This can't be good news., Scifi turned down the series because, well, it 's terrible. You know if Scifi turned it down with the crap they show sometimes it must be bad.
Check out some reviews at AICN 1 very negative and 1 sort of positive: Dr. Who Dreadful? (http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=19567)
This is really disappointing for me, I was really looking for a comeback for the Doctor.
The Scifi channel turned it down... but they're airing Skeleton Man? Dr. Who must be the worst thing ever filmed. :)
They probably at least partially financed "Skeleton Man", remember that linked Wired article someone posted here a while back explaining how many of those SciFi Originals get to air. So I guess SciFi hates junk unless they make it themselves. Or if they get reruns of one season wonders cheap that they can air until the tapes melt.
I'd still like to see the new Dr. Who for myself, since I distrust AICN a lot. I became a fan when the show began airing on PBS in the 80s, after never getting to see more than a few minutes when WOR ran episodes on Saturday mornings a few years earlier.
Dotn trust AICN, theyre not very reliable.
I heard the reason they passed on it was that it was too 'english'. If that was the case then they can just forget the entire series as it was created by the english and its a very english show.
Could be that Scifi just doesn't know what a good show is.
Davros (in that link) just described *every episode of Dr Who, EVER*. I like the show, but it has always possessed every quality that he now finds unacceptable. The show has had the feel of a fan produced parody almost as long as TV has existed.
The "too English" thing bugs me. Practically every show on TV is based on a British show "translated" from English into... less charming English. Man, any American that dosen't like the English version of a show isn't going to like the English version either! Arse, knickers, tarts, etc, are more pleasant and amusing than their American equivalents, and it's not like they have any words over there that are incomprehensible to anyone here. I think it's another effect of how LA people always ask "Will this play in Peoria?" and assume that the people of "Peoria" have no frontal lobes and will become disoriented, freak out and start throwing stuff if someone says bloody instead of motherf**ker.
A disappointment? Who can say? Not me, as I haven't seen it. I would like to see it, so I make my own judgment on it, especially as I was a big fan of the original series. Or, for that matter, take anybody else's opinion on it. As for the complaint that it is too English, I can't abide any of the American cop shows now on television. On the other hand, I am a faithful fan of all the British cop and detective shows that are shown on Monday nights on BBC in America. Thus, a show being "too English" doesn't bother me at all.
I've seen a lot of other differing opinions on it . I would hope we do get to see it in the states sometime. I need to keep my reputation as having seen all the Doctor's different incarnations.
To me Pertwee will always be the best because he was swashbuckler of the bunch .
I'm more partial to Tom Baker, not just because he's the Doctor I remember most as a kid, but also because he's the most playfully eccentric.
I'm actually feeling pretty good about this show. With so much disagreement between people who have seen it, there is a very good chance it will be worth watching.
I bet you anything that Scifi want to slap that "Scifi Original Series" banner on the show and BBC said "NO! It's OUR show"
Good for BBC!
I thought there was already a new Doctor Who out there because of the tv-movie I saw back in the late 90's.
You really shouldn't read too much into internet opinions, especially AICN.
I saw Dr Who on Saturday night. It was good. Eccleston is a fantastic choice for the Doctor and Billy Piper stands up for herself. As for modernizing the show, try as I might I couldn't see the modern make-over, sure FX are slicker and the sets don't wobble but for me thats the standard and dont really want the crap production values of twenty years ago!
Watch it with an open mind, I did and enjoyed it.
My opinion exactly. Alright it may not make television history, but it is a perfectly enjoyable show and the Eccleston - Piper combo works fine. Just like the old days with Sylvester McCoy and Sophie Aldred.
I liked McCoy too, though Baker was the first i saw.
This has potential...if maby BBC America will run it!
Too English...what kneebiters! These people are mentaly challanged Alsatians with the mange!
Maby thats why we can't get RED DWARF here....to afraid Listers accent will put off viewers.....clutural Vikeing, the lot of 'em....
