Some Gentle Observations Was: Who Killed Dr Who?
John Pettigrew
Sylvester McCoy so bad that they axed the show?" debate.
Usually the 2 sides are: Yes, the show was crap and was taken off
air. Or no - it was all due to everything else but the quality and
strengths of the show (which were better than before)
But here are some balanced thoughts. Yes, there are a lot of facts to
back up the theory that the BBC killed the show off by use of
time-slots, episode allocations, budgets, lack of promotion and
publicity etc.
But yes, the style of the show at the time of its cancellation
probably turned off a significant proportion of the viewing public.
And by viewing public, I mean both the die-hard Doctor Who fans who
hated the way the show was going AND the casual
viewing-habit-influenced family viewer.
The fans dislike stems from being older than when they REALLY enjoyed
the show (the 14 year-old theory): "It's not as good as it used to
be!"
And the more casual viewer, ignorant in thinking that they had to have
watched 25+ years of the series in order to fully understand it
(possibly JNT's only one real heinous crime under his producership)
But, and here's the rub, a lot of people who are the most vorocious in
lambasting Sylvester McCoy (or, to be more accurate, the McCoy era)
fail to realise that the style of the show changed every so often
(roughly 2 seasons down the line). This was mainly due to either a
change in Doctor, Doctor/companion team, script editor or media
intervention (ie "the show is too violent" and "the show is too
farcical")
Make no mistake, had Doctor Who continued, the style of the stories
would have *continued* to evolve. EVEN under another 5 - 6 years of
JNT as producer. Look at how many different styles the show had
during his mammoth reign. The sombre season 18, the dynamic season
19, the nostalgic season 20, the "violent" season 22, the mellowed
season 23, the light-hearted season 24, the deeper and more fantasical
season 25 - 26.
Ace was going to be replaced by a young female cat burgler - that
would have led to a change in emphasis of the on screen
Doctor/companion chemistry. Cartmel was getting ready to leave, with
Marc Platt/Ben Aaronovitch poised to take over (or Colin Brake [not a
typo, Colin Brake was an EastEnders script editor] if you believe the
biog in one of the Decalogs) the script editor's role - that would
have led to a change in style.
McCoy wouldn't have been the Doctor forever, a BBC Eighth Doctor
(Richard Griffiths?) would have led to another change in style and
emphasis.
In my own personal opinion - I think that some of the latter day
stories came over as a bit too rushed for my liking. But I still
enjoyed watching it. Sure, I watched stories that I thought *were*
crap but I also watched stories that I loved (surely I'm a true fan!)
eg I didn't much care for any of the Trial season (although I loved
Colin's more relaxed interpretation) but loved Time and the Rani. I
still hate Paradise Towers but I love Delta and the Bannermen.
Dragonfire is fine too. In the next seasons I loved Fenric, Survival,
Remembrance, Happiness Patrol, Greatest Show but thought that Silver
Nemesis, Battlefield and Ghost Light were awful.
I make the above views NOT to get into a discussiion about good and
bad stories(Hell's bells, people! It's all subjective!) but to show
that I neither write off whole chunks of the series "because it was
crap" nor do I find [the McCoy era] the most enjoyable one to have
been realised.
But I am conviced that all those people who claim to have "switched
off in droves" would probably have found the hypothetical seasons 29 -
31 far more paletable.
That was the most powerful thing about Doctor Who, you see. It's
ability to evolve and transform itself every so often.
And one last point for all those people who berate such stories as The
Happiness Patrol, Ghost Light, Survival.... whatever.... Wouldn't you
rather watch a TV show like Doctor Who that could bring across
fantastical, original, imaginative oddball stories rather than have
retrograde stories about ANOTHER oh-so serious invasion of Earth, mind
controlling aliens, repressed rebels waiting to sieze control of The
Power etc, etc.
Doctor Who did all these stories and did them with great gusto, verve
and style. But it also did them *years* ago. Why bother to cover the
same ground? I would rather the series went the way it was going in
1987-89 and fall flat on its fanny sometimes rather than be able to
work out the simple plot within the first couple of minutes of episode
1.
Doctor Who was never perfect. At any time. We all have our Great
Golden Age and we all [think] we *know* it all went wrong. But I
continue to be a fan of the programme far longer than I should
because I was always assured that if one year the show seemed "a bit
crap" then not to worry - the next season was only another year away.
Doctor Who was never afraid to experiment and some of the more
far-fetched aspects of the show should be seen as a genuine attempt to
try something different with a show that had been doing the rounds for
25+ years!
Best Wishes
John Pettigrew - ji...@cableinet.co.uk
"Who is the socially inept biggot and racist Martian that hurls abuse at all those posters?"
"Is it Rosemary, the telephone operator?"
NO
"Is it Sarge?"
NO
"Is it Henry, the mild-mannered caretaker of his local cinema?"
COULD BE!!!
(Ptaow! Wham! Jingly Explosive noises, etc...)
Nathan Cooke
<big snip>
> Doctor Who was never afraid to experiment and some of the more
> far-fetched aspects of the show should be seen as a genuine attempt to
> try something different with a show that had been doing the rounds for
> 25+ years!
Hooray, right on, etc! Quite right. Actually the only producers that I
feel ever understood Doctor Who were Verity Lambert, John Wiles, and
JNT. Possibly Graham Williams if his hands hadn't been tied. The others
were far too rigid in their ideas about what Doctor Who should be. (Not
that all the other producers were responsible for crap - just far too
set in their ways).
Nathan Cooke
--
What sort of people are you up there? Do any of you live in the real
world?" - Charles Brelan
Welcome to the future, Welcome home...
http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/2049
JMoore9926
John, I agree with your points whole-heartedly. Maybe some at the Beeb were out
to get Doctor Who (which I think they did). Maybe the last three seasons were
crap (I don't think so, but they certainly weren't perfect, either). Maybe
there was too much pandering to the hard-core fans which alienated casual
viewers (I'll grant that; Star Trek has often been guilty of the same thing.)
Or maybe, as has invariably happened with other popular, long-running shows,
folks just got tired of it. Or maybe it was a combination of bits of all of the
above. Whatever the reason, the tv show's gone. But, hey, that's show biz. At
least those of us who are fans can still enjoy the series as it now exists.
That's what videos and DVDs are for. As for those of you who hate the JNT,
Cartmel, and McCoy stories, no one says you have to watch them, ok? That said,
let's just move on and quit all the pickering; it's getting old.
***********************************
We're quicksilver, a fleeting shadow, a distant sound.
Our home has no boundaries which we cannot cross.
We live in music, or a flash of color.
We ride on the wind, or the sparkle of a star.
Keith Bradbury
I thought it was Kennedy...or was that the other way around?
Azaxyr
>
>I thought it was Kennedy..
Yes, Kennedy was out to crush Dr Who right
from the start.
Notice how he conveniently got himself shot
right on the day of Dr Who's first airing!
"All these worlds....
...Will make excellent sites for our garbage dumps."
Nathan Cooke
>
> I thought it was Kennedy...or was that the other way around?
No it was the other way round.
Billy Hartnell killed Kennedy, thats why the policeman was staking out
Totters Lane on 23/11/63, and the reason he was in such a hurry to get
away. If you look closely at the junk in the yard, you'll see a shop
window dummy with half its head blown away. That was his practice
target.
Perry Armstrong
>
> Keith Bradbury wrote:
> >
> > I thought it was Kennedy...or was that the other way around?
>
> No it was the other way round.
>
> Billy Hartnell killed Kennedy, thats why the policeman was staking out
> Totters Lane on 23/11/63, and the reason he was in such a hurry to get
> away. If you look closely at the junk in the yard, you'll see a shop
> window dummy with half its head blown away. That was his practice
> target.
LOL!!!
Gee, I didn't know "An Unearthly Child" was co-written by Gene
Roddenberry...
Perry Armstrong.
Andrew
How remarkably perceptive.
I've been trying to put forward the same arguments (although slightly less
eloquently) on uk.media.tv.sf.drwho and I get continually lambasted by peopl
who seem to lack some of your reasoning.
If only they would come over here and read your post.
I agree with nearly everything you say and thank you thank you thank you for
putting that bit about 'not as good as it used to be' which is an argument I
am currently having on the other side (as it were). Please come over and
support me. I tend to be out on a limb a lot of the time.
Keep up the good work, and maybe we'll be able to change the world :-)
Adam Richards
wrote:
>Actually the only producers that I
>feel ever understood Doctor Who were Verity Lambert, John Wiles, and
>JNT.
<big outrush of fountainous, projectile vomit>
Sorry Nathan, nowt personal, but I think JN-T is possibly the producer
who understood DrWho the *least*. He loved it, but that doesn't mean
he understood it very well, IMHO. Please read Ian Levine's interviews
and Tim Munro's articles on "Who in the '80s" in DWB/DreamWatch, I
beseech you.
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk
===================================================
DISNEY PORN-VIDEO SHOCK! FULL, UNCENSORED STORY AT:
http://www.roblang.demon.co.uk/fangrok/Current.html
Adam Richards
>John, I agree with your points whole-heartedly. Maybe some at the Beeb were out
>to get Doctor Who (which I think they did). Maybe the last three seasons were
>crap (I don't think so, but they certainly weren't perfect, either). Maybe
>there was too much pandering to the hard-core fans which alienated casual
>viewers (I'll grant that; Star Trek has often been guilty of the same thing.)
>Or maybe, as has invariably happened with other popular, long-running shows,
>folks just got tired of it. Or maybe it was a combination of bits of all of the
>above. Whatever the reason, the tv show's gone. But, hey, that's show biz. At
>least those of us who are fans can still enjoy the series as it now exists.
>That's what videos and DVDs are for. As for those of you who hate the JNT,
>Cartmel, and McCoy stories, no one says you have to watch them, ok? That said,
>let's just move on and quit all the pickering; it's getting old.
Well said.
Personally, OTOH, I like "pickering". So to myself and whoever else
wants to, let's carry on...
Adam Richards
However... (long message follows - very sorry, Jonathan Blum)
Your point about the series changing style over the years can't really
justify (to me) the Cartmel stories where things happened and you got
no explanation for it, since with *very few* exceptions DrWho always
had plots that were well-explained and clear on the first viewing,
from "An Uneathly Child" to "Revelation of the Daleks". (yeah, that
leaves out "Trial" and "Rani", for obvious reasons: "Trial" was
written and edited by committee, while "Rani" wasn't script-edited at
all!)
This doesn't count as a "style change"; I look at it more as a drop in
editing quality. Whichever, I wouldn't *ever* say that introducing
stories where the plot was vague and things weren't explained properly
to casual viewers was a valid "style change" either. Certainly not for
a TV programme supposedly aimed at the public, shown as it was on
*BBC-1*.
To me, a lot of Cartmel's stories look like they were edited by
someone who was more at home with reading books than watching TV -
they often contained throwaway lines that either could have or could
not have explained things, but the viewer was never quite sure,
resulting in a growing feeling that he/she was being left on the
sidelines.
The main one I'm thinking of here is "Ghost Light". The story probably
"read well" as a script, but when it was filmed certain things ended
up vague and unclear onscreen - due either to writing, editing,
filming or direction, whatever. As a maker of amatuer videos myself
(e.g. "Tomb of the Daleks - 1987; "A Fan Called Nigel" - 1990), I'm
aware that this can sometimes happen when you film a script you've
written - to your surprise, it sometimes comes out vague, and if
you're anything like a responsible editor, you feel you simply must
put extra material in that gets your plot across.
To me a lot of the Cartmel stories look as if these extra bits were
never put in, leaving some aspects annoyingly inconclusive. That's
just my opinion, take it or leave it as you please...
Richard Molesworth
Adam Richards <Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<36b13168...@news.demon.co.uk>...
This quite succinctly put, and really needed saying. The show was failing
during the McCoy years mainly due to the inexperiance of Cartmel, but
wasn't helped by JNT's inability to see the damagae Cartmel was doing (why
I'll leave to conjecture).
To my mind, the failure of the programme lead to its cancellation. If they
had gotten 'Joe Bloggs' as a script editor, he could have taken the show in
any new direction he wanted, and as long as it was handled competently and
professionally, then there would be no reason to assume it wouldn't work.
Cartmel is responsible for S24 - S26 (bar Rani). S24 - S26 got the show
cancelled.
Richard
Nathan Cooke
>
> On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:08:49 +0000, Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Actually the only producers that I
> >feel ever understood Doctor Who were Verity Lambert, John Wiles, and
> >JNT.
> Sorry Nathan, nowt personal, but I think JN-T is possibly the producer
> who understood DrWho the *least*. He loved it, but that doesn't mean
> he understood it very well, IMHO. Please read Ian Levine's interviews
> and Tim Munro's articles on "Who in the '80s" in DWB/DreamWatch, I
> beseech you.
I was a reader of DWB in the eighties and I still stand by my above
statement. Levine was a case of sour grapes (he caused most of the
problems anyway) and Gary Levy (Leigh) had a personal agenda to settle.
Nathan Cooke
> The main one I'm thinking of here is "Ghost Light". The story probably
> "read well" as a script, but when it was filmed certain things ended
> up vague and unclear onscreen - due either to writing, editing,
> filming or direction, whatever. As a maker of amatuer videos myself
> (e.g. "Tomb of the Daleks - 1987; "A Fan Called Nigel" - 1990), I'm
> aware that this can sometimes happen when you film a script you've
> written - to your surprise, it sometimes comes out vague, and if
> you're anything like a responsible editor, you feel you simply must
> put extra material in that gets your plot across.
