This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"Yes, having-my-head torn-open-and-hot-lava-poured-into-my-skull gifts."
11973 members | you are not logged in | 01 October 2020


April 25 2011

Television Without Pity ponders how Joss would reboot Doctor Who. Brief mention but worth it.

I'd watch it.

I love Joss but this should never ever happen.
We got Moffat already. Happy. No need for more.

[ edited by Darkness on 2011-04-25 15:19 ]
I was going to say "don't cross the streams" but then they said Amy Acker and now I'm reconsidering.
I love Joss, and would watch ANYTHING that he made, I also love doctor who, but I really don't think that doctor who needs a reboot.
Now if he wrote and/or directed an episode or two or had a cameo or something, then that would be awesome.
What faeryarbiter said.
I second what faeryarbiter said. However, will say that I wish the show got more Whedony than it does, and will say I wish it could go a bit Fringey with paradoxes and alternate earths. But looks like the new season will deliver.
What is this drive to Americanize Brit programs? An American reboot would be silly for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that each incarnation is somewhat a reboot. But Amy as the 12th Doctor would be just awesome.
Why do foreign television programmes originally made in English have to be Americanized at all? )I can vaguely see the point if the original wasn't in English and subtitles aren't seen as desirable.

It's like saying "if it's not American it's crap", which is so clearly not the case.

Make something original - American TV does that very well when it wants to.
We're all fully aware that Steven Moffat is the British Joss Whedon, right? ;)
Doctor Who is quintessentially British. Even with some of the best actors (or Joss), they would never be able to recapture what makes it special. No point in reinventing the wheel.
I always saw RTD as the British Joss, myself. Moffat is definitely British Minear though.
If the Doctor is played by Amy and there is a Dalek with a soul does that mean they sleep together?

How would you even film that? Can you imagine that? Go on, imagine that. You're imagining that, aren't you?
I think Saturday proved that Doctor Who is in safe hands.

A Joss-scripted episode of Who, though? That would make my century.
There's already been an Americanised version of Dr Who, it didn't too terribly well. Though you could argue that RTD took the best bits from American telly when rebooting Dr Who several years ago. I think he's said that on more than one occasion about the influence of US shows on Who especially Buffy. Anyway I must get back to watching Law and Order UK.
There's already been an Americanised version of Dr Who, it didn't too terribly well.

Ha, I just watched that today. Or tried to watch it. Didn't get past half way. :/

A Joss scripted ep would melt the entire universe, but I'm happy that The Moff's got everything under control.
Genre shows generally don't need to be localized (Americans don't need an American Doctor and I doubt anyone from the UK needs an English version of Star Trek.) It's such a niche fanbase, that I think as long as the story quality is good, both groups tend to enjoy what the other group has to offer.

It's your mass appeal shows that tend to require it. The Office, American/Pop Idol, etc. And I just think that has to do with the type of people who watch. Although in the case of the Office, I watched both and I love them both for completely different reasons.

Different sensibilities I suppose, I'm just happy there are more than a few people who appreciate both.
There's an article over at Bleeding Cool about the supposed Americanisation of Series 6.


I didn't realise the US got different opening credits than the UK.
That article also claims "much" of this season was shot in the U.S., which is patently false.

ETA that the credits thing was just for the premiere, I think. There's a lot in that article that laughably bad and/or wrong.

[ edited by The One True b!X on 2011-04-25 18:37 ]
I didn't realise the US got different opening credits than the UK.

We do? I didn't realize. Course that might be due to watching the absolutely-in-no-way-illegal episodes I usually obtain from completely legal sources.

The TV movie Doctor Who wasn't completely awful, as long as we're talking about Paul McGann and not the god-awful plot line.
I note the article namechecks Amy Acker, whom I adore, but surely Enver Gjokaj would be a better fit? Then he could play every Doctor, regardless of which regeneration, AND the Doctor's assistant Kiki.

Edited to add - I have no desire for a reboot but I'm also thinking a Whedony Dr Who & The Master might be fun.

[ edited by viewingfigures on 2011-04-25 20:07 ]
A Dalek with a soul!

As Darkness said above, I am thrilled with Moffat with occasional guest-written awesome such as the upcoming Neil Gaiman penned episode. I like it as Fringe-y or as un-Fringe-y as it is now, however :).
I'd love to see a Joss-written episode, but The Doctor is British. Poor Doctor Eight proved what happens when they try to make it transatlantic.

