Thursday, March 2, 2006

"Meddle? Of course I'm going to meddle! Do what you're best at!"

The SciFi Channel is picking up the first season of the "reimagined" BBC classic "Doctor Who," beginning on the 17th of this month.

The series, about a renegade Time Lord who steals a time machine and gallivants around the space-time continuum, with an inexplicable string of usually-plucky and invariably-sexy companions (my favorite was Leela, but there were others)-- first began airing the weekend JFK was shot, and ran for about 25 years after that.

Its core gimmick--developed on the fly when its original star left the series--was that the Doctor was from a race that "regenerates" after their bodies are too badly damaged. When you regenerate, basically, you go through a transformation that makes you look and act completely differently--almost as if you were played by a different actor, often with a new writing staff. Regenerations were a chance to revamp the style of the series--although, apparently, never an opportunity to increase the production budget meaningfully.

Loyal--or accidental--viewers saw the Doctor make it to his sixth regeneration before the series disappeared from the air. He reappeared in his seventh regeneration for a FOX network movie in the mid 1990s (for a time, it was rumored that Spielberg would make the movie, an idea which managed to upset purists even more than the concept of a Scotsman being cast to play the Seventh Doctor). The story line continued off the radar screen for many years in novels.

I haven't followed it all in about 15 years, so I don't have much information to offer: The new series is geared to an older audience, one gathers, and shows more political awareness in its themes. (The analogy might well be "Battlestar Galactica.") We'll see. Anyway, it's on the p3 Worth-A-Look List.

Rare Bit of Self-Disclosure: For four years I had the high honor and serious responsibility of serving as the faculty sponsor of the Ball State "Doctor Who" Appreciation Society. Kinda makes you stop and think, doesn't it?

No comments: