www.cultv.co.uk - NEW SERIES REVIEW - SPOILERS.
myself
WARNING
Sections in red contain spoilers.
This review contains mild and infrequent bad language.
We are aware that parts of this site contain spelling & grammatical errors. We are working to correct them all. In the meantime please EMAIL US if you see anything that you think needs correcting.
We will be adding polls & a forum in the next few days for your comments.
George will be in the CulTV chat room for 2 hours after 'Rose' is broatcast to respond to your comments. More details soon.
The views expressed in this review are not necessarily those held by www.cultv.co.uk
Over the years I have become known for my controversial predictions regarding forthcoming remakes of classic British shows and movie franchises. Although I certainly did not predict the Bond mess that was to be Die Another Day, in the early years of this site I did manage to write off the big budget movie versions of The Saint and The Avengers based on casting and plot decisions alone. For the most part critics and viewers alike seem (in retrospect) to have agreed with me. Although I am desperate to be proved wrong, I always stick to my decisions until I see the final version, then and only then will I acknowledge whether my fears were justified. Even when the excellent Avengers movie trailer was released, I stuck to my guns and it was not until the day of release when, alas it soon became apparent that the news was not good. I know this review may come across as egotistical or agreement, but please believe that this is in no way indented. I would love nothing more then to be writing an article on how British television and Dr. Who are going from strength to strength, but at the risk of offending the hard core who fans. Here are my views...
When I was being interviewed by a number of international newspapers about how dreadful I thought the remake of Randall & Hopkirk was going to be, It brought me a lot of attention and a lot of column space. Vic & Bob were both fans of CulTV and were a little upset to read my comments. But as I emphasized then, they look like great guys, and I'm sure we would all get on over a pint. I would rather be writing positive things about a show that I can not wait to add to my collection. But for better or worse, these my views. No malice is intended. Most of my friends are good for a laugh, but I would not cast them as British icons.
You see, I have contributed to a great number of pages on this site and consider myself to be a connoisseur of "Great" television. Between the 50's and 80's British TV had no shortage of "Great" television be it The Prisoner, The Avengers, Blakes 7, Doctor Who, Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, Porridge, Hancock, Steptoe, Blackadder... the list could go on for ever. We were the best in the world. Meanwhile the best the US could ever muster was "Good' television like The Fugitive, Bilko, Cheers, Star Trek etc. It never made it to the British high standards. Don't get me wrong, both side of the pound produced its fair share of average programming and complete dross too and still does to this day. But what this site has always celebrated is the shows that rise above the dross and the average, leap above good and become an all time 'Great". Unfortunately in the past few years there has been virtually nothing "Great" to come out of Britain in the way of television. A few years ago the US dominated great comedy with shows like The Simpsons and Seinfeld and intelligent cult drama with Nowhere Man and the early X Files. Even now shows like 24 and Curb Your Enthusiasm are setting a fantastic benchmark for the new millennium and Family Guy and Arrested Development are continually treading new ground.
"The new show is an episode of Hollyoaks shot in the style of the Randal and Hopkirk remake with a lose Doctor Who theme."
The only thing I can think of that has achieved greatness in Britain in the last few years is The Office and to a certain extent Little Britain & The League of Gentlemen. The fact that they all struggled to be made in the first place says more about the current state of the BBC than I am currently prepared to go into. Even one time greats like Only Fools & Horses, Red Dwarf and Ab Fab are fading into the realms of "Good" and for some that is being polite.
In the mid 90's I had a real problem with the US taking a great British show, making big budget version of them and totally missing the mark, not to mention the point. You just need to look the remakes of Dr. Who, The Saint and The Avengers to see what I mean. However in recent years the British have shown we don't need the Americans to mess up a cult classic, we can do that all by ourselves, as we proved with the Randall and Hopkirk remake. But what would we do with Doctor Who?
At the beginning of the project I was quite hopeful. The BBC were making it in house and although I had not seen anything that Russell T Davies has written, he seemed to be critically acclaimed. Strong rumours that Bill Nighy was being considered for the title role also sounded promising. Then the more announcements started coming through. I was not sure about Christopher Eccleston as the Doctor, although I have enjoyed his work in Shallow Grave and Cracker, it does not mean that he would be one of a tiny handful of actors that could really pull it off. Let’s face it, being harsh only 4 actors have managed to put in a performance to reach a "Great" level and a few others (but not all) to accomplish an acceptable standard. I mean, I think Ricky Gervais is wonderful, but I wouldn't cast him as the next James Bond. (Although he would still be a better choice then Clive Owen) Then we had pop princess Billie Piper cast as the companion Rose, followed by Eccleston's remarks that he hoped for a romance in the show with her! A few days later I was on a plane with Chris Evans and his cronies (Minus Billie) and I made my very public prediction that this show would not be a goody.