Now an ep written with Joss with AA as a guest star and perhaps a return of Captain John Hart? Yummy.
Some of these were mildly amusing - I like Joshua Malina as Sorkin's Doctor - but if ever something cool did not need a reboot (and their name is Legion because they are many; I'm looking at you, Buffy ReBooters) Dr. Who is that Another Something Already Cool needing to be left undisturbed in the hands of its creators.

And the UK accents & settings of various flavors are sacrosanct. Just leggo my Doctor, willya?
I'm not sure Captain John Hart is very DW friendly; this is still a family show. Wouldn't be opposed to seeing him on Torchwood again though.
It's like saying "if it's not American it's crap", which is so clearly not the case.

In my experience it tends to be more a case of American media producers super-imposing their own lacks of comprehension for foreign viewpoints (a disturbingly common trait) onto their business models of the American public. It's rampant in American news reporting as well (and never fails to tick me off!)
Oh gosh no. I love some Joss TV/Film stuff but there are plenty of great ideas that are in need of a reboot, and I'm sure has even better ones in his head. Doctor Who is fine without him. Though Mark Sheppard was pretty great. I hope he makes recurring.
This may not go over well, but just giving my honest opinion and I love Joss Whedon as much as all of you. Honestly though, I don't think Joss could do Doctor Who. We always say Joss is best with character work, which is true. Doctor Who sometimes has very complex, over the top plotlines developed over the course of a season, with little clues everywhere and tons of sci fi mumbo jumbo explaining everything

Personally, I don't think Joss is the best when it comes to overly complex plotlines. The last two Buffy seasons are proof of that. He has had trouble even keeping the slayer mythology straight and then there was the whole Twilight thing in season 8, which didn't make sense to a lot of people.

I think Twilight is actually a very good example of Joss attempting a very Doctor Who like plot and it didn't work. Doctor Who has absolutely insane, over the top storylines like that on a regular basis but they make it work somehow. In one story they actually destroyed the universe, rebuilt it from scratch, then pulled Doctor Who out of oblivion because one person had memories of him. A story about a universe trying to suck the magic out of another one because of some vampire and vampire slayer being in love would be child's play for the Who writers I think. They would have made it work

Firefly was brilliant because it was more about the characters than the plot and Dollhouse worked well when focusing on how the technology affects everyone. Joss does characters better than he does plot in my humble opinion. Witty dialogue and humor he excels at too so those aspects of Doctor Who he would easily pull off
I may have to hand in my Nerd Card, but can I ask what the deal is with "Doctor Who"? I don't mean this antagonistically; I'm genuinely curious. I've asked people before, and not really gotten an answer.

Basically, I want to like it. I want to watch it and get it and all that. However, I watched what I believe was the pilot of the relaunch, and I feel like I just don't get it. So, really, what's it all about? And by that I mean is it heading toward some sort of end game? Like, "Buffy" was always heading toward Buffy being a normal girl, and within each season, there was a Big Bad to defeat. "Sliders" was all about getting back home. "Daybreak" was about solving the crime. All of these had an "about," and I'm just wondering what the long term "about" is in "Doctor Who." Again, I'm not bashing it. Enough people who I respect have declared their love for it, so I know it's awesome and probably brilliant, but can someone tell me why? Thanks so much.
Every season of the revived Doctor Who has an arc. Not every episode of each season is about that arc. (Then again, the same could be said for Buffy.)

[ edited by The One True b!X on 2011-04-25 23:21 ]
The "end game" is exploring all aspects of human nature and celebrating the good bits. It straddles lots of genres and aims to delight, terrify, enlighten and inspire... Or has been recently said, it is "the triumph of intellect and romance over brute force and cynicism.". I could probably go on endlessly about what's great about it: inventive and ever changing storytelling/focus, fantastic acting, memorable characters and an underlying message about our better natures and our curiosity triumphing over the Bid Bads out there in the end. So its sort of about there always being hope and a chance. If the RTD run return wasn't necessarily for you, maybe give the Moffat/Smith era a try (S5/S6 aka 32/33)? I could go on for many many words :).

