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

I've always thought that Doctor Who under Russell T Davies seemed rather more slick and flashy than the series before it got cancelled, but I have a friend who insists that the line of continuity is direct and obvious. He cites the authorised novels, many of which were written by new-Who writers (including RTD himself), some of which have even been re-created as episodes of the new series.
So, what are the differences? Are they just superficial, or indicative of a real break?

Most obviously the old series were pretty much discrete stories consisting of usually 4 episodes with a cliffhanger at the end of the first 3. Vary rarely did what happened in previous stories impact in later ones - obvious exceptions being the time ring in Tom Baker's first series and the Key To Time season; but even these had little interweave. These days it's about 9 single stories, with a couple of two-parters; with an overall story arc.

Other differences this time around have been the soapy feel of having Rose's family (and Martha / Donna's to an extent) in the background popping in and out of the storylines. And of course there has been much more about the possible romantic involvements between the Doctor and companions where this was never a factor in the old series.

But you'd also need to consider whether old Who is a consistent formula, or not? Originally it was all year round in black & white, with every episode having a story. The series was partly intended to look at history hence many of the 1st Doctor stories being from various era's e.g. Stone Age, Romans, French Revolution. By the 2nd Doctor it had become about monsters. The 3rd Doctor became earthbound due to changes in production etc, etc.

It's a bit of both, isn't it? Like the Daleks and the Police Box and other things are kinda the same, but there's the bigger stuff like story arcs, etc. But the has been redecorated.

Think it's helped production that our technology has come along so much. They can do so much more in the computer and with green screen and all that.

>>Vary rarely did what happened in previous stories impact in later ones - obvious exceptions being the time ring in Tom Baker's first series and the Key To Time season; but even these had little interweave. These days it's about 9 single stories, with a couple of two-parters; with an overall story arc.<<

Not actually true, this. Really not. In fact the idea of stories having no connection was not as common as you'd think - unless you've only seen 1970s and late 1980s episodes. The original run of stories have direct or implied continuity for the first two years and stories that ran directly into the one that followed. The first time there's a really clear break is at the end of series two. Even then, four episodes into season three, we're back to an on-going continuity that pretty much spans the Troughton era. Pertwee's first two seasons each have continuity running through the stories until we get to season nine and ten.

Even then, stories have cross-over elements, such as the search for Metebelis III and the blue crystal, which arcs over two series. Thanks to the regeneration, the time ring and the 'space time telegraph', seasons 11, 12 and 13 run almost consecutively (although there is the odd gap here and there in season 13 that could comfortably accommodate 'missing' stories). In season 14, Hand of Fear and Deadly Assassin run into each other, and the final three stories run almost consecutively. Invisible Enemy and Image of the Fendahl in season 15 run into each other too and then you have season 16 - the Key to Time.

There's not much continuity between the stories of season 17, but from the beginning of John Nathan-Turner's time, you have an ongoing story that pretty much goes from The Leisure Hive until The Five Doctors and vaguely connected stories there on in (in that you might have one story followed by another, but the second one will often have a link to the third, and so on). Trial of a Time Lord is one long connected story, then we get Sylvester McCoy, which is a lot of separate stories, but with two ongoing story arcs - the wolves of Fenric - which begins in Dragonfire in season 24, connects to Silver Nemesis and ends in The Curse of Fenric - and a lesser one which is the connections to Old Gallifrey.

As for the 'soap opera' elements, I'd question what that actually means. Certainly, the relationships are better defined than they used to be - we know who Donna Noble is far more than we ever really knew Steven Taylor or Peri. But all that really is, is an evolution of how TV is made. There's not a single drama made like 'Doctor Who' used to be made, except the three main soaps. In terms of production, old Who is much closer to a soap opera than new Who. But you can definitely see links from McCoy's last seasons to Eccleston's and Tennant's stories. The increase in domestic situations (Remembrance of the Daleks is partly set in a character's front room), a greater depth to a character's background, greyer motivations than simple 'good' and 'evil' and, most importantly, I think, the first ever adventure set in a 'working class' housing estate. The TV Movie was quite a backstep in many ways. It's quite easy to see 'Survival' and then 'Rose' and just assume it follows on.

