This changes everything. Again. (Doctor Who, Season 2)

Like the iPhone 4, Doctor Who's second season was not without its problems. However, 1965 saw the series' popularity reach even greater heights than the previous year. Even the Beatles wanted to be on Doctor Who, and they sort of were. I think Doctor Who handled its success rather well - pushing the boundaries of what stories it could tell, while not straying from the formula that everyone loved. (Really, Season 2's only big failure was that it couldn't produce a monster to come close to the Daleks' popularity.) But things had to change, if only because of personnel changes. On screen there was, of course, the replacement of Susan with Vicki, and then the departure of Ian and Barbara. Off screen the biggest change was Dennis Spooner taking over from David Whitaker as Story Editor. And there were other decisions, which might have seemed quite minor at the time, that were as responsible for the Doctor Who we know today as anything that happened in Season 1.

Delia Derbyshire turning in her grave can power new generations of Doctor Who electronica

I'd heard about this but I hadn't seen it. Whoever designs the next titles and theme music arrangement (and let's hope it's soon) should take inspiration from this video. Also, Matt Smith is a rock star. Who knew?

Doctor Who Mentioned by "Normal" People story #1

I'm now back in Australia, and I'm glad to see Doctor Who's profile has also risen here. I remember when, in the few shops that still stocked Doctor Who books and videos, the Doctor Who section gradually dwindled until it was the Doctor Who shelf. Now just the release of a new DVD gets a full window display at the ABC Shop. Schoolgirl got on the bus yesterday. What did she have in her hand? A Doctor Who book. As well she should. I remembered with a shudder when I was a teenager and used to display the Doctor Who book I was reading as prominently as I could at school and rehearsals and stuff, thinking that out of all these people my age, someone must be a Doctor Who fan. No one was. Or, at least, no one admitted to it. The rooms I entered were probably full of Doctor Who fans, but they were all thinking "God, what is he doing? Doesn't he know that our kind can only survive if we stick to the shadows? The humans must not know that Doctor Who fans walk amongst them!" Realising that there were no Doctor Who fans around me, I resolved to create some, and I was moderately successful with that amongst some of my nerdier friends. But I also wanted to convert members of my other main group of friends - the future actors, writers, and directors. But when in 2003 I suggested to one such friend that, since the ABC was about to start showing the whole series again (one episode at 6pm every weeknight), perhaps he should watch it, because, you know, he might like it. AND HE LAUGHED. If I'd known what I know now, I'd have said, "Laugh now but one day we'll be in charge." Of the BBC. Of British politics. Hey, if Doctor Who had featured as prominently in the Australia's federal election as it did in Britain's, maybe we'd have a minority government by now. What would your focus groups think of that, Karl Bitar?

They're making more Torchwood! Tentative yay!

I thought I'd already posted this, but it seems I hadn't. Hey! Russell T. Davies (perhaps you've heard of him) is no longer unemployed! The big gay Welshman-turned-Los-Angeleno and former showrunner of Doctor Who (perhaps you've heard of it) has announced that a ten episode series of Torchwood will be born from a collaboration between BBC Wales, BBC Worldwide, and American cable channel Starz.

Torchwood made history in 2006 as the first proposed Doctor Who television spin-off to actually happen (previous suggestions, including Jago and Litefoot, K-9 and Company, and Rose Tyler: Earth Defence, thankfully didn't make it very far). As RTD's interviewer in the above link says, the series ran for one season of thirteen episodes on BBC Three, a second season of thirteen on BBC Two, and a mini-series of five episodes shown over five nights (known as Torchwood: Children of Earth) on BBC One. I can't think of another show that could have survived all these format and channel changes and not at all seemed like it was failing. Doctor Who, for instance, would lose the large portions of the general public it relies upon to be considered a success if it started changing around its format. Torchwood can survive with a small fanbase which will follow it wherever, as well as new viewers who've heard it's actually good this season.

Vote Dalek?

If they were playing fair, print media in the US/Australia/Canada would have waited until now to announce the results of the UK general election so it accompanied the right Doctor Who episode for those who don't know how to use the internet. "But what relevence does Doctor Who have to the UK election?" I hear you cry. Everything, at least superficially. When Gordon Brown starts publicly talking about David Tennant being his favourite Doctor instead of the economy or whatever, you know that Doctor Who has reached unprecedented levels of influence. This article sums up and provides links to most of the shenanigans. In response (to the shenanigans) Lawrence Miles suggested a "Simple electoral reform: the party with the most Doctor Whos in its election broadcast wins. (The BNP may have to exhume William Hartnell.)" Oh, and Britain's main television guide magazine thing, the Radio Times, brought back its "Vote Dalek" (What does that mean? Is that really what the Radio Times wants voters to do?) cover idea from 2005, this time allowing readers to choose the cover whose Dalek (2010 design) colour corresponded to their party of choice. In response, the Green Party released this ad (after the jump).

Beatles and Daleks in time for Christmas: sparknotes for Season One

Sorry it's been a while. I was playing a wild dog/tour guide/weatherman in a piece about Hurricane Katrina. You know how it is. To get us back into the swing of things, I want to look at Doctor Who's inaugural season as a whole. If you still haven't watched anything from Season One, do so now, because we're moving on. But also, here's a guide to what you missed.