In recent weeks I have thought even less of the project by reading producers, actors and writers comments about the production and seeing the abysmal teaser trailers. At the moment I am spending a year living in Canada, and occasionally I do miss the UK, so I invested in the BBC cable channels. To my delight one of the channels has started to play old Tom Baker episodes. It has reminded me how wonderful Doctor Who really was. Seeing episodes like City of Death and Logopolis again is just a joy. Every now and again I do pop back to the UK and when Monday's screening of the first episode of the 'New Doctor Who Series' entitled Rose was offered to me, the temptation to see it first was too great. So, at last, here are my thoughts....
"The show starts with a terrible new title sequence and goes down hill from there"
The show starts with a terrible new title sequence and goes down hill from there. The BBC logo all over it (If I was the chairman, I would not want to advertise that fact) like the McGann movie, we are once again missing The Doctor's face on the title sequence and Murray Gold's theme is so close to the original 1963 version, it is just wrong. The whole point of updating a show is to keep the original aspects, while modernising all aspects for a new generation and a new audience. I was watching this interview with this 'Murray' on the BBC website about how he felt that he didn't want to go down the full orchestra route, or update the theme too much because the original was so good. But it does not fit at all with all the incidental music or the pace of the show. John Barry's first version of the Bond theme is fantastic, but it has not stopped true musical geniuses like Dave Arnold do amazing updates in order to keep it contemporary. He also made a number of comments about the later 80's themes being "No good". Perhaps we should have kept the show Black and White too eh Murray?
The moment the episode starts it has the feel of one of those terrible, modern BBC kids shows. You know the one I mean, the boy whose best mate is an alien or something equally as dreadful. Badly acted, badly written and shot in a way that is so 'Modern BBC Sci Fi' aka the Randal & Hopkirk remake.
The BBC Press office suggested that it does not look like Star Trek or anything they have produced before, "It has a look of its own." To an extent this is true, in fact the more I think of it, the best thing I could compare it to is an episode of Hollyoaks. One thing I will take back is my criticism of the casting of Billie Piper. She is actually the best thing in the show. The script for the episode is appalling, in fact I'm sure that I could eat a can of Alphabeti Spaghetti and shit a better script then that. But given the material she has too work with, she does a fine job and is head and shoulders over any companion McCoy had.
" I was a large critic of the McGann movie and the McCoy era, but in comparison they are out and out masterpieces. "
Eccleston's Doctor on the other hand is a different story. He is just playing himself, a 41 year old Northerner. Now this is fine if that what the part asks for, but this is Doctor Who for God's sake. No mystery, no charisma and I'm sure for the viewers, no interest. When I first saw the publicity photos of him with a number 3 haircut and his black leather jacket, I assumed that these were taken before make up and costume had even been designed. (Like McGann's early publicity shoot). Alas this was not the case. He looks more like a Hollyoaks character that is a bit mad rather then The Doctor we all know and love. He reads books in 2 seconds flat and makes comments like "He's gay, she's an alien". Rose questions his thick Northern accent at one stage, to which he reply's "Loads of planets have a North!" Now admittedly, that is a amusing line, but one you would expect to see in a Doctor Who spoof sketch, and that is exactly what this feels like, just the joke goes on far too long. Worst still I understand later episodes contain 'fart jokes’ which is exactly what Comic Relief used to parody the show a few years prior.
The TARDIS interior, although impressive looks more like something the Daleks would travel in. The Autons do not look scary at all. And the episode contains a montage that would make the S Club show ashamed. The only nice touch was the plastic sound as The Autons moved. As far as the supporting cast is concerned, no one performance was particular bad, just wrong. This is not Hollyoaks, or rather it is an episode of Hollyoaks shot in the style of the Randal and Hopkirk remake with a loose Doctor Who theme.
As I have previous stated I have been a large critic of the McGann movie and the McCoy era, but in comparison they are out and out masterpieces. It really saddens me to see chat rooms on the internet filled with people recording all prime time BBC shows in the hope the might get to see the first full trailer, or counting the days until the new show starts. I know my reputation is one of being controversially critical, but this is the worst review I have given to anything ever! It is also the longest which gives you some idea of the passion of my distain. The episode feels like you have missed the first half an hour of the show. Within 5 minuets Rose is running hand in hand with the Doctor, who is using his sonic screwdriver to get away from the dreaded Autons. Where is the build up? Where is the plot? Where is the characterization? I am not kidding, but I have seen far better made fan films; I even have had cameos in a couple. (Remember Bill Bagg's Unnatural Selection) For better or worse, I am proud of what those films attempted to do, but as an actor that would give his right arm to be part of a prime time drama, if the offer ever came in to be part of this travesty, I would politely decline.