I heard a long time ago that they might be working on an American version of Red Dwarf, then a little while latter, Homeboys From Outer Space came out, and I was afraid that might have been it. I'm pretty sure it wasn't though.
http://davemunger.blogspot.com
Chaps! Blokes! Fellas! *Do* be careful about calling Doctor Who "English". We over here in the UK see ourselves mostly as "British", even if the current Doctor Who* has been made by BBC Wales.
Flash T's comments chime pretttty closely with mine own. Christopher Eccleston is a striking Doctor; Billie Piper is - well, pretty Billie Piper-ish, though fortunately this is all she needs to be.
Not a bad opening episode, and I speak as one who saw the first episode ever.
(1963, if you care to know).
* Christopher Eccleston hails from Salford, where I work. A rather low-rent low-brow low-aspiration part of the UK.
There were two pilots made for Red Dwarf in the states, but they failed. One had a female Cat played by Terry Farrell and Jane Leeves was cast as Holly. Can't remember who they had playing "Cloister the Stupid" (Dave Lister) or Rimmer, but Robert Llewelyn was Kryton in both.
I saw a blurb that Dr. Who is already renewed, but Eccleston wasn't returning.
That is correct. I guess Eccleston is afraid of being typecast and wants his first season of Dr. Who to be his last season. Since it does appear to be a success, they'll probably get someone else to replace Eccleston. Unless I have miscounted my Whos, Eccleston's replacement will be the 10th Dr. Who. I do wonder what'll they'll do, when they reach the 13th Dr. Who. Which they well might. As I can remember reading, a long time ago, that a Doctor can only regenerate 13 times and no more.
Wish they hadn't counted Paul McGann as offically part of the cycle, and burned up a whole regeneration on one TV film, the books ( I know they have their following but I could never get into them, plus they quit carrying them in any bookstore in my area years ago), and those audio stories. Maybe they should count his Doctor like Peter Cushing's, just call him an alternate version. I liked his Doctor however, just wish more had become of it. If Eccleston is leaving maybe they can get him and call "do over".
Another few regenerations and the Doctor will have to resort to the Master's tactics to keep going.
I thought the number of regenerations was 12. I remember when the Master ran out and was a rotting corpse and ended up stealing someones body to go on.
Roger Delgado was the Master during the Pertwee years, later replaced by Anthony Ainley at the end of the Tom Baker years. I always thought Delgado was the most sinister of the two, but I am partial to the Pertwee years.
Finally saw it last night. Wasn't aware it was going to air on CBC in Canada. I liked it. I think the story was somewhat limited, because it had to centre around the Doctor meeting his new companion, and explaining everything for the benefit of people who don't know. But when they get into some more unusual stuff, in times and places other than present-day London, it should be pretty good. Next week's episode looks like it will do just that.
I think it does capture the feel of the old Doctor Who. This Doctor is an eccentric smartass, kind of whimsical, but with a serious side, and I loved the new TARDIS. Some people might find the show a bit hokey, but I think that's because the fun and adventure is put ahead of scientific accuracy, which is no bad thing. It's what Doctor Who is about.
Post Edited (04-06-05 14:27)
And I always thought the number of regenerations was 13.
If Paul Eccleston does leave at the end of the season, it is believed British actor David Tennant would replace him as Dr. Who.
Of course, there are some who believe the next Dr. Who should be a woman, as there is nothing in the history of Dr. Who, which says that it can't be a woman. If so, the name most bandied about is that of Amanda Donohoe. Who some of you may remember as Lady Sylvia Marsh in "Lair of the White Worm." She certainly would bring some sex appeal to the role.
That's what I think has really hurt Doctor Who since the last seasons of the original series - the lack of a consistent identity for the Doctor. Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, Baker and Davison each did a pretty decent stretch in the role, with regenerations being a rare event, representing real milestones for the series. Each incarnation of the Doctor was allowed to fully develop. If the role is going to keep jumping around from actor to actor, this new series will never get off the ground. Regeneration is a nice tool to keep the show and the character going when the star must move on, but it can't happen every year or two.