h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

To complement the splendid article on Dr Who, I have written a review of this ground-breaking TV series.

It lives at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A545339

Please be gentle with your comments

I think this is definitely interesting info -- I'm just rather unsure if it would be better suited as an update to the existing entry than as a stand-alone. I couldn't really see a clear focus that was distinct from the topic in the original Dr Who entry.


Mikey

Mickey, the original article is an in-depth celebration of the Dr Who series from an historical point of view.

This is a critique. It is written from a modern-day perspective. The article points out, among other things, that the early episodes haven't aged terribly well.

As such, it would be wrong to try and meld the two opposing viewpoints in one article. IMHO, a sensible compromise is to link them together and let the reader make up his/her mind.

Incidently, I contributed quite a bit of stuff to the original.

At the least I'd include a link to:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A356825

Also, the early episodes that you refer to seem to mainly be "An Unearthly Child/100,000 BC" with a brief mention of "The Daleks". Perhaps a bit more to explain that you are limiting your critique to the very first William Hartnell stories?

Oh, and talking of the original - it's wrong. "The Wheel In Space" is a 2nd Doctor (Patrick Troughton) story - NOT a 3rd Doctor (Jon Pertwee) one.

<BB<

Thanks BB. I've added the link.

I will reword the into to take into account the points you make. I guess leaving an acknowledgemt of the improvements in production standards that were made over time to the last paragraph would not placate the temper of fans getting angrier the more they read.

Actually, on reflection, I have renamed the yarn "Dr Who - A Review Of The Early Days", a title which more accurately describes what it is, in the main, about.

I was just about to suggest a title change myself. I definitely think this is a clearer title, although I might even suggest changing to "A Critical Review", to emphasize that it's a movie/tv critic kind of review as opposed to a summary kind of review.

just my 2 cents


mikey

How about; "Dr Who - A Critique Of The Early Days"?

Yep - good choice of title. I was wondering about balance - but on second thoughts I don't think that *anyone* could try and claim that the Daleks were high-quality special effects...

The link to "who's who of..." might be better done on the phrase "the original Dr. Who" - to emphasise it's a link to a review of the lead character, rather than to the series as a whole. Whadyathink?

Good thinking Lucinda. I have moved the link to a more general mention of the Dr Who series.

umm - that wasn't quite what I meant...

I meant that the linked entry is about the lead character of Dr. Who(ie, Dr. Who) - not the Dr. Who series as a whole. So it should link from a mention of the lead character. Is that any clearer, or have I completely confused the issue, or am I thick?

IMO, the Who's Who yarn discusses a lot more than just the characters. In an "exciting" breakthough, I have added the picture

Hmm - I guess so.

Ahh well - details! That's where the is. He's very small...

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review' to 'Dr Who - A Critique Of The Early Days'.

This thread has been moved out of the Peer Review Forum because your entry has now been recommended for the Edited Guide.

You can find out what will happen to your entry here: http://www.h2g2.com/SubEditors-Process

Congratulations!

To the wise and thoughtful Scout who recommended this, may the power be with you - ooops wrong series

Congratulations, Loony! Well, you've done it again - I thoroughly enjoyed reading this, and I think others will too. Thank you for writing such a great article - please keep up the good work!

Lentilla

(I've been a Dr. Who fan for a while... Of course, Tom Baker is my favorite, although I liked Peter Davison and the last one... what was his name... One of my favorite moments is when the Doctor (as Tom) is being devoured by some sort of gelatinous monster, which was actually a flabby sheet of distressed latex with some people under it. As he's being absorbed, he complains "Ouch! You're stepping on my scarf!")

Do you mean by "the last one":
Sylvester McCoy, the last Doctor in the series, or
Paul McGann, who played him, briefly, in the American Pilot TV Movie?

<BB<

Hmmm.. I'd almost forgotten about that! I watched the pilot, and was not impressed - they'd replaced whimsy with incomprehensibility. I would love to see a more modern treatment of Dr. Who, but that was not it!

I was thinking about Sylvester McCoy, with that question-mark umbrella. Did they ever complete that season? (I'm at the mercy of my public-television station over here in the US - and Dr. Who episodes are very pricey.)

Lentilla, I'm sure BB will be able to answer your question. In the meantime here's some splendid breaking news.

[copyright material removed by moderator]

Oh dear. It wasn't copyright material. It was a summary of a press release.

My dear Moderators, in most countries press releases are distributed with the intent that the information they contain is widely disseminated. In short, they carry no publication restrictions. Apparently the rules are different in Pommieland. (Though I doubt it).

The gist of the press release was that the science fiction series Dr Who has topped a list as the most influential television cult program of all time. The list is contained in a new book, The Penguin Television Companion.

Second on the list was Fawlty Towers, with Star Trek in third place.

Any Brit reading this should watch tonight&#8217;s (Aug 15) news on BBC. I am sure the story will be covered. Americans will have to check out BBC Online to find where the Simpsons placed. Unless my original post reappears of course