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.

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).

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

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)