Doctor Who

Restoration or replica? That would seem to be the crucial issue at stake here.

In some ways Paul McGann's eighth Doctor was an exciting restoration trapped within a misbegotten replica of a storyline. What of Eccleston?

AA Gill observed in Culture this weekend that the original long run of Dr Who had petered out into self-parody. The trouble confronting those that would re-spin the TARDIS is that any successful revival will have to appeal to modern children and the over-thirties that cherish the programme as a mirror of their childhood. So there's no escaping the fact that self-parody now has to be part of the formula, yet is clearly an element that needs to be controlled intelligently if the species is to be re-established in the current TV ecosystem.

Imagine that Coca Cola had been withdrawn globally for 16 years, then re-instated. It wouldn't matter if it looked and tasted the same if people had the suspicion that it was a revival that lacked all continuity with the original brand culture. In this instance the cast and crew and creative team are all new, the best they can do is claim to be long-term fans. The real link with the past is the BBC itself, and Dr Who may well be to Auntie what Mickey Mouse is to Disney and Astroboy is to Japanese Anime. It is a mythological product that fits nicely with the the Corporation's own mythology of its role and past achievements at a crucial stage in its history.

Writer Russell T. Davies claims to have preserved all of the main components. This is not strictly true, because the most obvious absentee may well be the cliffhanger endings. 45 minute, standalone episodes will make it harder to establish interest in the particular threat the universe is faced with in that weekend's storyline. I suspect that people will warm to the new show primarily because they enjoy the interactions of the two central characters, like Cybil and Bruce in Moonlighting. Just don't expect to have your mind blown by innovative science fiction conundra. Meanwhile the bad guys will be literally just special effects. Of course, if they keep coming back, like the Daleks, a new generation of fans will get a chance to bond with them.

Anyway, all this hiding behind the sofa nonsense is greatly exaggerated. Even as a pre-teen I found the Daleks about as funny as they were scary, so I don't buy Gill's conclusion that children brought up on Lord of the Rings and Star Wars will be massively underwhelmed. The Daleks were always at their most entertaining when things weren't quite working out for them - we loved loved the spectacle of such neurotically nasty beings having a bad day.

On Saturday night the killer dummies were nearly as scary as the ones in that Sophie Ellis Bextor video. Few reviewers have wanted to appear geeky enough to know this, but these were actually unacknowledged Autons. They were the first challenge for Pertwee's newly-exiled Doctor back in 1969 and reappeared again later in his incarnation. Crucially, we then knew how the Nestene Consciousness filled our department stores with mannequins equipped with deadly blasters hidden within their limp wrists. Here we are left to wonder what Charles Saatchi's role was in allowing it to take up residence beneath his gallery. Did he think it was some sort of installation? If the Nestene Consciousness had any taste and sense it should have opted for the Turbine Hall at the Tate Modern.

There's still a lot of running around, though the corridors have been replaced with big-ticket London locations worthy of a Richard Curtis comedy. Billie Piper is great as Rose, and is ostensibly the star of the show. The Doctor is more her accessory than she his. This may well continue to be the case. She is in the Sarah Connor mould - an unfulfilled feisty female that needs a jolt from outside her time and place to assist her to live instead of merely existing. The programme makers perhaps thought they were being a bit risquee when they kitted Rose out with a coloured boyfriend; they certainly were though when they had the Doctor refer to him as a monkey.

Anyway, episode one gets a cautious thumbs up. It's certainly better written than many of the old episodes, and Eccleston has managed to play the role in a way that reminded me of several of the first five doctors; interesting, because he claims not to have watched any of his predecessors.

I would also disagree with AA Gill that "the one thing the future can't afford to be is old fashioned". Nostalgia has always had been important stream within the Sci-Fi genre.

Overall, this new Dr Who is slicker, but has yet to prove itself smarter. I'll be there for Episode Two though.