That’s kinda how I feel right now.
When I noticed Mighty God King’s request for guest-bloggers to post in the blog, I very nearly immediately sent an e-mail; I’m only a sometimes-commenter, but I’m a pretty regular reader of these here posts. I’m doubting anyone has noticed, though, so I figure I’ll start with an uber-brief intro: I’m Will Entrekin, a writer who just moved from Los Angeles, where I studied at the University of Southern California, to Denver, where I’m now ungainfully unemployed. My only real credential to be here in Mighty God King’s blog is that one of my teachers was Irvin Kershner; besides that, I feel quite a bit out of my depth here.
Very much like anyone might feel having been given the keys to the TARDIS.
I’m new to Who; while I grew up receiving Star Wars toys every year for Christmas and had both Luke in his stormtrooper uniform and Anakin in his robe, I missed way more than I ever absorbed.
I can’t really discuss comic books, as I didn’t get my first one until my grandmother gave me a box of my dad’s old comic books when I was 14 or so.
The only comic books I remember are Peter Porker: The Spectacular Spider-Ham, and Scott Lobdell’s run on X-Men (plus: The Age of Apocalypse).
I discovered Doctor Who only this past year, when I saw someone mention the show as containing his single favorite depiction of Shakespeare. I’m a pretty big fan of all things Shakespeare, so I went and sought out the episode. I was, at first, more impressed by the somewhat-hot witch and the guy who played Shakespeare than by the Doctor, until the Doctor banished a Carrionite. But it wasn’t the banishing; it was in the way he did it, and the child-like glee that suddenly burst few during the confrontation.
That’s what hooked me, and that’s what kept me watching. Episode after episode.
Really, the thing I most love about Doctor Who is that it’s gotten me thinking about science fiction, genre, and stories.
Years ago, I read Patrick Nielsen Hayden of Tor discussing genre to state something along the lines that genre is an authorial choice; it is a deliberate decision that ultimately permeates the work. It is more about the scope and the thrust of the work than about the elements therein.
The longer I watched Doctor Who, the less it felt like science fiction (or any genre, for that matter). Oh, sure, Daleks and whizzy spaceships and the Ood and suchlike, but ultimately, for all the alien-ness of the series, for all its distant planets and incredible lifeforms, it truly seems to do its best when it concentrates on its human-ness, regardless of the Doctor’s actual origin.
(Being a new Who, I can’t compare Tennant to other Doctors. I’ve read about them and their personalities, but really the most I’ve seen has been a handful of segments/flashbacks in Doctor Who Confidential; to be honest, that may well be enough. I probably shouldn’t say that because you never can tell after all, but Tennant is now the ur-Doctor for me, and while I don’t necessarily worry that the others will pale in comparison (I can’t imagine Christopher Eccleston paling in comparison to anything, for that matter), it’s the comparing itself that bothers me. A bit like Daniel Craig and Casino Royale; I simply can’t imagine anyone playing Bond so well, while Connery, in my head, is now more associated with William Forrestor and the senior Henry Jones.)
When I think of my favorite books and shows and movies, they are usually the ones that reach just a bit further than they’re generally expected to, or handle stories in different ways. Jurassic Park and Quantum Leap spring most immediately to mind, being not so much about dinosaurs and time travel, respectively, as about reactions to those elements.
Tennant brings to the Doctor an amazing, child-like glee inspired by everything he encounters. When rumors circulated that he was going to depart and a new Doctor might be in the works (thanks to the season-finale cliffhanger, mostly, I think), I couldn’t really think of someone who’d perform the role as well (I gave a nod to Eddie Izzard. I’m not sure how he’d pull it off, but I’d watch it). But what really impresses me is that everyone is so human (and well acted); I’m thinking of the Master from last season’s finale, for one.
That’s what Who taught me, as a writer (and a reader); that you can tell the biggest, boldest, most epic story in the world on the most impressive canvas in the universe, but if you don’t have that human element, if you don’t focus on the characters in the story, well, it’s empty as space, really.