Made perfect sense to me. In fact it's one of my favourites. It's a lot
more clear than several Sapphire and Steel episodes (which I also love).
John Pettigrew
Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk (Adam Richards) clattered away at the
keyboard and came up with this:
>Well said, John!
Thank you.
>
>However... (
>Your point about the series changing style over the years can't really
>justify (to me) the Cartmel stories where things happened and you got
>no explanation for it, since with *very few* exceptions DrWho always
>had plots that were well-explained and clear on the first viewing,
>from "An Uneathly Child" to "Revelation of the Daleks". (yeah, that
>leaves out "Trial" and "Rani", for obvious reasons: "Trial" was
>written and edited by committee, while "Rani" wasn't script-edited at
>all!)
Actually, that isn't true! I've just been watching all the
Reconstructed Videos, the Fury audio and the Enemy of the World novel
for research for an article I'm writing for the next issue of Circus.
One of the most amazing things I picked up on from these stories is
the amount of unexplained and vague plot elements that appeared. In
the Yeti stories, it is never explained how the Intelligence
transported the robots to London, why he kept them as Yetim why the
control spheres were in a pyramidal structure, how a disembodied
creature could mainpulate (or indeed buid) control spheres, where the
web and/or pulsating fungus came from....
>This doesn't count as a "style change"; I look at it more as a drop in
>editing quality. Whichever, I wouldn't *ever* say that introducing
>stories where the plot was vague and things weren't explained properly
>to casual viewers was a valid "style change" either. Certainly not for
>a TV programme supposedly aimed at the public, shown as it was on
>*BBC-1*.
The weed creature in Fury from the Deep is also quite ambiguous. The
Doctor looks it up in a book in the TARDIS but is it an alien or a
native from earth? If it is a mind parasite, what is it's aim? Is it
to "eat" people or to take over the earth? Do the possessed people
ultimately die? Are Oak and Quill merely possessed humans (they have
no weed fronds covering them) or are they something more alien? What
happens to them?
Make no mistake, the stories from Season 5 were VERY ambiguous but it
actually added to the mystery and atmosphere of the tales.
>To me, a lot of Cartmel's stories look like they were edited by
>someone who was more at home with reading books than watching TV -
>they often contained throwaway lines that either could have or could
>not have explained things, but the viewer was never quite sure,
>resulting in a growing feeling that he/she was being left on the
>sidelines.
>
>The main one I'm thinking of here is "Ghost Light". The story probably
>"read well" as a script, but when it was filmed certain things ended
>up vague and unclear onscreen - due either to writing, editing,
>filming or direction, whatever. As a maker of amatuer videos myself
>(e.g. "Tomb of the Daleks - 1987; "A Fan Called Nigel" - 1990), I'm
>aware that this can sometimes happen when you film a script you've
>written - to your surprise, it sometimes comes out vague, and if
>you're anything like a responsible editor, you feel you simply must
>put extra material in that gets your plot across.
>
>To me a lot of the Cartmel stories look as if these extra bits were
>never put in, leaving some aspects annoyingly inconclusive. That's
>just my opinion, take it or leave it as you please...
I'm not trying to argue or defend the shortcoming in the McCoy era -
and perhaps a lot of the "rushed" feeling that is present was down to
the fact that they were sometimes trying to do traditionally 4 part
stories as 3 parters. Something had to give. To me, Silver Nemesis
contains a good story that doesn't feature the Cybermen. There was
too much going on there for 3 episodes. But I also reckon that the
direction was quite contemporary - a lot of whoosh! a lot of Blam! a
lot of breakneck scene cutting and machine gun incedental scores.
I can't say that *that* style of drama appeals greatly to me - witness
how everyone picks up on the "quiet reflective moment" in Remembrance
of the Daleks, where the Doctor muses on life in the cafe. Yes, it's
nice and a slow scene. But it's picked up on because there was a
distinct "lack" of such scenes at this time on the show.
Whereas something like Pyramids of Mars, the style *was* for slower,
subtler scenes.
Now you can argue that this later style was a disaster, unsuitable for
Who or not - it doesn't really matter -but it was just another dtyle
and I'm certain that it wouldn't have lasted forever.
Best Wishes
John Pettigrew - ji...@cableinet.co.uk
"When it's Spring again, I'll sing again 'Talons of Weng-Chiang'..."
John Pettigrew
wonderful "Andrew" <and...@joeychandler.com> clattered away at the
keyboard and came up with this:
>
>How remarkably perceptive.
>I've been trying to put forward the same arguments (although slightly less
>eloquently) on uk.media.tv.sf.drwho and I get continually lambasted by peopl
>who seem to lack some of your reasoning.
Well thank *you* Andrew. It's nice to know that some people can see
where I'm coming from. At heart, I'm a Doctor Who fan and always have
been. I follow the novels because I like to think that they actually
continue the programme. Perhaps it's because I'm no longer a nerdy
teenager but a Big Kid approaching his 30s that I fail to understand
how certain individuals "adore" for example, the Pertwee years and yet
claim to hate - or rather *not get anything out* of the McCoy years.
The styles change, the actors change, the stories had to be a bit more
imaginative than what went before in the 60s. but some people seem to
be stuck in a timewarp!
>If only they would come over here and read your post.
>I agree with nearly everything you say and thank you thank you thank you for
>putting that bit about 'not as good as it used to be' which is an argument I
>am currently having on the other side (as it were). Please come over and
>support me. I tend to be out on a limb a lot of the time.
>Keep up the good work, and maybe we'll be able to change the world :-)
>
Do you know this, I have never been on another news group apart from
RADW but if that's a formal invitation... I might just visit
uk.media.tv.sf.drwho...
And thank you again for your kind comments.
Best Wishes
John Pettigrew - ji...@cableinet.co.uk
"When it's Spring again, I'll sing again 'Talons of Weng-Chiang'..."
John Pettigrew
"Richard Molesworth" <rmole...@compuserve.com> clattered away at
the keyboard and came up with this:
>> To me a lot of the Cartmel stories look as if these extra bits were
>> never put in, leaving some aspects annoyingly inconclusive. That's
>> just my opinion, take it or leave it as you please...
>
>This quite succinctly put, and really needed saying. The show was failing
>during the McCoy years mainly due to the inexperiance of Cartmel, but
>wasn't helped by JNT's inability to see the damagae Cartmel was doing (why
>I'll leave to conjecture).
>
>To my mind, the failure of the programme lead to its cancellation. If they
>had gotten 'Joe Bloggs' as a script editor, he could have taken the show in
>any new direction he wanted, and as long as it was handled competently and
>professionally, then there would be no reason to assume it wouldn't work.
I don't actually *disagree* with you here. It's just some people on
this news group seem to think that you either love or hate "the McCoy
era". I was putting forward some observations that I loved stories
like Time and the Rani, Delta, Dragonfire, Fenric, Survival,
Remembrance and even Happiness Patrol (for me the superb music score
lifts it above it's shortcomings. But I digress, I'm not here to rave
or rant about individual stories...) but I loathed Paradise Towers,
Ghost Light, Battlefield and Silver Nemesis. so you see, I neither
blindly liked anything and everything that had "Doctor Who" in the
title nor did I think that the "current" style of fast moving scenes
was the best way to do the series. But I enjoyed most of it and liked
the injection of mystery that Cartmel introduced.
>Cartmel is responsible for S24 - S26 (bar Rani). S24 - S26 got the show
>cancelled.
I agree that Cartmel was responsible - to a certain degree - for the
final seasons and, as you say, the show was cancelled. But if the
show was given just one extra year's reprieve, I'm sure it would have
become yet another beast.
Colin Brake as script-editor? Richard Griffiths as the Doctor
following the mental breakdown of the 7th Doctor? A new female cat
burgler as the companion? New writers?
If we had got another 3 seasons, even under JN-T's producership, I
firmly believe the show would be different and I genuinely believe
that this *alienating* of the viewing public would have been
addressed.
I aslo agree that the worst aspects of the series led to it's
alienation and eventual cancellation - it's just I enjoyed it despite
that. Sorry!
Best Wishes
John Pettigrew - ji...@cableinet.co.uk
"When it's Spring again, I'll sing again 'Talons of Weng-Chiang'..."
Adam Richards
Pettigrew) wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:01:08 GMT, the incredibly fluffy and wonderful
>Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk (Adam Richards) clattered away at the
>keyboard and came up with this:
<snip>
>...........with *very few* exceptions DrWho always
>>had plots that were well-explained and clear on the first viewing,
>>from "An Uneathly Child" to "Revelation of the Daleks".
>
>Actually, that isn't true! I've just been watching all the
>Reconstructed Videos, the Fury audio and the Enemy of the World novel
>for research for an article I'm writing for the next issue of Circus.
Which is, let's face it, quite a bit different to *watching the
stories*.... I get where you're coming from though - watching the
stories isn't all that possible right now, so... :)
>One of the most amazing things I picked up on from these stories is
>the amount of unexplained and vague plot elements that appeared. In
>the Yeti stories, it is never explained how the Intelligence
>transported the robots to London,
That's rather incidental, isn't it? That's not the same as a viewer
wondering what was in a heavily-emphasized glowing snuffbox and why it
seems to hold such importance one minute, and then is completely
ignored the next.
>why he kept them as Yetim why the
>control spheres were in a pyramidal structure,
Not at all important to the plot, really - more an aspect of design
work.
>how a disembodied
>creature could mainpulate (or indeed buid) control spheres,
Well it can can control yetis, so why not spheres? It's not quite the
same as seeing a character you've watched in 600+ episodes suddenly
shoot lightning from his fingertips for no apparent reason, is it?
>where the web and/or pulsating fungus came from....
I get your point: these questions aren't answered. But they are not
part of the plot of the story itself - they are part of the *premise*
of the story. This is not the same as watching things happen on screen
which there is no logical or spoken explanation for.
To explain my point: you don't need to know where the web/fungus came
from to understand the story, which is actually about how the
web/fungus/intelligence/yeti/etc. does nasty things to people and how
the Doctor defeats it. "Ghost Light" is different because all the
unexplained things are portentious set-pieces, dwelt upon visually in
the story as if they are important elements. As such, they deserved
explanations, but didn't get them. Result: viewer dissatisfaction.
>The weed creature in Fury from the Deep is also quite ambiguous. The
>Doctor looks it up in a book in the TARDIS but is it an alien or a
>native from earth? If it is a mind parasite, what is it's aim? Is it
>to "eat" people or to take over the earth? Do the possessed people
>ultimately die? Are Oak and Quill merely possessed humans (they have
>no weed fronds covering them) or are they something more alien? What
>happens to them?
Are those questions you need to know the answers to in order to figure
out how and why things are happening onscreen? With "Fury"'s pretty
basic plot, I would say not. Again, "Ghost light" is rather different.
IIRC the weed is supposed to be alien (only in the broader sense of
the word, since we aren't familiar with it). Yeah - that's vague, but
it isn't important. The snuffbox in "Ghost Light" was important, or at
least if it wasn't, why did it get so much on-screen build-up?
>Make no mistake, the stories from Season 5 were VERY ambiguous but it
>actually added to the mystery and atmosphere of the tales.
Grey area there... I really don't think they were all that ambiguous
as plots. Most of the plots were:
1. Monster appears
2. People get taken over / killed by monsters
3. Doctor lands
4. Doctor defeats monsters :)
<snip of my own earlier points>
>I'm not trying to argue or defend the shortcoming in the McCoy era -
>and perhaps a lot of the "rushed" feeling that is present was down to
>the fact that they were sometimes trying to do traditionally 4 part
>stories as 3 parters. Something had to give. To me, Silver Nemesis
>contains a good story that doesn't feature the Cybermen. There was
>too much going on there for 3 episodes. But I also reckon that the
>direction was quite contemporary - a lot of whoosh! a lot of Blam! a
>lot of breakneck scene cutting and machine gun incedental scores.
>
>I can't say that *that* style of drama appeals greatly to me - witness
>how everyone picks up on the "quiet reflective moment" in Remembrance
>of the Daleks, where the Doctor muses on life in the cafe. Yes, it's
>nice and a slow scene. But it's picked up on because there was a
>distinct "lack" of such scenes at this time on the show.
>
>Whereas something like Pyramids of Mars, the style *was* for slower,
>subtler scenes.
>
>Now you can argue that this later style was a disaster, unsuitable for
>Who or not - it doesn't really matter -but it was just another dtyle
>and I'm certain that it wouldn't have lasted forever.
I still don't believe that not explaining things important to the plot
ever was, or ever should be, a valid "style". I believe JN-T and
Cartmel either:
A: didn't realize those elements *needed* explaining,
B: didn't explain things because they liked the idea of fans debating
about them, or
C: realised they needed explaining, but thought, "Oh, what the hell -
they'll read the novelisation, won't they?"
Adam Richards
wrote:
>Adam Richards wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:08:49 +0000, Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Actually the only producers that I
>> >feel ever understood Doctor Who were Verity Lambert, John Wiles, and
>> >JNT.
>
>> Sorry Nathan, nowt personal, but I think JN-T is possibly the producer
>> who understood DrWho the *least*. He loved it, but that doesn't mean
>> he understood it very well, IMHO. Please read Ian Levine's interviews
>> and Tim Munro's articles on "Who in the '80s" in DWB/DreamWatch, I
>> beseech you.
>
>I was a reader of DWB in the eighties and I still stand by my above
>statement.
Well, fair enough.
>Levine was a case of sour grapes (he caused most of the
>problems anyway)
<mind boggles...>
What problems did Levine cause? What about everyone who agreed with
Levine about JN-T? Are they all fools, by your reckoning?
