World Enough and Time

Any idea what a "Laddyfan" is?

From:

kikibug13.livejournal.com

_me_?

Who had vaguely heard the title "Doctor Who" before TW?

From:

Heh. I at least had heard about the show, and had a mental image of Tom Baker in my head. In a scarf.

From:

"Keepin the show alive" is a nice thought, if, in the case of the quiz, rather grudgingly admitted. A quiz designed by an old "classic Who" fan, methinks.

From:

silverwhistle.livejournal.com

I got "Classic series n00b", which is silly since I've been watching since 1969-70-ish.

From:

Perhaps the composer of the quiz believes that no one who actually watched the old show could possibly like the new? I suspected a certain bias in the tone of the questions - and the answers!

From:

"Good natured jumper wearer" here.

I love the New Who, but when you come right down to it, Tom Baker is still & always will be MY Doctor.

From:

One of these days I really should psych myself into seeing the Tom Baker episodes. Maybe.

For decades, though I knew almost nothing about the show, my mental image of the Doctor was Tom Baker.

Oddly, though it was really David Tennant who hooked me on the show (since I saw three episodes with him before I'd seen more than one with Eccleston), my first mental image of the Doctor is now Christopher Eccleston first, foremost and always, even though I thoroughly love Tennant in the role. But Eccleston is somehow more real to me.

Is there any particular connotation to being a jumper wearer? And do you know what a "Laddyfan" is?

From:

No idea what being a "jumper wearer" signifies. Not a clue what a "laddyfan" is. Some aspects of Brit culture are entirely opaque to me.

I highly recommend a viewing of some Tom Baker. I've been re-watching some of his stories recently which I hadn't seen in many years, and they've held up surprisingly well -- esp. the ones from his first few seasons, before the characterization devolved into caricature.

The pacing is a little different from the modern show, because the stories are longer but the episodes shorter (which requires a little cliffhanger every 20 min. or so), and the production values are pretty standard 1970's BBC (i.e. pretty good sets & costumes for the historical stories, quarries & rubber suits for the SF, & that strange outdoor film + indoor video combo they always used) -- but esp. in the first few seasons the writing is generally good & the acting too.

Specific stories I recommend: The Pyramids of Mars, The Terror of the Zygons, The Genesis of the Daleks, The Hand of Fear, The Deadly Assassin (unique because there's no companion, just the Doctor solo on Galifrey), The Talons of Weng Chiang, & The City of Death (Paris & Leonardo!)

From:

Some aspects of Brit culture are entirely opaque to me.

Me too. Especially when it comes to vocabulary. Especially when it comes to specialized fannish vocabulary. But I often get lost in American English too.

I've been re-watching some of his stories recently which I hadn't seen in many years, and they've held up surprisingly well -- esp. the ones from his first few seasons, before the characterization devolved into caricature.

This doesn't entirely fill me with confidence, you know. But... so noted.

The Pyramids of Mars

Love the title.

The City of Death (Paris & Leonardo!)

I'd like that. Okay, more to watch... at some point.

From:

I've been re-watching some of his stories recently which I hadn't seen in many years, and they've held up surprisingly well -- esp. the ones from his first few seasons, before the characterization devolved into caricature.

This doesn't entirely fill me with confidence, you know. But... so noted.

There were I think 3 different producers during TB's tenure, who all handled the show very differently. The first, Philip Hinchcliffe, paid a lot of attention to mood & atmosphere, and produced a lot of stories with a strong Gothic/horror leaning and good dramatic value.

The third, John Nathan-Turner, had a much more cartoonish notion of the show, & was responsible for a lot of things I disliked about Who in the 80s (e.g. the Doctor started to wear a costume, not clothing, & the companions became annoying brats).

//delete rant about JNT destroying Doctor Who//

In between was one whose name I always forget, most of whose stories were also rather forgettable. (Douglas Adams was his script editor for a year or 2, but IMO it was not a very good fit.)

From:

silverwhistle.livejournal.com

Yes: I think the '80s was when it started to be treated more as "just a kids' show". I stopped watching regularly after Peter Davison. I watched some of the Colin Baker stories, but McCoy... Aaaargh!

From:

the '80s was when it started to be treated more as "just a kids' show"

It's a bad sign when the producers don't respect their own material. It isn't even the labelling - even now they aim it at eight-year-olds but write for an intelligence level that anyone of any maturity can enjoy.

McCoy... Aaaargh

Oh dear.

From:

There were I think 3 different producers during TB's tenure, who all handled the show very differently.

That sounds like a problem right there. What kind of a span of years are we talking about? Five or six?

The first, Philip Hinchcliffe, paid a lot of attention to mood & atmosphere, and produced a lot of stories with a strong Gothic/horror leaning and good dramatic value.

Sounds good.

the Doctor started to wear a costume, not clothing, & the companions became annoying brats

Sounds unfortunate.

//delete rant about JNT destroying Doctor Who//

So let me get the chain of events right. Was it like this:
1. Doctor Who was a good show, with good stories, that many people loved
2. With JNY Doctor Who was a dumb show with bad stories and people stopped watching
3. The show was cancelled and not renewed until (abortively) 1996 or (successfully) 2005 - ?

