Doctor Who

[Hambury]

Not sure what to make of that. It had some good parts and bad. I wish they had been braver, and actually killed her off. The final scenes between Rose and the Doctor were great though.

On the whole this hasn't been as good as the last series. I think the villains weren't used as well. The Daleks were fantastic in the last series, but the Cybermen and the Daleks were fairly wasted in this series. It just didn't work as well as I imagined.

With Rose gone, I hope they use this as an opportunity for a fresh start. I really like Tennant as the Doc, it was just a shame that many of the episodes held him back, or focused too much on Rose. It also seems they're relying on too much of the past to carry the show (with the likes of the Daleks and the Cybermen seeming to be almost regular participants). It'd be nice to see them be really creative in the next series, creating villains that are just generic bad guys, but actually nasty.

It's still a great show, but they need to step up a gear again, and not become complacent with what they have.

[Ravern]

The Doctor needs a new decent fiendish arch-nemesis. Not some random race of aliens who he runs into trouble with, but a right bastard who really has it out for him.

[Jumble Jumble]

Is everyone around here a writer or something? Only I wonder what qualifies some of you to pass such final judgement on "The Writing".

I refer you to most of your own posts in the Food & Drink folder.

[Garwoofoo]

Is there not even a tiny, wee gap to push Catherine Tate into the void too?

I'd love the Christmas Special to open with the Black Dalek warping into the TARDIS, blowing Catherine Tate away and warping out again. Then we could go on and have a great adventure with the Doctor and his extremely fit new assistant. Not going to happen, sadly, but that would be a great Christmas present.

[Hello Goaty ♥]

The Doctor needs a new decent fiendish arch-nemesis. Not some random race of aliens who he runs into trouble with, but a right bastard who really has it out for him.

[Shoes]

It's like they've lost all motivation. I saw an awful 'Halloween' ep the other week, when all these big statue type things came to life, but they die as soon as people stopped looking at them. What the fuck?

That's actually from a good season. But yes, it was a bit of a ropey episode.

I enjoyed last night's Who. And I enjoyed the oily spunk tear. I think it worked well.

[Garwoofoo]

The Doctor needs a new decent fiendish arch-nemesis. Not some random race of aliens who he runs into trouble with, but a right bastard who really has it out for him.

Absolutely. I'd like to see a proper story arc in the next season. One of the reasons why series 1 felt stronger than series 2 was that it felt like it was properly building up to something with Bad Wolf, the arrival of Captain Jack and the clustering of great episodes towards the end of the series. Season 2 felt a lot more haphazard in contrast. Stuff like Fear Her could have appeared at any point in the series, and the whole thing didn't really have much of a sense of climax.

A proper arch-villain actually developing an evil scheme over the course of a whole series could transform this show.

[Davros sock drawer]

I refer you to most of your own posts in the Food & Drink folder.

What do you mean?

[Ravern]

Is everyone around here a writer or something? Only I wonder what qualifies some of you to pass such final judgement on "The Writing".

I didn't like "The Writing" and so thought it was poor. It's always going to be subjective; no one's claiming that everyone is going to dislike the script. Do we have to put "IMO" after every sentence for that to be clear?

[Shoes]

Season 2 felt a lot more haphazard in contrast. Stuff like Fear Her could have appeared at any point in the series, and the whole thing didn't really have much of a sense of climax.

I thought that actually. Russell tried to build up Torchwood throughout the series, but it didn't work as well as Bad Wolf last year.

[Boyatsea]

If the writing is bad, how come I'm having such a good time?

o/\o

In a thread like this, everyone's a writer. Some of them have even been on TV, you know. Not sure they attracted...

...7.7 million...

...though.

The Doctor needs a new decent fiendish arch-nemesis. Not some random race of aliens who he runs into trouble with, but a right bastard who really has it out for him.

The Master!

That's actually from a good season. But yes, it was a bit of a ropey episode.

Heh. Like I say, I'm not especially au fait with The Simpsons. Just have it on when I'm making tea. Some of the older episodes, like 4-5 years in, are just superb.

[Jack]

The Torchwood arc word thing didn't work as well as Bad Wolf because they announced what Torchwood was ages in advance, outside of the show.

[Davros sock drawer]

I didn't like "The Writing" and so thought it was poor. It's always going to be subjective; no one's claiming that everyone is going to dislike the script. Do we have to put "IMO" after every sentence for that to be clear?

No, I just wondered what qualifies people to be so specific about an aspect of the show, rather than saying "I didn't enjoy the episode".

[Boyatsea]

No, I just wondered what qualifies people to be so specific about an aspect of the show, rather than saying "I didn't enjoy the episode".

I think it's fair enough to talk about the writing. Or the direction, or production, or the music - and I don't do any of those things. I do think some people take it a bit far, however, assuming that they have some kind of pedigree.

[Matt G]

At least I've completely ignored Catherine Tate in the past, so her appearing at the end didn't upset me like it did some people here. I didn't even know it was her until it was mentioned here.

this, I've obviously done well by never seeing her before, the last scene just made me laugh - probably the same amount as Tennants deranged "Barcelona!" at the end of the first one.

God I wish the Cybermen's battle cry wasn't "Delete!" though, that delete/exterminate section was retarded when it should have been amazing.

[Moose]

I thought that was a really, really good 44 and a half minutes. Here are a few paragraphs moaning about the last ten seconds:

Just finishing off the series with the bride standing there, facing off the utterly perplexed Doctor, her asking "Where am I?" and him gibbering "What? What?!", both played completely straight, would have been an absolutely perfect off-kilter ending - the Doc stops brooding over Rose, we've got an intriguing cliffhanger and - hey! - we're all looking forward to the Christmas special. But no, we get Catherine Tate's comedy gurning and strangled comedy voice instead. RTD turns the dial up to 11 once again.

So: mysterious bride good, Catherine Tate bad.

(That's a bit unfair, I suppose. She has done "Proper Acting" before, and by all accounts quite well. It's just that on the brief evidence of last night, I doubt RTD and the production team are going to be channelling Proper Acting over Strangled Comedy Voice for a primetime family Christmas TV special. And that's more than enough Catherine Tate analysis for now.)

Overall, an odd series - sort of lost its way a bit in the middle. Seems like ages ago that we'd just finished watching The Girl in the Fireplace, and all our socks had been collectively knocked off. The week before we'd had the gratuitous but very enjoyable fanwank of School Reunion, and we were looking forward to what could surely only be the triumphant return of the Cybermen. Then it all went a bit wrong: the Cybermen two parter actually turned out to be a bit workaday and unsatisfying; Trigger was rubbish and we were back in the midst of TylerDrama; and it was followed by The Idiot's Lantern, which was a good solid episode but in hindsight didn't help to regain any lost momentum. Then! The glory of The Impossible Planet and The Satan Pit. Finally, we're not on Earth! It's scary! It's interesting! Things were looking up, and it looked like plain sailing towards an epic series conclusion. But! We stumble again into the hugely divisive Love & Monsters and the budgetless, halfhearted Fear Her. It's like every time the series looked like it was about to become genuinely The Best Thing Ever, it was beset by either budgetary, pacing or production problems. Ho hum.

But the highs were pretty high indeed, weren't they?

[Fireproofradiator]

Re. Passing comment. Not sure I'd call what's a pretty open discussion (for the most part) as a musty, perjorative 'passing comment' and I think it's more interesting to 'be specific' to be honest. If the thread was just people posting smiley faces I wouldn't have stayed up til three last night posting here...

[Jumble Jumble]

Dav, I was just being sarky - you're not a chef after all

All I'm getting at is if I sit on a chair and it breaks I'm allowed to say it's rubbish, despite not knowing where to start making one myself.

As for it being mainstream, why does that give it an excuse for not being as well-written as Six Feet Under, or even Quantum Leap (sometimes)? I think the writing on the whole, with the exception of Moffat, is best described in my mind as "lightweight". And there's no reason for that whatsoever.

[Harmunt]

Surprised this is getting such a positive reaction.

One of the worst I've seen.

EDIT: Actually, I'm maybe being a bit harsh, but only because I'm disappointed. Sometimes a few really bad moments can be enough to kill an episode. And this had some really bad moments. As for the dialogue, well, in places it was some of the worst shite I've heard on TV. Really poor. Maybe old RTD is getting a bit bored of the subject matter. He's got really rich characters to play with, and frankly he did a piss poor job on this one.

The bit at the end was nice though, until he fucked it up by sticking Catherine Tate in there for some last minute gurning.

Ever seen a show called Video Gaiden?

For me it was quite simply fantastic Sci-Fi Tv.

I went straight to the cinema after to watch Pirates of The Carribean DMC and that was nowhere near as entertaining as what the BBC had shown me a few hours before.

Roll on series 3.

[tiedtiger]

Elaborate on those mistakes, with Fireplace in mind. Seriously. I can't understand picking on that episode. It's some of the best telly I've ever seen.

So what I was saying was the writing tends toward three things.

- Hamfistedness

- Sentimentality

- Rabbits out of hats to solve

And what I was saying about Fireplace was that the setup was good, but that it veered into the absurd, requiring lots of the above for it to conclude.

So this starts to happen from the moment that the Doctor returns to France and meets the adult Renet for the first time. Why? Because the scene is far too fast. He meets her, suddenly there's a big kiss, y'know, get the love angle moving quick quick. It just rings false. We don't know the character at all, and then bang. But ok, rescued for the moment by the rabbit out of the hat that is the Doctor realising that she's Madame du Pompadour.

The Rose and Mickey stuff that follows is nice, and the revelation of the ship using human parts is a good lead-up as to the why of the whole story (Although it is very contrived. Clockwork robots can manage to teleport and time travel, but they need someone's eye to fix an on-board ship's camera, and hearts to pump fluids about. Mm, ok. It's a bit silly and undermines the serious love story angle quite a bit, but whatever).

Rabbit 2. Doctor telepathy to explain the connection between him and Renet. How are we to believe that there's any real connection between them in the story when it just lurches along like this every few minutes? It's just exposition exposition exposition all the way "you are in my mind, oh how lonely you must have been as a boy" blah blah blah. Sentimental and hamfisted.

Roll on to ham-sentimental scene with Rose and Renet. "The monsters and the Doctor, you cannot have one without the other" etc. For Rose, fair enough. But we met Renet 25 minutes ago for the first time and have seen her in about 4 scenes. We have no real basis for identifying with her as a result. They're trying to paint a passionate connection here, but it's going way too fast so it all comes across as rushed and over-paced. So every scene becomes an over-powered revelation session or a bit of action. "One may tolerate a world of demons for the sake of an angel" etc. Um, ok.

And so on to the big finish.

One big thing first: "we can't use the Tardis, we're part of events now" but yet we can use a time window to achieve exactly the same effect? The logic of this hangs by a thread and also pretty much undoes the whole girl-in-a-fireplace story, but that is the problem that all time travel stories have. Why is it that it becomes such a tragedy when he could just Tardis-pop over and see her whenever. This sort of thing has never been adequately explained in the whole show, to be fair, and it's not Russ or his writers' fault. It's the way the show is.

What is bad though is when the story deliberately excludes one means of travel, but not the other. That's just poor story construction. If it's going to work inside a story constraint for dramatic tension about being part of events, then fine. Suspension of disbelief and all that. But don't then undermine the disbelief with arbitrary decisions to just get to the big finish. That's bad writing.

Anyway, on to the big finish.

"You think I fear you" etc. Sure, we get that the character is supposed to be one of the most courageous women ever, that's cool, but this is the sort of line that just makes me cringe. But ok, it's family entertainment, kids are watching, so you just go with it. Bit with the horse is spectacular, but why is this suddenly stranding everyone when all the other journeys have not? I suspect a rabbit out of a hat is on the way.