Please remember these are just my views, and I do expect to get a very negative response from all the die hard fans out there. To be honest, most of the reviews I have seen so far have been very positive. But like all things Who, only time will tell. It is also very interesting to note that all the papers that are saying positive things are about the new show are the same papers that said positive things about the McGann movie, but now refer to it as "A disastrous experiment with American money."
In conclusion, when talking about "Great' British Shows", and especially Doctor Who... It is bad enough to watch an old friend be killed and slowly die. But it is so unfortunate when somebody decides they want to dig up the grave and piss all over the corpse. May Doctor Who forever rest in peace if this is the shape of things to come. Mr. Grade, I have a job for you....
Derek
"myself" <funnyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0_VYd.1700$DM3...@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> In an exclusive preview of the new series, GEORGE MURPHY tells CulTV why
the show is possibly the worst thing you will watch on British Television in
2005
>
<snip>
Can't he just cut straight to his catchphrase, "Worst. Episode. Ever."?
InterBang
> You know the one I mean, the boy whose best mate is an alien or something equally as dreadful.
> Badly acted, badly written and shot in a way that is so 'Modern BBC Sci Fi' aka the Randal & Hopkirk remake.
Although I enjoyed the episode, I must admit that it did really remind
me of one of those modern bbc kids tv shows.
--
Interbang
John Pertwee
wrote:
>Can't he just cut straight to his catchphrase, "Worst. Episode. Ever."?
That reminds me.
How long until we see the Comic Book Shop Guy mentioning the new
series on the Simpsons?
--
The villainy you teach me I will execute; and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.
Desosa
"InterBang" <nos...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:5fYYd.49441$Z14....@news.indigo.ie...
>
> Although I enjoyed the episode, I must admit that it did really remind
> me of one of those modern bbc kids tv shows.
>
> --
> Interbang
You mean like Eastenders? : P
Emmemm
> To my delight one of the channels
> has started to play old Tom Baker episodes. It has reminded me how
> wonderful Doctor Who really was. Seeing episodes like City of Death
> and Logopolis again is just a joy.
Ah, that would be the story (City of Death) where TomDoc reads a book in
two seconds flat.
Murphy then offers as a criticism of EcclesDoc:
> He reads books in 2 seconds flat
Wuh, wah, woh??? But you just said.....
--
Frank
"Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There's too much
fraternizing with the enemy." - Henry Kissinger
Terry Eden
> In an exclusive preview of the new series, GEORGE MURPHY tells
> CulTV why the show is possibly the worst thing you will watch on
> British Television in 2005
Here's my exclusive review of CulTV's review.
Get over it, Granddad.
I sat and watched it with a bunch of guys (and girls! You know, girls -
the ones that are a bit like boys but smell nicer) all in our
mid-twenties. We loved it.
I've never seen a "live" episode of Doctor Who - only the repeats on UK
Gold or the occasional video a well meaning uncle would buy me.
Let me put it painfully simply for you. The old Doctor Who is rubbish.
The old Doctor Who takes seven episodes to tell a short story. That's
not an arc, nor a well paced tale - it's just a measure to keep the
budget down.
The old Doctor Who had weird synthesiser squarks and squeals instead of
background music.
The old Doctor Who required an encyclopaedic knowledge of past episodes
to have any idea of what was going on.
The old Doctor Who had wobbly sets. This was not part of its charm - it
made it look crap.
Now - before the lynch mobs attack - let me say one thing. I love the
old Doctor Who. My Logopolis VHS tape has holes worn in it, I've played
it so much. I once went to a convention and *gasp* had a good time.
I've had heated arguments in pubs about whether Tom Baker's Doctor had
the right to blow up the Daleks in Genesis.
I love the old Doctor Who. But it is painfully of its time.
Think of Doctor Who like Shakespeare. I love a bit of Shakey - I've
acted in a few of his plays and I've even been to the Globe. It's damn
good stuff. But do I want every waking moment of the TV schedules
filled with thees, thys and wherefore arts? No. I appreciate that it
belongs to a specific time and place and, if you want to get people into
it again you need to do a Baz Luhrman and make a hyped up, media savvy,
tragically hip Romeo+Juliet.