But what do you think? Am I missing something not watching the Eccleston run, or Baker’s episodes? Is my story theory way off?
Anyway, thanks to Mighty God King for allowing me to guest-post. Anyone who’s interested can find my blog here and my debut collection here, and otherwise, I’ll catch you again soon.
Related Articles
39 users responded in this post
Nicely done. I hear you on all counts, only having joined Who fandom with Eccleston (you aren’t missing much. Where Tennant is a happy child, Eccleston is borderline bi-polar, switching between the kind of mania seen by World-Cup-winning Soccer fanatics, to ice-cold ruthless fury and heavy handed paternity.
Keep up the good work!
The ABC in Australia played, last year, their entire collection of archived Doctor Who, starting from grainy, black and white William Hartnell, who was cranky, whimsical and kind of awesome. My Gf’s mother taped them, or as many as she could.
I worked my way through, up until Colin Baker, who sucked. My fave was probably Jon Pertwee, who while covered in frills and velvet, was a total bruiser, and the first Doctor to get into some biffo. He used to use Venusian Karate on monsters and such. Gotta love it.
Anyway, it’s tough but that would be the way to do it. You get an incredible sense of the Doctor’s journey.
I haven’t seen anything pre-Eccleston, but his season’s definitely worth watching because it has, I feel, the best writing of any of the new seasons, particularly in the two episodes written by Stephen Moffat (who will be taking over the show next year), “The Empty Child,” and “The Doctor Dances.”
However, it’s totally possible that our tastes are entirely different, as I absolutely hated “The Shakespeare Code” (terrible dialogue, really really terrible) and was never all that impressed with Martha as a companion. I think Season Three (Twenty-something if you go from the old show) was the worst of the new series.
I think Eddie Izzard has the kind of manic energy that makes a good Doctor, but while I love his comedy I can’t speak to his acting ability.
For me, Doctor Who is less about the characters, although it does have stronger characterization than a lot of TV shows, if a bit melodramatic at times, and much more about the settings. I think the show is at its best when it gets the Doctor and his companion off Earth and sends them to someplace new. The show has really always been about exploration, and it’s the episodes that really engage the imagination that are, for me, most interesting.
MarvinAndroid: Watch The Riches. I’m not sure if it’s the writing or the acting, but I love Izzard (and Minnie Driver).
I also started with Eccleston, but I’ll try to find some old stuff.
Dr. Wally: Do not dis Colin Baker. Colin Baker is who got me (and David Tennant and Stephen Moffat, for that matter) into Who in the first place.
As regards the Eccleston run, I thought highly of it. I’ll readily agree that Eccleston’s Doctor is inconstant and bipolar, but I don’t for a second think that it’s anything but on purpose. That’s the Doctor right after he committed genocide, after all. He’s been shaken very badly and freaked out, and tack a regeneration onto it and I wouldn’t expect any iteration of the Doctor to be particularly stable at that point.
And I thought Eccleston had much better chemistry with Billie Piper than Tennant did. With Tennant, the Rose/Doctor relationship always felt ever so slightly forced to me.
human-ness
Humanity. The word you were looking for is ‘humanity.’
@Michael: thanks!
@Dr. Wally: I’d worry about my reaction to such a set-up. I tend to prefer watching an entire season of anything in one fell swoop, which means I’d be out of commission for, like, what, a month or something? And that’s only if managing a season per day, I think. Still, I do keep an eye for old reruns (I seem to remember they used to play it on PBS here in the States when I was a kid).
@Marvin and MGK: okay, you’ve convinced me; I’ll check out older episodes. If only just to see/know.
@Kyle: I’ve been wondering about The Riches. I’ll have to give it a whirl now.