>and Gary Levy (Leigh) had a personal agenda to settle.
What personal agenda exactly?
Are you saying that everyone who doesn't like JN-T's productions has
"an agenda", and everyone who does like them hasn't?
It could be argued that some fans in the pro-Cartmel camp have *their
own* agenda: no less than attempting to re-write history.
Adam Richards
<rmole...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>The show was failing during the McCoy years mainly due to the inexperiance
>of Cartmel, but wasn't helped by JNT's inability to see the damagae Cartmel
>was doing (why I'll leave to conjecture).
>
>To my mind, the failure of the programme lead to its cancellation. If they
>had gotten 'Joe Bloggs' as a script editor, he could have taken the show in
>any new direction he wanted, and as long as it was handled competently and
>professionally, then there would be no reason to assume it wouldn't work.
>
>Cartmel is responsible for S24 - S26 (bar Rani). S24 - S26 got the show
>cancelled.
Well said, Richard. Sadly, I can just picture the "Cartmel Brigade"'s
response:
"Cartmell oversaw THE BEST era of Dr.Who!! If you don't like it,
you're not a TRUE FAN. Everything you say is WRONG - you are TAINTED!!
Faithful fans, do not believe their LIES!! NO, Dr Who wasn't unpopular
because it was crap - THAT IS I M P O S S I B L E ! ! ! - it was
unpolpular because THE BASTARD BBC CONSPIRACY!! They SABOTAGED the
show because they wanted stories that made sense! Well, we're TIRED of
stories that make sense! All those stories that made sense are LAME
ASS SHIT!! The public and the BBC are LAME ASS SHIT!! <then, seemingly
plucked from out of nowhere...> PERTWEE IS LAME ASS SHIT!! <????>
McCoy good, Pertwee bad!! McCoy good, Pertwee bad!! McCoy good,
Pertwee bad!! McCoy good, Pertwee bad!! <flame war erupts; killfiles
are activated...>
Hey-ho, so passes another thread on rec.arts.Dr.Who! :)
h.p...@icrf.icnet.uk
> >> I think JN-T is possibly the producer who understood DrWho the *least*.
> >> He loved it, but that doesn't mean he understood it very well, IMHO.
> >> Please read Ian Levine's interviews and Tim Munro's articles on "Who in
> >> the '80s" in DWB/DreamWatch, I beseech you.
> >
> >I was a reader of DWB in the eighties and I still stand by my above
> >statement.
>
> Well, fair enough.
>
> >Levine was a case of sour grapes (he caused most of the problems anyway)
>
> <mind boggles...>
>
> What problems did Levine cause? What about everyone who agreed with
> Levine about JN-T? Are they all fools, by your reckoning?
>
> >and Gary Levy (Leigh) had a personal agenda to settle.
>
> What personal agenda exactly?
>
> Are you saying that everyone who doesn't like JN-T's productions has
> "an agenda", and everyone who does like them hasn't?
>
> It could be argued that some fans in the pro-Cartmel camp have *their
> own* agenda: no less than attempting to re-write history.
Oh, indeed. I mean, DWB in the '80s was so fair-minded and unbiased, wasn't
it?
--
Henry
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jarrow Merenivitch
JNT and Eric Saward. What the hell were they thinking with the Sixth
Doctor,Sheesh!
P.S. Oh and Someone just started a war between the Pertwee and McCoy
Lovers of D.Who, Man your battle stations!
Nathan Cooke
>
> On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 20:23:14 +0000, Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Adam Richards wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:08:49 +0000, Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net>
> >> wrote:
> >Levine was a case of sour grapes (he caused most of the
> >problems anyway)
>
> <mind boggles...>
>
> What problems did Levine cause? What about everyone who agreed with
> Levine about JN-T? Are they all fools, by your reckoning?
Well a lot of the programmes (and errors) he moaned about were stories
on which he acted as continuity advisor.
>
> >and Gary Levy (Leigh) had a personal agenda to settle.
>
> What personal agenda exactly?
God knows... But he spent years on trying to drag the man down with no
earthly reson that I could ever figure out (as a DWB reader throughout
the 80's).
> Are you saying that everyone who doesn't like JN-T's productions has
> "an agenda", and everyone who does like them hasn't?
No. An opinion is one thing, but DWB took this to extremes.
> It could be argued that some fans in the pro-Cartmel camp have *their
> own* agenda: no less than attempting to re-write history.
Not at all. I just enjoyed it. Particularly DW produced by Lambert,
Wiles & Nathan -Turner :)
Paul 'Ozymandias' Harman
John Pettigrew <ji...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:369f8f43...@news.cableinet.co.uk...
>McCoy wouldn't have been the Doctor forever, a BBC Eighth Doctor
>(Richard Griffiths?) would have led to another change in style and
>emphasis.
IIRC McCoy has been quoted as saying he'd only have stayed one more
season...
>In my own personal opinion - I think that some of the latter day
>stories came over as a bit too rushed for my liking.
I feel that they were worked out in great depth by the authors, but rushed
in production (as opposed to the other way around for most of the rest of
the show IMHO).
>That was the most powerful thing about Doctor Who, you see. It's
>ability to evolve and transform itself every so often.
Amen to that.
>Doctor Who did all these stories and did them with great gusto, verve
>and style. But it also did them *years* ago. Why bother to cover the
>same ground? I would rather the series went the way it was going in
>1987-89 and fall flat on its fanny sometimes rather than be able to
>work out the simple plot within the first couple of minutes of episode
>1.
Raises Glass...
Ching!
>Doctor Who was never perfect. At any time. We all have our Great
>Golden Age and we all [think] we *know* it all went wrong. But I
>continue to be a fan of the programme far longer than I should
>because I was always assured that if one year the show seemed "a bit
>crap" then not to worry - the next season was only another year away.
>
>Doctor Who was never afraid to experiment and some of the more
>far-fetched aspects of the show should be seen as a genuine attempt to
>try something different with a show that had been doing the rounds for
>25+ years!
I really hate "Me Too!" posts, but... me too!
Ozzy
who...@my-dejanews.com
wil...@webtv.net (Jarrow Merenivitch) wrote:
> I think the reason that the BBC Cancelled WHO was the production team of
> JNT and Eric Saward. What the hell were they thinking with the Sixth
> Doctor,Sheesh!
It's possible to blame Eric Saward for a lot of the show's problems, but not
this one. He was opposed to casting Colin Baker. One *might* make a case that
he deliberately approved substandard scripts because of this, but one would
have to be an even sadder fanboy than I to do so.
> P.S. Oh and Someone just started a war between the Pertwee and McCoy
> Lovers of D.Who, Man your battle stations!
<Yawn> If you need me, I'll be in sickbay. With a headache.
Allen Robinson
Who's Doctor Who?
www.dwebs.net/~allenrob/whoshome.html
OJ THORNTON
: I think the reason that the BBC Cancelled WHO was the production team of
: JNT and Eric Saward. What the hell were they thinking with the Sixth
: Doctor,Sheesh!
As I understand it from the interviews I've read (not many), they
thought, "A great new direction to take the Doctor in would be to make
him really unlikable and alien". This seems like saying, "A great new
direction for this car to take would be over that cliff". Discuss.
Oliver Thornton
Daniel Frankham
>On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:01:08 GMT, the incredibly fluffy and wonderful
>Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk (Adam Richards) clattered away at the
>keyboard and came up with this:
>>However... (
>>Your point about the series changing style over the years can't really
>>justify (to me) the Cartmel stories where things happened and you got
>>no explanation for it, since with *very few* exceptions DrWho always
>>had plots that were well-explained and clear on the first viewing,
>>from "An Uneathly Child" to "Revelation of the Daleks". (yeah, that
>>leaves out "Trial" and "Rani", for obvious reasons: "Trial" was
>>written and edited by committee, while "Rani" wasn't script-edited at
>>all!)
>
>Actually, that isn't true! I've just been watching all the
>Reconstructed Videos, the Fury audio and the Enemy of the World novel
>for research for an article I'm writing for the next issue of Circus.
To an extent, things often just "happened" in the early stories,
without the need for explanations. We knew they could happen because
we saw them on the screen, and without prior knowledge of Yetis and
Great Intelligences we couldn't say that they couldn't do the things
they did on TV.
However, I shall try to explain:
>One of the most amazing things I picked up on from these stories is
>the amount of unexplained and vague plot elements that appeared. In
>the Yeti stories, it is never explained how the Intelligence
>transported the robots to London,
I assumed that the control spheres had a small measure of
"intelligence", or that they were programmed to find the nearest
sphereless Yeti and jump up its back. So when the sphere got into the
Yeti in the museum, it came to life and went off to build more Yeti
and spheres.
>why he kept them as Yetim
I guess he had to work with what he had... The Yeti in the museum may
have been able to build more Yeti, but to build something more
suitable to 1970s London might have required some heavy-duty
reprogramming which would have been difficult for a noncorporeal
entity to achieve.
And the Yeti were a hit with the kids :)
>why the
>control spheres were in a pyramidal structure,
Because pyramids have mystical properties
>how a disembodied
>creature could mainpulate (or indeed buid) control spheres, where the
>web and/or pulsating fungus came from....
I presumed the GI was "manifesting" as the fungus, in the same way as
it was manifesating as the blob in Abominable Snowmen. Although it's
not really explained in detail, and doesn't fully make sense, we can
conclude from observation that
1) The GI can control people (at least one at a time)
2) The GI can achieve corporeality when a lot of control spheres are
piled up in a pyramidal structure
3) The GI can control the Yeti (or at least can control a human who in
turn controls the Yeti)
As you say elsewhere, the vagueness and inexplicability of a lot of
what happens in these stories adds immensely to their effect. I think
it's much more effectively spooky to have a giant fungus growing and
shrinking and moving through the tunnels, with no apparent rhyme or
reason behind what it's doing, than to have some conventional
aliens-with-big-guns sort of menace. You know where you are with a
big-gun-wielding alien menace... But with a big blob of fungus that
might any minute come round the corner and smother the only door out
of your hideout, when you've got no idea what the fungus is or where
it came from or why it's doing what it's doing... well, you don't know
where you are.
===========================================================================
The television critic, whatever his pretensions, does not labour in the
same vineyard as those he criticizes; his grapes are all sour.
--Frederic Raphael
Daniel Frankham
>
>How remarkably perceptive.
>I've been trying to put forward the same arguments (although slightly less
>eloquently) on uk.media.tv.sf.drwho and I get continually lambasted by peopl
>who seem to lack some of your reasoning.
>I agree with nearly everything you say and thank you thank you thank you for
>putting that bit about 'not as good as it used to be' which is an argument I
>am currently having on the other side (as it were). Please come over and
>support me. I tend to be out on a limb a lot of the time.
>Keep up the good work, and maybe we'll be able to change the world :-)
What a remarkably diplomatic post.
John Pettigrew
wonderful Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net> clattered away at the
keyboard and came up with this:
<snip>
>I was a reader of DWB in the eighties and I still stand by my above
>statement. Levine was a case of sour grapes (he caused most of the
>problems anyway) and Gary Levy (Leigh) had a personal agenda to settle.
Really? As a long term DWB reader too, what exactly were the personal
reasons? I am oblivious to this!
John Pettigrew
Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk (Adam Richards) clattered away at the
keyboard and came up with this:
><snip>
>
>>...........with *very few* exceptions DrWho always
>>>had plots that were well-explained and clear on the first viewing,
>>>from "An Uneathly Child" to "Revelation of the Daleks".
>>
>>Actually, that isn't true! I've just been watching all the
>>Reconstructed Videos, the Fury audio and the Enemy of the World novel
>>for research for an article I'm writing for the next issue of Circus.
>
>Which is, let's face it, quite a bit different to *watching the
>stories*.... I get where you're coming from though - watching the
>stories isn't all that possible right now, so... :)
The story remains the same though! All you lack is the actual acting
- the recons/novels/audios are as clode to "the real thing" as you can
get. My points are still valid in spite of the source.
>>One of the most amazing things I picked up on from these stories is
>>the amount of unexplained and vague plot elements that appeared. In
>>the Yeti stories, it is never explained how the Intelligence
>>transported the robots to London,
>
>That's rather incidental, isn't it? That's not the same as a viewer
>wondering what was in a heavily-emphasized glowing snuffbox and why it
>seems to hold such importance one minute, and then is completely
>ignored the next.
Incidental? No, I found all these ambiguities "leapt" out at me as I
went through the recons. More so than from decades of being
accustomed to the book version. I honestly believe that the stories
from Season 5 are riddled with these vague elements.
But - and here's the thing - they "complement" the plots wonderfully.
You see, I'm not using my views in a derogatory way. Although I
reckon the plot holes of Web and Fury are blindingly obvious and evoke
many, many questions (Oak and Quill are the best examples), it just
ADDS to the style of the show.
And I'm not trying to say that the plot-holes/ambiguities of the
Cartmel stories were deliberately done in the same way or with the
same intentions. I'm not defending these shortcomings. Personally I
reckon that the worst aspect was trying to cram too much into a story
and having important lines strewn on the editing floor.
The ambiguous/frustrations of the latter day stories ARE completely
different. The stories were *far* more complex and there should have
been more time (both on and off screen) for them to be presented. I
still like the McCoy years though, and can see something worthwhile in
all eras of Doctor Who.
>>why he kept them as Yetim why the
>>control spheres were in a pyramidal structure,
>
>Not at all important to the plot, really - more an aspect of design
>work.