Secondly, Rose's reaction. Every fricking time the Doctor gets trapped somewhere or she thinks that maybe they'll be separated forever, she goes to pieces. Yes, she loves him, but come on. This happens every other week and things almost always work out. You would think she would have developed a bit of a thicker skin by now.

But no, she hasn't because - and this is where things really go off the rails - this is a Character Moment Where Mickey Realises The Truth.

Rabbit 3 (or is it 4) on the way. The soft luvvy dovey scene between Renet and the Doctor, "You trapped yourself here for me" etc. Leaving aside the much greater love that he has for Rose for just a moment (and that's anothey story logic break), "If I'm very very lucky" etc. It's another Rabbit, and it defuses any of the tension of the story, because there's been so many logic breaks and rabbits and faux sentiments at this stage that there's no real involvement any more. We're just watching a bunch of stuff happen on screen and it's not really adding up to much.

And then the sad end via a dramatic convenience and another heap of exposition via the King. What exactly is it that we're supposed to be feeling right now if not a whole lot of "Oh I see". Sure, it's a bit sad I guess, but does the build up really justify the ending?

No. It's ham and cheese as a result. Trying for pathos, resulting in bathos. Well shot, beautifully produced and the actors really are trying their best. But badly written nonetheless.

As to why, I think it's simply because the script is trying to condense too much. One of the problems that Who has, which is different from most other shows, is that the setting always changes. Unlike, say, Buffy etc, there's no way in Who to build a universe around the characters and so this makes it hard to construct stories because every script has to do the work of laying out the background and characters and plot all in one go. This is why, as I was saying last night, the better stories in the new series have been the two-parters, and it's also the reason why the old format of four or five half hour episodes per story worked better.

This story could have worked, much as many of them could have, if it had the room to work. They should really investigate making all the of the following series a run of two parters rather than single eps at the least (or even three parters). The stories would be much more satisfying as a result and not feel like everything was such a big rush all the time. This would give more scope for developing a plot, seriously reduce the rabbits and also give room for natural emotion scenes rather than swerves of sentiment and ham covered over by constant 'emotion' music.

Well that was a pleasant way to spend a Sunday morning, dissecting media.

Took my mind off doing some weekend work for the office a bit. Cheers!

[Fireproofradiator]

Hey harmunt - have you got a telly show we can draw comparisons with?

[Massive Invisible Dog]

Is everyone around here a writer or something? Only I wonder what qualifies some of you to pass such final judgement on "The Writing".

I don't know anything about writing a TV show. All I know is that for 45 minutes, 8 or 9 times out of 10, I am entertained & amused. Sometimes I'm even scared or saddened.

This seems to be the case for the majority of people.

Mainstream reviews are consistently positive.

It won a Bafta.

I don't see the problem. Even when I hate an episode, I still don't see the problem. This is mainstream telly, handled in a mainstream way. It isn't some obscure cult gem, on at 1am on the Sci-Fi channel, this is 7pm, BBC1, Saturday night, must-watch telly. It works. I didn't think it would, but it does. You can say the ratings are irrelevant, but millions of people tune in every week to watch it. That can't be gainsaid.

And yet still, people are getting something better than they might expect from Mainstream Telly. They're getting musings on loss, on death, on the notion of family, on individuality and its loss, on bravery, on anything you care to mention, because the programme's remit is pretty much infinite. For a mere Kids' show, this is unprecedented by anything other than Who itself.

Bear in mind that I didn't want the show to return. I'm not "blinded" by my love of Who whatsoever. I'm enjoying it, or not, on its own merits, based on the stories I'm being told. These stories are very enjoyable.

If the writing is bad, how come I'm having such a good time?

This is a pretty embarrassing post.

[Boyatsea]

So what I was saying was the writing tends toward three things.

