The 1st episode of the new Doctor Who wasn’t up to much in my opinion.  The 2nd one however was an improvement, and the storyline much more insteresting and Who-like.

BSG was superb; I read recently on WIRED that season 2 should be broadcast later this year, but no word officially on whether it’ll be a UK (Sky TV) exclusive again or not.  Can’t wait either way.

Oh heck—just realised that I’ve named the competition on your blog!  Sorry…

I joined my new company last August and from then til now I’ve walked in and back. On this 3 mile trek I walk pass Beeb sets where I’ve seen Christopher Ecclestone, blue midgets, dummies, all manner of aliens and burberry clad teenagers. I’ve told my friends, family and colleagues and I’m sure they’re secretly thought I was going a bit mad.

You will never know how relieved I was when Doctor Who came onto our screens as it has postponed the need for the men in white coats to take me away.

Thankyou BBC!!!

I completely agree; watching things like BSG, Lost and various others just makes Doctor Who look terribly cheap and tacky in comparison. I can’t imagine it’s going to improve when that gimp from Cassanova takes over as The Doctor, either.

I thought the first episode of Dr. Who was quite entertaining. A tongue in cheek mini-adventure with seriously bad b-movie overtones… but entertaining nonetheless.

Although I’ve neglected to watch the subsequent episodes… it’s not really been something that has piqued my interest. I was never really a fan of the Dr. when I was younger. However, I did have a bit of a crush on Sylvester McCoy’s (Doctor no. 7) sidekick, Ace when I was about 10.

But then, I was only 10.

The funny thing is that Battlestar Galactica and Doctor Who probably cost the same amount of money to make. 

BSG has about 6 standing sets, a bit of day-time (with cheap day-for-night filtering) location shooting in downtown Vancouver, and the occasional bit of CGI.

Episode 2 of Doctor Who had over 200 SFX shots, and virtually every episode has location shooting and entirely new scenic design. 

I find the responses of “cheap” quite interesting.  Maybe it’s something to do with responses to digital video versus film. 

As to my own response; I watched the first 2 episodes with a bunch of old-school fans.  It was as if the show had never gone away.  Wonderful stuff.

I’ve actually been quite enjoying both MSG and Dr Who I would comment that MSG is more focussed towards adults and has deeper more complex storylines which Dr Who can’t do as its relying on starting a new genoration on the series.

I rather shockingly agree with taking quite a fancy to Ace in my earlier years both I saw and up to date version well I’ll stop there are don’t want to offend.

I couldn’t agree with you more. The new Battlestar Galactica is absolutely brilliant in a multitude of ways. The new Doctor Who is just as it ever was - cheap, cheesy kids TV.

It does make an interesting comparison though. Both shows were originally aimed at a young audience, and it’s the one that’s changed the most and targeted a new audience that’s truely succeeded.

Unless I’m misunderstanding you, I’d want to qualify “succeeded”; I like BSG a lot but the new Doctor Who is beating the hell out of it in both ratings and audience appreciation figures (compare BSG’s US ratings of about 3 million viewers per episode with Doctor Who’s 7-9 million).  And once again, “cheap” is a relative term. 

Signed, someone’s who’s writing a dissertation on the cultural reception of Doctor Who and who can’t shut up about it.

Whoa that sounds crazy i would be interested to learn about your findings, how the devil did you happen on writing a dissertation on such a subject?

What have you found so far? I was wondering about the viewing figure of BSG as odd as it seems I heard somewhere they have been doing a tour of U.S shopping mall to promote the show, ALWAY a bad sign.

But i still like both shows…

Hi Stefan,

Well, my background is film and cultural studies, so it seemed a fairly natural progression to do work on a certain TV show of which I am fond.  And I had questions about it, about how it worked as a cultural artefact. 

Put crudely, my research is about answering the question, “why do (or did) people like Doctor Who’s special effects, even when they’re crap?”, which, if you think about in a certain way, is a way of asking how people make value judgements about television, and how they form “taste”. Is it a collective process or one of individuation? It’s all about Aesthetics (as a branch of philosophy), in other words.

At this stage, the project is still rather rudimentary, and has undergone a perilously long gestation phase.  So conclusions are not really there yet.

But I do find it interesting that certain modes of reception of Doctor Who are so ingrained that, even when the BBC is spending millions on reviving it, viewers still interpret it as having dodgy special effects.  There’s a chapter in that, I’d wager.

Whoops, missed a point; BSG is actually doing pretty well in ratings in the US—1-3 million is a top-rater for Sci-Fi Channel, apparently.  I was just pointing out that in strict numerical terms, it’s not in the same league as the revived Doctor Who.

Hey Nick,

it is quite strange that peoples perception of the special effects being quite ropy but its something that makes Dr Who quite British in my view, even though i am sure the BBC have spent a considerable amount of time and money on.

But its a show that has enjoyed a long history and something that could be used to judge changing attitudes well maybe only towards sci-fi.

That quite cool that BSG is doing so well which means that they will keep producing new stories etc, and no going the way of Star Trek but that is another can of worms.

But good luck with your research a good subject to be working on, nearly as cool as Simon Pegg’s(Shawn of the dead, Spaced, but I am sure you don’t need the references :D ) dissertation on star wars