@01d55: no, I definitely meant “human-ness,” though perhaps I ought have dropped the hyphen. “Humanity” is the state of being humane, while “human-ness” is characteristic of humans, which was what I was trying (and perhaps failed) to get at: Tennant seems particularly adept at portraying the Doctor as very alien (his somewhat detached demeanor at times, or his sometimes-coldness) while at the same time maintaining a very sympathetic quality to him. What’s more, the Doctor seems spectacularly impressed and even awed by the humans around him, and often as though he aspires to be more like them. I love that about him. It’s not that he’s human at all but rather that he’s got qualities like humans.
No. Genre is not an authorial choice. If you have dragons, wizards, magic swords, chosen ones, prophecies, and talking wolves, it is fucking fantasy, not “stories with important human themes,” and no amount of the author saying so and saying Ayn Rand is the best author publishing today will change that.
Scott Lobdell’s X-Men run was the shit. Seriously, Lobdell took 17 years of Claremont and actually made it into a workable narrative. Im planning on writing an essay (re: rant) about it at some point.
Just my two cents.
I am a avid lover Doctor Who.
I got the chance to watch most of the episodes, thanks to the ABC (Dr. Wally it was 2003) replying them when I was 13.
Tennant is almost the “perfect” Doctor but Baker will always be my favourite. Tom Baker was the longest running Doctor, 7 years, I believe. He was full child-like glee but could be very serious and scary as well. You could tell he relished the role. I have to agree with Dr. Wally that Colin was god awful, Sylvester wasn’t as bad and don’t even bother with the American movie.
Doctor Who for me is about the joy of finding and experiencing something new wither it’s terrible or amazing. The Doctor is very much a father figure for me (helps that Eccleston looks like my Dad) the joy of learning and exploring is a truly wonderful thing to distil to every generation.
God damn it! My first comment has a spelling mistake, I meant replaying not replying.
One disturbing trend for the new series: without going into spoilers, I can say that the finales for seasons 3 and 4 have been pretty underwhelming.
The thing about Eccleston’s Doctor, as somebody pointed out earlier, was that he started from a very dark place and managed to rediscover his compassion as his season ended. When he uttered his final words to Rose — again, no spoilers — you could see joy on his face, perhaps from realizing how far he’d come.
Urgh. You was robbed, mate. Speaking as a British person who’s been a fan of all things Who for the last 13 years, I can tell you that no episodes were ever quite so dreadful, quite so trite, quite so ham-fistedly stupid, quite so “YOU WILL FEEL THIS EMOTION AT THIS POINT IN THE EPISODE AND ANOTHER EMOTION AT ANOTHER POINT” than those written and/or plotted by Russell T Davies. If you haven’t seen it, avoid this year’s season finale at all possible costs: it’s basically exactly the same formula as “The Deathly Hallows” – gather together all of the writers favourite toys and dei ex machini so as to defeat the stuttering withered little overlord in time for tea and disappoint anyone who was a fan of the less popular characters. After having had to experience it, I can only say: Roll on, Stephen Moffat…
If you want to get some experience of Eccleston – and, to be honest, his version of the Doctor was actually pretty cool – I’d recommend “Aliens of London/World War Three”, “Dalek”, “The Long Game” and “Boom Town”, and to ignore any and all references to “Bad Wolf” within those episodes, as they just have to do with Rose, and Rose has about half of the character depth of a brain-dead Bizarro clone of Supergirl.
For classic “Who”, ignore any and all episodes featuring the Sixth Doctor, Colin “Not Tom” Baker, and only watch ones with the Fifth Doctor, Peter Davison, if they feature something to do with cricket. Apart from that, recommend episodes include:
1. William Hartnell: “An Unearthly Child”, “The Daleks”, “The Dalek Invasion of Earth”
2. Patrick Troughton: “The Abominable Snowmen”, “The Web Of Fear”, “The Macra Terror”, “The War Games”
3. Jon Pertwee: “The Mind of Evil” “Doctor Who and the Silurians”, “Terro of the Autons”, “Day of the Daleks”, “Death to the Daleks”