People talk (even RTD) about his Buffy influence, but I always have felt that Moffat's style was more Whedon-esque.
Joss as a head writer for Doctor Who probably wouldn't ever work, for the reasons you stated, but for Joss to write an episode, that wouldn't be an issue, since season arc stuff is in the hands of the head writer, not single episode writers. Because while the show is arc-heavy, it's also very much based on stand-alone episodes. Each episode (or occasional couple of episodes) is its own self-contained story, which ties into the season arc in some way (whether by character development or by direct plot connection). As such, it's a perfect show for guest writers. And since it's such a broad show, which basically allows for any setting at any time in the past, present or future, pretty much any kind of sci-fi story can be told in it. Thus, I think Joss writing an episode would be a very interesting thing. However, not gonna happen. Not any time soon, anyway.
There's quite a lot wrong with that article. "Much of" series six isn't shot in the states -- just the Utah segments in The Impossible Astronaut and Day of the Moon. And Martha was always a one season companion. Read The Writer's Tale; they'd filmed her final episode well before series three even began airing. It wasn't public reaction.
Joss should definitely do a Doctor Who ep. but, I never,ever, I want an american Doctor Who. it wouldn't make any sense.
also, maybe I'm insane, but I'd really like to see Joss and Aaron Sorkin collaborate on a project.
their powers of dialogue combined would make it the craziest,thickest,script ever
I'd like to seem him do an episode since he has lived in England and could give it an interesting take (like Richard Curtis did with Vincent.) Not showrunner, no.
Xanman: Doctor Who is about an alien called The Doctor with two hearths who travels trough Time and Space in a british police Box that is bigger in the inside, usually with a female companion, sometimes somebody else in adition. When he is about to die, he can regenerate, changing his entire body, so the series has been on since 1963 (with a break after cancelation during the 90ies and a continuation since 2005) changing main actor if necesary; the current is the eleventh incarnation of the Doctor.

Usually its an adventure series with self contained stories; in the classic era it used one story from 4 to 8 epiosdes, now ist usually a story per 45 minutes, plus two two-parters and a two-thre episodes finale.

Of course time changes; what used to be just the telling of a compelling sci-fantasy narrative, is now taking many of modern arc structures in sight; with the last head-producer-writer (Davies) it used to be more one adventure per episode, self contained, with some, maybe, series-arc dramatic relationship, and one shadow or hint of a major game in that particular season that paid off at the end; with the current head producer-writer, Moffat, the overall arc is more important.

Thats another thing about doctor who; its not anybodys baby. Imagine Buffy, the concept of Buffy, lasting 40 years on tv; now you have Joss as Head producer, or after him Neil Gaiman, or after him Douglas Adams (he was head producer on WHO) or Sorkin... Each and every one, with his own take on the character, his own style...

Thats exactly Who; if you dont like Davies take, you might like Moffats, or viceversa; or you might like Robert Holmes and Hichcliffe version... You never known. Doctor Who is a great concept, a fantastic creation, an idea... told by many storytellers, each one his own way (and their own stories and their own aboust); there have been better times, and there have been worse times.

And it gives great oportunity; imagine, all of time and space, sometimes being a comedy, or an action movie, or a fantasy adventure... It can be one thing or the other with ease, facilitating variety and posibility.

Rose, by the way, wich is the title ot the relaunch episode of 2005, is a weird one; it really does not represent neither the style nor content of the show under his producers realm.

Try it; if it doesnt convince you, you might try Moffats versiom starting with the epiosde THe Eleventy Hour, fifth series. Moffman himself has confessed that it is a good starting point.

By the way, its a family show; tending mostly towards children as a basis from which grow toward the whole spectrum. Its not childish, but a proper family show that at his best achieves really giving something to son, father and grandfather alike, treating them all as inteligent beings; to me a good story is a good story, and Who has plenty of good stories, but you might want to keep it in mind.
@XanMan: It took me a while to like the Who-Man. Though I'd seen it around most of my life in its earlier incarnations, it wasn't something that interested me until it returned in 2005 with Christopher Eccleston, and even then, it took me a while to see it as something special.

I was really won over by David Tennant's Doctor, and yet made the transition to the Matt Smith Doctor with a sigh, but a minimum of fuss. I like him loads, but he is a very different animal.

