Originally Posted by pwrmetal
I am a lifelong fan of the "classic" Doctor Who series and am a die hard fan of the new series. I think it's silly to say that the new show is totally different from the classic one. It's the SAME show. It's more accurate to say that TV is radically different in the 2000's than it was in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. I would argue that the show now is more similar to the 70's version of the show than the first season of the show was where the Doctor was an anti-hero bordering on villainous.
Strangely enough... as I re-watch more of my older Doctor Who DVDs... I find myself noticing similar stories and similar tones in some cases.
I've noticed quite a bit of things in the current Smith Who that IF not lifted from McCoy Who, are very coincidental... including an episode where McCoy for no apparent reason dons a Fez and picks up a mop!
Also... there are quite a bit of things in the old Who that don't make any sense if you pick the episodes apart... so even the things I complain about in the new series have kind of always been there.
Originally Posted by Rammitinski
But I think that "romantic and touchy-feely" stuff (to the extent that they've done it) between the Doctor and his companions completely messes with the legacy.
That is difficult to say. Hartnell's Doctor said Susan was his granddaughter. Assuming that to be true (technically they never officially proved it and have not shown whomever presumably was his wife and whether he had a son or daughter that then produced Susan as his granddaughter)... but that surely implies romantic entanglements for him to be a grandfather!
I can't speak to Troughton as most of his episodes are lost... Pertwee comes across as a bit flirty, though... even if he technically doesn't have romantic liasons with his companions. Tom Baker's Doctor may or may not have had a flirty relationship with Sarah Jane... but he definitely had one with the Romana's... moreso the 2nd Romana to whom he was married in real life for a bit.
Then the Doctor goes celibate again... with Davison, Colin Baker, and McCoy... but Paul McGann in the TV movie behaves quite a bit like the modern Doctors in terms of on-screen kissing and such.
I grant you that I prefer my Doctor less romantically entangled... but I'm hard-pressed to say it ruins the show yet.
Originally Posted by Rammitinski
Also, other than during Pertwee's time (as far as I can recall), the show was never so Earth-centric. But that one doesn't necessarily change the gist of the show - they're still battling alien enemies. It's just that all the aliens seem to end up on Earth (or it's outer atmosphere), rather than the Doctor and his companions going to them.
I can go either way here. When they are earth-bound they tend to be UK-centric... but Star Trek was very US-centric when they were earth-bound for a story... so it kind of goes with the territory.
Every now and again Who needs to be on earth to give the viewers something or someplace to identify with. I like the space-bound alien stories too... but if every week was away from the earth... we would be asking for earth-based stories too.
Think of it like this... Doctor Who away from earth is like Star Trek. We have no point of reference for Gallifrey in the future or the past because it is an alien planet already...
They have to do earth-based stories to show the time-travel aspect... because they can show us things specific to the past that we identify with and say "hey, that looks like the 1500s"... whereas 1492 on earth would be identifiable, 1492 on the planet Skaro would be less so.