Meditations on Daily Doctor Who Reviews

Because I've been known to work on impossibly long blogging projects (namely, 3 years of daily Star Trek reviews), I'm asked now and again if I'd consider doing daily Doctor Who reviews, starting with 1963's An Unearthly Child. Going by episode rather than story (which usually ran 4-6 episodes apiece, but could go as high as 12), that's almost 700 posts before I even hit the New Series. Am I thinking about it? I am. But there are two main obstacles...

1. Availability: For one thing, there are a lot of missing episodes in the canon, almost all in the first 6 years. I do have the first three boxed sets of narrated audios, which gives me access to all the missing episodes in audio form up through The Moonbase. I haven't seen a volume 4 announced yet, and there are still plenty of 2nd Doctor stories still missing after that point. Not that all intact stories are out on DVD yet either. Some are available to steam online, but not all.

2. Relevance: I've read a lot of Doctor Who reviews over the years, most notably in the DisContinuity Guide, Mad Norwegian's About Time series, and most recently, Running Through Corridors. What can I bring to the table that's new and interesting, not just for readers (who may not have read all those books), but for myself, so that I don't feel like I'm regurgitating information and opinion found elsewhere.

The first obstacle will be overcome by timing. When would I start such daily Who reviews? Right now, I could safely do the 1st Doctor's episodes, which represents some 4½ months of reviews, so the stuff I need may turn up before I get to it. In any case, I've got Reign of the Supermen going as a daily feature, and that should last longer than the initial year. Might my 4-year anniversary in early December be a good moment to make the switch (sending Superman to a weekly slot)? Or perhaps the 1st of January 2012? Maybe you have a preference.

The second obstacle is the more important, and I look forward to reading your suggestions in the comments section. Obviously, I'd include a Review of the episode, and notes on the different versions available, but what else? Should it be just like the Star Trek reviews with "Why we like it" and "Why we don't"? Should I include a permanent or occasional "Theories" category in the same style as my New Series reviews? How about "Why it's important" (to the canon)? Should it be more thematically Whovian, with space and time annotations of some sort, or a category I can't think of right now?

I know blogging about blogging is a cardinal sin (with its own statue in Shazam's cave), but I place myself in your hands. What do YOU want out of potential Whovian daily reviews?

Comments

Anonymous said…
I would be happy if you did "Doctor Who" reviews based on absolutely arbitrary criteria: talk about a given episode simply because you feel like it. Review episodes you feel are necessary material to any sophisticated viewer, and episodes that stand out in their terribleness and should be avoided at all costs. Review "Ambassadors of Death" for no other reason than the funky harpsichord / flute soundtrack.

The Doctor wouldn't start at the beginning and plod through in sequential order; he'd go where his whims took him. Why not do the same?
googum said…
Speaking as someone who, on occasion, just blogs about whatever happens to be within arm's reach; I don't envy you the logistics of this one. But, anonymous may have something there: index the episodes in order of airing, but review them in the order you see fit, or as they turn up. (That's also a good way to avoid burnout, or a pile of black-and-white and/or scene missing posts in a row...)

I've seen a fair pile of old Who, but nowhere near all of it; so this will be something.
Siskoid said…
Interesting, guys.

While one of the attractions for me was doing the Whovian Pilgrimage (they say each of us should do the whole canon in order at least once in our lives), you open a different door.

The problem with doing them in no particular order is that I'd still be forced to keep stories together leading to a strange sort of schedule. Like 4 days of The Ribos Operation, followed by 7 days of Inferno, then 2 days of The Edge of Destruction. Seems like such a schedule would sit better if I were discussing the stories entirely, but that's impossible on a daily schedule for length reasons.

I don't mind "plodding" through the first 6 years because I quite enjoy that era, in any case. But will readers only start showing interest when I hit the Baker years?
Siskoid said…
Madeley said, via Twitter:

"The psychological and thematic aspects interest me."

(Just keeping all the comments in one place.)
snell said…
Or, to make a mischievous suggestion, do the stories in chronological order. This story is set in 10,000 BC? Bam. This one in the year 50,000? Bam.