Douglas Adams was his script editor for a year or 2, but IMO it was not a very good fit

Though I have every respect and love for Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio version particularly), I wouldn't want to see Adams' style on Doctor Who.

From:

Douglas Adams? I forget what the book's called for now, but the plot involving the Krikkit robots was originally intended to be for Doctor Who.

From:

Really - ? I never knew that. Cool.

(And that icon always makes me smile, it's so darn cute.)

From:

Just re-read it - early on, Slartibartfast takes on the role of The Doctor, then when you get to the planet, it's Trillian who's himself.

I know you like this one, you've said it before, thats why I'm using it...

From:

Just re-read it -

I'll have to! I think I'll see it in a whole different light now.

As for liking the icon: I'm consistent. And... it's adorable Ianto, it's gorgeous Jack, it's Jack with a smile, it's Ianto and Jack together, and a sentiment I approve of - what's not to love?

From:

The fact that I had to put them together, because they were never in the same shot in the scene with the quote?

From:

How uncooperative of them. As far as I'm concerned, we needed a gun-room shooting scene with Ianto and Jack instead of Gwen and Jack. Extended to twice as long.

From:

You mean there isn't one in the last 3 eps? How dissapointing.

From:

Maybe in the out-takes?

Maybe next season.

Maybe in our fertile imaginations.

From:

Perhaps, hope so, definitly.

The wind out there is so loud I can't hear the radio...

From:

The Canadian west coast is having that same wind problem.

Ottawa is calm - for the moment. Maybe snow flurries this morning. Snow flurries are quiet.

From:

That sounds like a problem right there. What kind of a span of years are we talking about? Five or six?

Seven years.

The first, Philip Hinchcliffe, paid a lot of attention to mood & atmosphere, and produced a lot of stories with a strong Gothic/horror leaning and good dramatic value.

Sounds good.

Most of the stories I recommended above are from this period.

So let me get the chain of events right. Was it like this:
1. Doctor Who was a good show, with good stories, that many people loved
2. With JNY Doctor Who was a dumb show with bad stories and people stopped watching
3. The show was cancelled and not renewed until (abortively) 1996 or (successfully) 2005 - ?

#1 is correct.

#2 is correct in very broad strokes.

To be fair to JNT, he did bring energy back to a show that had been drifting a bit, and his first few seasons were very popular. Production values improved significantly, which was a Good Thing.

But he did dumb it down in some key ways, made some terrible casting choices (esp. of companions), and had no respect for the audience. One constant about Doctor Who had always been that the Doctor was the reliable center of moral gravity--you might not understand him, but you could always trust him. JNT threw that out the window with Colin Baker, and the audience abandoned the show in droves. It was cancelled, came back after 18 months, and lost almost all its remaining audience before being cancelled again.

(Some die-hard fans swear that Sylvester McCoy's last season was a masterpiece, but I found it mostly incoherent and nearly unwatchable, and so did most everyone else.)

#3 is correct.

From:

Seven years.

A healthy run.

But he did dumb it down in some key ways... and had no respect for the audience.

Sounds to me very like the decline of X-Files.

One constant about Doctor Who had always been that the Doctor was the reliable center of moral gravity--you might not understand him, but you could always trust him. JNT threw that out the window with Colin Baker

Oh, how awful! I can't imagine an unreliable Doctor. I mean, he can be a trickster and a dark force, but... trustworthy.

Some die-hard fans swear that Sylvester McCoy's last season was a masterpiece

What was I just saying, in another context? There's no consensus in fandom!

From:

For decades, though I knew almost nothing about the show, my mental image of the Doctor was Tom Baker. - Ditto!

Oddly, though it was really David Tennant who hooked me on the show - Ditto!

I've seen some Tom Baker, it's well worthwhile. :)

From:

Ditto!

I do love artistic agreement.

I've seen some Tom Baker, it's well worthwhile. :)

I'll get around to him.

From:

Also- "jumper" means sweater, so I think it's a reference to a geeky, cardigan-wearing, mild-mannered fan. To be a "lad" is to be "one of the boys"- a little immature and just out to have fun (often sexually promiscious or wants to be perceived as such)-- sometimes metrosexual! Getting the picture?

From:

a reference to a geeky, cardigan-wearing, mild-mannered fan

What are the connotations? Is it like: hopelessly annoying and useless, or pleasantly geeky and kind of lovable like Hiro in Heroes?

To be a "lad" is to be "one of the boys"- a little immature and just out to have fun (often sexually promiscious or wants to be perceived as such)-- sometimes metrosexual! Getting the picture?

Not really, I'm missing the connotations. Does it mean a Ladddyfan would be hitting on other fans for sex, or that he'd be urbane, cool and popular?

From:

Sorry, messed up and had to repost...

As I was saying: the first is pleasantly geeky.

Owen is a stereotypical Lad at the beginning of the series. There you go. Want a lad? Owen!

From:

Oh, and he probably wouldn't be half as popular as he thinks.

I'm going to go try to get it as a result, to see how the author views the Laddyfan.

From: