Classic VS. New

Scary wrote:

Doctor Who is Doctor Who. It phases me how people can 'prefer' parts of it and hate others. It is, in my mind, pathetic.

I've grown up with NuWho and I love it. I've watched a lot of classics and I love them all. Know why? Cos it's all the darn same.

So...do you love every single episode or do you prefer some to others?

I only ask because on some of your poll votes you absolutely gush over how great you thought it was & some you vote as good or average - it's almost like you have some kind of preference? Kinda like the preference some folk have over Classic Who as opposed to Nuwho.

workstinx wrote:

Scary wrote:

Doctor Who is Doctor Who. It phases me how people can 'prefer' parts of it and hate others. It is, in my mind, pathetic.

I've grown up with NuWho and I love it. I've watched a lot of classics and I love them all. Know why? Cos it's all the darn same.

So...do you love every single episode or do you prefer some to others?

You know what I mean. Prefering the Classics to NuWho or prefering NuWho to Classics is contradictive.

In regards to individual episodes, of course there are ones I like and don't like. I loved 'DW And the Silurians' but found 'Night Terrors' rather boring. Comparing classics and nuwho in that sense is, in my eyes, legit because it's all from the same series and franchise.

Scary wrote:

workstinx wrote:

Scary wrote:

Doctor Who is Doctor Who. It phases me how people can 'prefer' parts of it and hate others. It is, in my mind, pathetic.

I've grown up with NuWho and I love it. I've watched a lot of classics and I love them all. Know why? Cos it's all the darn same.

So...do you love every single episode or do you prefer some to others?

You know what I mean. Prefering the Classics to NuWho or prefering NuWho to Classics is contradictive.

In regards to individual episodes, of course there are ones I like and don't like. I loved 'DW And the Silurians' but found 'Night Terrors' rather boring. Comparing classics and nuwho in that sense is, in my eyes, legit because it's all from the same series and franchise.

Only pulling your leg Scary...having one of those days!

Who is a bit like James Bond.....not literally of course....when a franchise has different actors in the lead role, there comes a time when people start to prefer some over others. For me it's Tom Baker's Doctor & Sean Connery's Bond. Although saying that my favourite Bond movie didn't have Connery in the role & my favourite Who story didnt have Tom as the Doctor. It's horses for courses as the old saying goes!

NuWho never had Dominators, Kamelion or Sil.

Calixar wrote:

NuWho never had Dominators, Kamelion or Sil.

kamelion would be a fasinating character to bring back now with all the new capabilities of cgi and the fact that the show has been given a budget finally.

Calixar wrote:

NuWho never had Dominators, Kamelion or Sil.

So that's two points against, one point for

What CGren? No love for Sil? That actor was epic for me as a child. He only had two apearances, but I was scared by both.

Every time Sil spoke it made my skin crawl... and not in a good way. It was like trying to listen to someone with a snot bubble coming out of their nose.

But I agree about Kamelion. I think I posted something about it recently. Some of the creations in Japan recently would be excellent for the parts where it's a robot.

CGren123 wrote:

Calixar wrote:

NuWho never had Dominators, Kamelion or Sil.

So that's two points against, one point for

I concur.

So, the Dominators and Kamelion are seen as good things?
I hated the Dominators and thought Kamelion was poorly executed and clumsily handled. Why even write him in if he didn't work?

Calixar wrote:

So, the Dominators and Kamelion are seen as good things?
I hated the Dominators and thought Kamelion was poorly executed and clumsily handled. Why even write him in if he didn't work?

For me- I don't see the Dominators as a bad thing. Not a good thing, but still not bad... and of course the Quarks are definitely a good thing.

Kamelion was just a bad quirk of fate that the only one who could program it to work died after they introduced it.

Not according to the DVD documentary. On there they said it just didn't work right.

And, really... what I hate about the Dominators is the Quarks. They're horribly designed and the voices are comical at best. They're something that would make people laugh at the show.

Calixar wrote:

Not according to the DVD documentary. On there they said it just didn't work right.

And, really... what I hate about the Dominators is the Quarks. They're horribly designed and the voices are comical at best. They're something that would make people laugh at the show.

idk, i watched the classics as a kid and the only 1, and 2nd doc story i saw for many years was the dominators and an unearthly child because thats all pbs had. the thing you gotta remember is that the show esp then was made for kids, it was the late sixties, and the show had no real budget to make things better. when i was kid i loved that ep and i still do. i think though to be honest i'm alot more forgiving of pats stories because we have so few of them, i just happy to see him on the screen.

and not to be snarky in anyway just and observation, if three bad villians are all that irritated you in a show that ran 25 years i'd say thats pretty good. also any era of who has its mediocre villians and stories compared to its brilliant ones. ive watched fear her only one time in my life and never wanted to see it again, that little girls voice irritates me the way sil's voice irritates you. lol
i went back and watched vengence on varos recently and i was struck by how well that story line holds up and is very relevant to today. one of my fav colin stories.

Honestly I also would agree that new and old I love them both...it is the same show.

Classics- pacing is much different but one thing I do miss is the new show has such a crazy short format- sometimes it does suffer story wise.

Classic?
New?

Maybe it's because I jumped aboard during Season Four of "NuWho", but I fail to see the distinction. The writers change, the run times alter, but from An Unearthly Child to The God Complex, the show still "feels" the same.

Neither category is better or worse then the other. They have their failings, they have their successes, and they're both the same program.

I will say Journey's End can never be fully enjoyed until a person has viewed Genesis of the Daleks.

I just picked the first three things that came to mind, but really, I don't differentiate between the old and new. It's all the same show as far as I'm concerned.

Calixar wrote:

I just picked the first three things that came to mind, but really, I don't differentiate between the old and new. It's all the same show as far as I'm concerned.

calixar, i don't know how i missed the picture on your avatar but it is really funny.