One of the things that I like about it - in addition to the stuff that zeitgeist and others have mentioned - is that it's family-friendly, and yet contains darkness, loss, pain, failure - the other side of life that some creators try to wipe out of material as "unsuitable for children".

But - like fairytales - children get it, and it's so much better than some of the pablum that's shoved down children's throats as "wholesome". It shows a world in which brains and courage matter, yet in which random bad stuff nonetheless happens, and some things are just out of our hands.

But they keep soldiering on - in little (ever-changing but still reassuring) found-families very similar to those in Joss' fictional worlds.

Humor mixed with pathos, respect for diversity and lifeforms different than your own, danger (but not too much), order and chaos - it's got the lot.

(And I didn't mention this in my earlier post, but I'd love to see a Joss-penned-and-directed episode.)
Americans need to realise that the charm of a show lies in the country of Origin. look how their remake of Kath and Kim went down. Didn't appeal to Aussies or Americans, and was plain old horrible and unfunny. It was the Aussie Ockerness of the original that appealed to Aussies and Americans alike. Similarly, Doctor Who appeals to people because of his British sense of humour and charming accent.

That said, I liked the McGann movie, but then it was Cannon, so I guess there wasn't so much of a problem as those non Cannon extra doctors.

I would also be up for a female doctor, or hell a non Caucasian doctor, even if it was just a temporary body switch or something.
I just recently delved into the Whoverse. Really, it's all James Marsters's fault, cause he had to go and be on Torchwood, which then led me to Captain Jack and then, of course....the Doctor.

Xanman, stick with it. It's worth the effort. The Doctor has confusing timelines, pop cultural references, highbrow artsy stuff, and really powerful stories. The characters are very well developed, even the guest stars.

I found the first few episodes of the reboot a little rough, but then wasn't Season 1 of Buffy rough? By the end of Season 1, I was in love with Rose and the Doctor. I thought that I could never make the jump to Tennant, but then I did. I just finished Season 5 and was blown away. The effects are better, the story is more complicated and the acting rocks. They have really awesome creepy villians in this reboot too - the Weeping Angels.

As for Joss writing a Doctor Who episode, I say NO. Who would he kill? They all die or regenerate or leave anyways. He'd have to focus on a going after a constant, cause he can't help himself. The only constant, besides the Doctor, is the Tardis. Yup, Whedon would obliterate the Tardis and it would take many, many episodes for the Doctor to rebuild it.

Hmmm, maybe that's not such a bad idea....
However, I watched what I believe was the pilot of the relaunch, and I feel like I just don't get it. So, really, what's it all about?

I had the same problem starting with "Rose." Just keep going, at least through "Dalek." There are farting aliens and possessed corpses, it's a little hard at first. But then it gets awesome.
Even the McGann movie had a British lead, writer and director. It was filmed in Canada, and at least we're related to Britain. :)
Technically, America also is related to Britain.
I had the same problem starting with "Rose."

Yeah - just this past summer I decided to re-visit the Whovian Realm as dimly remembered from my early(-er) years. I started with the Fourth Doctor (because, growing up in my house, Tom Baker WAS The Doctor) and proceeded to watch every single audiovisual installment in chronological order with a blind eye towards taste (and let me tell you - there are some really impressive stinkers in there) until I got to the start of the reboot, started to watch Rose and turned it off half way through. In comparison to the first run the whole feel of it just seemed so foreign and ...painfully contemporarily trendy that I just couldn't take it.
I grew up on Tom Baker, watched through part of Colin Baker. I adore the revival, which contains some of the best scifi writing of the last five years.
Y'all're great. Okay, I'm definitely giving it another go, especially since the first four seasons (of the reboot) seem to be available as Instant Views on Netflix.

I think comparing the roughness of the first bit to the roughness of "Buffy"'s first season is a perfect way for me to think about it, because yeah, that first season gets watched a lot less than the rest these days.

Also, Sunfire, telling me which episode to watch through before giving up on it is great. That's how it was with "Battlestar Galactica" for me. I had some trouble being in love with it, even throughout the whole first season. I was gonna give up on it, but someone said, "Give it until Pegasus shows up. When that happens, you'll know what I mean. If you're not into it by then, it's just not for you." Another friend told me to give "Lost" until "Walkabout." Sure enough, but both those points, I was hooked.

