Paul Gadzikowski

( based on reactions to Waters of Mars )

crossposted scarfman doctorwho

In one of my first LJ entries, I wrote in part:

Phil Khan observed, in a roundtable in the current Webcomics Examiner, of a particular artist that he's not interested in what the guy does but loves that he does it. scarfwoman didn't like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie, because that day she'd been in the mood for something familiar, whereas I liked it, being a student of the way a fiction evolves from one medium and era to the next.

Trekfans railed against Enterprise from the start - at least till season four when Coto, Brennert and the Reeves-Stevens signed on - because it kept poor continuity with the original series. (The reason the year four stories were better wasn't that they kept continuity. They may have been inspired by continuity but the bottom line is that they were better written.) Fans complained that Berman was trying to make Star Trek over his way. But that's what I liked about it. I said so from the start: I said it was the closest he'd gotten to remaking the first series (and in saying so I persuaded scarfmom to keep watching when she hadn't been persuaded by the first episode or two).

More recently I posted (reprinting a comment I'd made at Websnark):

The thing about family is the explanation why I continued to enjoy Star Trek beyond 1995 when so many others were abandoning it or, worse, sticking around just to kick it while it was down. But this is no second cousin, this is a brother. I've always wanted to quote The Search for Spock, "I'm talking about loyalty", when the arguments roll around. ...

Then last week someone on my friendslist commented in a discussion on the current state of Doctor Who,

I like the TV Movie of Cheese too. But then again, I like Star Trek Enterprise. And the Tank Girl movie. ... So, y'know. Take it for what it's worth. :)

And that just brought home the thought I'd had earlier that day, that I've always been inclined to give a screen showrunner more credit for his/her intentions than most of the consuming public despite how actually successfully those intentions were executed in the eyes of everyone else. So if I've done that for Rick Berman and George Lucas, why won't I do it for Russell Davies?

Well, arguably I started, though I've backslid a bit. (And the Doctor's actions at the end of Family of Blood really do strike me as out of character for him and poorly rolemodelish, and as only the most obvious example of such in Davies' body of work.) But certainly I can afford to offer the same benefit of the doubt to the reviver of my favorite screen franchise as I offer to men for whom the internet invented the idiom "has raped my childhood".

stoplookingup wrote recently that she doesn't think she'll ever take to 20th century Doctor Who because of the campiness. In a paragraph-long post she concludes, "it's fun, but kind of from a distance." (edit I may have oversimplified. She clarifies in a comment below.)

Before I get further into this, though (because it's to the point): You'll've probably noticed that in such discussions I tend not to use the common fannish vocabulary, "old Who" and "new Who". I'll say instead, "20th century Doctor Who" and "21st century Doctor Who". But I've been realizing that either set of phrases are semantically misleading, because since 2000 Doctor Who has had only one showrunner while from 1963 till 1996 Doctor Who had so many showrunners that I can't name them all. And while much that distinguishes the two categories is differences in the expections of tv dramas in two different time periods, many of the differences are specific to the style of the only showrunner to date Doctor Who has had in the 21st century. So what I think I ought to be saying is "20th century Doctor Who" and "Russell Davies Doctor Who", till we see how many of the trails he's blazed are taken up by his successors.

Because while I agree with stoplookingup's assessment, I don't agree with her opinion. My comment to her post was in part, "Finally. Finally, finally, finally, I realize what Davies has done wrong. He leaves the fun out."

But that was only my initial response. The more I think about it, the more Davies Doctor Who is obviously not just un-fun, but anti-fun.

(Disclaimer: Of course fun is entirely subjective. But bear with me.)

( Cut from here because I can never tell what kids these days consider spoilers. )

Now that I've actually seen Last of the Time Lords, I stand by what I kept saying before I saw it: ( spoilers )

crossposted to scarfman and doctorwho

A thought occurred to me in the middle of a comment in someone else's lj during a discussion of ( Cut because I can't tell what kids these days consider a spoiler. Family of Blood (which I haven't seen yet), all of 21st century Doctor Who really, and Colin Baker's intended tenure are discussed but, I would say anyway, at most teased rather than spoiled. )