But the easy answer is that yes, they're both the same show. Because if you watch 'An Unearthly Child' and then watch 'Journey's End', you'll still be watching the best thing on telly that week

Whatever the connections (or lack of connections) it's still a great show.

In fact, even though the first lot of episodes have different titles, the first "story" is 6 episodes long... which is how the 2-parters are done nowadays...

I was thinking about this the other day though, and i think a major factor is pace. "new who" is alot faster than the retro stuff. I was watching terror of the zygons the other day (for the first time) and was yelling at thye screen because it was blatantly obvious what was happening. That probably means the writing has improved more than anything else...

The first story was four eps long, the second was seven, although six-part stories were very common in the 1960s and early '70s, until Tom Baker came in, and they decided to make the default four episodes.

We've had one six-part equivalent in the new productions though, with Utopia leading into Sound of Drums and Last of the Time Lords.

... which was awesome... untill RTD ruined the end

"We've had one six-part equivalent in the new productions though, with Utopia leading into Sound of Drums and Last of the Time Lords."

Turn Left, Stolen Earth, Journey's End?

The old six-parters were often guilty of padding. I'd definitely agree that new Who is faster paced. That doesn't always make for a good thing, as sometimes the climax of stories can seem a bit rushed. On the positive, they also start quicker. RTD himself has said that the 45 minute format leaves less time for introductions, and where in old Who you'd often start in the TARDIS with the companions/Doctor having a chatting then opening the monitor to see where they'd landed; we now start with action (pre-credits footage also a new thing) and the Doctor and companion leaving the TARDIS.

I wouldn't mind a little bit more chit chat inside the occasionally... and the pre-titles stuff is true of telly in general nowadays

also, when Martha stays on after the sonaron one, isn't that kinda a 6 parter as well?

Would like to see more rooms in the sometimes too. Or am I the only one? We always see the control room and the wardrobe on a rare occasion, but what about the rest of it?

other rooms are mentioned a few times, but never actually shown... yeah it would be nice...

Also, (obviously) the music is WAY different

It's also worth noting the two 'extra-long' adventures in the 60s; The Daleks' Masterplan was 12 episodes and The War Games 10 episodes. Prior to The Daleks' Masterplan, we had the first Doctor-lite episode in Mission to the Unknown (a one-episode story featuring none of the regular cast.) And Pertwee's first season featured three seven-episode adventures. Also, we had two episodes per week at the end of Davison's run and Colin Baker's first proper season moved to forty-five minute episodes.

I think it's true to say that, joined up episodes aside, there was rarely a story-arc in old Who (particularly in the sense of putting "clues" in like RTD did with the bad wolf arc) but Smij covered some valid exceptions. Certainly, story-arcs were more explicit (Key to Time, Black Guardian/Turlough &c.) and the implicit one in McCoy's era was never finalised on screen

The main differences I see between old and new Who are the production values, publicity and exploitation of the show's history. But production values have risen across television generally (and especially for shows that have a special-effects element); publicity has changed because of things like the internet and the relatively modern vogue of 'celebrity' "news" stories and publications; exploiting the show's history is probably natural given that Who was off-air for so long.

New Who is possibly less 'soap-like' than old because the cliffhanger endings have all but gone (think of Black Orchid, a two-part story shown on consecutive nights but with a total running time that is less than one new Who episode.) And the day-to-day soapiness of new Who serves a narrative function in the same way that the Ian/Barbara relationship and Tegan's wish to get home did.

Essentially, Who is the same as it always was and the differences from old and new are the same as the differences from Pertwee's last season to Hartnell's first imho. And I agree with Smij because, a few months ago, I re-watched the first episode of An Unearthly Child and I was amazed at how good it still is (I was also v impressed watching The War Machines a few weeks ago.)

