Classic VS. New

Classic episodes feel slow to me sometimes, but when I try to watch them wrong,all episodes together. When I watch them 1 part at a time, it is much better. Most of the time.

CGren123 wrote:

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

Here here.

NuWho got me into Classic Who, which in turn deepened my appreciation of the show immensely. There can't be one without the other in my mind.

Vincent And The Doctor, The Doctor's Wife, The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances, Blink, The Silence In The Library two parter and the Human Nature two parter (and the big reveal of the Master with Derek Jacobi) are the best Who has ever been, but anything in Classic Who is better than the rest of Matt Smith's run. I'd watch Paradise Towers over that Silurian fiasco.

hitman hart wrote:

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!

I'm not a music professional of any kind, but the originator of all things bluesy would have to be the blues. Robert Johnson, Howlin' Wolf, Muddy Waters, Son House, BB King, Elmore James, etc.

Well, the whole guitarist thing was just meant to be a simple analogy for the influence classic who has on Nu-Who... artist A influences artist B, who takes the ideas to the next level... Hendrix certainly had his influences too, just as you could say that original Who is influenced by H.G. Wells and Jules Verne.

Hendrix was also influenced by Zappa - who introduced him to the Wah pedal... but anyhoo, that just muddles up my original analogy...

Dr. Who is the longest running show ever, as you are no-doubt aware. The quality and nature of it has varied drastically over those 40-something years. My impression is that the standards applied to Who in the 70s were much higher than they were in most (not all) of the 80s. Troughton, Pertwee and Baker enjoyed a fairly high standard of writing and acting on the show, whereas Davidson, and certainly Colin Baker, experienced a decline in those standards. Standards picked up again near the end of McCoy's era. This is speaking in very general terms, every Doctor had their good and bad episodes (with the possible exception of Eccleston, I agree, season 1 of Nu-Who was darn good... in no small part due to Eccles himself...)
Perhaps the variation in the quality of classic Who was a reflection of how seriously the BBC took the show at the time, and a reflection of ratings.
To the credit of the show and it's various caretakers, there has never been (in my opinion) a doctor that sucked, although some of them had less to work with than others. The role of the Doctor has never gone to anyone who wasn't up to the task.
Doctor Who as a TV show has now reached a level of international success that is unprecedented in its history, and the standards of writing and acting have been consistently high in the new series so far, though certainly not above criticism. But what show in TV history stands above criticism? The Muppet show perhaps, I don't see how that show could ever be criticised...
I guess what I'm saying is that sometimes classic who was cheap and nasty, but Nu-Who hasn't been around long enough to suffer that fate. Yet...
And I agree with the idea that old and new Who are essentially the same show, existing through the circumstances of different times.

Eternal wrote:

Well, the whole guitarist thing was just meant to be a simple analogy for the influence classic who has on Nu-Who... artist A influences artist B, who takes the ideas to the next level... Hendrix certainly had his influences too, just as you could say that original Who is influenced by H.G. Wells and Jules Verne.

Hendrix was also influenced by Zappa - who introduced him to the Wah pedal... but anyhoo, that just muddles up my original analogy...

Dr. Who is the longest running show ever, as you are no-doubt aware. The quality and nature of it has varied drastically over those 40-something years. My impression is that the standards applied to Who in the 70s were much higher than they were in most (not all) of the 80s. Troughton, Pertwee and Baker enjoyed a fairly high standard of writing and acting on the show, whereas Davidson, and certainly Colin Baker, experienced a decline in those standards. Standards picked up again near the end of McCoy's era. This is speaking in very general terms, every Doctor had their good and bad episodes (with the possible exception of Eccleston, I agree, season 1 of Nu-Who was darn good... in no small part due to Eccles himself...)
Perhaps the variation in the quality of classic Who was a reflection of how seriously the BBC took the show at the time, and a reflection of ratings.
To the credit of the show and it's various caretakers, there has never been (in my opinion) a doctor that sucked, although some of them had less to work with than others. The role of the Doctor has never gone to anyone who wasn't up to the task.
Doctor Who as a TV show has now reached a level of international success that is unprecedented in its history, and the standards of writing and acting have been consistently high in the new series so far, though certainly not above criticism. But what show in TV history stands above criticism? The Muppet show perhaps, I don't see how that show could ever be criticised...
I guess what I'm saying is that sometimes classic who was cheap and nasty, but Nu-Who hasn't been around long enough to suffer that fate. Yet...
And I agree with the idea that old and new Who are essentially the same show, existing through the circumstances of different times.

I don't mean to squash your last point here, friend, but the old and new Who ARE the same show. It's not Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation. Those were two very different shows. Doctor Who is ONE show, as evidenced by the lack of a name change, the use of familiar aliens and old characters returning (infrequenctly.)

They ARE one and the same.

It's not that they're the same show, but they are in continunity with each other like TNG being a continuation of TOS. They restarted the series numbering afterall.

Shatterbang wrote:

hitman hart wrote:

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 thingsmodeled hi loud, bluesy, and is pretty much what jimi s 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!