Do you know why?
Because the storys and the themes are universal. How they're dressed up
isn't important as long as the story gets through to people.
This new Doctor Who show has to compete with 24, The Office, Spooks, The
West Wing, Ant 'n' Dec. And to do this, it needs to play them at their
own game. And it does it well.
The other night I watched the beginnings of a great new TV series called
Doctor Who. It was different, kooky, funny, creepy, engaging and well
made. I'd like to see how it turns out before you consign it to the
scrap heap.
All you're doing is criticizing this show because Christopher Ecclestone
isn't wearing a long scarf. And how can it be Doctor Who without a
long, multi coloured scarf?
Terry Eden
Derek
"Terry Eden" <terry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d12e4b$i7o$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
> myself wrote:
> > In an exclusive preview of the new series, GEORGE MURPHY tells
> > CulTV why the show is possibly the worst thing you will watch on
> > British Television in 2005
>
> Here's my exclusive review of CulTV's review.
>
> Get over it, Granddad.
>
> I sat and watched it with a bunch of guys (and girls! You know, girls -
> the ones that are a bit like boys but smell nicer)
I read about them once. Thought they were a myth until I saw some actual
footage on Sky One... :-)
> Let me put it painfully simply for you. The old Doctor Who is rubbish.
Can open, worms everywhere! :-))
> The old Doctor Who takes seven episodes to tell a short story. That's
> not an arc, nor a well paced tale - it's just a measure to keep the
> budget down.
>
> The old Doctor Who had weird synthesiser squarks and squeals instead of
> background music.
>
> The old Doctor Who required an encyclopaedic knowledge of past episodes
> to have any idea of what was going on.
I think it started jumping the shark with The Three Doctors, and canonicity
got its ugly foot in the door...
> The old Doctor Who had wobbly sets. This was not part of its charm - it
> made it look crap.
It's amazing the number of people who;d written to the BBC's Have Your Say
*wanting* the wobbly sets. Jeez...
Hear, hear!!!
Dan
"John Pertwee" <JohnPer...@yahooo.com > wrote in message
news:gfm83113i1n7name9...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 12:48:20 -0000, "Derek" <NoS...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Can't he just cut straight to his catchphrase, "Worst. Episode. Ever."?
>
> That reminds me.
>
> How long until we see the Comic Book Shop Guy mentioning the new
> series on the Simpsons?
Not until it runs in the states, I'm certain.
Dan McGrath
http://www.subversivepictures.com
Derek
"Dan" <dmcg...@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:g84Zd.3516$gx3....@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
I'll be really disappointed if Comic Book Guy doesn't at least mention
episode downloading sometime soon. :-)
Derek
Koenig
"Now, how about we talk about how wonderful I am?" What a pretentious self
important windbag.
Luke Curtis
wrote:
maybe that is what it is exactly meant to be? a family series which
will appeal to both kids and adults and I think it acheived that
admirably, you have the scene with the fake Mickey and the Dustbim for
the kids and Billie for the Dads and a simple but gripping plot to
support the main focus of the show, the characters.
I would hove loved nothing better that Dr Who to have come back as a
series of 2 hour movies with the look of the X-Files, an even bigger
budget that the large one that we have and have it aimed squarely at
adults but I am realistic enough to realise that the new series is not
aimed just at me, a 30+ year old adult, it *has* to be able to appeal
to the whole family as it has for the most of the 26 years it ran on
the original run.
--
ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere!Thekeytoanysecurity
systemishowit'sdesigned!Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode)
John Smith
> wrote:
>
>>Can't he just cut straight to his catchphrase, "Worst. Episode. Ever."?
>
> That reminds me.
>
> How long until we see the Comic Book Shop Guy mentioning the new
> series on the Simpsons?
There is an episode where Lenny and Carl are sword fighting and one says,
"Phantom Menace sucked more!" and the other says, "No, Attack of the Clones
sucked more!" These guys "get" lame - so I don't see any affectionate
references made to drwho in any other way than to their cartoon caricature
of Tom Baker. The shows place in history has a picture of Tom Baker next to
it. Anything after that, well, folks don't pay any mind to it chalking it up
to the vagaries of television. I doubt Matt Groening looks at the new Who
for more than a nano second, immediately sensing that there's nothing
there...
John Pertwee
Matt did like ten minutes on The Prisoner in one of his episodes. He
does not care if all of America gets the joke or not. If it amuses
him, it is in.
John Smith
Yes. Errm, I have no idea why you said that.
John Pertwee
I was making a point. Sorry that you missed it.