The new (well... 2005 to present) series of Doctor Who is superior in every way, but it has the advantage of having come after the original series. It takes everything that was good about the original series, and delivers it with better writing, better pacing, better production standards, while staying faithful to the spirit of the original show. We can be eternally grateful that the revival of Who was handled by fans of the show, clever people who have put great care and thought into their creation.

Comparing original Who to New Who is a bit like comparing Jimi Hendrix to, I dunno, Frank Zappa. Zappa's style and skill was much more developed than Hendrix, but that style and sophistication would never have existed without Hendrix. Both are best understood within the context of their time.

I completely disagree. Better production, yes, but it ends there. Better writing? Sometimes. Not all the time. There are Classic episodes with superior writing than some NuWho episodes. But it can't really be argued since it's a matter of opinion.

And saying Zappa's style wouldn't have existed without Hendrix is utterly ridiculous. It makes me believe you haven't really listened to Zappa and were just throwing a random name out there.

rdks wrote:

I completely disagree. Better production, yes, but it ends there. Better writing? Sometimes. Not all the time. There are Classic episodes with superior writing than some NuWho episodes. But it can't really be argued since it's a matter of opinion.

I agree. Outside of the production value, I rank classic much superior to nu who.

In regards to writing, I'd take the few weak stories from the entire classic run over most of nu who. The general approach to me is far more serious... nu who is very much the kiddie show.
The companions and their dynamics between the Doc and themselves is also stronger in classic than the new series.

And of course nu who doesn't have serials, which in and of itself puts it lower in quality for my tastes.

Well, with all due respect, I stand by my opinion. On both Who, and Zappa.

Classic Who has some great, great episodes that I hold in high regard, but by and large, original Who is S-L-O-W... slow is fine, if you're in the mood for it, and sometimes I am. It has always been a kiddie-friendly show to some degree, but the subject matter and fear-factor in current episodes is more challenging than ever. And yes, there are some original Who episodes that I like more than some New-Who episodes. But in my personal opinion, there is nothing in all of classic who that can compare to episodes like Midnight, or Silence in the Library, or The Empty Child, or Blink, or The Doctor's Wife. But of course, everything that the new series is, it owes to classic Who. Hence the guitarist analogy.

I have all of Zappa's albums, And about 2/3rds of Jimi's stuff as well. Played guitar myself for 20 years. I can assure you that there is no such thing as a guitarist post 1970 that was not influenced by Hendrix, indirectly or otherwise. Of course, Zappa was around in the 60s too, but nevertheless, Jimi was a major influence on him - Frank even played one of Jimi's guitars for many of his concerts... and you can hear the Hendrix influence all over his work.
http://wiki.killuglyradio.com/wiki/Jimi_Hendrix
Hendrix was to guitar what Zephram Cochraine was to space travel (if.... Star Trek was real...) He was the first to break warp speed, he just couldn't do warp 9...
Anyway, that belongs in another thread on another forum somewhere...

Why does one have to be better than the other, every Doctor has had good and bad episodes, even the Amazing Tom Baker had dodgy stories, the important thing to remember is that bad Who is still better than anything else out there.

Doctor Detroit wrote:

Why does one have to be better than the other, every Doctor has had good and bad episodes, even the Amazing Tom Baker had dodgy stories, the important thing to remember is that bad Who is still better than anything else out there.

Amen.

SeaDevil wrote:

Doctor Detroit wrote:

Why does one have to be better than the other, every Doctor has had good and bad episodes, even the Amazing Tom Baker had dodgy stories, the important thing to remember is that bad Who is still better than anything else out there.

Amen.

I don't know. I think Eccleston managed to dodge the bad episode bullet

Eternal wrote:

Well, with all due respect, I stand by my opinion. On both Who, and Zappa.

Classic Who has some great, great episodes that I hold in high regard, but by and large, original Who is S-L-O-W... slow is fine, if you're in the mood for it, and sometimes I am. It has always been a kiddie-friendly show to some degree, but the subject matter and fear-factor in current episodes is more challenging than ever. And yes, there are some original Who episodes that I like more than some New-Who episodes. But in my personal opinion, there is nothing in all of classic who that can compare to episodes like Midnight, or Silence in the Library, or The Empty Child, or Blink, or The Doctor's Wife. But of course, everything that the new series is, it owes to classic Who. Hence the guitarist analogy.

I have all of Zappa's albums, And about 2/3rds of Jimi's stuff as well. Played guitar myself for 20 years. I can assure you that there is no such thing as a guitarist post 1970 that was not influenced by Hendrix, indirectly or otherwise. Of course, Zappa was around in the 60s too, but nevertheless, Jimi was a major influence on him - Frank even played one of Jimi's guitars for many of his concerts... and you can hear the Hendrix influence all over his work.
http://wiki.killuglyradio.com/wiki/Jimi_Hendrix
Hendrix was to guitar what Zephram Cochraine was to space travel (if.... Star Trek was real...) He was the first to break warp speed, he just couldn't do warp 9...
Anyway, that belongs in another thread on another forum somewhere...

its kinda funny that you guy's got this debate going because i play in two bands and teach guitar, and was walking around today thinking what would jimi have sounded like if clapton had never done cream? to me, thats the originator of all things loud, bluesy, and is pretty much what jimi modeled his style on. i think the disconnect in this arguement is yes jimi was a very influencial guitar player, but he owed his style to many who came before him, and he has many contemporaries who were doin things in the same vein. comparing him to zappa is an honor i'm sure for both but i don't recall jimi playing a bicycle on the steve allen show. don't get me wrong jimi is one of my fav guitar players, but for my money, its alvin lee and ten years after baby! now both of you shut up and play your guitar!