Staggering Stories Forum!

Seeing as nobody asked me for an opinion, I thought I'd venture one anyway. Totally spoiler free of course

You won't be disappointed, unless you're a hyper picky uber-fan who spends his days upset that the world have moved on while he's still pining for his childhood. The only negative is that 45 minutes was simply not enough time to both (re)introduce the characters and have a script of any depth. On the plus side thre is much to applaud. Ecclestone clearly has the makings of a good doctor, the title sequence is back on form, the TARDIS looks great and the whole feel of the programme is modern but in in keeping with Who's history. Some serious stuff, some pathos but with enough quirky humour to make it far more recognisably Who than the McGann movie and most of JNT's post Davison work. Jury's out on Billie Piper though. She's no Liz Sladen but then again, she's no Bonnie Langford either. Time will tell.

Nice one, Russell T Davies.

what the...?

Summerisle...NOT being a cynic?



hmm..must be good then...

Not much to be cynical about this time, IMHO. Shock and horror, the BBC may have actually done something right and just as their licence fee was up for renewal too ...... whoops, there I go again

I think we were all too afraid to ask!

I will not get my hopes up, I will not get my hopes up..! I will be cautiously optimistic now you've said all that. That's my official status: "cautiously optimistic".

Will it work anyone outside of us, though? Is there really any chance of getting the kids behind the sofas again (did that ever really happen?) I don't believe for a second it could go for another 26 years but I do still wonder if it can get the audience even for a second series given how expensive it apparently was.

How about the effects? I'm sure the wobbly sets are a little more solid now but will we all cringe at the obvious CGI elements?

Interesting comment about the 45 minutes length. Roughly equivalent to an old two parter but TV has picked up a lot of pace since Who left the screens. They say TV has been dumbed down but compare an old Who story to a modern drama and the slow pace would almost put you to sleep (particularly the really old Who stories). Sounds like a double length episode would have been more appropriate for the first story, though. Certainly going to be interesting how the series does work as 45 minutes (or 90) a story.

Thanks for spoiling yourself to let us know about it

Primarily, they're pitching it at today's seven to fourteen year olds and I think they've got the level just about right for that demographic. There's plenty of action and special effects that stand comparison to anything else UK terrestrial TV has managed. It'll probably appeal to the Harry Potter crowd looking for something a little more pacey and it'll definitely give the younger end of its target a few nightmares too.

Whether it'll work for 'us', the old guard, is another matter because it clearly was not made with us in mind, but if you understand that Who has had to move with the times and can see, in my opinion at least, that the spirit of Who is alive and well within the modern trappings. then you'll be OK. I know there was a conscious decision on the part of the BBC to ensure certain 'big name' fans were kept well away from the creative process (I know a few stories about some who offered their services and got their feathers a little ruffled by the rejection) and to trust their own instincts on what was right for Who today. That was a wise move, we've got the sort of television that looks like it's been produced by professionals rather than the endlessly self-referencing gay pantomime JNT believed the fans wanted.

Make no mistake though. As SF goes, this is not a Terminator 2 style action and effects production (though there's one moment when ........ no, I'm saying nothing), nor is there any chance of the depth of a Solaris in a 45 minute format. But it IS fun, it IS enjoyable, it IS imaginative. It's silly and serious at the same time. Basically, it's Doctor Who