4. Tom Baker: Any you can get your hands on. You are missing out on a lot if you aven’t ever seen his work.
7. “Time and the Rani”, “Paradise Towers”, “The Happiness Patrol”, “Doctor Who: The Movie”
8. “Doctor Who: The Movie”
9. (see above)
10. Of the ones before the Shakespeare one: “Rise of the Cybermen/Age of Steel”, “The Girl in the Fireplace”, “School Reunion”, “Impossible Planet/Satan Pit”, “Army of Ghosts/Doomsday”, and “Gridlock”, the only good RTD one.
To all you new who fans out there. Get yourself over to netflix and see the older shows. I recommend the Talons of Weng Chiang and an example of why the old show has such a place in all of our hearts. I love all the actors that portrayed the Doctor, each of them brought such changes to the character.
I have a love/hate relationship with the new show. I love the fact it’s back, I love the character development, I love the historical and weird space stories (those were my favorite in the old show too). I do not like Rose. Sorry I said it. For an companion she will never be one of my favorites. I did like the interaction between her and the Doctor, I do like the actress, but she has so many other female companions to be compared to it’s hard for me to accept she is the best. For me it is Leela, Romana, Ace, Nyssia, Liz Shaw, and so on. Donna was a far more interesting companion in my opinion.
As for the season finales, That is something I can do without. They brought Davros back and I was so disinterested in the story, I turned it off.
You don’t have to watch the old series to figure out what is going on, but if you want to find more about the Doctor’s past you should find a few and watch. The good and the bad. If you want to know about UNIT any Jon Pertwee episode will do. There are so many more monsters and villains that could come back. Just look for episodes with these words: The Rani, Sea Devils, Silurians, The Mara, to start with. Douglas Adams wrote for Doctor Who; Recommend “The Space Pirates” A guess what if you need to understand what was going on, with the planets, in the last finale, there is a similar thing going on in that episode. And you may catch a mistake the new writers made as well.
For those of you with short attention spans. A fan on Youtube has put together some great overview videos, so you do not have to sit though 45 years of the Doctor.
Every story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCZhlEdGIm0
Facts about the Doctor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc4HSf6NKiQ
So from an old fan. Find some of the old series and watch and see where the show started from. I will understand if some of you do not like it. I do not like the first Star Trek, but I can appreciate the ground work it did.
opps. The Pirate Planet is the name of the episode not The Space Pirates.
Also, for the next Doctor (or failing that, an assistant): Sam Troughton. He’s got the looks, he’s got the acting talent, he’s got the manic energy – and besides, it’s in the blood!
@leapetra: I hear you about Davros. Never mind the expressive face, the creepy teeth, the over-the-top laugh; if they just bring him in for shock value and then kill him off again, they might as well have just had a guy with a paper bag over his head in a wheelchair and no-one would have noticed the difference.
Also – since when do you have to tear lumps of your chest flesh off to make clones? He could easily have built an entire army based on the produce of one hasty swab from the inner lining of his mouth with a q-tip…
Other Douglas Adams episodes to be recommended include “City of Death” (although for writer’s union reasons he’s credited as “David Agnew”).
Voodooben: Agreed on Lobdell, mostly. Especially given the horror stories of the X-office under Bob Harras, he really managed to turn in some good work. It was uneven in parts- operation: zero tolerance stands out as a real turd- but especially given the circumstances of where the books were when he started, inheriting a lot of ridiculous-but-popular concepts (like Bishop) and having to make them work coherently, he did a hell of a job. They had a lot of fun and energy to ’em that, with the exception of Morrison and Whedon, hasn’t been seen much since. I really liked the work he did post-Claremont/pre-Morrison in 2001, too, when he sort of cleaned up all of the messes (possessed/dead Cyclops, the Legacy Virus, bad Colossus) of the past decade to give Morrison a clean slate.