I agree it's not important to the plot but the viewer has to ask
"why?" after seeing it. The enigma actually ADDS to the story!
>>how a disembodied
>>creature could mainpulate (or indeed buid) control spheres,
>
>Well it can can control yetis, so why not spheres? It's not quite the
>same as seeing a character you've watched in 600+ episodes suddenly
>shoot lightning from his fingertips for no apparent reason, is it?
Absolutely not. I don't mean to equate the two. But if the viewer
can think "Aha! How did the Intelligence create the spheres/build the
Yeti/come to Earth/transport hairy robots from Tibet to London but not
itself from the planet/manipulate the TARDIS/create the web etc, etc?"
s/he can also ask, "Aha! How can the Doctor suddenly shoot lightening
from his fingers?"
The Web questions are more subtle, the second is more blatent.
>>where the web and/or pulsating fungus came from....
>
>I get your point: these questions aren't answered. But they are not
>part of the plot of the story itself - they are part of the *premise*
>of the story. This is not the same as watching things happen on screen
>which there is no logical or spoken explanation for.
I would disagree - these elements *are* part of the plot. And there
are no on-screen explanations for them. The viewer is left to
theorise. I would admit that the Season 5 story ambiguities are
perhaps more logical...
>To explain my point: you don't need to know where the web/fungus came
>from to understand the story, which is actually about how the
>web/fungus/intelligence/yeti/etc. does nasty things to people and how
>the Doctor defeats it. "Ghost Light" is different because all the
>unexplained things are portentious set-pieces, dwelt upon visually in
>the story as if they are important elements. As such, they deserved
>explanations, but didn't get them. Result: viewer dissatisfaction.
Agreed - at least about Ghost Light. I would say that you don't need
to know the Web questions in order to *enjoy* the story but the fact
that the vagueness of the elements arise to lead the viewer to
question their *understanding* of the story. Especially 30+ years
later by menky fans like us!
>>The weed creature in Fury from the Deep is also quite ambiguous. The
>>Doctor looks it up in a book in the TARDIS but is it an alien or a
>>native from earth? If it is a mind parasite, what is it's aim? Is it
>>to "eat" people or to take over the earth? Do the possessed people
>>ultimately die? Are Oak and Quill merely possessed humans (they have
>>no weed fronds covering them) or are they something more alien? What
>>happens to them?
>
>Are those questions you need to know the answers to in order to figure
>out how and why things are happening onscreen? With "Fury"'s pretty
>basic plot, I would say not. Again, "Ghost light" is rather different.
No, but you must admit that these are VERY *ambiguous* elements! They
aren't explained and the diserning viewer is left thinking "hold
on.... what about? why? D'oh!"
And I agree that Ghost Light is different. Silve Nemesis is probably
a better example of ambiguity due to lack of coherent direction/lack
of episodes/too much happening. Fury/Web etc are ambiguous due to
lack of explanation of elements (the fact that the story makes sense
despite this aura of doubt is a GOOD thing. Agreed!
>IIRC the weed is supposed to be alien (only in the broader sense of
>the word, since we aren't familiar with it). Yeah - that's vague, but
>it isn't important. The snuffbox in "Ghost Light" was important, or at
>least if it wasn't, why did it get so much on-screen build-up?
Any plot element which is ambiguous and/or unexplained IS important
but not in the same way that you are criticising the unexplaine din
Ghost Light.
>>Make no mistake, the stories from Season 5 were VERY ambiguous but it
>>actually added to the mystery and atmosphere of the tales.
>
>Grey area there... I really don't think they were all that ambiguous
>as plots. Most of the plots were:
>
>1. Monster appears
>2. People get taken over / killed by monsters
>3. Doctor lands
>4. Doctor defeats monsters :)
No, no, no. Goodness, if you summarise the plots of any/all of Season
5 then yes, all you have are VERY basic simple plots. But I've
watched all the recons and audios and believe me, these ambiguous plot
elements leap out at the viewer.
The main point to the article I'm writing for Circus is how the
production team of Season 5 managed to basically wrap incredibly
simple plots into some *WONDERFUL* television. A true case of style
winning over content but that statement used in a different way than
when attributed to the JNT years!
><snip of my own earlier points>
>
>>Now you can argue that this later style was a disaster, unsuitable for
>>Who or not - it doesn't really matter -but it was just another dtyle
>>and I'm certain that it wouldn't have lasted forever.
>
>I still don't believe that not explaining things important to the plot
>ever was, or ever should be, a valid "style". I believe JN-T and
>Cartmel either:
No, I don't think they deliberately did this as a atyle. But that's
what the style ended up as! As the wheel turns, I believe that JNT or
a future script writer would have addressed these shortcomings.
>A: didn't realize those elements *needed* explaining,
>B: didn't explain things because they liked the idea of fans debating
>about them, or
>C: realised they needed explaining, but thought, "Oh, what the hell -
>they'll read the novelisation, won't they?"
or
D: only realized they needed explaining once they had whittled the
episodes down to the broadcast version.
For me, the McCoy years showed great imagination, valiantly trying to
come up with original stories and new ideas in a show that had been on
air for 26 years. Most of them worked at some level for me, others
didn't. Sometimes the show fell flat on its feet but when it did, it
was mostly down to poor editing or trying to stuff too much into a
single story.
Contrast that to some of the 6 episode stories from the 70s that had
at least a whole episode's worth of padding!
John Pettigrew
>On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:12:08 GMT, "Richard Molesworth"
Only if we let it. Some of us are a little bit more savvy and can
genuinely love stories such as: Spearhead from Space, Time and the
Rani, Inferno, Fenric, Axos, Happiness Patrol, Sea Devils, Survival,
Mind of Evil, Dragonfire whilst not much about Ghost Light, The
Mutants, Paradise Towers, Colony in Space, Silver Nemesis, Colony in
Space and Battlefield.
Some of us don't write off or adore whole eras with blanket
statements...
Carnegie
> P.S. Oh and Someone just started a war between the Pertwee and McCoy
> Lovers of D.Who, Man your battle stations!
>
He's not talking about me is he? My pointless post about the
Dictionary...? It wasn't meant to be a... oh well.
--
Chris Rednour
> I think the reason that the BBC Cancelled WHO was the production team of
> JNT and Eric Saward.
Then why not fire JNT [who they forced to stay on after he *wanted* to
leave] and Eric Saward, rather than cancel the show?
> What the hell were they thinking with the Sixth
> Doctor,Sheesh!
I dunno, but it was sheer GENIUS! I mean here was a readically diferent
take on the Doctor, an actor who was quite good in the role, and a
companion who was quite often an actual help to the Doctor! Two of the
best seasons of DW, IMO.
> P.S. Oh and Someone just started a war between the Pertwee and McCoy
> Lovers of D.Who, Man your battle stations!
*sigh*
-Chris Rednour
_________________________________________________________________
gs0...@panther.gsu.edu | cred...@gpc.peachnet.edu |||||||||||||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Si Jerram
Anyone fancy a pint?
</Fast Show>
--
Simon Jerram Email:si...@telos.clara.co.uk
My life's too complicated to sum up here.
"But a cold wind blows, and a dark rain falls,
and in my heart it shows: Look what they've done to my dreams!"
Adam Richards
wrote:
>Adam Richards wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 20:23:14 +0000, Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Adam Richards wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:08:49 +0000, Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net>
>> >> wrote:
>
>> >Levine was a case of sour grapes (he caused most of the
>> >problems anyway)
>>
>> <mind boggles...>
>>
>> What problems did Levine cause? What about everyone who agreed with
>> Levine about JN-T? Are they all fools, by your reckoning?
>
>Well a lot of the programmes (and errors) he moaned about were stories
>on which he acted as continuity advisor.
If you read the interviews, he talks about JN-T *ignoring* his advice
a lot of the time. He seemed to be getting the runaraound from JN-T;
it was as if all JN-T wanted was to be able to say to people, "Look at
me, I've got a 'continuity advisor', aren't I good?"
>> >and Gary Levy (Leigh) had a personal agenda to settle.
>>
>> What personal agenda exactly?
>
>God knows... But he spent years on trying to drag the man down with no
>earthly reson that I could ever figure out (as a DWB reader throughout
>the 80's).
Errr - watch "Timelash", "Paradise Towers", The Rani stories...
Anthony Ainley; Bonnie Langford; "The Twin Dilemma"; Eric Saward; Pip
& Jane Baker; the hiatus; the question-marks; the unnecessary foreign
location-shoots; the ego trips; the self-publicity; the perpetual
whitewashing of percieved opinions on his work in fan publications he
was "advisor" to; the hiring of innappropriate guest stars from comedy
and light-entertainment shows; the glitz; the theatricality; the
slapstick; the stubbornness, and ignoring of any and all criticisms of
his mistakes; the pandering to Australians/Americans; the endless
dredging-up of elements from the show's past to curry favour with
fans; the constant continuity cock-ups; the neglect of the show in
favour of appearing at American conventions, where he granted himself
celebrity status along with the show's stars....
Are those enough earthly reasons..? :)
>> Are you saying that everyone who doesn't like JN-T's productions has
>> "an agenda", and everyone who does like them hasn't?
>
>No. An opinion is one thing, but DWB took this to extremes.
Well, for someone who says he "was there" at the time, you don't seem
to have a very good memory. It seemed to most of fandom at the time
that JN-T would *never* leave, and a lot of fans (myself and DWB
likewise) had started to actually *panic*. We thought JN-T was riding
the show into its grave.
And err, we were right.
>> It could be argued that some fans in the pro-Cartmel camp have *their
>> own* agenda: no less than attempting to re-write history.
>
>Not at all. I just enjoyed it. Particularly DW produced by Lambert,
>Wiles & Nathan -Turner :)
Fine, I still say that if you really think JN-T understood the show
more than most other producers, that would be wrong. Not that it
should stop you liking his productions though, if that's what truly
turns you on......
Nathan Cooke
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 19:43:54 +0000, Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net>
> wrote:
> >Well a lot of the programmes (and errors) he moaned about were stories
> >on which he acted as continuity advisor.
>
> If you read the interviews, he talks about JN-T *ignoring* his advice
> a lot of the time. He seemed to be getting the runaraound from JN-T;
> it was as if all JN-T wanted was to be able to say to people, "Look at
> me, I've got a 'continuity advisor', aren't I good?"
His interviews, yes. There is always another side.
> >> >and Gary Levy (Leigh) had a personal agenda to settle.
> >>
> >> What personal agenda exactly?
> >
> >God knows... But he spent years on trying to drag the man down with no
> >earthly reson that I could ever figure out (as a DWB reader throughout
> >the 80's).
>
> Errr - watch "Timelash", "Paradise Towers",
I like Paradise Towers :)
>The Rani stories...
Every era has its Time and the Rani or Time Monster...
> Anthony Ainley;
Liked him too
>Eric Saward
him too
> Pip & Jane Baker
Couldn't stand them :)
> the hiatus
No-ones fault, just the BBC making up drama hours for EastEnders.
> Are those enough earthly reasons..? :)
No. No more than disliking Barry Letts or Terry Nation
> Well, for someone who says he "was there" at the time, you don't seem
> to have a very good memory. It seemed to most of fandom at the time
> that JN-T would *never* leave, and a lot of fans (myself and DWB
> likewise) had started to actually *panic*. We thought JN-T was riding
> the show into its grave.
I was there and have an excellent memory. I disagree with the "most of
fandom" quote, just a very vocal minority. I also remember JNT saying he
wanted to leave every year (always another side).
> And err, we were right.
I don't think it was his fault. What killed the programme was the
scheduling of S22 in a kiddies teatime slot (a programme intended for
the later Juliet Bravo one) and the following hiatus. Neither JNT's
choice.
Robin R. Langton
Merenivitch) wrote:
>I think the reason that the BBC Cancelled WHO was the production team of
>JNT and Eric Saward. What the hell were they thinking with the Sixth
>Doctor,Sheesh!
I've just seen "TimeLash" with a real Dr Who *LOVER* - I mean, someone
who always seems to have a good word to say about anything: any story,
no matter how obviously poor, he always seems to see the good in it...
Well, he really tore into "Timelash". He said, "I feel bruised after
watching that, it was so awful!!". It was so strange hearing him talk
like that!! The point is, I agree with you - I agree with everyone,
really; I now think it was all cumulative - everything did it.
>P.S. Oh and Someone just started a war between the Pertwee and McCoy
>Lovers of D.Who, Man your battle stations!
After watching "Timelash" I'm thinking the McCoy Cartmel stories were
a big improvement. But by that time it was too late - we'd already had
the worst of Colin Baker; Bonnie Langford; the hiatus; Pip & Jane
Baker... A few stories where you really couldn't work out what was
happening most of the time might *not* actually have killed the
programme off after a healthy run, but after all these kicks in the
teeth, those Cartmel stories were another disservice, and not what the
show needed, sadly.
Adam Richards
RICHARDS, actually.
Adam Richards
wrote:
>Adam Richards wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 19:43:54 +0000, Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net>
>> wrote:
>
>> >Well a lot of the programmes (and errors) he moaned about were stories
>> >on which he acted as continuity advisor.
>>
>> If you read the interviews, he talks about JN-T *ignoring* his advice
>> a lot of the time. He seemed to be getting the runaraound from JN-T;
>> it was as if all JN-T wanted was to be able to say to people, "Look at
>> me, I've got a 'continuity advisor', aren't I good?"
>
>His interviews, yes. There is always another side.
That "other" side can be wrong of course - which is what I believe.
>> >> >and Gary Levy (Leigh) had a personal agenda to settle.
