful collective adjective, I dunno....

N4H

02-15-2006, 01:19 PM

As Goldenboy pointed out earlier though the borders of Genre do seem to be enlarging lately to include stuff like spy-fi, even some procedurals. I'd say The Inside is Genre, as well as Bones with the holograms and such. CSI? Possibly. Law and Order? I don't think so.

I've discussed this on other boards with people, and I've come to the conclusion no-one knows exactly what Genre is at this time. It does seem to have something to do with the distance between the fiction and real world reality though.

Hey if someone has the perfect definition of Genre, give it to me, please. I am in quest of that knowledge.

prydain

02-15-2006, 01:35 PM

The Inside...I would consider that genre because it's more of a horror/thriller type thing. I don't consider CSI or Law & Order genre. Bones to me would be a stretch, even with the slightly advanced hologram thing.

goldenboy

02-15-2006, 01:58 PM

Just trying to get a handle on this...is the contemporary usage of the term "genre" describing something like...a certain degree of "stylized reality"? Or, the new borderline genre shows use traditional dramatic formats in a new, self-conscious, "fake" way? Does a genre show need to be a stylistic hybrid to qualify for the modern sense of the term? (horror/detective show, for instance).

"The Inside" is something like noir, but it can't be true noir, because that was a very specific phenomenon from the 40s and 50s that the makers weren't even aware they were creating...it's not possible to make true noir anymore—just a copy of the style. It's a style convention and a way to present dramatic material. Like, someone who'd try to paint a modern New York City skyline in the style of Van Gogh. That's a very deliberate, self-conscious approach—you're commenting on Van Gogh as much as New York.

The new Battlestar Galactica is shot "documentary style", with handheld cameras. But that's completely absurd in a way. It's a mockmentary of sorts. The documentarian's methods are used as as a tool, a color on the director's palette. It's the "realism" hue...giving the show more gravitas, credibility.

Genre is like stylized, "pretentious" drama. It might incorporate many styles and conventions of traditional narratives. It may be fantastical in content, or not. It's often emotionally realistic, even if the setting or narrative or style is "anti-realistic", "anti-mundane".

prydain

02-15-2006, 02:28 PM

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, lol.

But I read an article recently about "genre" shows - that is, scifi, fantasy, and horror, and it mentioned that people in the industry used that term for all of those to lump it into a certain category. In a way, it's replacing the habit of calling a show like Buffy sci-fi, when in fact it is fantasy. Genre is becoming a word with multiple meanings, I suppose, and one of those meanings is a category for sci-fi and fantasy, while the traditional definition still applies.

I just read "Genre" in Wikipedia but it didn't help much. They're usually good at keeping up with stuff, but I guess the habit of calling certain shows "genre" is fairly recent.

goldenboy

02-15-2006, 02:46 PM

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, lol.

I'm not sure either, lol. I'm just groping for an answer, like N4H. I'm trying to pick apart the whole "postmodern", "fake" phenomenon of modern TV, and how it relates to "genre".

Was Wonderfalls a genre show? I think so. How about Ally McBeal? Moonlighting? They all had fantasy elements. Does a genre show have to be, at its core, a drama?

N4H's right, I think, about genre being distanced from reality—but not necessarily explicitly horror/fantasy/sci-fi...but I'm just not sure. Is Bones a genre show? It's like a drama/comedy/crime procedural...

And when I say emotionally realistic—I'm thinking of Buffy, for instance. The setting was fantastical, and it was all exaggerated, but it had a ring of emotional truth about it—the pains and struggles of growing up.

prydain

02-15-2006, 03:43 PM

Wonderfalls, of course. But I don't think genre has to be "distanced" from reality. Lost could be considered genre and it has "emotional truth" to it. Buffy's genre too.

I think genre just refers to the main setting - if stuff happens that's not going to happen in real life - in an extreme fantastical manner, then it's probably genre, I think. Bones has nothing genre about it, especially since the hologram stuff is a little believable...that's the kind of thing we could have in a VERY short amount of time from now.

Millennium was questionable at first about whether it was genre or not, but then the supernatural aspects came into focus. The Inside is genre for more reasons than the horror/thriller aspect, I think. It was intentionally melodramatic and Rebecca's "insight" stretched reality a bit. It didn't feel like CSI at all.

And no, I don't think "genre" has to drama. But that's my opinion.