Again, thanks to you all. :)
XanMan: Yeah, keep going with it, because it's worth it. I just started a while back, and yeah, farting aliens, really? I kind of understood why some people liked it, but thought it was just to silly for me. But I decided to give it one more chance, and watch one more episode, which was Dalaks, (EXTERMINATE!!!) then I was hooked. It's worth it, really.

But listen, if you do watch it and just don't get it, that's fine too. We are still aloud to have different opinions after all.
Don't know if this has been mentioned already, but does anyone else feel like Matt Smith is a bit of a nicer Doctor. I felt like Tennant had a noticeable dark side to him that I haven't seen in Matt Smith's portrayal of the character.. It's not a bad thing, but it is a very noticeable difference that I find very interesting. Matt Smith feels like a very different doctor than the last two were
XanMan, Doctor Who is an important aspect of the modern British culture... I grew up behind the Iron Curtain, so I didn't get to watch it when I was a child, but my other half watched it throughout his childhood. It's the only show that we religiously watch together. The thing to remember is that it was originally intended as a kids' show -- and it very much appeals to my inner child.

It's SF, it's funny, it's fun, it's scary, it's dark, it's quirky (with its quirkiness growing with each next Doctor), it's clever, sometimes it doesn't quite make sense but manages to remain enjoyable -- and it's a SF show that won't get cancelled half way through the season. Anyway, that's why it works for me. Doesn't necessarily mean it would work for everyone.

Some episodes are pure masterpieces. "Midnight" (s4) can stand next to "Hush", as far as I am concerned. The only problem I had with the RTD era (the first four 'new' seasons) that it tended to get maudlin at times (and also some padding took place in double episodes), but Moffat has avoided these pitfalls so far. And, Steven Moffat must be my second most favourite TV writer after Joss.
Don't know if this has been mentioned already, but does anyone else feel like Matt Smith is a bit of a nicer Doctor.

@Arkham258: Absolutely. Tennant's Doctor was still very angry over the Time War, and tended to shout. A LOT. While Smith has kinda moved on a bit, he isn't as bitter, just... resigned? Cant find the right word. But funnily enough, I see more potential darkness in Matt Smith than I ever saw in Tennant. They don't call him The Oncoming Storm for nothing.

@Effulgent: "Midnight" equal to Hush? Really? A found that ep pretty woeful. The best RTD-era episodes where the Moffat penned ones, "Blink" probably being the best. My favourite RTD episode would maybe be "Waters of Mars."
In theory, there are only 12 regens right? Although I had heard they plan to ignore that rule completely. So we only get one more doctor?

I'm just worried about how old he's going to be. the reboot had Eccleston, then Tennant, now Smith. All decreasing quite a bit in Age. I Think the next Doctor is going to be 5 and hang out with Barney as his Companion! I had issues with how old Tennant appeared to be honest, and Smith is almost laughable. I know he ooze self confidence, but let's face it, Smith looks about 20-25 most of the time and how many people are going to trust someone who appears that young to know better than them? Even the "young" Doctor in the original, wasn't that young.
Arkham258, I actually think Matt Smith's version is a bit of a dick. Or, can be, and I find that fascinating. I also think his own darkness is being masked. Christmas Carol, in reality, is a pretty dark look at what a Time Lord is capable of if he happens to feel he's justified, but wrapped up in a pretty bow to distract us from it.
If there are 12 regenerations then that means there'd be 13 doctors right? (Counting William Hartnell/the first, who presumably was just born?)

Also I'm not really sure why people are getting into a serious debate about this, I can't believe with how big it is in the UK that they would try and spawn an American version meant to stand totally on its own?

That said, all of these gag versions do have grains of truth/verisimilitude, minus the Grey's Anatomy version. Particularly the Whedon one but the Sorkin take isn't too terrible nor the Abrams one. I get the feeling Dan Harmon's version probably would star Joel McHale as much as I really love Donald Glover too. For that matter, maybe Anthony Stewart Head would get the proper chance as The Doctor rather than just a baddie.

Also, what was all this speak of the US version of the premiere getting different titles? I watched on-demand but admittedly may have left the room during the credits. Are these on Youtube or anything? Since I tentatively have no problem with this if they were just hoping to be new viewer friendly without actively altering the episode's content.