- Hamfistedness

- Sentimentality

- Rabbits out of hats to solve... etc

To be honest, after reading that, the only parts which really ring true for me are the speed and the Doctor's "we're part of events now" - because that's never stopped him leaping into the TARDIS before. Steven could have come up with a better reason for that.

But the whole point is that it's meant to be a whirlwind romance. It's a love-at-first-sight thing. These two people hardly know each other, but there is a spark (and indeed, I really felt that, probably because they are actually together in real life) and its the kind of relationship we've never seen the Doctor have before.

How does he react? He gets drunk and walks around with a big smile on his face. Nice, I thought.

Plus, 'The Doctor and the monsters' line - one of my favourite parts. She's read his mind. She probably knows him now as well, if not better, than Rose.

[Bad Ambassador]

1. 10.2m- France v Portugal (Live coverage only)

2. 9.3m - Germany v Italy (Live coverage only)

3. 7.9m - Eastenders

4. 7.7m - Doctor Who

5. 7.7m - Coronation Street

6. 7.6m - Coronation Street

7. 7.4m - Coronation Street

8. 7.3m - Eastenders

9. 7.0m - Eastenders

10. 6.9m - Eastenders

11. 6.8m - Germany v Portugal (Live coverage only)

That's how the ratings for the week look so far, although Who will drop a place after the World Cup Final (but could gain a place by overtaking EastEnders in the final figures).

It's worth pointing out, maybe, that these last two years have been stunning in terms of ratings. Back in the olden days of the show, even when it was pulling in 10 million viewers a week it was rarely a regular Top 20 show (about 60 times in 696 episodes, and that was when there weren't countless episodes of the soaps to contend with and there were only three channels compared to today's hundred or so).

Out of the 27 episodes in the last two years, 26 have been in the Top 20, and a big chunk of those in the Top 10. In the olden days the top shows were getting 25 million viewers, and Doctor Who never came close to that. These days, Doctor Who is permanently near the top.

It's also the only show this summer to have held onto its core audience, when everything around it was dropping like flies (stuff like The Bill has dipped to 3 million recently).

Russell T Davies knows what he's doing. He's created (re-created?) a monster.

[tiedtiger]

This seems to be the case for the majority of people.

Mainstream reviews are consistently positive.

It won a Bafta.

If the writing is bad, how come I'm having such a good time?

There's lots of reasons why. Some examples could be:

1. That "British inferiority complex" thing

You know, the one where they feel that because Britain's telly is so over-run by (generally superior) US telly, that ANY sort of attempt to take back ground is automatically hailed as a success. You see this with movies all the time, the British success story in Hollywood type of thing. Especially with drama. Comedy in Britain doesn't generally suffer the same sense of inferiority, but drama does. The US are pumping out lots of great quality shows in all genres (a veritable golden age if you like) from crime to romance to science fiction, and when you see such great shows as Lost, Galactica, the Sopranos and so on coming across the sea with intelligent stories, high production values, all the rest of it, the reaction here is generally defensive for anything "British". Who falls firmly into that category, as does Spooks and a couple of other shows that are actually pretty poor.

2. Identification.

It could be that since Who is the only properly funded sci-fi show in Britain, based on British characters and British stories, that people like it because they relate to it more. US shows are all well and good, but they are American in nature, and so there's a loss of character identification there. Whereas characters from the East End, from Cardiff, wherever, well you can relate to that more easily and get the in-jokes more.

3. Nostalgia.

Lots of people grew up with Who as kids, and the new show is going to make them more predisposed to viewing it kindly than some brand new show. It will be interesting in this respect to see how Torchwood does. I suspect it'll fall flat, but we'll see. Nostalgia is a strong driver of the media market at the moment, as evidenced by the return of lots of properties to the big screen. People will go and see something based on something that they already recognise, especially from their childhood. A lot of people feel that, even if these movies and shows may actually be of questionable quality, they "have to be seen". The Star Wars prequels and Rings trilogy being the most obvious cases, but the same effect applies to all sorts of properties, which is why they're all getting rolled out one after another. As to WHY the audience behaves this way, well that's a whole other discussion.