Van

I'm always impressed by that first episode. It still stands up today and I don't think the show ever quite got that good again - not because of any failings anywhere else, but because it really is THAT good.

Although I have to put my pedant hat on again - 'Mission to the Unknown' may be the first 'story' to not feature the Doctor at all, but it's not the first 'Doctor-lite' story. As the show was in production all year round, they'd often have reasons for the regular characters to duck out of sight for a week or so, with characters left behind (Barbara in 'The Sensorites') or imprisoned (Ian in 'The Reign of Terror'). But the first actual 'Doctor-lite' story was 'The Keys of Marinus' (available on DVD in a couple of months!), in which the Doctor disappears in episode two of a six-part story and isn't seen again until episode five. And as with many 'Doctor-lite' stories nowadays ('Blink' excepted'), it's not one that's all that popular with fans, but I love it.

Yes, you're right I've seen an episode of Dalek's Invasion of Earth where William Hartnell is sick/injured and left hidden in a container, and the action goes off with Susan/Ian. Also one of the Time Meddler episodes (#2 I think) we see the Doctor being imprisoned at the end of the prior episode and although this footage is reused at the start of the next, Hartnell doesn't actually appear. I think may also be the case in Tenth Planet. Unfortunately I don't think William Hartnell was entirely healthy.

With the Dalek Invasion of Earth episode, this was an unplanned gap as Hartnell had been injured the previous week in an on-set accident (note how the 'Doctor' in that fourth episode doesn't show his face - because it's not Hartnell). Similarly, episode 3 of Tenth Planet, Hartnell was feeling unwell, so some of his dialogue was divided up between the companions as if he'd told them the important details offscreen.

Now that the episodes are being cleaned up for DVD, it's easier to spot the weeks when an actor's not actually been around, because their contribution tends to be on film. If the action jumps to film and then back to videotape, it's either a fight sequence or someone's going on holiday that week

Worst example of this is The Space Pirates, where the main cast were off shooting the film sequences for The War Games, so almost the entire story happens with other characters in their absence. Although it's not helped by The Space Pirates being the single worst story of the black-and-white era.

Sorry - topic drift!

Teaching methods have changed over the years, and while most children would have recognised the historical characters and settings back then, I'm not sure children of today would have a clue about the importance of Culloden. But there's still a healthy educational element to the series, both in terms of the historical characters they meet and in the way it's a great early entry for children into how drama works.

Oh and in reply to Van, there was a reason why Doctor Who ran twice a week in the early 1980s - alongside other shows like Angels and District Nurse, it was being used to test out the best timeslot and days of the week for a soap opera they were developing, which eventually emerged in 1985 as 'EastEnders'.

By the way, since I left the staff of h2g2, I've been working on the bbc.co.uk/archive site, and last year I curated a collection about the birth of Doctor Who. Have a look at this document, which outlines the way the show was being developed. here are a few notable deviations from what eventually happened - notably the names of the other regular characters and the mode of time-travel transport - but it's interesting to see the general feeling of the show has survived in many ways:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/doctorwho/dr6403_1.shtml?doc=6403

Another thing I noticed was the lack of music, nowadays there's music the whole time, but not so with old stories

Oh yes! Again, it was a technical think - they couldn't edit the tapes afterwards, so much was played into the studio live. By the mid-1970s, they had synchronous sound so composers would create their music along with a time-coded copy of the programme.

I was watching Image of the Fendahl last night and was surprised that there was only six minutes of music in the first two episodes. There's only one scene in the new series that doesn't have music - when Martha's traped in the escape pod in '42', and the scene works so well because of that.

There's a point in the final episode of the latest Torchwood serial as well when there's no music, and it too works brilliantly. Isn't it odd that we're so used to music now that its absence is highly effective, when not very many years ago, the music itself was relatively rare, so its *presence* was effective?

SOund of silence....yes a very powerful tool.