The really odd thing about this Dr. Who radio documentary is that every now and then, you can actually hear Tony Head pause and fidget with his glasses.

Serapion | March 30, 13:11 CET

Serapion said
Ha ha ha, actually last week I thought how un-Giles he sounded, though there was no evidence of his alleged Cockney accent. I'll miss tonight's as I'll be on my way home.
Wasn't Dr Who jolly good on Saturday?

JudithS | March 30, 17:03 CET

Tony Head would of made quite a good Doctor Who, rather then hosting the radio preview. Hope the RIPPER tv movie some day happens.

SeanValen | March 30, 17:46 CET

The first episode was great fun. Christopher Eccleston is a hoot and one of my favourite actors to boot so all good really. And who would have thought Billie Piper could act so well?

I await the inevitable crossover fan fic where the Tardis materalises in a certain L.A. alleyway and the ninth Doctor tells Angel, Illyria, Spike and Gunn to hop in.

Simon | March 30, 17:53 CET

So it was just me that was really disappointed with Doctor Who last Saturday then? I thought it was awful. I honestly felt like i was watching one of those cheap looking Childrens BBC fantasy dramas i used to watch as a kid.

Admittedly i'm not very familiar with Doctor Who. My earliest recollections of the show were the last years of Sylvester McCoy so i'm hardly what you could describe as a fan, however i was hoping for a lot more than what we got last weekend. Whilst i realise that the BBC doesn't have the kind of special effects budget that the U.S. networks have i still hoped for more advancement than that. I've seen better special effects on Red Dwarf, and that is saying something!

Christopher Eccleston didn't impress me either, i personally think he took the over the top, edgy Doctor routine just a little too far. Billie did a good job though, in fact she is the main reason i'm going to continue to give Doctor Who a chance to grow on me. I wouldn't condemn it on the strength of one episode anyway but at least she gives me a real reason to look forward to the next one.

Hopefully it will improve but i think they are going to need to find something a lot more interesting to open the next episode with than walking mannequins to keep the ratings up. Maybe shows like Buffy and Angel have spoiled me a little but it takes more than that to impress me.

Kaine | March 30, 18:12 CET

Warlock said:

Aha, if you thought that looked cheap, you should have seen it in the 1960s and '70s! I never saw the McCoy ones but judging by the comments on Outpost Gallifrey, his era is considered the nadir. The only way to play sci-fi straight nowadays is to chuck oodles of dosh at it so it looks as good as the X-Files did in its heyday, and the BBC will never do that. You have to kind of approach Dr Who with the "right" state of mind and suspend your disbelief, and you either you love it or hate it.

Simon said: Oooh, I'd read that!

JudithS | March 30, 20:42 CET

I'm eagerly awaiting the first visit of this series to the Cornish gravel pit where most of Tom Baker's stories seemed to be filmed. How they never bumped into Blake's 7 I'll never know!

Anyway, back onto a Joss-verse topic I remember seeing a 'making of' about Buffy seasons 1 to something (I think its on the S3 DVD box set, but I digress) where the effects on Season 1 were bemoaned and the producers said how glad they were to get more cash for subsequent seasons.
To say that I was gobsmacked would be under selling the point - having grown up watching 1970's Dr Who and so forth and not watched much effects-y TV in between, Buffy was a revelation!

Bill Door | March 30, 20:56 CET

Bill, I have to say I never found the early Buffy effects at all disappointing. Nor did I notice that the film was grainy, until it suddenly got better!

JudithS | March 30, 20:58 CET

The effects in early Buffy weren't bad, the vamp makeup looked a little weird, and the dustings were nowhere as near as good as they got, but at least they were better than the dustings in the unaired pilot.

Doctor Who on Saturday was great, and the ratings were good too, here's hoping that the show stays on the air for many years to come.

Simon said:

Ah, so that's how Wesley is brought back.

Ghost Spike | March 31, 00:21 CET

I have to say I loved the first episode of the new Dr Who. Without wishing to be controversial in any way, dare I say that as an introductory episode it was stronger than Welcome to the Hellmouth which had twice as long a running time to get you hooked.

prospero | March 31, 01:11 CET

That was fast, the BBC have now commissioned a second (or twenty-eighth, whichever way you want to look at it) season of Doctor Who, and a Christmas special, not sure about the idea of a christmas special, but it'll be nice to break the wait between seasons one and two.

Ghost Spike | March 31, 01:21 CET

Well, i guess it really was just me then! :)

Prospero, i really can't agree about it being a stronger opening episode than Welcome to the Hellmouth. By the end of that (and i do mean WttH, not The Harvest, so the episode length was the same) i was absolutely hooked and never missed an episode of either Buffy or Angel from then onwards. With Doctor Who i found myself very distracted half way through with the need to go make coffee.

I am willing to be converted though so i'll stick around. It gives me something to watch before i go out on a Saturday at least.

Kaine | March 31, 01:38 CET

Well they have commissioned a second season but they will need a new Doctor

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4395849.stm

[ edited by garda39 on 2005-03-31 01:51 ]

[ edited by garda39 on 2005-03-31 01:55 ]

[ edited by garda39 on 2005-03-31 01:56 ]

garda39 | March 31, 03:49 CET

From the BBC article -



Typecast? After one season? Huh?

Got to be more to it than that methinks!

Ah well, to be truthful i think it was his take on the Doctor that was a large part of me not loving the show. Maybe a new Doctor for the next series will help me get into it a little more.

Plus, Billie is still there, all good! :)

Kaine | March 31, 03:55 CET

Well that annoys me, they decided to go with a new doctor rather than Paul McGann (who I reckon would have been a good Doctor), and the actor quits after one season.

I wouldn't think the Doctor would be the type of role an actor would take (he asked for it as well) if they didn't want to be typecast, because he's going to be remembered for a long time as the 9th Doctor, the Doctor that brought the show back after 9 years.

Waste of a regeneration.

Ghost Spike | March 31, 04:05 CET

Yes, Ghost Spike and Warlock. It is very disappointing and I wonder why he has announced it so soon?

I know there are more important things going on in the world at the moment yet I cannot help feeling upset!

JudithS | March 31, 14:16 CET

warlock, I guess it just shows how subjective these things are. Season one didn't really grab me and it wasn't really until prophecy girl that I was rocked by how great Buffy actually is. I definitely found it a slow burner to begin with. And I don't think it really hit its stride until season two - and there's so many series you can say that about. In fact, the only show that I think nailed the 'i'm hooked' factor from the pilot is Firefly. Just think it's slightly a shame that the new Who is getting jumped on after its first 45 minutes. Mind you, having the lead actor bail so soon is really not helping...

prospero | March 31, 23:40 CET