I'm not a music professional of any kind, but the originator of all things bluesy would have to be the blues. Robert Johnson, Howlin' Wolf, Muddy Waters, Son House, BB King, Elmore James, etc.

i'm not sure what your trying to prove but i was refering to jimi and eric's loud style of psychodelic rock. many greats have come before him, thats why i put that in my post. i was not trying to infer that eric clapton invented the blues. while were at it don't forget buddy guy, chuck berry and mr rickenbaker for inventing the first electric guitar.

When i was playing in a trio years ago. Being a jazz drummer in a bluesyrock band my main inspiration would be Tony Williams and Buddy Rich.But when i wanted to emulate either i gave my style to play in the style of the late great MITCH MITCHELL. I just think even today no drummer can level The Experience's and that's coz of Jimi's freedom of expression. But sure it's well known ,even my guitar player who had Hendrix style pedals and played that CLAPTON/HENDRIX sound, would admit he was really interested in Ledbelly and B.B.King. But i got them into Miles Davis. Sorry but i love any concert played by the Experience in 69(the last tour with Redding)

masterkhan wrote:

When i was playing in a trio years ago. Being a jazz drummer in a bluesyrock band my main inspiration would be Tony Williams and Buddy Rich.But when i wanted to emulate either i gave my style to play in the style of the late great MITCH MITCHELL. I just think even today no drummer can level The Experience's and that's coz of Jimi's freedom of expression. But sure it's well known ,even my guitar player who had Hendrix style pedals and played that CLAPTON/HENDRIX sound, would admit he was really interested in Ledbelly and B.B.King. But i got them into Miles Davis. Sorry but i love any concert played by the Experience in 69(the last tour with Redding)

nice story. i love alot of jazz but coltrane is my favorite jazz muscian. love django reinhart and fats waller. to me leadbelly and woody guthrie are two of the greatest of all time.

Man! You've got CLASS! Huge RESPECT to you sir!

masterkhan wrote:

Man! You've got CLASS! Huge RESPECT to you sir!

thanks, i owe it all to my dad. hes a real music nut.

CGren123 wrote:

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

Indeed, he is my fav of the NuWho, and it seems many NuWho fans sort of ignore he was even there, for some reason. After Eccleston left, it began to feel a bit different, to me. Fast-pace is not always a good thing. Eccleston should have stayed longer, plus his chemistry with the other characters was good and really made one feel that this guy in the leather jacket and spanking short haircut was, in fact, alien. Oh, and one a side note, I think Doctor number 9 was also cool in that his wardrobe was not so over the top, and talking about some of humanity's short comings, ie "stupid apes,' was refashioning. Tennent, while ok, made the Doctor a bit "too human" and his, "I'm sorry, I'm so, so sorry," really got old, really fast.

I totally agree with everything you quoted! After he left I really tried my best to enjoy it but it just doesn't work for me.

Eccleston was a fine Doctor, wish we'd gotten more with him. Personally, my NuWho order would go Smith, Eccleston, Morrissey, then Tennant.

Tennant is a fine actor and a great Doctor, don't get me wrong. But after my exposure to the "First Run" Doctors, Tennant's Doctor feels bland. He could be dark and broody, and sometimes silly, but there was no air of mystery to Tennant's Doctor. The very expressiveness that served him so well made him a open book. There was nothing in reserve.

Really, the more that I think about it, it's the same reason Davison is the only "Classic" Doctor that I can do without. Both Davison and Tennant's Doctors wore their convictions on their sleeves, and we're left with a oddly vulnerable lead. Matt Smith's menacing delivery in regards to trying to trick him in The Day of the Moon comes like a slap in the face to the audience because that's a facet of the Doctor we aren't shown constantly in his performance. Matt's normally a very jovial Doctor, so to see him become deathly serious is a shock and lets the audience know that there is a aura of danger behind the Friendly Uncle exterior.

With Tennant...there's nothing beyond what you see. That's not a bad thing, but it doesn't give much in way of the audience being surprised by the Doctor. That being said, it's not good to go too far in the opposite direction like they did with McCoy, who seems to fluctuate between Goofy Clown and Raging Machiavelli at the drop of a hat.

since were all being honest here, i love all the doctors for their different reasons. some like davison, colin, and slyvester suffered from budget constraints more than others but the actors always tried they're best to deliver. but in the classic genre i will always perfer tom and pertwee. this doesnt discount what others did before or after them its just that for me thats the two best runs and doctor's, whos on screen persona most fit with what i enjoy, not to mention the incredible ensamble cast in pertwees era. now having said that, i enjoyed tennent but i was never 'in love" with his portayal. this my be due to the fact that eccleston really blew me away. i had such low expectations for who when i heard it was comming back, and when i saw chris's costume standing next to billie piper i was even more terrified. but they blew me away and put all my fears to rest with one of the best acted and well thoughout seasons of television i have ever seen. i was not ready to see chris go and tennets style just didn't grab me at first. i think tooth and claw was when i really started to get behind him. i love his time on who but i wasnt crying when he left either. lol one of the best things about who is that there are at this moment 11 to choose from so there is a doctor for everyone, classic or otherwise.