>> >>
>> >> What personal agenda exactly?
>> >
>> >God knows... But he spent years on trying to drag the man down with no
>> >earthly reson that I could ever figure out (as a DWB reader throughout
>> >the 80's).
>>
>> Errr - watch "Timelash", "Paradise Towers",
>
>I like Paradise Towers :)
I thought it was shite.
> >The Rani stories...
>
>Every era has its Time and the Rani or Time Monster...
Sorry I like "The Time Monster": IMHO, it's very silly and as such is
a good laugh, but "Time And The Rani" is just boring pantomime.
>> Anthony Ainley;
>
>Liked him too
Ahhh, but when you've seen Delgado, Ainley pales in comparison.
>>Eric Saward
>
>him too
He seemed to have two big fetishes, which if you look at the stories
he edited, are in EVERY single one: genetic engineering and the Time
Lords. FACT: he should have spotted the errors in "The Two Doctors"
(i.e., it was written for Pertwee, not Troughton) and because he
didn't the story is one huge balls-up that I simply cannot watch. He
could have prevented that. he didn't, so in fact he wasn't doing his
job properly...
>> Pip & Jane Baker
>
>Couldn't stand them :)
We agree on that, then...
>> the hiatus
>
>No-ones fault, just the BBC making up drama hours for EastEnders.
Not actually true. Michael Grade gave his reasons as being that the
show was getting tired and wasn't very good. Something had to be done
to fire a shot across JN-T's bow.
>> Are those enough earthly reasons..? :)
>
>No. No more than disliking Barry Letts or Terry Nation
Actually, you cut out these:
the question-marks; the unnecessary foreign location-shoots; the ego
trips; the self-publicity; the perpetual whitewashing of percieved
opinions on his work in fan publications he was "advisor" to; the
hiring of innappropriate guest stars from comedy and
light-entertainment shows; the glitz; the theatricality; the
slapstick; the stubbornness, and ignoring of any and all criticisms of
his mistakes; the pandering to Australians/Americans; the endless
dredging-up of elements from the show's past to curry favour with
fans; the constant continuity cock-ups; the neglect of the show in
favour of appearing at American conventions, where he granted himself
celebrity status along with the show's stars....
Not a lot of those were trademarks of other producers, were they? :)
>> Well, for someone who says he "was there" at the time, you don't seem
>> to have a very good memory. It seemed to most of fandom at the time
>> that JN-T would *never* leave, and a lot of fans (myself and DWB
>> likewise) had started to actually *panic*. We thought JN-T was riding
>> the show into its grave.
>
>I was there and have an excellent memory. I disagree with the "most of
>fandom" quote, just a very vocal minority.
As just *one* microcosmic example of fandom, not one person in the
local group I was in (Derby Dr Who Group / Whotopia Derby 1985-1994;
30-40 members with a pretty constant turnover) liked the elements I
have complained about. That's a majority, not a minority.
>I also remember JNT saying he
>wanted to leave every year (always another side).
Can he prove this was the case? Sure he *told us* he wanted to leave,
but is he telling us the truth?
>> And err, we were right.
>
>I don't think it was his fault. What killed the programme was the
>scheduling of S22 in a kiddies teatime slot (a programme intended for
>the later Juliet Bravo one) and the following hiatus. Neither JNT's
>choice.
The hiatus was, at the time, very clearly put down to the quality of
the show (or lack of it) - nothing to do with scheduling or ratings,
and anyway, the ratings for "Attack" were rather good (9.1million
IIRC), so that was not the reason.
I suspect I'm not going to get you to see the truth. Well, if you
wanna blow JN-T, be my guest. Personally, I wouldn't ever hire him to
produce a TV show after 'Who'. If he's so talented, why hasn't he
worked since?
Nathan Cooke
>
> On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:27:38 +0000, Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net>
> wrote:
> >His interviews, yes. There is always another side.
>
> That "other" side can be wrong of course - which is what I believe.
An I believe the other, fair enough.
> >I like Paradise Towers :)
>
> I thought it was shite.
Your opinion, no more valid than mine.
> > >The Rani stories...
> >
> >Every era has its Time and the Rani or Time Monster...
>
> Sorry I like "The Time Monster": IMHO, it's very silly and as such is
> a good laugh, but "Time And The Rani" is just boring pantomime.
I hate both. Time Monster is a lot worse as a) it is longer, and b) the
last 2 episodes are the closest DOCTOR WHO ever got to an end of term
primary school play.
> >> Anthony Ainley;
> >
> >Liked him too
>
> Ahhh, but when you've seen Delgado, Ainley pales in comparison.
Seen Delgado, in the seventies too. Ainlry doesn't pale for me.
> >>Eric Saward
> >
> >him too
>
> He seemed to have two big fetishes, which if you look at the stories
> he edited, are in EVERY single one: genetic engineering and the Time
> Lords. FACT: he should have spotted the errors in "The Two Doctors"
> (i.e., it was written for Pertwee, not Troughton) and because he
> didn't the story is one huge balls-up that I simply cannot watch. He
> could have prevented that. he didn't, so in fact he wasn't doing his
> job properly...
I'd love to know where this Pertwee bollocks theory came from.
> >> the hiatus
> >
> >No-ones fault, just the BBC making up drama hours for EastEnders.
>
> Not actually true. Michael Grade gave his reasons as being that the
> show was getting tired and wasn't very good. Something had to be done
> to fire a shot across JN-T's bow.
Not actually true, Because if Grade had used the true excuse it would
have been seen as a huge abuse of his powers.
> >> Are those enough earthly reasons..? :)
> >
> >No. No more than disliking Barry Letts or Terry Nation
>
> Actually, you cut out these:
>
> the question-marks; the unnecessary foreign location-shoots; the ego
> trips; the self-publicity; the perpetual whitewashing of percieved
> opinions on his work in fan publications he was "advisor" to; the
> hiring of innappropriate guest stars from comedy and
> light-entertainment shows; the glitz; the theatricality; the
> slapstick; the stubbornness, and ignoring of any and all criticisms of
> his mistakes; the pandering to Australians/Americans; the endless
> dredging-up of elements from the show's past to curry favour with
> fans; the constant continuity cock-ups; the neglect of the show in
> favour of appearing at American conventions, where he granted himself
> celebrity status along with the show's stars....
I cut these out because I didn't want to spend pages defending it all or
dismissing it as claptrap.
> >> Well, for someone who says he "was there" at the time, you don't seem
> >> to have a very good memory. It seemed to most of fandom at the time
> >> that JN-T would *never* leave, and a lot of fans (myself and DWB
> >> likewise) had started to actually *panic*. We thought JN-T was riding
> >> the show into its grave.
> >
> >I was there and have an excellent memory. I disagree with the "most of
> >fandom" quote, just a very vocal minority.
>
> As just *one* microcosmic example of fandom, not one person in the
> local group I was in (Derby Dr Who Group / Whotopia Derby 1985-1994;
> 30-40 members with a pretty constant turnover) liked the elements I
> have complained about. That's a majority, not a minority.
As another all my Who friends never had a problem with any of it, some
positively preferred it. I am more balanced. That's a majority not a
minority
> >I also remember JNT saying he
> >wanted to leave every year (always another side).
>
> Can he prove this was the case? Sure he *told us* he wanted to leave,
> but is he telling us the truth?
Could you prove this is wrong? Why publically announce he was going to
leave the job he did if he didn't want to. Not a great idea if your
bosses hear.
> >> And err, we were right.
> >
> >I don't think it was his fault. What killed the programme was the
> >scheduling of S22 in a kiddies teatime slot (a programme intended for
> >the later Juliet Bravo one) and the following hiatus. Neither JNT's
> >choice.
>
> The hiatus was, at the time, very clearly put down to the quality of
> the show (or lack of it) - nothing to do with scheduling or ratings,
> and anyway, the ratings for "Attack" were rather good (9.1million
> IIRC), so that was not the reason.
By Grade, and I explain above his ressons. I never mentioned ratings,
just a bad timeslot for the programmes content.
> I suspect I'm not going to get you to see the truth. Well, if you
> wanna blow JN-T, be my guest. Personally, I wouldn't ever hire him to
> produce a TV show after 'Who'. If he's so talented, why hasn't he
> worked since?
I suspect I'm not going to get you to see the truth. Well, if you want
to hate JN-T be my guest. Personally I think he ranks with Lambert,
Wiles (and possibly Williams) as one of the best producers to grace the
series.
Adam Richards
wrote:
>> >I like Paradise Towers :)
>>
>> I thought it was shite.
>
>Your opinion, no more valid than mine.
Valid to a lot more people than yours though, judging by the polls,
very sorry.
>> > >The Rani stories...
>> >
>> >Every era has its Time and the Rani or Time Monster...
>>
>> Sorry I like "The Time Monster": IMHO, it's very silly and as such is
>> a good laugh, but "Time And The Rani" is just boring pantomime.
>
>I hate both. Time Monster is a lot worse
in your opinion,
>as a) it is longer, and b) the
>last 2 episodes are the closest DOCTOR WHO ever got to an end of term
>primary school play.
Which is precisely why I love it - I'm not one of these people who
think DrWho has to be SERIOUS! SERIOUS! SERIOUS! all the time; I like
lots of different aspects of it. Time Monster looks like an incredibly
silly story, made by people who at least know how to make good TV when
it counts. Time And The Rani, OTOH, looks like a fifth rate pantomime
made by people who think they're making great television, but in
reality they're making dog-poo. That at least makes some of TATR
funny, but IMHO most of it is just boring.
>> >> Anthony Ainley;
>> >
>> >Liked him too
>>
>> Ahhh, but when you've seen Delgado, Ainley pales in comparison.
>
>Seen Delgado, in the seventies too. Ainlry doesn't pale for me.
Yes, but does Ainley?
>> >>Eric Saward
>> >
>> >him too
>>
>> He seemed to have two big fetishes, which if you look at the stories
>> he edited, are in EVERY single one: genetic engineering and the Time
>> Lords. FACT: he should have spotted the errors in "The Two Doctors"
>> (i.e., it was written for Pertwee, not Troughton) and because he
>> didn't the story is one huge balls-up that I simply cannot watch. He
>> could have prevented that. he didn't, so in fact he wasn't doing his
>> job properly...
>
>I'd love to know where this Pertwee bollocks theory came from.
From Pertwee's bollocks, presumably?
Seriously though, it was Robert Holmes who admitted that he mistakenly
wrote for Pertwee, thinking that was the other Doctor they were using.
It was in the last interview, IIRC. He got confused. I must admit I
wondered, "How could he make that mistake, seeing as the companion was
**Jamie**!!??" But he wasn't very well at the time, remember.
>> >> the hiatus
>> >
>> >No-ones fault, just the BBC making up drama hours for EastEnders.
>>
>> Not actually true. Michael Grade gave his reasons as being that the
>> show was getting tired and wasn't very good. Something had to be done
>> to fire a shot across JN-T's bow.
>
>Not actually true, Because if Grade had used the true excuse it would
>have been seen as a huge abuse of his powers.
He was the Controller of BBC-1, so would not that have been within his
powers?
That excuse about EastEnders is sweaty old hogwash, denied by everyone
who had an ounce of knowledge on the subject at the time, used by fans
in 1985 to pull the wool over their own eyes. The truth is the show
was seriously shite (watch "Timelash", "Mark of the Rani", "Two
Doctors", "Attack of the Cymbermen", then tell me it didn't deserve
the axe) Something had to be done to fire a shot across JN-T's bow.
Michael Grade has since said this was the case. I suppose everything
he says is lies, is it?
>> >> Are those enough earthly reasons..? :)
>> >
>> >No. No more than disliking Barry Letts or Terry Nation
>>
>> Actually, you cut out these:
>>
>> the question-marks; the unnecessary foreign location-shoots; the ego
>> trips; the self-publicity; the perpetual whitewashing of percieved
>> opinions on his work in fan publications he was "advisor" to; the
>> hiring of innappropriate guest stars from comedy and
>> light-entertainment shows; the glitz; the theatricality; the
>> slapstick; the stubbornness, and ignoring of any and all criticisms of
>> his mistakes; the pandering to Australians/Americans; the endless
>> dredging-up of elements from the show's past to curry favour with
>> fans; the constant continuity cock-ups; the neglect of the show in
>> favour of appearing at American conventions, where he granted himself
>> celebrity status along with the show's stars....
>
>I cut these out because I didn't want to spend pages defending it all or
>dismissing it as claptrap.
I doubt you could have done either convincingly :)
Don't forget Bonnie Langford - you snipped her out conveniently,
too...
>As another all my Who friends never had a problem with any of it, some
>positively preferred it.
They preferred what exactly? "Timelash", "Paradise Towers", The Rani
stories? Anthony Ainley? Bonnie Langford? "The Twin Dilemma"? Eric
Saward? Pip & Jane Baker? The hiatus? The question-marks? The
unnecessary foreign location-shoots? The ego trips? The
self-publicity? The perpetual whitewashing of percieved opinions on
his work in fan publications he was "advisor" to? The hiring of
innappropriate guest stars from comedy and light-entertainment shows?
The glitz? The theatricality? The slapstick? The stubbornness, and
ignoring of any and all criticisms of his mistakes? The pandering to
Australians/Americans? The endless dredging-up of elements from the
show's past to curry favour with fans? The constant continuity
cock-ups? The neglect of the show in favour of appearing at American
conventions, where he granted himself celebrity status along with the
show's stars?
Well, more fool them...