4. Celebrity.

Who makes use of a lot of celebrities, household name actors and faces that the audience recognises. Far more than any other drama show on TV today. It's become the central station for actors to pass through, and Catherine Tate is only the latest in a long line. Celebrities attract audiences and positive media reaction, which also influences awards and all the rest of it (which is why the Oscars almost invariably award pretty rubbish movies high honours). Ditch the celebs and what would the effect be on the ratings?

And so on.

There's lots of reasons why the show is popular and people might like it despite the poor writing, ranging from the guest stars to the childhood memories to the Britain vs US culture thing. Take your pick.

To be honest, after reading that, the only parts which really ring true for me are the speed and the Doctor's "we're part of events now" - because that's never stopped him leaping into the TARDIS before. Steven could have come up with a better reason for that.

But the whole point is that it's meant to be a whirlwind romance. It's a love-at-first-sight thing. These two people hardly know each other, but there is a spark (and indeed, I really felt that, probably because they are actually together in real life) and its the kind of relationship we've never seen the Doctor have before.

I know what it's meant to be.

Meant to be and actual delivery are two different things though. What's meant to be a whirlwind romance turns out to be a sort of speed-demon "best of" show which can't avoid using tons of exposition and rationalisation to convey itself, and what results is something that actually is (rather than meant to be) pretty bad overall.

Plus, 'The Doctor and the monsters' line - one of my favourite parts. She's read his mind. She probably knows him now as well, if not better, than Rose.

It's an ok line. What I'm pointing at more is the context of its delivery. It's just not very plausible given how little of the supposed whirlwind we've actually seen. So it comes out like a clanger.

[Boyatsea]

Meant to be and actual delivery are two different things though. What's meant to be a whirlwind romance turns out to be a sort of speed-demon "best of" show which can't avoid using tons of exposition and rationalisation to convey itself, and what results is something that actually is (rather than meant to be) pretty bad overall.

Well, that's all conjecture really.

It's an ok line. What I'm pointing at more is the context of its delivery. It's just not very plausible given how little of the supposed whirlwind we've actually seen. So it comes out like a clanger.

Again. Don't agree with that at all. She read his mind - what else is there to know? She pretty much knows everything.

[tiedtiger]

Well, that's all conjecture really.

I think I've done a fairly good job of explainig why it isn't all conjecture actually.

I mean you asked for the reasons, there they all are. Argue them or don't, it's your call.

Again. Don't agree with that at all. She read his mind - what else is there to know? She pretty much knows everything.

Do you get what I'm saying about it being convenient exposition/rabbits and why that's actually pretty poor storytelling?

Exposition is storytelling for morons. It's the equivalent of having the actors turn to the camera and basically tell you what's going on. Not in that stylish way (as in High Fidelity) where the character is telling you their version of events (and so having a kind of conversation with the audience where they begin to guess what he's really like rather than what he says he's like) but in a raw way, just babbling out plot details to get the plot moved along. It lacks any sort of depth whatsoever and robs the audience of their participation and anticipation because it signposts everything. That's what the telepathy thing does in this episode. It raises a big 'You Should Care Now' to the audience and is basically shonky.

Like I said, I think the reason that the show keeps doing this is that the format isn't working in single episode form because it leaves no room for all the right setups to lead to a convincing story.

[Boyatsea]

I think I've done a fairly good job of explainig why it isn't all conjecture actually.

I mean you asked for the reasons, there they all are. Argue them or don't, it's your call.

No offense, but you didn't. You rattled off a load of your own opinions. Which is fine - I can't argue with that. They're not fact, though.

Do you get what I'm saying about it being convenient exposition/rabbits and why that's actually pretty poor storytelling?

It's a sci-fi show. How on earth is reading someone's mind poor storytelling?

What would have them do - go to a counciller?

[tiedtiger]

No offense, but you didn't. You rattled off a load of your own opinions. Which is fine - I can't argue with that. They're not fact, though.