Of course, it would involve a lot of speculation (and argumentation) to place some of the stories chronologically, but it would give you something extra to talk about.

Or, alternately, as a test, you could start with just the Dalek stories, or the Cyberman stories. As someone who spent an entire summer trying to order the Dalek stories chronologically from the Daleks' point of view (me=loser), I would appreciate the special hell you'd be putting yourself through.

Alternate reviews suggestion: Sherlock Holmes. The Granada/Jeremy Brett series is all on DVD, which covers most of the canon. Compare/contrast each with the original story. Too short for a daily feature, perhaps? A weekly?
LiamKav said…
Doing them in order does give you the chance to see things that can be missed. How the Doctor's character evolves over time, at what point things we now take for granted first show up, seeing how a new Doctor was contrasted with his predecessor.

Doing them in the order you want could lead to sitatuations where you just do the ones you like and then you end up putting all the dull ones together in a box set in order to get them out the door *cough* 2|Entertain *cough*

Saying that, I quite like the idea of adressing things like "in what order do these adentures happen for the Daleks/Cybermen", although I suspect that there's no way to make any of that make sense. You've got the potential rewriting of Dalek history with Genesis, and the 50,000 possible variations on Cyberman history...

If you're worried about people not showing interest for the first few years: I think people enjoy your POV enought that that wouldn't be a problem. I read all the Star Trek comic reviews despite not having read the comics, and I think people interested in Who generally would read about episodes they haven't watched. You could make them a bit more forward thinking, pointing out how Rose is a big rewrite of Spearhead from Space, swapping out the military stuff for chavs.
Anonymous said…
Do them in descending order of hotness of assistants. Start with Jo Grant looking like she just rolled out of bed. From there it's Liz Shaw, Turlough, Romana II, Romana I, and so on.
Siskoid said…
Snell: I thought of that, but again, works better with stories than it does singular episodes (The Chase and The Daleks' Master Plan, for example, would be all over the place). And I would never put myself through Dalek hell. It's not the timeline, it's the voices.

Liam: You make a good argument for the normal broadcast order. In fact, that was always the plan. I think people are more concerned with fixing Problem 1 (which I had the least trouble with) than Problem 2 (which still puzzles me).

Anon: Any hotness discussion that doesn't start and end with Leela is alien to me.
Anonymous said…
How they relate to the canon would be my top preference. I've seen almost all the ones available over the last 20 years, but have trouble relating them other than which doctor/companion/alien/monster is involved. Given that New Who is still churning out new shows, it would be great to relate the old ones to the new ones. Not just canon, but also what pieces of the old show give context to the new ones.
Siskoid said…
That is very much in line with what I would like to attempt.
Boosterrific said…
I've watched a lot of Who, but always approached the concept as "disposable entertainment." I think I would glean the most entertainment from a series of reviews if a Who expert like you were to take a long-view and interpret how each episode is relevant (or not) to the development of the ongoing Who-verse, regardless of their chronological or broadcast order. It would be an historians approach to chronicling the hows and whys of the series interpretation of history.

That said, I appreciate your blogging in general, Siskoid, and would read your reviews however and in whatever order you choose to present them.
Michael May said…
Sign me up in the category of wanting to know "how each episode is relevant to the development of the ongoing Who-verse," but in chronological order according to air date.

Pretty much, just do what you did with Star Trek, but with Doctor Who.
Anonymous said…
How this episode relates to the canon: it is part of it.

Or, if you're part of the "there is no Doctor Who canon" crowd: it isn't.

And yeah, I know what Anonymous@2:14 meant. Whatever approach you take, I'd also like to see you highlight references back to earlier stories.
John Nor said…
Hello Siskoid, you mention in the comments "You make a good argument for the normal broadcast order. In fact, that was always the plan. I think people are more concerned with fixing Problem 1 (which I had the least trouble with) than Problem 2 (which still puzzles me)."

I will also comment on "Problem 0" though I realise you want comments on Problem 2!