I guess it's your intepretation - it's like...most people consider Medium a fantasy type drama, but others - those who believe that the woman it's based on really interacts with spirits and has visions would simply consider it drama. Of course that's only one instance...even if you believe in ghosts, when a show greatly exaggerates what they could do, etc., you'd still probably consider it all fantasy and make believe.

goldenboy

02-15-2006, 05:11 PM

Ahh, now I think you’ve clearly defined my question about what precisely constitutes a contemporary "genre" show.

You think that it's primarily about content, about what actually happens during a show. And you may be right. You've definitely got a solid base established for "genre": if stuff happens that's not going to happen in real life - in an extreme fantastical manner, then it's probably genre.

I agree. I'm just wondering if it's becoming any more complicated than that.

The Inside (what I've seen of it), seems right on the edge of that definition. There really are truly sick psycho killers and sociopathic, murderous kids out there. And Rebecca's (from what I saw) not psychic, she's extremely perceptive and intuitive, and well-versed in abnormal psychology. It is pushed to the edge, yes. And something can be melodramatic without being fantastical.

What I'm wondering is...is style and presentation a factor in tipping something over the edge into genre show territory? The Inside is stylized in that it's a modern setting, yet it’s self-consciously copying bits of the old-fashioned, understated film noir style—in terms of visuals, narrative, characterization. It's removed from modern-day reality in that way (style, not content). That's what I mean by a postmodern approach.

I'm not exactly sure how important it is in defining "genre show", but TV shows seem to be getting more complex—and maybe further away from a sense of everyday reality—as they mix more and more narrative styles together within a single piece. I think it makes defining things a lot trickier, in general.

dashboardprophet

02-15-2006, 06:01 PM

I am coming a bit late into this discussion about the definition of ‘genre’ as it is applied to TV shows. I should also say that these are just my inexpert assumptions and might well be wildly off the mark.

As has already been mentioned, everything fits into a genre of some sort. I guess obvious examples would be westerns or musicals. The western can be identified because of the setting and the musical because of its form. Another easy way to identify the genre is via the subject matter. American TV seems to be awash with ‘procedural’ shows and although trends have changed over the years the basic premise of something like ‘CSI’ is not really any different to, say, ‘Kojak’. It's a weekly crime story.

The way I understand the use of the word ‘genre’ now as it is applied to American television is that it is generally used to describe a vague ‘type’ of show that appeals to a niche audience about which specific assumptions are made. Although quite specific types of shows tend to be regarded as ‘genre’ in this respect (sci-fi, fantasy, horror) it is the target audience rather than the content of the show that defines it. I think it’s something to do with the way the audience (the reader, so to speak) approaches and interprets the text (the content of the show). It’s why something like ‘Medium’ isn’t categorised in quite the same way as ‘Dark Angel’, just as a random example.

Unfortunately, ‘genre’ does seem, for some people at least, to be an easy way of stereotyping a certain type of show that is generally given little credit in terms of lasting quality or artistic worth. A very obvious example of this would be ‘BtVS’, a phenomenally clever show that was superbly conceived, written and acted, but for many people it is still just a daft “kids show” about a girl with a silly name who fights vampires.

Everything changes, of course, as soon as a show breaks out of its niche market and finds a wide-scale mainstream audience. When that happens it is no longer dismissed as a “genre show”. ‘X-Files’ was a classic example of this and ‘Lost’ is another more recent example. As a result of the success of ‘Lost’ we suddenly have a whole spate of what might be considered to be ‘genre’ shows aimed at a wider audience – ‘Invasion’, ‘Surface’, ‘Supernatural’, etc. Think back just a year or so ago and virtually every ‘genre’ show was failing even to find a big enough niche audience to survive and suffered the inevitable fate (‘Wonderfalls’, ‘Tru Calling’, ‘Point Pleasant’, etc).

N4H

02-15-2006, 06:16 PM

Here's a question. Why is Alias often classified as Genre? It is you know. It's been nominated for awards as such.

It isn't really sci-fi, fantasy, or horror. Is it stylized, made to appeal to a certain type of audience, distanced from reality. What is it about Alias that made people want to start calling it Genre?

dashboardprophet

02-15-2006, 06:30 PM

I think 'Alias' is often referred to as 'genre' because the target audience fits the model. It's an example of the "genre" being defined by the audience rather than the show itself. I read something by Daniel Chandler, who I think lectures in film studies at the University of Wales, and he referred to "text-reader relationship".