–d
Tennant is a fine Doctor but Tom Baker is THE doctor really. I’d heartily recommend the “Genesis of the Daleks” story– it’s out on DVD. Generally regarded as the best episodes done in the series.
@Reds8n: True dat. Eccleston might have been the Doctor who brought Doctor Who back, Tennant might be the golden boy now while he’s popular, but the general consensus is that the image brought to mind when someone says “Doctor Who” is that of Baker.
Everyone’s been so busy giving advice on which Doctors to watch that they’re not saying welcome to the blog, Will. You’ve got some big shoes to guest-blog for.
That said…
Here’s my advice for which Doctor to watch.
All of them. Watch every episode that you can from any Doctor that you can, even if it means watching random unconnected episodes from Hartnell and Troughton, even if it means watching “The Horns of Nimon” (a Tom Baker serial with a special effects budget of about £400), or even if it means watching the 1996 movie.
Anyone who says to skip one Doctor or another is telling you to miss part of the development of the character. The Doctor, as he is currently being written, is rooted in all of them including Colin Baker (who many unfairly dismiss) and Paul McGann (despite the… oddities of his Doctor).
I say watch it all because other people’s favorite stories aren’t my favorites and “favorite Doctor” does not equal “best Doctor.” My favorite Doctor is Sylvester McCoy (#7), though I can’t say whether I think he best embodies what the Doctor is about. Ultimately, we’re dealing with 10 people trying to play the same (alien) man over the course of 500-ish years of his life.
Oh, and I believe the term for a Doctor Who fan was (though it may no longer be) “Whovian.”
His costume may be questionable, and some of the stories in his era may be iffy, but Colin Baker was a great Doctor. My second favorite actually, after Tom.
Like another poster has said, I too have a love/hate relationship with the new show. Underwhelming finale. Pointless return of a old school villain. And I am so over Saint Rose of Tyler. Why can’t we just move on?
Oh, wait. We will be once Moffat takes over.
Salieri: Hey, Neville was a complete badass in that book. But thank you for not really spoiling the terrible finale, I’m working with Sci-Fi’s delay and am too lazy to download (though I did so for Torchwood out of “necessity”).
@VoodooBen & DanSolomon: I’ve always thought it was a damned shame Lobdell hasn’t done much since then. I think I Amazoned him a year or so ago. I’d love to see him do a novel like Warren Ellis (I’ve heard Crooked Little Vein is terrific.
@Jonathan: thank you. And yeah, I know; I was so nervous about posting. But you guys are awesome.
And lots of great Doctor recs. Way cool.
@Andrew W.: well, I probably didn’t explain it well (and also probably badly paraphrased it). His comment came in response to a question I had when I was just learning of genre differentiation, and I think it was an attempt to explain why someone like Robert Charles Wilson is science fiction but Michael Crichton is pretty much not. Anyway, yes, I get you about the elements, but it brings to the fore how genetically engineered dinosaurs and time travel can be general fiction, while something like Joe Haldemann’s The Accidental Time Machine is genre. I think what Patrick was getting at that ultimately it comes down to a function of how the author approaches those elements within the scope of his work, something I agree with to a point, because it’s obvious that the elements Michael Crichton or Dean Koontz focus on are not the same ones Robert Charles Wilson does. And as a btw, I’d never say Ayn Rand is the best author publishing today, because yaysh and gek.
You know, Salieri has a point when he says Sam Troughton. I just Googled him for a look, and… yes, very Doctor-y. Not bad-looking, but definitely an offbeat nerdy sort of good looks.
Come on people – Rhys Ifans for the next Doctor Who. You know it makes sense.
I have watched small chunks of the Hartnell and Troughton and everything from Pertwee through Tennant. I have done so over the course of a few years way back in my pre-teen days, so my memory is not note-perfect. When the writing is just right, Tennant is the best of all of the Doctors. He brings so much energy and savvy to the role, and he comes across as a being who carries the burden of all of his travels.