Like Pushing Daisies apparently got a lengthier credit sequence in foreign markets where they played the whole theme song even if the US and its DVDs were all just the 8 second snippet.
If there are 12 regenerations then that means there'd be 13 doctors right? (Counting William Hartnell/the first, who presumably was just born?)

This is as it's generally understood. Relatedly, .
@Kaan, I found "Midnignt" brilliant, dark and unsettling. It was also an interesting concept, and great tension-building. One of the things I like about the episode is that it breaks quite a few conventions established in Doctor Who. It definitely takes the audience out of its comfort zone.

About the regeneration rule, in good SF and fantasy you don't break rules -- you find exceptions to them while maintaining that these rules still stand. Vampire with a soul. Two (or more) Slayers. Vampires can't have babies, etc.

In any case, articles like this bother me. Movie blogs spend an awful lot of time voicing their desire to see such and such properties remade, rebooted, adapted, continued, etc -- particularly properties that don't need to be remade, rebooted or continued.

Naturally, it's kind of hard to write articles about properties that do not yet exist, even if the blogger's greatest desire is to see new and fresh content. But the current lack of originality of movies and shows coming from Hollywood may be to some extent a response to this endless stream of 'my dream reboot' articles that creates a perception that we, the audience, want Hollywood to recycle rather than create.

[ edited by Effulgent on 2011-04-26 07:40 ]
It's fascinating to me how extremely divided is opinion on "Midnight". To this day I've never re-watched it because I couldn't stand it, on par with "Voyage of the Damned", which I never even finished.
I hated Midnight too. Was pure annoyance.
Liked 'Midnight' a lot personally (and normally I take some convincing where RTD's scripts are concerned), as Effulgent says there was genuine tension throughout and I enjoyed the way it took everything good about The Doctor and twisted it, showed us how his slightly aloof arrogance only needs the tiniest of nudges to become something altogether less wholesome (it's also one of the few episodes of the new series where we effectively see him lose). As I said at the time over on the .org, monsters are scary to our inner 8 year olds but it's easy to step back because they're not real. The darkness at all our centres, the speed with which a group can become an unthinking mob and subsume the individual though ? That's a terror for all ages.

As to the article, amusing in parts, inaccurate in others (The Doctor isn't a virgin for instance - he's had a canonical granddaughter which presumably means at least one child which presumably means at some point in his past, a bit of slap and tickle ;) and at root based on a fundamentally silly premise - The Doctor should never, ever, EVER be American. Simples as that.

(even the Fox/BBC co-production - a lot of which I liked BTW - had the sense to cast a British Doctor)

Where Joss specifically is concerned, I feel kind of the same way I do about a Big Purp 'Star Trek' - for it to be the sort of thing he's either interested in or good at it'd have to change to become something utterly different and I like both just the way they are. Also, as others have said, we already have Moffat who's a writer maybe on a par with Joss AND who understands The Doctor and his absurdly comic, deadly serious, tiny, huge, rational, fantastical world like only a lifelong fan could. That said, a Joss penned episode would be amazing, just to see how he'd do it.
I had no idea reaction to Midnight was so varied. It's always been my favourite RTD-scripted episode.
Technically, America also is related to Britain.

We didn't get divorced.

Put me down for the Midnight love.
It's always been my favourite RTD-scripted episode.

Mine too, maybe apart from 'The End of Time Pt II' (particularly from the knocks onwards) just cos... y'know.

Meant to mention Elisabeth Sladen above BTW. That news hit me a bit harder than I thought it would, like a part of my youth went with her. I'll miss her way more than makes sense for someone I never even met.
After repeatedly failing to "get" Doctor Who as a kid, I wanted to give it another shot because Torchwood appealed to me. It did take a couple episodes to grab, but having Christopher Eccleston DEFINITELY helped. I've been enjoying it since, and have liked the newer Doctors and companions. It's been fun, it's been creepy, it made me cry over an invisible space chicken. Great stuff.

As an aside, I had a dream that they launched an animated Doctor Who in the US. It still had Matt Smith doing the Doctor, but he had different (and american) companions. It seemed weird to me in the dream that they were developing two continuities with the same Doctor, but the cartoon was pretty fun (the animated title sequence was neat).
Interesting article. Though I'm still convinced that if American producers are obsessed with remaking foreign films and TV shows they should start with The Human Centipede :p

(Though Shameless is one of the exceptions and The Killing is shaping up to be the same.)