Once again, I might be spouting complete rubbish, but it sounds plausible!

prydain

02-15-2006, 06:44 PM

But "Alias" is genre. It has lots of fantasy and sci-fi elements. The show takes place two years in the future after season two, which could explain why her gadgets are hi-tech (that's what fans say, anyway). Then there is the whole Rambaldi thing. There are prophecies. The season four finale featured zombie-fied people exposed to a device designed by the prophet guy - who invented stuff hundreds of years before their time...it's definitely genre.

N4H

02-15-2006, 08:50 PM

I've heard it being referred to as Genre since the first season, when she was just a spy. You're right though. The sci-fi community has adopted it. The Genre award it was nominated for was SyFy Portal's.

It worth noticing that James Bond is often referred to as Genre. It's possible this led to all spy-fi being taken in as Genre. Although you'll never hear something like Le Carre being called Genre.

Actually I've heard CSI referred to as Genre also. I can't remember where though, so you don't have to accept that one as fact.

prydain

02-15-2006, 09:08 PM

I watched four years of CSI. Four years that I now regret, and while you could consider it fantasy because it's so frickin fake, I don't consider it genre, lol. But most people call it The X-Files without aliens, which is a really weird comparison.

Yeah Alias started openly sci-fi in the third episode - that's when the prophecies were brought up. But one of the prophet's inventions was featured in the pilot, but you wouldn't have thought twice about it when you first saw it.

And Alias is an incredible show - genre or not. It's incredibly addicting for me.

N4H

02-15-2006, 10:30 PM

I used to think all Genre was Sci Fi or Fantasy myself, but I kept on seeing stuff that just didn't fit, referred to as Genre. Here's another example.

http://www.starbaseandromeda.com/tvschedules.html

That is Veronica Mars I see on that list isn't it?

I actually am beginning to grok dashboard prophet's point. I also checked out Wikipedia. I get the impression there's kind of like a method of evaluating what they call Genre Fiction which isn't really Genre in the way we're discussing, but a way of categorizing all genres. At least I think that's what it is. Here's what they say anyway -

Genre fiction is a term for fictional works (novels, short stories) written with the intent of fitting into a specific literary genre in order to appeal to the fans of that genre. In contemporary fiction-publishing, genre is an elastic term used to group works sharing similarities of character, theme, and setting—such as mystery, romance, or horror—that have been proven to appeal to particular groups of readers. Genres continuously evolve, divide, and combine as readers' tastes change and writers search for fresh ways to tell stories. For a number of reasons, genre fiction is often regarded as the lower-quality opposite of literary fiction.

N4H

02-16-2006, 01:44 AM

That's odd. I posted but it didn't show. I see the thread I posted when I click reply though.

Oh Well I'll try it again. I was telling you how I went through the
'Genre can only be Sci-fi/fantasy" phase myself. Then I started noticing stuff like Alias and the Simpsons being called Genre, so I said, "Oh well, I guess if it has elements of Sci-fi or fantasy or horror it can be called Genre.

But then I started seeing stuff being called Genre like

Veronica Mars

http://www.starbaseandromeda.com/tvschedules.html

The Adventures of Robin Hood

http://theenvelope.latimes.com/extras/lostmind/year/1996/1996sat.htm

24 I've seen this one mentioned as Genre a lot.
The Shield
Alias Season 1

http://www.greencine.com/list?action=viewList&listID=1328

Now I'm not sure I know exactly what Genre is.

Edit

So that's weird. Now I posted this one and both posts showed up.

goldenboy

02-16-2006, 08:48 AM

Well, I get the marketing, commercial consideration of the term. I see the point about "genre" shows being targeted, tailored for a specific audience. "Genre" is often building on, jumping off of a proven, successful, limited formula—one that the makers realize may appeal to only a specific, narrow demographic. Are Lifetime movies for women genre TV, as we're trying to define the term?

For whatever reason, horror/sci-fi/fantasy got stuck with the "genre" ID—I guess because they're obvious examples of narratives with a (usually) very specific, limited audience. And it was a useful collective term?

But I can't escape N4H's "distanced from reality" concept. Whether it's in style or content or both. It seems like that's how the "geek community" might be using the term.

goldenboy

02-16-2006, 10:23 AM

So, this idea of identifying TV shows as "genre" springs from the literary world I suppose, right?