0. Episodes or Stories?

I realise you're thinking of each daily review being one episode.

Star Trek is formed mainly of one-episode stories of 50 minutes.

Doctor Who (Classic) is formed of multi-episode stories, each episode 25 minutes.

Blogging a story such as Season One's "The Sensorites" will be a challenge, as not very much happens at all for 25 minutes at a time, over 6 episodes.

I'm not arguing against the episode-by-episode format just highlighting what could be a difficultly. (This is the format of "Running Through Corridors" though and I think it could mean a fresher perspective as by-story is the norm really.)

Of course, the 21st Century continuation of Doctor Who (and Season 22) is much more Star Trek-like with one-episode stories of 45 minutes being the norm but that would be the future.


"1. Availability"

I'm going to mention my blogging of some of "all" of the Doctor Who stories (link in the John Nor link of this comment, above). I started off with 52 weeks of reviews ending on 13 weeks of Moffat Season 1 that included a season for each Classic Doctor. (Having blogged RTD Season 4 and The Five Specials.) A few years ago the DVDs were much less complete than they are now, so I'm going to try and continue with the blog a-story-a-week idea (having completed Moffat Season 2, and some more of the RTD seasons. Still deciding which seasons when though).

"2. Relevance"

You mention the "About Time" books. They really are rather definitive!

The "Firsts and Lasts" elements of each story-review there seem to be what you're talking about in the comments as an idea (putting the stories in context) though I'd say have a read of their elements-of-reviewing and try a new spin.
Jeff R. said…
Are you absolutely married to going by episodes rather than stories? Because I don't know that there's going to be that much to say about, say, part 3 of 'the Aztecs' that you won't have already said about parts 1 and 2, other than boring plot summary. I wonder if a two-at-a-go pace (with exceptions for the rare odd-episoded story) might do better, giving you an hour of TV to work with each time.
Siskoid said…
Well, by story would not be a daily enterprise, not on my schedule. I could look at a single 25-45er, but not a four-parter (or more)! I know Sensorites has longueurs, but so do many stories (the old episode 3 capture-escape-recapture thing). That would be part of the review.

And you've understood my malaise in your About Time comment. I don't want to simply regurgitate what others have written, but having read all of that, it's inevitable. I'd probably steer clear of those books while I'm in the process (or just compare days later) so as not to be influenced.

I like what people have been saying about "historical context". It could lead to "At the time" and "Now" sections that discuss how the show would have been perceived and how it now is in hindsight. I'm starting to get a picture in my mind of what it could be.
Siskoid said…
Oh Jeff... you have too little faith in The Aztecs! (My favorite Hartnell story, probably.)

I'm not against doing two a day.

You can be sure that though I'll be setting the start date a few months from now, I'll actually start writing before then. That way I can see what works and what doesn't and make adjustments before the text appears on the blog.
d said…
You can find all the missing episodes as reconstructions done with tele-snaps & the original TV audio. Its a good way to finally see The Dalek Masterplan, tho trying to watching Galaxy 4 took a week 'cos I kept dozing off! Doctor Who has been my favorite show since I was 12. I'm now 44 & I think the show is literally encoded in my DNA. With the 50th anniversary festivities coming up soon there's no time like the present to show these kids how amazing William Hartnell really was!
Siskoid said…
Haven't seen the reconstructions, though I've seen the BBC's telesnaps, and I've listened to the narrated episodes up through The Massacre (listening to the CDs before I go to bet every night).

For the project I'd make it a point to check out different available versions when possible.
LiamKav said…
Is there a way you could do it so that you finished on a significant date? The 50th anniversary of the original airing of "An unearthly child" for instance?
Siskoid said…
I think I missed the window already. Docs 1-8 account for something like 692 days, plus what, 80some New Who episodes (not counting any that would air between now and then).

I might be able to calculate something so that Survival Part 3 falls on that anniversary, leaving Docs 8-11 for after the date.
d said…
You've got the 49th anniversary coming up in a couple of weeks, why not start a year early?
Siskoid said…
November 23rd could indeed be a good start date regardless of the less controllable end date.