>I am more balanced. That's a majority not a minority
You've said nothing about numbers so far. You could have 2 Who friends
for all I know. :)
>> >I also remember JNT saying he
>> >wanted to leave every year (always another side).
>>
>> Can he prove this was the case? Sure he *told us* he wanted to leave,
>> but is he telling us the truth?
>
>Could you prove this is wrong?
No, just asking.
>Why publically announce he was going to leave the job he did if he
>didn't want to.
Why not, if it makes the fans think he doesn't want to stay - and in
so doing, shutting up the "JN-T must go now" brigade?
We don't know - this is what I'm saying. Did he ask to leave? Is there
anyone at the BBC who has said *anything* on this subject that proves
/ disproves what he's said? For, as you say, there are two sides to
every story. Are there not?
I find it hard to believe that's what he really wanted, when you take
into account the fact that he was sniffing around what was left of the
show for five years after it finished.
>Not a great idea if your bosses hear.
Do you think JN-T's bosses are going to come back to something he says
to an audience from some convention panel in, say, Chicago? Do you
think they care what he says to a bunch of Dr Who fans? I don't think
they do.
<snip>
>> The hiatus was, at the time, very clearly put down to the quality of
>> the show (or lack of it) - nothing to do with scheduling or ratings,
>> and anyway, the ratings for "Attack" were rather good (9.1million
>> IIRC), so that was not the reason.
>
>By Grade,
and by others...
>and I explain above his ressons.
but not theirs....
>I never mentioned ratings,
>just a bad timeslot for the programmes content.
Well, what other bearing would timeslots have on the show other than
ratings?
>> I suspect I'm not going to get you to see the truth. Well, if you
>> wanna blow JN-T, be my guest. Personally, I wouldn't ever hire him to
>> produce a TV show after 'Who'. If he's so talented, why hasn't he
>> worked since?
>
>I suspect I'm not going to get you to see the truth. Well, if you want
>to hate JN-T be my guest. Personally I think he ranks with Lambert,
>Wiles (and possibly Williams) as one of the best producers to grace the
>series.
Cute, but not convincing. Just like JN-T's stories - my, what an
amazing coincidence! And, I notice you chose to ignore the last
question. Tut tut!
Nathan Cooke
>
> On Thu, 21 Jan 1999 22:04:35 +0000, Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> >I like Paradise Towers :)
> >>
> >> I thought it was shite.
> >
> >Your opinion, no more valid than mine.
>
> Valid to a lot more people than yours though, judging by the polls,
> very sorry.
Not everyone votes in polls
> >> Sorry I like "The Time Monster": IMHO, it's very silly and as such is
> >> a good laugh, but "Time And The Rani" is just boring pantomime.
> >
> >I hate both. Time Monster is a lot worse
> >as a) it is longer, and b) the
> >last 2 episodes are the closest DOCTOR WHO ever got to an end of term
> >primary school play.
>
> Which is precisely why I love it - I'm not one of these people who
> think DrWho has to be SERIOUS! SERIOUS! SERIOUS! all the time; I like
> lots of different aspects of it. Time Monster looks like an incredibly
> silly story, made by people who at least know how to make good TV when
> it counts. Time And The Rani, OTOH, looks like a fifth rate pantomime
> made by people who think they're making great television, but in
> reality they're making dog-poo. That at least makes some of TATR
> funny, but IMHO most of it is just boring.
I don't think it Who has to be serious, hence a sneaking admiration for
programmes like Delta (which is far from my favourite sort of Who, but I
admire the cheek).
TIME MONSTER is shit IMHO and Paul Bernard and co seriously did NOT have
a clue about what they were doing. I don't like Andrew Morgan either for
the exact same reason (see I'm not a total defender of all things late
80's, just a balanced viewer with no chip on his shoulder).
> >> >>Eric Saward
> >> >
> >> >him too
> >>
> >> He seemed to have two big fetishes, which if you look at the stories
> >> he edited, are in EVERY single one: genetic engineering and the Time
> >> Lords. FACT: he should have spotted the errors in "The Two Doctors"
> >> (i.e., it was written for Pertwee, not Troughton) and because he
> >> didn't the story is one huge balls-up that I simply cannot watch. He
> >> could have prevented that. he didn't, so in fact he wasn't doing his
> >> job properly...
> >
> >I'd love to know where this Pertwee bollocks theory came from.
>
> From Pertwee's bollocks, presumably?
>
> Seriously though, it was Robert Holmes who admitted that he mistakenly
> wrote for Pertwee, thinking that was the other Doctor they were using.
> It was in the last interview, IIRC. He got confused. I must admit I
> wondered, "How could he make that mistake, seeing as the companion was
> **Jamie**!!??" But he wasn't very well at the time, remember.
Where was this published? I remember one of his last interviews
explaining why it WAS a Troughton story.
> >> >> the hiatus
> >> >
> >> >No-ones fault, just the BBC making up drama hours for EastEnders.
> >>
> >> Not actually true. Michael Grade gave his reasons as being that the
> >> show was getting tired and wasn't very good. Something had to be done
> >> to fire a shot across JN-T's bow.
> >
> >Not actually true, Because if Grade had used the true excuse it would
> >have been seen as a huge abuse of his powers.
>
> He was the Controller of BBC-1, so would not that have been within his
> powers?
Yes, but he had no reason to do it except to make way for his pet
projects.
> That excuse about EastEnders is sweaty old hogwash, denied by everyone
> who had an ounce of knowledge on the subject at the time, used by fans
> in 1985 to pull the wool over their own eyes. The truth is the show
> was seriously shite (watch "Timelash", "Mark of the Rani", "Two
> Doctors", "Attack of the Cymbermen", then tell me it didn't deserve
> the axe) Something had to be done to fire a shot across JN-T's bow.
> Michael Grade has since said this was the case. I suppose everything
> he says is lies, is it?
No it's not. And Doctor Who was not the only casualty of EastEnders,
ironic as it was the very programme from which EastEnders was born.
> >> >> Are those enough earthly reasons..? :)
> >> >
> >> >No. No more than disliking Barry Letts or Terry Nation
> >>
> >> Actually, you cut out these:
> >>
> >> the question-marks; the unnecessary foreign location-shoots; the ego
> >> trips; the self-publicity; the perpetual whitewashing of percieved
> >> opinions on his work in fan publications he was "advisor" to; the
> >> hiring of innappropriate guest stars from comedy and
> >> light-entertainment shows; the glitz; the theatricality; the
> >> slapstick; the stubbornness, and ignoring of any and all criticisms of
> >> his mistakes; the pandering to Australians/Americans; the endless
> >> dredging-up of elements from the show's past to curry favour with
> >> fans; the constant continuity cock-ups; the neglect of the show in
> >> favour of appearing at American conventions, where he granted himself
> >> celebrity status along with the show's stars....
> >
> >I cut these out because I didn't want to spend pages defending it all or
> >dismissing it as claptrap.
>
> I doubt you could have done either convincingly :)
Blimey, OK
the question-marks - don't bother me, although McCoys jumper was a bit
too much.
the unnecessary foreign location-shoots - loved them.
the perpetual whitewashing of percieved opinions on his work in fan
publications he was "advisor" to - such as?
the hiring of innappropriate guest stars from comedy and
light-entertainment shows - such as Ian Hogg, Christopher Gable, Maurice
Colborn, etc, etc.?
the theatricality - I am from a theatre background (as well as TV) and
saw none of this - explain.
the slapstick - like what? I think Hartnell and Tom and Pertwee and
especially Troughton had far more slapstick than any JNT era.
the stubbornness - ????????????????
and ignoring of any and all criticisms of his mistakes - like?
the pandering to Australians/Americans - Jesus, you racist now?
the endless dredging-up of elements from the show's past to curry favour
with fans - like all eras?
the constant continuity cock-ups - courtesy of Levine? All eras had
cockups, JNT did better than most.
the neglect of the show in favour of appearing at American conventions,
where he granted himself celebrity status along with the show's stars...
- as with all producers who go.
Happy now?
> Don't forget Bonnie Langford - you snipped her out conveniently,
> too...
Badly conceived - agreed, but nothing wrong with Bonnie.
> >As another all my Who friends never had a problem with any of it, some
> >positively preferred it.
>
> They preferred what exactly? "Timelash", "Paradise Towers", The Rani
> stories? Anthony Ainley? Bonnie Langford? "The Twin Dilemma"? Eric
> Saward? Pip & Jane Baker?
The whole direction of the McCoy years. I like them too, but not my
favourite era.
> Well, more fool them...
>
> >I am more balanced. That's a majority not a minority
>
> You've said nothing about numbers so far. You could have 2 Who friends
> for all I know. :)
Lots including 2 local groups and I am a veteran of many conventions
including the big Panopticons at Imperial College, London.
> >> >I also remember JNT saying he
> >> >wanted to leave every year (always another side).
> >>
> >> Can he prove this was the case? Sure he *told us* he wanted to leave,
> >> but is he telling us the truth?
> >Why publically announce he was going to leave the job he did if he
> >didn't want to.
>
> Why not, if it makes the fans think he doesn't want to stay - and in
> so doing, shutting up the "JN-T must go now" brigade?
>
> We don't know - this is what I'm saying. Did he ask to leave? Is there
> anyone at the BBC who has said *anything* on this subject that proves
> / disproves what he's said? For, as you say, there are two sides to
> every story. Are there not?
Yes, thats what I said too. You admit you don't **know**, you just have
an opinion based on little or no fact.
> I find it hard to believe that's what he really wanted, when you take
> into account the fact that he was sniffing around what was left of the
> show for five years after it finished.
He was kept being asked back by the BBC.
> >Not a great idea if your bosses hear.
>
> Do you think JN-T's bosses are going to come back to something he says
> to an audience from some convention panel in, say, Chicago? Do you
> think they care what he says to a bunch of Dr Who fans? I don't think
> they do.
He said it in published interviews and on documentary footage filmed at
the BBC.
> >> The hiatus was, at the time, very clearly put down to the quality of
> >> the show (or lack of it) - nothing to do with scheduling or ratings,
> >> and anyway, the ratings for "Attack" were rather good (9.1million
> >> IIRC), so that was not the reason.
> >I never mentioned ratings,
> >just a bad timeslot for the programmes content.
>
> Well, what other bearing would timeslots have on the show other than
> ratings?
Well the suitability of the programme for the timeslot - what else?
> >> I suspect I'm not going to get you to see the truth. Well, if you
> >> wanna blow JN-T, be my guest. Personally, I wouldn't ever hire him to
> >> produce a TV show after 'Who'. If he's so talented, why hasn't he
> >> worked since?
> >
> >I suspect I'm not going to get you to see the truth. Well, if you want
> >to hate JN-T be my guest. Personally I think he ranks with Lambert,
> >Wiles (and possibly Williams) as one of the best producers to grace the
> >series.
>
> Cute, but not convincing. Just like JN-T's stories - my, what an
> amazing coincidence! And, I notice you chose to ignore the last
> question. Tut tut!
Last Question?
Answer - HE HAS.
John Pettigrew
dan...@wantree.com.au (Daniel Frankham) clattered away at the
keyboard and came up with this:
>>Actually, that isn't true! I've just been watching all the
>>Reconstructed Videos, the Fury audio and the Enemy of the World novel
>>for research for an article I'm writing for the next issue of Circus.
>
>To an extent, things often just "happened" in the early stories,
>without the need for explanations. We knew they could happen because
>we saw them on the screen, and without prior knowledge of Yetis and
>Great Intelligences we couldn't say that they couldn't do the things
>they did on TV.
Absolutely, sometimes ignorance is bliss. Things were a lot simpler
back then and the show could present us with almost anything and not
expect "fans" to inspect the minutae of it all.
>However, I shall try to explain:
>
>>One of the most amazing things I picked up on from these stories is
>>the amount of unexplained and vague plot elements that appeared. In
>>the Yeti stories, it is never explained how the Intelligence
>>transported the robots to London,
>
>I assumed that the control spheres had a small measure of
>"intelligence", or that they were programmed to find the nearest
>sphereless Yeti and jump up its back. So when the sphere got into the
>Yeti in the museum, it came to life and went off to build more Yeti
>and spheres.
Well, my point was simply the fact that we, as viewers, *have* to
assume things.
>>why he kept them as Yeti
>
>I guess he had to work with what he had... The Yeti in the museum may
>have been able to build more Yeti, but to build something more
>suitable to 1970s London might have required some heavy-duty
>reprogramming which would have been difficult for a noncorporeal
>entity to achieve.
Any rational reasoning is as good as any other - the fact that the
viewer *has* to "guess" is the real point I was trying to make.
>And the Yeti were a hit with the kids :)
>
>>why the
>>control spheres were in a pyramidal structure,
>
>Because pyramids have mystical properties
Could be, could be not!
>>how a disembodied
>>creature could mainpulate (or indeed buid) control spheres, where the
>>web and/or pulsating fungus came from....
>
>I presumed the GI was "manifesting" as the fungus, in the same way as
>it was manifesating as the blob in Abominable Snowmen. Although it's
>not really explained in detail, and doesn't fully make sense, we can
>conclude from observation that
Yes, but because these things aren't explained, you *have* to presume
something. That's what I was getting at.
>1) The GI can control people (at least one at a time)
>
>2) The GI can achieve corporeality when a lot of control spheres are
>piled up in a pyramidal structure
>
>3) The GI can control the Yeti (or at least can control a human who in
>turn controls the Yeti)
>
>
>As you say elsewhere, the vagueness and inexplicability of a lot of
>what happens in these stories adds immensely to their effect. I think
>it's much more effectively spooky to have a giant fungus growing and
>shrinking and moving through the tunnels, with no apparent rhyme or
>reason behind what it's doing, than to have some conventional
>aliens-with-big-guns sort of menace. You know where you are with a
>big-gun-wielding alien menace... But with a big blob of fungus that
>might any minute come round the corner and smother the only door out
>of your hideout, when you've got no idea what the fungus is or where
>it came from or why it's doing what it's doing... well, you don't know
>where you are.