As soon as there are examples of a new form, and an audience for that form—then people are inspired to self-consciously copy aspects of that form, build on it, develop cheap knock-offs, whatever. That's "genre", as the marketers, publishers, producers see it. It may be crass commercialism, or genuine love, or whatever. But certain norms, expectations, conventions develop for "genre" material.

I think that concept has adapted to TV so well—now more than ever—because of cable. Because of more Net-lets. More choices. More niches. A fragmentation of the viewership pie.

OK, in marketing terms:

Did X-Files spawn a new TV sub-genre? The monster investigation show. (Supernatural, Night Stalker, etc). No, it's probably just continuing a sub-genre, begun by the original Night Stalker, carried on by that Friday the 13th show, maybe some others...

Did Buffy spawn a new TV sub-genre? The contemporary supernatural dramedy. (Charmed, Hex...)

Are Surface, Invasion, Threshold, all of one sub-genre?

goldenboy

02-16-2006, 11:50 AM

I thought this bit from the "genre studies" entry in Wiki was interesting:

Genre studies are a structuralist approach to literary theory, film theory, and other cultural theories. When studying a genre in this way, one examines the structural elements that combine in the telling of a story and find patterns in collections of stories. When these elements (or codes) begin to carry inherent information, a genre is emerging.

A simple example of this is that of a western movie where two men face each other on a dusty and empty road; one dons a black hat, the other white. Independent of any external meaning, there is no way to tell what the situation might mean, but due to the long development of the "western" genre, it is clear to the informed audience that they are watching a gunfight showdown between a good guy and a bad guy.

It has been suggested that genres resonate with people because of the familiarity, the short-hand communication, as well as the tendency of genres to shift with public mores and to reflect the zeitgeist. Many have considered genre storytelling as lesser forms of art because of the heavily borrowed nature of the conventions. However, admiration has grown. Proponents argue that the genius of an effective genre piece is in the variation, combinations, and evolution of the codes.

Genre studies have perhaps gained the most recognition in film theory, where the study of genre directly contrasts with auteur theory, which privileges the director's role in crafting a movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genre_studies

I think Joss Whedon is an example of a creative type who loves to work by using "genre conventions". He uses certain storytelling "types" and "codes": the horror movie, film noir, the western, the space opera. But, he's actually an auteur. He's using genre conventions in new, unexpected, creative combinations. He has actually created new TV sub-genres, seems like.

N4H

02-16-2006, 11:53 AM

Avoiding those last questions for a while (mostly because I don't know the answers), yeah I think Dashboard Prophet might really be on to something with this idea of applying what I also think is literary genre theory to the question - What is Genre now?

I think the internet is to blame for the confusion. It's like Goldenboy hints at, you have all these different organizations with different agendas - marketers, news media, online sites giving out awards - appearing in one media, and they all want to talk to the same people for their own particular reasons. These people they want to talk to all like Sci-fi/Fantasy/Horror, but they also like other stuff.

goldenboy

02-16-2006, 12:11 PM

Well, that's a great point about the Internet. It tends to naturally develop niches, different, competing schools of thought...

Ideas are honed and refined on the Internet, but how much of it reflects reality?

Rose Tyler

02-24-2006, 07:26 AM

I never thought that I would say that I was a Dr Who fan. Based on the fact that because of my age I didn't grow up with it, I saw the old episodes having grown up on good special effects. So because of that I found it hard to watch when my enjoyment was spoiled, and the past Doctors where too out there for my liking.

I decided to tune in because i've been a fan of Christopher's since his Shallow Grave days and the previews looked good. As i'm sure Mr P and others can tell you, it is your 'first Doctor' that will stick with you. So of course I was gutted when I found out he was leaving, I loved his manic grin.

David Tennant....an excellent actor, and i'm not just saying that because he's Scottish ;)

From the Christmas episode it looks like we are going to get some good things from him, and he does have a dark edge too. Any of the UK viewers that happen to see Tennant in 'Secret Smile' can tell you that this actor does dark very well.

Rose, I wasn't keen on at first because well Billie Piper is not really known her for her acting, although saying that she did a good turn in The Canterbury Tales with James Nesbitt. She annoyed me at first but has turned me around.

The one thing I don't like about the new Dr Who? Having to wait to long until the new episodes!

Anyone else looking forward to Torchwood?