The second article is ridiculous. The writer seems to be under the impression that Doctor Who is like an American network show where the later episodes are filmed while the earlier ones are broadcast. The comparison she wants is with cable TV where you film the series then it is broadcast.

Also, I may have been hibernating at the time, but I really don't remember any backlash against Martha.

I'd love to see a Joss written/directed episode or two parter, especially if he manages to convince a certain Mr. N. Fillion to join him.

(I'm also copnvinced that TVW/OP have been picking my brain since I wrote an identical article for a Doctor who fanzine two years ago...)
Doctor Who needs a reboot already? Why?
I quite like "Midnight" - although it has some too on-the-nose beats that make me cringe a little, it also has some truly great moments. It stirs up the emotions, that's for sure...

But I'm especially fond of it because I'm a big Lesley Sharp fan.* I think she's riveting.

* And it's the first time I ever saw our Merlin-boy, Colin Morgan.
Kind of redundant. Russell T Davies pretty much did it already. Joss Whedon might have told different stories, but the style and basic principles were very much designed after early Buffy. (Under Moffat, I think it's evolved into a very different show.) From my point of view it made a very comforting replacement for the Buffyverse when the new series started up just after the end of Angel.
@electricspacegirl it's already had two this century!!
The Moffat/Smith Who is categorically not a reboot (despite how it was being spun early on) with at least one character from the 10th Doctor playing a pivotal role in the current series (and there've been subtle hints that there might even be more to it than that - I wouldn't be totally shocked if Moffat was pulling a 'Dark Tower' and tying some of his earlier stuff into the current episodes/arc). Strictly, neither's the RTD one for that matter (the story continued and - as far as is possible with Who - stayed true to previous continuity. They restarted at the 9th incarnation for instance, not the 1st). Revamping != rebooting.

I quite like "Midnight" - although it has some too on-the-nose beats that make me cringe a little...

Yeah, fair comment QG. That's true of pretty much every Russell T Davies episode though IMO, 'Midnight' had about the lowest count for one of his.
It's what I'd call a 'soft reboot', Saje - reinventing the format without contradicting anything that's gone before. (Although what kind of reboot happened in last year's finale is rather beyond me...)

Still, in Moffat's own words, there's no such thing as canon in a show about time travel. ;)
Certainly not now that "time can be re-written" (ultimate permission to retcon if ever I heard it). True, Who is maybe the best known show where the default position (almost by necessity) is a sort of fanon i.e. everyone has their own canon picked from 48 years of continuity across several different media, so long as your personal canon is a subset of what you could call the maximal canon it's fine. Also true, strictly they could say "[Almost] all bets are off" after Big Bang II if they wanted. Maybe they still will.

Re: 'soft reboot', much as I like the term/idea in this context i'm still not really convinced. The format stayed exactly the same for instance (mad-man in a box has adventures through time and space gaining/losing travelling companions along the way) - after all, why change possibly the best story engine ever created ? - only the way the stories are told changed slightly with more emphasis on character depth (quite rightly, TV's moved on a lot since 1989, nevermind 1963). 'Reboot' to me includes an element of re-initialising, going back to the beginning - nuWho either series "one" or "five" doesn't do that, certainly not in the clear sense that e.g. 'Casino Royale', 'Batman Begins' or 'Battlestar Galactica' do. You could maybe make a case that every new Doctor is a sort of 'soft reboot' though, like a new beginning (as well as a perfect place for new viewers to jump on), it's just a new beginning where most of the previous state's preserved.

Six and half-a-dozen/angels on pins at the end of the day though ;).
Slightly off topic but related, I was genuinely surprised by how boldy J.J.Abrams Star Trek movie basically threw canon in the garbage, yet did it in a way that made sense

I thought that would have pissed off a lot of Star Trek fans, but I guess it's not so bad if you simply view it as an alternate timeline
Yeah it's fairly easy to fan-nudge (like fan-wanking but less fun ;) it into an alternate reality, the existences of which are a Trek staple. To long-time fans the reboot crew are never going to be the real crew anyway, not really really (and I don't mean that to be derogatory BTW, as a Trek fan from knee-high I liked the reboot quite a bit).

[ edited by Saje on 2011-04-27 19:36 ]

This thread has been closed for new comments.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.

joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home