Of course, if you have seen stuff from Season One, it might feel a bit odd to think of it that way. Certainly, fans of the New Series might wonder how The Reign of Terror (1.8) could be a "season finale" if it doesn't have an army of CGI Daleks in it. Fans of Buffy or Babylon 5 might look in vain for an over-arching plot, theme, or monster. And fans of Lost or Battlestar Galactica will might be puzzled by the lack of cliffhanger revelations in the final episode to get everyone excited about Season 2. It just goes to show how different TV is now. Each episode of Doctor Who was made in a week, and one was made every week, so what is in retrospect seen as a break between seasons was in fact just a well-earned rest for the cast and crew over the summer. The production team and viewers thought in story arcs (the serials) between 2 and 7 episodes long, and it won't be until Season Five that we start seeing any evidence of thought into how those story arcs might fit together. About Time says that, from a production perspective, An Unearthly Child (1.1) through The Dalek Invasion of Earth (2.2) could be considered one season, and The Rescue (2.3) though "Mission to the Unknown" (3.2) another. This actually resembles a little more a "season" as we've come to understand it. That way "Season One" ends with the return of the series' first and most popular monsters, and the departure of the "Unearthly Child" who got Ian and Barbara mixed up in this business in the first place.

For those who've forgotten what it was like to have a REALLY stupid companion, here she is again

Get excited, people who watch Doctor Who children's spin-off The Sarah Jane Adventures (I don't know who you are, but apparently you exist), because former hysterical idiot Josephine Grant is blundering her way back to the Doctor Who universe! According to the Doctor Who News Page, Katy Manning will reprise her role in an episode of SJA, written by Russell T. Davies himself, and also guest starring Matt Smith (himself). It made sense to bring back best-ever-companion Sarah Jane Smith, but Jo? Really?

Some back-story. In 1968, at the end of Season 5, producer Peter Bryant and script editor Derrick Sherwin introduced the character of Zoe Her(r)iot. She was supposed to be a genius-level astrophysicist from the late 21st Century, but, as was the fate of many a promising companion, she was quickly reduced to the roles of screaming and asking stupid questions. When planning 1970's Season 7, Sherwin didn't know whether the actress would stay. When she did leave, he essentially created another Zoe (a phrase that will be funny to anyone who's been watching Caprica), giving himself a second chance to properly give the Doctor an intelligent scientist as a companion. This time they got it right, and the resulting character, Liz Shaw played by Caroline John, remains in my opinion one of the series' best companions. Sadly, this was not the opinion of incoming producer Barry Letts, who felt that no one wanted to watch two scientists natter away, and that what the Doctor really needed was someone to "hand him test tubes and tell him how brilliant he was," which is exactly what the Brigadier tells him at the beginning of Jo Grant's first story, Terror of the Autons (8.1).

When, a couple of weeks ago, I suggested the writers experiment with not-alienating ways to bring back elements from the "classic series" to tell a good story, a greyer Jo insisting "But Doctor, it is the Age of Aquarius!" to a whole new actor isn't quite what I had in mind.

Now they can tell each other apart

Why does everything designed for children's series these days have to look like it can go in the bath? The best example I can think of is Jonathan Frakes' 2004 live-action Thunderbirds movie, in which, rather than looking wonderfully advanced like it's supposed to, all the technology looks colourful, waterproof, and fun to play with. The new TARDIS interior looks like it was designed specifically with slip-'n'-slide fun in mind. And the redesigned Daleks look like they squirt water if you push their lids down, and they come in a range of exciting colours. The reason for all this should be obvious, partly because it's the reason the Daleks got so popular in the first place: merchandising.

This reminds me of the Sontarans' return two years ago. As I wrote last week, the resulting two-parter (N4.4/N4.5) proved that the Sontarans aren't actually that interesting unless they're there to tell a good story (which their new series return very much wasn't). And while Davros' return that season was used as a surprise, the Sontarans were major marketing tools for Season 4. This gives me some hope for the Silurians' return later this year. While everyone knows they're returning, we haven't been seeing pictures of their redesign since late last year. In late 2007 (six months before they would actually appear), Lawrence Miles commented on the publicity pictures, pointing out that "the 'controversial' new Sontaran outfit makes it look like a five-foot-tall action-figure." Sound familiar?

Yartek, Leader of the Alien Voord! But I thought you were dead!

Last week, I talked about continuity, and I did mean the sci-fi fan definition of the word. ("Continuity" usually means making sure Amy's hair is up or down depending on when in the episode this shot takes place. In fanspeak it means desperately trying to reconcile contradictory events in a programme that isn't even trying in that respect.) And, while I thought last night's episode "The Beast Below" was a number of nice ideas that didn't quite gel into a good story, its interesting premise was based on a piece of Doctor Who history in the manner that I recommended in my last post. The 1975 story The Ark in Space (12.2) introduced all the solar flared ravaging the Earth business. "The Beast Below" doesn't even require you to know The Ark in Space exists, but it draws on an idea that warranted further exploration.