We're not really disagreeing on those points then!
John Pettigrew
Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk (Adam Richards) clattered away at the
keyboard and came up with this:
>Sorry I like "The Time Monster": IMHO, it's very silly and as such is
>a good laugh, but "Time And The Rani" is just boring pantomime.
It never fails to amaze me, the way my opinions on certain stories
seem to be off at a tangent towards the majority of fandom.
Time and the Rani, I have always loved from that night in 1987 and yet
if there's one "boring pantomime", I tend to point to The Time
Monster. Crikey, the last time I watched it, I think I gave up on it
when Chronos flapped her lovely wings.
John Pettigrew
>Fine, I still say that if you really think JN-T understood the show
>more than most other producers, that would be wrong. Not that it
>should stop you liking his productions though, if that's what truly
>turns you on......
As a viewer and a fan, it is surely fair to say that there had been
several styles and approaches between seasons 18-26. JNT produced
some of the best and some of the worst Doctor Who stories.
This included sombre science, serious drama, violent action,
light-hearted whimsy and invoking the mythos. You just can't
generalise the JNT years as "all good" or "all bad".
Paul Rhodes
>Time and the Rani, I have always loved from that night in 1987 and yet
>if there's one "boring pantomime", I tend to point to The Time
>Monster. Crikey, the last time I watched it, I think I gave up on it
>when Chronos flapped her lovely wings.
The Time Monster is the only story I ever deliberately recorded over.
(My collecting streak did eventually lead me to get hold of another
copy, but I don't think I've watched it since!).
Mind, I think T&TR is dreadful as well.
Paul
Daniel Frankham
>On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 06:35:56 GMT, the incredibly fluffy and wonderful
>dan...@wantree.com.au (Daniel Frankham) clattered away at the
>keyboard and came up with this:
<snip my speculations regarding the engima that is _The Web of Fear_>
>>As you say elsewhere, the vagueness and inexplicability of a lot of
>>what happens in these stories adds immensely to their effect. I think
>>it's much more effectively spooky to have a giant fungus growing and
>>shrinking and moving through the tunnels, with no apparent rhyme or
>>reason behind what it's doing, than to have some conventional
>>aliens-with-big-guns sort of menace. You know where you are with a
>>big-gun-wielding alien menace... But with a big blob of fungus that
>>might any minute come round the corner and smother the only door out
>>of your hideout, when you've got no idea what the fungus is or where
>>it came from or why it's doing what it's doing... well, you don't know
>>where you are.
>
>We're not really disagreeing on those points then!
Nope :)
Jonathan Blum
Adam Richards <Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Jan 1999 22:04:35 +0000, Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net>
>wrote:
>>I'd love to know where this Pertwee bollocks theory came from.
>From Pertwee's bollocks, presumably?
>Seriously though, it was Robert Holmes who admitted that he mistakenly
>wrote for Pertwee, thinking that was the other Doctor they were using.
>It was in the last interview, IIRC. He got confused. I must admit I
>wondered, "How could he make that mistake, seeing as the companion was
>**Jamie**!!??" But he wasn't very well at the time, remember.
The only source I've ever heard for this was the "Sixth Doctor Handbook",
and a year or two ago David Howe said on this group about the
written-for-Pertwee theory:
>The piece in the Sixth Doctor Handbook is a spectacular example of
>Steve's writing. Steve recalls Bob Holmes saying that he always thought
>it was the Second Dr who helped the Time Lords out and Steve has made a
>naughty leap to imply (very strongly in my opinion) that this was why he
>used Troughton in the 2 Drs. As far as we know, this is supposition and
>should not have been worded like this in the handbook.
In fact, I think Holmes was using "Two Doctors" as a chance to canonize
his personal theory -- referred to in an earlier DWM interview -- that the
Time Lords had occasionally been pulling the Doctor's strings before "The
War Games", that they'd sent him on some of his adventures, and that his
"trial" in "War Games" was a sham set up because he'd drawn too much
attention to himself.
[snip]
Regards,
Jon Blum
Adam Richards
wrote:
>I don't think it Who has to be serious, hence a sneaking admiration for
>programmes like Delta (which is far from my favourite sort of Who, but I
>admire the cheek).
Good. I must admit, I liked "Delta" part one when I first saw it - it
seemed a fun little breather after "Rani" and "Paradise" - added to
which, I thought Sly's performance climbed up one wrung with this
story (especially, I liked the scene where he bluffed Gavrok, and
where he comforts Ray - this I found rather wonderful). What I didn't
like about "Delta" was the rather rushed (and IMHO silly) plot-thread
with Billy turning himself into a Chimeron.
>TIME MONSTER is shit IMHO and Paul Bernard and co seriously did NOT have
>a clue about what they were doing.
Ahhh, well. While I'm not a great fan of Paul Bernard, I think he at
least did a good job on "Frontier in Space" and "Day of the Daleks".
No, those aren't the best stories in the world, but I think it's
pretty good compared to most of what else was being shown on TV in
that era (just think: "The Tomorrow People" - urrgh!)
"Time Monster" to me looks like a TV production team having a laugh
and taking the piss, while, as I said, "Time And The Rani" is dressed
up with all this faux-serious pretension which seems to be screaming,
"THIS IS GOOD!! LOOK AT THESE GREAT EFFECTS! LOOK AT THIS FAB ACTRESS!
PLEASE, TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY!" But it isn't good; it's shit. There's
the difference, IMHO.
>I don't like Andrew Morgan either for
>the exact same reason (see I'm not a total defender of all things late
>80's, just a balanced viewer with no chip on his shoulder).
Nah, won't rise.
>> >> >>Eric Saward
>> >> >
>> >> >him too
>> >>
>> >> He seemed to have two big fetishes, which if you look at the stories
>> >> he edited, are in EVERY single one: genetic engineering and the Time
>> >> Lords. FACT: he should have spotted the errors in "The Two Doctors"
>> >> (i.e., it was written for Pertwee, not Troughton) and because he
>> >> didn't the story is one huge balls-up that I simply cannot watch. He
>> >> could have prevented that. he didn't, so in fact he wasn't doing his
>> >> job properly...
>> >
>> >I'd love to know where this Pertwee bollocks theory came from.
>>
>> From Pertwee's bollocks, presumably?
>>
>> Seriously though, it was Robert Holmes who admitted that he mistakenly
>> wrote for Pertwee, thinking that was the other Doctor they were using.
>> It was in the last interview, IIRC. He got confused. I must admit I
>> wondered, "How could he make that mistake, seeing as the companion was
>> **Jamie**!!??" But he wasn't very well at the time, remember.
>
>Where was this published? I remember one of his last interviews
>explaining why it WAS a Troughton story.
????
Can someone please sort this out - I don't have any DWMs anyore; I
sold the ones I had several years ago. But I know that either there or
in DWB was an interview where either Holmes or someone close to him
said that he got confused and wrote Pertwee's character for the 2nd
Doc when he should have written Troughton's.
Holmes didn't have much real experience with Troughton did he? He only
wrote two stories for him in the '60s, I can see how easily he could
become confused.
The whole point is that it's wrong - 2nd Doc goes on about Time Lords
and insults jamie by saying "Please stop speaking in that appalling
mongrel dialect". The latter problem is unattractive, and the former
fucks with continuity and renders much of the Troughton era suspect. I
love Troughton's performance in the story, but the script is plainly
written out of character, unless it's meant to the 2nd Doc from some
alternate reality.
And Saward should have fixed it. JN-T got flak for muffing Troughton
continuity before in "5 Docs", so why he didn't fix this is beyond
me...
>> >> >> the hiatus
>> >> >
>> >> >No-ones fault, just the BBC making up drama hours for EastEnders.
>> >>
>> >> Not actually true. Michael Grade gave his reasons as being that the
>> >> show was getting tired and wasn't very good. Something had to be done
>> >> to fire a shot across JN-T's bow.
>> >
>> >Not actually true, Because if Grade had used the true excuse it would
>> >have been seen as a huge abuse of his powers.
>>
>> He was the Controller of BBC-1, so would not that have been within his
>> powers?
>
>Yes, but he had no reason to do it except to make way for his pet
>projects.
EastEnders, so you say. But EastEnders is a 30minute soap-opera that
began in 1984, and ran the whole year round, two days per week. It was
in fact commissioned by Grade's predecessor. The cancelled season 23
would have aired in 1986 and been 13 45minute episodes. The maths
doesn't add up, when you also take into account that EastEnders gained
no extra episodes in 1986. It did gain an extra episode, but this was
much, much later, in 1992 or 1993. I'd love to know where this
EastEnders bollocks theory came from.
>> That excuse about EastEnders is sweaty old hogwash, denied by everyone
>> who had an ounce of knowledge on the subject at the time, used by fans
>> in 1985 to pull the wool over their own eyes. The truth is the show
>> was seriously shite (watch "Timelash", "Mark of the Rani", "Two
>> Doctors", "Attack of the Cymbermen", then tell me it didn't deserve
>> the axe) Something had to be done to fire a shot across JN-T's bow.
>> Michael Grade has since said this was the case. I suppose everything
>> he says is lies, is it?
>
>No it's not. And Doctor Who was not the only casualty of EastEnders,
>ironic as it was the very programme from which EastEnders was born.
But EastEnders started before the original season 23 would have aired,
and did not gain any episodes when it was cancelled. So how could it
be responsible...?
<snip>
>the question-marks - don't bother me, although McCoys jumper was a bit
>too much.
Agreed.
>the unnecessary foreign location-shoots - loved them.
Arc of Infinity - OK, but was the location necessary to the story like
City of Death's was? no.
Ditto Planet of Fire, ditto Two Docs. It was just a pointless
extravagance. Those stories could have been set anywhere.
>the perpetual whitewashing of percieved opinions on his work in fan
>publications he was "advisor" to - such as?
DrWho magazine, and his attempt to get DWB closed down/sued/ taken off
shelves (the latter he succeeded at, and it was).
>the hiring of innappropriate guest stars from comedy and
>light-entertainment shows - such as Ian Hogg, Christopher Gable, Maurice
>Colborn, etc, etc.?
I agree, not many good ones, are there? :)
>the theatricality - I am from a theatre background
Could've guessed that. You probably drink with JN-T, or want to be
like him. What a terrible thought.
>(as well as TV) and saw none of this - explain.
If you're from a theatre background, it would be very difficult to
explain - a stageyness; over-bright lighting; an atmosphere more akin
to a light entertainment show than to something like DrWho should be -
sinister and convincing.
>the slapstick - like what? I think Hartnell and Tom and Pertwee and
>especially Troughton had far more slapstick than any JNT era.
ROTFLOL!!!
>the stubbornness - ????????????????
Well, the fans pleaded with him to do all sorts of things. Like stop
hiring Pip & Jane Baker and Peter Moffat, but he kept hiring them,
time after time.
>and ignoring of any and all criticisms of his mistakes - like?
He never brooked any criticism. An example was Bonnie Langford: poorly
conceived companion, no character, ill-suited non-actress with no
dramatic ability - he used to say, "Well, it got a reaction, didn't
it? That's a good thing, isn't it?" he is like the person who thinks
any attention is good - even name-calling and abuse, when it isn't;
even being ignored is better than being insulted and abused. When
anybody complained he used to say, "All the while these fans are
ageing; the memory cheats", he said. But it doesn't - not if you have
it taped on VHS!
>the pandering to Australians/Americans - Jesus, you racist now?
Racist? What's racist about getting annoyed when a British TV
programme's producer can't even listen or take heed of people watching
the show in its country of origin, but instead goes around pandering
to Americans and Australians? Two countries that are predominently
white, anglo-saxon and protestant - just like Britain, well I'll be...
You're avoiding the issue anyway - as an American living in America, I
felt like the programme was pandering to me when Peri joined.
>the endless dredging-up of elements from the show's past to curry favour
>with fans - like all eras?
Explain your assertion there - where were the Hartnell aliens in
Troughton, Pertwee & Tom Baker stories, or the Pertwee villains in Tom
Baker stories, barring the Cybermen and Daleks?
>the constant continuity cock-ups - courtesy of Levine?
JN-T didn't listen to Levine. Levine was ignored except at the very
beginning.
>All eras had cockups, JNT did better than most.
ROTFLOL!!
>the neglect of the show in favour of appearing at American conventions,
>where he granted himself celebrity status along with the show's stars...
>- as with all producers who go.
That is simply not true, Nathan. JN-T was the only producer who went
to US cons and treated himself like a star, coming out to an
intro-tape of Carly Simon singing "Nobody does it Better", wearing a
glittery Time Lord costume. I saw it, and it was just plain wrong. The
show was supposed to be the star, not him.
>Happy now?
For what reason?
>> Don't forget Bonnie Langford - you snipped her out conveniently,
>> too...
>
>Badly conceived - agreed, but nothing wrong with Bonnie.
As a dancer, no. Did she dance in DrWho? As an actress, even she has
admitted she wasn't right for the show, and JN-T has said that he
hired her to annoy the fans.
>> >As another all my Who friends never had a problem with any of it, some
>> >positively preferred it.