That's not an answer.

I dissected the show pretty carefully at your request. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la, it's all conjecture and opinion anyway" is no kind of response. You asked for the dissection, there it is. Now either admit that I'm basically right or construct a proper counter-argument. The choice is yours.

It's a sci-fi show. How on earth is reading someone's mind poor storytelling?

What would have them do - go to a counciller?

So either no, you don't get why it's poor storytelling, or yes, you do but you're hoping that deflecting by invoking the genre you won't have to admit that, again, I'm basically right.

Convenient exposition, whether it be through mind reading or whatever device, is bad storytelling. Mind reading itself is not necessarily a bad storytelling tool. Here it's used for exposition, and that is bad. In Battlestar Galactica, Baltar's dream states and visions are brilliant because they don't just blart out the plot, they develop the character and provide bits of foreshadowing. And they're done visually (show, don't tell etc)

It's all to do with how you use it.

[Mogster]

There's lots of reasons why. Some examples could be:

1. That "British inferiority complex" thing

You know, the one where they feel that because Britain's telly is so over-run by (generally superior) US telly, that ANY sort of attempt to take back ground is automatically hailed as a success. You see this with movies all the time, the British success story in Hollywood type of thing. Especially with drama. Comedy in Britain doesn't generally suffer the same sense of inferiority, but drama does. The US are pumping out lots of great quality shows in all genres (a veritable golden age if you like) from crime to romance to science fiction, and when you see such great shows as Lost, Galactica, the Sopranos and so on coming across the sea with intelligent stories, high production values, all the rest of it, the reaction here is generally defensive for anything "British". Who falls firmly into that category, as does Spooks and a couple of other shows that are actually pretty poor.

Rubbish. I love Galactica, and enjoy Lost (haven't seen The Sopranos), along with Spooks as it happens (poor?). However, Who is on another level entirely for me simply because I enjoy it so much more. It's no more complicated than that.

2. Identification.

It could be that since Who is the only properly funded sci-fi show in Britain, based on British characters and British stories, that people like it because they relate to it more. US shows are all well and good, but they are American in nature, and so there's a loss of character identification there. Whereas characters from the East End, from Cardiff, wherever, well you can relate to that more easily and get the in-jokes more.

The most central part of my enjoyment of the show is the nature of the Doctor himself, an alien who can travel anywhere and anywhen. If anything I think the show should be doing more away from Earth altogether, let alone Britain.

3. Nostalgia.

Lots of people grew up with Who as kids, and the new show is going to make them more predisposed to viewing it kindly than some brand new show. It will be interesting in this respect to see how Torchwood does. I suspect it'll fall flat, but we'll see. Nostalgia is a strong driver of the media market at the moment, as evidenced by the return of lots of properties to the big screen. People will go and see something based on something that they already recognise, especially from their childhood. A lot of people feel that, even if these movies and shows may actually be of questionable quality, they "have to be seen". The Star Wars prequels and Rings trilogy being the most obvious cases, but the same effect applies to all sorts of properties, which is why they're all getting rolled out one after another. As to WHY the audience behaves this way, well that's a whole other discussion.

I was born in 1985, four years before the original run was cancelled, and I don't remember watching a single episode in that time. Since the new series started I've been catching up with the classic one, as a result of my enjoyment of the new. Also, the LotR trilogy is certainly not "of questionable quality".

4. Celebrity.

Who makes use of a lot of celebrities, household name actors and faces that the audience recognises. Far more than any other drama show on TV today. It's become the central station for actors to pass through, and Catherine Tate is only the latest in a long line. Celebrities attract audiences and positive media reaction, which also influences awards and all the rest of it (which is why the Oscars almost invariably award pretty rubbish movies high honours). Ditch the celebs and what would the effect be on the ratings?

Peter Kay aside, I've seen all the "celebrity" played characters purely as characters in the story, not as "that guy from thingie".

Now stop being so patronising.