I think the latest run of Doctor Who is too hyperbolic. I love the episodes that are puzzles within themselves, and I don’t mind the running themes in each season, but Davies is getting too carried away. I hope Moffat can tone things down a bit. This last season’s finale was far too mired in back story, which has been a problem for this new run. There are more clever ways to wink to the fans without bogging down the current story with the Doctor’s long history. The reintroduction of The Master was nicely done, even if the resultant story was hyperbolic, but the writers need to keep in mind that they created the Time War as a blank slate — a sort of Crisis On Infinite Earths for the Whoniverse.
I welcome the pause between the fourth and fifth seasons. I would rather see three or four evolved self-contained stories this next year than another exercise in kitchen sink borderline fanwank.
Strangely enough, (SPOILERS!) Davros’ point in the finale – that the Doctor is, at heart, a bringer of death – was the very thing that Terry Nation strived to avoid after the first-ever episode; they’d probably have a hard enough time making their audience emphasize with an eccentric old geezer, so making him ready to split open a man’s head with a rock was perhaps a step in the wrong direction.
@Kyle: Yeah, strangely enough quite a few of the assistants get to be terribly badass, including Mickey Smith, Martha, and surprisingly enough Donna (although, of course, RTD f**ks that up by the episode’s end). There’s also some good bits with Davros screaming with laughter and Daleks saying ‘Exterminate!’ in German.
@MGK: I thank you. Presuming that there may not be another season of *shudder* Robin Hood, he might be a seriously good candidate.
@Derek: I disagree…the Time War was indeed a blank slate, just like COIE, but in the same way it was a chance not just to introduce new things but to also re-introduce old things. The continuity makes sense for fans both new and old – for instance, New fans will just enjoy the idea of the new Cybermen, while old fans will notice the update from ‘Twin Earth’ to ‘Twin Universe’; likewise, new fans would see John Simm’s Master as just very camp and not too threatening, while old fans would be able to compare him to some of the better portrayals, such as Roger Delgado.
I do agree, though, that the finale was a bit too bogged down. Davros got about two previous mentions in the rest of the new series’ episodes, only one by name; just having him trundle in, be a bit threatening, scream a bit and die in a fire just confuses new fans and annoys old fans. Better that he make some hairs-breadth escape, or that RTD leave a tid-bit for future writers – like that part with the female hand getting the Master’s ring, last year.
@ Will- I’m pretty sure he left comics to chase the screenwriting dollar. I was really annoyed several years ago because they were filming this Tommy Lee Jones movie in my neighborhood, which meant street closures every night for weeks, but I learned that Lobdell had written it, and it cheered me up a bit. I don’t think he’s had a stellar career there yet.
–d
@Salieri – Terry Nation didn’t write the first two episodes. Despite his high profile as the creator of the Daleks (and the holder of the rights to the Daleks) he was never in any way involved as a show runner. I believe that the person who should be getting most of the credit would be Verity Lambert.
@itbox – Ah, thanks.
Did you know Nation would never have become part of Doctor Who, nor created the Daleks, if not for the kindly assistance of Spike Milligan when he was on the streets?
Ha ha, really? Good old Spike – the man was a legend.
Also without clogging up the comments feed with Doctor Who acrimony at least forty years old I always consider it a real shame that the guys that designed the voices (Peter Hawkins and David… somebody) didn’t get a share of the rights. Same thing with whoever it was that designed the pepper pot shape. Not wanting to take away from Nation in anyway shape or form – but without the voice and the look of the Daleks I think it highly unlikely that Doctor Who (let alone the Daleks) would still be around today.
I think the pepper pot shape partially stemmed from the original idea to have the person inside the Dalek driving it around on a tricycle.
@Salieri: As far as Davros’ death is concerned: No body = not dead. There is absolutly no proof you can give me that says that after the Doctor left Davros didn’t trundle over to an esacpe pod and blast off to a planet to start anew.