Anyway, this week, another buzzword: "canon". In fanspeak (I keep wanting to type "fansqueak") "canon" means "did it really happen?" When I was growing up, the continued adventures of the Doctor (No. 8) were told in books (BBC), audio plays (Big Finish), and comics (Doctor Who Magazine). Each of these contradicted the other two (and sometimes didn't, which made it even more confusing), so you kind of had to decide which one was real - or "canon". There were some fans who hated the TV movie so much they declared it apocryphal, and therefore there was no Eighth Doctor at all. All that could be definitely agreed upon as canonical were

The time of arising is at hand

That's a hand in that picture. It's kind of hard to see.

Anyway, TONIGHT Doctor Who returns to BBC One! I'm wearing my hipster-store-bought Doctor Who t-shirt in celebration, which even a few years ago would have been met with the utmost derision and a lot of "What does that mean?" Now Matt Smith stares back at me from the side of New York City buses! Sometimes I have moments when I forget that new Doctor Who is being made and then I remember and it's awesome all over again. We in the Rest of the World will have to wait a short while until someone posts it on YouTube (though if you have access you should watch it again when it's on BBC America or whatever station is showing it in a couple of weeks). Until then, here is a recently-released clip from what will be Episode Six of the new season, "Vampires of Venice" (31.6). Okay, before you ask why it's 31.6 and not N5.6, Moffat was apparently advised that Series 5 sounds like an aging brand, and so has said that this season should be referred to either as Series 1 ("exciting") or 31 ("awe-inspiring"). I have my doubts about this (if the fifth season is an aging brand, what is the thirty-first?), and hope everyone will just call it the 2010 season. But for the purposes of the blog numerals, I'll use 31. Because, let's be honest, it's true. If you disagree, let's argue about it in the comments like good little fanboys. Anyway, for some reason, Blogger won't show the clip if I put a break in, so you'll have to see it "after the jump" as they say.

Suck it, James Cameron

See, there's this movie. A quite popular movie, actually. You might even say that a lot of people went ape-shit over it. And years from now, historians and Wikipedia-surfers alike will wonder what the hell was going on when the 2009 Golden Globe for Best Picture was awarded to this film. I think it's safe to say that none of these future wonderers will, although they should, turn to their companion(s) and say: "But why, companion(s), was Avatar showered in so much praise, when 1963-4 Doctor Who serial The Daleks (1.2) was clearly so much better?"

Yes, lots of things are better than Avatar - brushing one's teeth, Attack of the Cybermen (22.1), this - but the reason I compare it to The Daleks is that, in a way, they're similar. (And I just watched The Daleks.) Our protagonist(s) travel to a distant planet, where concerns over resources are forcing the encounter between somewhat peaceful, scantily clad people who live in a jungle teeming with dangerous alien life, and xenophobic, militaristic technocrats who hide in their city. There are other things too. The protagonist(s) meeting the city people first, and being told that the jungle people are terrifying and horrible, and finding them instead to be sexy. The baddies' need to destroy lots of things in order to get what they need. And, of course, a big battle between sticks on one side and "travel machines" on the other.

Narratively, here's why The Daleks is better. As should be obvious, The Daleks is about nuclear war, and (this may come as a shock to you, but)

Dad, dig this new mod fad. It's a gas!

So proclaimed an advertisement for mop-top wigs so you could look like the Beatles at weekends. Obviously I'm not going to expect readers of this blog to have watched everything I'm talking about, but if you've never seen the first ever episode of Doctor Who, "An Unearthly Child," you really should watch it here.

Part of the point of this project is to align my timelines. What do you think of as old? If someone talked to you about an old piece of music, you might imagine it being from the 14th Century, but an old song might be from the 1950s. An old play could be from 400BC, but an old copy of a play is more likely to be from the 1980s. And old person, depending on your age, might be from the '30s, but old meat is probably from last week. An old TV show is unlikely to be from before '60s, and old Doctor Who can't be from before 23 November, 1963. But to a lot of people these days, "old Doctor Who" refers to anything from what's also called the "Classic Series."Doctor Who starring Jon Pertwee or Tom Baker doesn't seem "old" to me - it seems "middle"! But to Sarah (my girlfriend; get used to hearing about her), who at the time

Is Doctor Who cool yet?

Doctor Who Magazine gave me a giant poster of the Eleventh Doctor, which I put on my door. I mainly did this to annoy my flatmate who thinks Matt Smith is ugly (I initially put it on his door). Point is, it was the most fanboyish sight I have beheld since I made the mistake of attending Whovention 2003. It made me wonder whether things have improved for my kind since the dark days of my teenage years.

Lest we forget, in its early days Doctor Who was the shit. In 1965, considered by some to be the height of series' popularity, kids were talking about it in school, everyone wanted a Dalek for Christmas, and outgoing producer Verity Lambert was leaving as her legacy a hit show that was being sold to 44 countries or something. Doctor Who wasn't a nerd thing in its early days. It was a groundbreaking series that collided the mundane with the ultra-modern, and histories of the period list it, along with the Beatles and the Bond films, as one of the defining