@Lister Sage: Heh, I suppose you’re right. He’s one of the characters you just can’t get rid of, like the Daleks themselves. But then again, that just makes RTD’s continual habit of writing endings in which all of the Daleks were wiped out, forever, just that bit more grating when they come back in the next series. I’d much prefer if a less popular villain were killed off for good – how about having the Sontarans knocked off by a short-sighted anorak who mistook them for his collection of piggy banks?
@Salieri (“He’s one of the characters you just can’t get rid of, like the Daleks themselves”): but why not. The moment I see either the Cybermen or the Daleks in an episode, I’m kinda like, well, this one’s gonna be kinda crap.
Because they mostly are. “EX-TER-MIN-ATE” might have been sorta campy fun in the sixties when Batman was ker-powing, but I don’t know: I look at the Doctor next to the over-sized trashbucket with the webcam on its dome like a poor-man’s R2-D2 (and yes, I realize the Daleks predated Star Wars, but not in my experience), and I know who’s going to win. I mean, he’s the Doctor, after all.
And btw, way up top, and @Marvin, because I totally forgot to say so earlier: I tend to agree with you about The Shakespeare Code. I didn’t think too highly of the episode itself; it was just that single Tennant moment (and the part with the witch feeling his hearts) that inspired me to seek out other Tennant episodes. That was what hooked me.
Yeah, that’s a real problem with both of the main villains – the cybermen get the inevitable comparison with any star Trek story that at all featured the Borg – Torchwood’s “Cyberwoman” was basically “I, Borg” reinterpreted by a rabid five-year-old mass-murderer – and the Daleks very very rarely get a story that is both original and well-written. The last time it happened was the excellent “Dalek” with Chris Eccleston; the last time we got a story that was original, but not well-written, was “Daleks In New York/Evolution Of The Daleks”, and even then just barely.
All in all, it’s time they stopped dwelling on past elements – Davros, the Emperor, etc. – and created more new things, like the Cult of Skaro. Imagine, for instance, a lone Dalek who overthrew an entire alien planet’s corrupt governments and turned into a benign utopia, forcing the Doctor to wonder whether he’d been right about them after all! Or something. Hope is never lost, you know…
I knew nothing of Doctor Who before the first Christopher Eccleston episode aired on Sci-Fi. I watched it. I didn’t think it was that great, but I had nothing else to do, so I kept watching the show. Someone linked me to a download of the new guy, David Tennant. I thought recasting a year in was suicide. Eccleston’s portrayal was the best thing about the show; no way could anyone do better. Three or four episodes later, Tennant had become *the* Doctor for me. Season two was the year that made me a hardcore fan.
The next step was looking at the old series. So, okay, I’ll check out these Tom Baker classics, like Pyramids of Mars and Genesis of the Daleks, etc. Uh oh. They’re terrible. This William Hartnell guy who started it all in the 60s is pretty neat, though, as a mean old git with a streak of childlike mischief. But mostly, the old series isn’t very good. I fell asleep during the second Doctor and the not-that-bad seventh is hampered by horrid production values.
But let me check out this Jon Pertwee fella. … Oh snap. He’s awesome. Finally, the Doctor’s got a stable supporting cast around him, and he’s getting into madcap adventures. And, oh my, Roger Delgado is brilliant as the Master.
So, um, yeah, the Third Doctor is my favorite of the old show. I recommend his stuff, especially the following:
Spearhead from Space
Terror of the Autons
The Mind of Evil
The Claws of Axos
The Daemons (best old Who ever!)
The Curse of Peladon
The Sea Devils
Frontier in Space
I just finished my Pertwee marathon yesterday. Loved him. Don’t know if I’m ready to give Tom Baker another chance.
I far preferred “Doctor Who an the Silurians”.
For Baker, I’d recommend “Destiny of the Daleks”, if only for the wonderful beginning sequence with Lalla Ward.