>>
>> They preferred what exactly? "Timelash", "Paradise Towers", The Rani
>> stories? Anthony Ainley? Bonnie Langford? "The Twin Dilemma"? Eric
>> Saward? Pip & Jane Baker?
>
>The whole direction of the McCoy years. I like them too, but not my
>favourite era.
Well, there was a lot more to JN-T than a few McCoy stories -
something you seem unaware of...
>> Well, more fool them...
>>
>> >I am more balanced. That's a majority not a minority
>>
>> You've said nothing about numbers so far. You could have 2 Who friends
>> for all I know. :)
>
>Lots including 2 local groups and I am a veteran of many conventions
>including the big Panopticons at Imperial College, London.
And *none* of these people you know dislike JN-T's shows? Or is it
just that you stop knowing people once they start voicing those sorts
of opinions?
>> >> >I also remember JNT saying he
>> >> >wanted to leave every year (always another side).
>> >>
>> >> Can he prove this was the case? Sure he *told us* he wanted to leave,
>> >> but is he telling us the truth?
>
>> >Why publically announce he was going to leave the job he did if he
>> >didn't want to.
>>
>> Why not, if it makes the fans think he doesn't want to stay - and in
>> so doing, shutting up the "JN-T must go now" brigade?
>>
>> We don't know - this is what I'm saying. Did he ask to leave? Is there
>> anyone at the BBC who has said *anything* on this subject that proves
>> / disproves what he's said? For, as you say, there are two sides to
>> every story. Are there not?
>
>Yes, thats what I said too. You admit you don't **know**, you just have
>an opinion based on little or no fact.
Strawmanism! I've always said I don't know - I'd like to know, but
until I hear someone else confirm JN-T, I choose not to believe what
he says, since so many other things he has said have been wrong.
>> I find it hard to believe that's what he really wanted, when you take
>> into account the fact that he was sniffing around what was left of the
>> show for five years after it finished.
>
>He was kept being asked back by the BBC.
Why?
If he really wanted to leave, why didn't he? Did they put a gun to his
head or what? Come on.
>> >Not a great idea if your bosses hear.
>>
>> Do you think JN-T's bosses are going to come back to something he says
>> to an audience from some convention panel in, say, Chicago? Do you
>> think they care what he says to a bunch of Dr Who fans? I don't think
>> they do.
>
>He said it in published interviews
Published where? Somewhere that begged a response from ex-BBC
executives?
>and on documentary footage filmed at the BBC.
Which documentary footage exactly? I've not seen any such footage.
>> >> The hiatus was, at the time, very clearly put down to the quality of
>> >> the show (or lack of it) - nothing to do with scheduling or ratings,
>> >> and anyway, the ratings for "Attack" were rather good (9.1million
>> >> IIRC), so that was not the reason.
>
>> >I never mentioned ratings,
>> >just a bad timeslot for the programmes content.
>>
>> Well, what other bearing would timeslots have on the show other than
>> ratings?
>
>Well the suitability of the programme for the timeslot - what else?
Which would have bearing on... What, exactly?
You don't cancel a show because it's in the wrong timeslot, you just
reschedule it, duhhh.
>> >> I suspect I'm not going to get you to see the truth. Well, if you
>> >> wanna blow JN-T, be my guest. Personally, I wouldn't ever hire him to
>> >> produce a TV show after 'Who'. If he's so talented, why hasn't he
>> >> worked since?
>> >
>> >I suspect I'm not going to get you to see the truth. Well, if you want
>> >to hate JN-T be my guest. Personally I think he ranks with Lambert,
>> >Wiles (and possibly Williams) as one of the best producers to grace the
>> >series.
>>
>> Cute, but not convincing. Just like JN-T's stories - my, what an
>> amazing coincidence! And, I notice you chose to ignore the last
>> question. Tut tut!
>
>Last Question?
>Answer - HE HAS.
Where?
Nathan Cooke
> Ahhh, well. While I'm not a great fan of Paul Bernard, I think he at
> least did a good job on "Frontier in Space" and "Day of the Daleks".
> No, those aren't the best stories in the world, but I think it's
> pretty good compared to most of what else was being shown on TV in
> that era (just think: "The Tomorrow People" - urrgh!)
Paul Bernard started that too!
> "Time Monster" to me looks like a TV production team having a laugh
> and taking the piss, while, as I said, "Time And The Rani" is dressed
> up with all this faux-serious pretension which seems to be screaming,
> "THIS IS GOOD!! LOOK AT THESE GREAT EFFECTS! LOOK AT THIS FAB ACTRESS!
> PLEASE, TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY!" But it isn't good; it's shit. There's
> the difference, IMHO.
Not the best way to end the season was it - this wasn't a mid season
story where everyone could relax, but the big season finale, It's
terrible.
> >> Seriously though, it was Robert Holmes who admitted that he mistakenly
> >> wrote for Pertwee, thinking that was the other Doctor they were using.
> >> It was in the last interview, IIRC. He got confused. I must admit I
> >> wondered, "How could he make that mistake, seeing as the companion was
> >> **Jamie**!!??" But he wasn't very well at the time, remember.
> >
> >Where was this published? I remember one of his last interviews
> >explaining why it WAS a Troughton story.
>
> ????
>
> Can someone please sort this out - I don't have any DWMs anyore; I
> sold the ones I had several years ago. But I know that either there or
> in DWB was an interview where either Holmes or someone close to him
> said that he got confused and wrote Pertwee's character for the 2nd
> Doc when he should have written Troughton's.
>
> Holmes didn't have much real experience with Troughton did he? He only
> wrote two stories for him in the '60s, I can see how easily he could
> become confused.
>
> The whole point is that it's wrong - 2nd Doc goes on about Time Lords
> and insults jamie by saying "Please stop speaking in that appalling
> mongrel dialect". The latter problem is unattractive, and the former
> fucks with continuity and renders much of the Troughton era suspect. I
> love Troughton's performance in the story, but the script is plainly
> written out of character, unless it's meant to the 2nd Doc from some
> alternate reality.
It makes sense to me, and certainly is NOT in character for Pertwee.
> EastEnders, so you say. But EastEnders is a 30minute soap-opera that
> began in 1984, and ran the whole year round, two days per week. It was
> in fact commissioned by Grade's predecessor. The cancelled season 23
> would have aired in 1986 and been 13 45minute episodes. The maths
> doesn't add up, when you also take into account that EastEnders gained
> no extra episodes in 1986. It did gain an extra episode, but this was
> much, much later, in 1992 or 1993. I'd love to know where this
> EastEnders bollocks theory came from.
Started in Feb, 1985 actually, and a lot of programmes vanished to make
way for it. The BBC only had so many "drama hours" to play with.
Remember The Tripods? That went for the exact same reason. In fact how
many pre 1985 Drama series running on BBC at the time survived the next
couple of years? Not many!!
> >> That excuse about EastEnders is sweaty old hogwash, denied by everyone
> >> who had an ounce of knowledge on the subject at the time, used by fans
> >> in 1985 to pull the wool over their own eyes. The truth is the show
> >> was seriously shite (watch "Timelash", "Mark of the Rani", "Two
> >> Doctors", "Attack of the Cymbermen", then tell me it didn't deserve
> >> the axe) Something had to be done to fire a shot across JN-T's bow.
> >> Michael Grade has since said this was the case. I suppose everything
> >> he says is lies, is it?
> >
> >No it's not. And Doctor Who was not the only casualty of EastEnders,
> >ironic as it was the very programme from which EastEnders was born.
>
> But EastEnders started before the original season 23 would have aired,
> and did not gain any episodes when it was cancelled. So how could it
> be responsible...?
See above. Eastenders started Feb 1985 AFTER S22 started broadcasting.
The drama hours were carved out AFTER S22 started production. S19
through to S21 was used as a ratings bulldozer for EastEnders to judge
the most popular evenings. Which is why those seasons was broadcast on
every weekday over those three years. Tuesday and Thursday proved most
popular.
> Arc of Infinity - OK, but was the location necessary to the story like
> City of Death's was? no.
Yes, infact the very fact that Amsterdam is below sea level is why it is
on the curve of the Arc. Paris IS NOT important to City of Death, the
Mona Lisa could be any painting at any gallery in that story - such as
Constable's Cornfield, set in England.
> >the perpetual whitewashing of percieved opinions on his work in fan
> >publications he was "advisor" to - such as?
>
> DrWho magazine, and his attempt to get DWB closed down/sued/ taken off
> shelves (the latter he succeeded at, and it was).
DWB is still on sale.
> >the hiring of innappropriate guest stars from comedy and
> >light-entertainment shows - such as Ian Hogg, Christopher Gable, Maurice
> >Colborn, etc, etc.?
>
> I agree, not many good ones, are there? :)
Lots, just don't want to be typing all night.
> >the theatricality - I am from a theatre background
>
> Could've guessed that. You probably drink with JN-T, or want to be
> like him. What a terrible thought.
Bollox, I worked in TV BEFORE theatre, and I am not theatrical, just
know what it means, unlike some...
> >(as well as TV) and saw none of this - explain.
>
> If you're from a theatre background, it would be very difficult to
> explain - a stageyness; over-bright lighting; an atmosphere more akin
> to a light entertainment show than to something like DrWho should be -
> sinister and convincing.
No way, lots of JNT stuff was dark. REVELATION, RESSURECTION, CAVES...
And other era's have been far more stagey.
> >the slapstick - like what? I think Hartnell and Tom and Pertwee and
> >especially Troughton had far more slapstick than any JNT era.
>
> ROTFLOL!!!
Told you it was funny, you've probably just watched some Slapstick
Troughton - Seeds of Death anyone?
> >the stubbornness - ????????????????
>
> Well, the fans pleaded with him to do all sorts of things. Like stop
> hiring Pip & Jane Baker and Peter Moffat, but he kept hiring them,
> time after time.
You were complaining about him pandering to fans before - make your mind
up.
> >and ignoring of any and all criticisms of his mistakes - like?
>
> He never brooked any criticism. An example was Bonnie Langford: poorly
> conceived companion, no character, ill-suited non-actress with no
> dramatic ability - he used to say, "Well, it got a reaction, didn't
> it? That's a good thing, isn't it?" he is like the person who thinks
> any attention is good - even name-calling and abuse, when it isn't;
> even being ignored is better than being insulted and abused. When
> anybody complained he used to say, "All the while these fans are
> ageing; the memory cheats", he said. But it doesn't - not if you have
> it taped on VHS!
I loved the Pertwee era when I was 5. I have it now on VHS - believe me
THE MEMORY CHEATS!!!!
> >the pandering to Australians/Americans - Jesus, you racist now?
>
> Racist? What's racist about getting annoyed when a British TV
> programme's producer can't even listen or take heed of people watching
> the show in its country of origin, but instead goes around pandering
> to Americans and Australians? Two countries that are predominently
> white, anglo-saxon and protestant - just like Britain, well I'll be...
I didn't mean racist in a coloured sense, just that why should it be all
Anglo-concentric.
> You're avoiding the issue anyway - as an American living in America, I
> felt like the programme was pandering to me when Peri joined.
I'm British, and I loved it... hence it was suitable for its country of
origin.
> >the endless dredging-up of elements from the show's past to curry favour
> >with fans - like all eras?
>
> Explain your assertion there - where were the Hartnell aliens in
> Troughton, Pertwee & Tom Baker stories, or the Pertwee villains in Tom
> Baker stories, barring the Cybermen and Daleks?
and the Master, and the Sontarans, UNIT of course, Ice Warriors...
> >the constant continuity cock-ups - courtesy of Levine?
>
> JN-T didn't listen to Levine. Levine was ignored except at the very
> beginning.
Said? Don't worry I can guess...
> >All eras had cockups, JNT did better than most.
>
> ROTFLOL!!
You just can't see can you? OPEN YOUR EYES AND OPEN YOUR MIND.
> >the neglect of the show in favour of appearing at American conventions,
> >where he granted himself celebrity status along with the show's stars...
> >- as with all producers who go.
>
> That is simply not true, Nathan. JN-T was the only producer who went
> to US cons and treated himself like a star, coming out to an
> intro-tape of Carly Simon singing "Nobody does it Better", wearing a
> glittery Time Lord costume. I saw it, and it was just plain wrong. The
> show was supposed to be the star, not him.
He didn't grant that himself. If Letts or Hinchcliffe wanted to do that
I'm sure they could. They also had Star status. You are just complaining
about JNT's personality now which has no bearing on the job he was
doing.
> >Happy now?
>
> For what reason?
The fact that I had to respond to everyone of your little points that
were irrelavent.
> >> Don't forget Bonnie Langford - you snipped her out conveniently,
> >> too...
> >
> >Badly conceived - agreed, but nothing wrong with Bonnie.
>
> As a dancer, no. Did she dance in DrWho? As an actress, even she has
> admitted she wasn't right for the show, and JN-T has said that he
> hired her to annoy the fans.
She admitted that because she was not welcomed by the fans. Bonny is
actually a very good actress.
> >> >As another all my Who friends never had a problem with any of it, some
> >> >positively preferred it.
> >>
> >> They preferred what exactly? "Timelash", "Paradise Towers", The Rani
> >> stories? Anthony Ainley? Bonnie Langford? "The Twin Dilemma"? Eric
> >> Saward? Pip & Jane Baker?
> >
> >The whole direction of the McCoy years. I like them too, but not my
> >favourite era.
>
> Well, there was a lot more to JN-T than a few McCoy stories -
> something you seem unaware of...
Yes, I LOVE 1981 - 1985, and I like the ones after.
> >> Well, more fool them...
> >>
> >> >I am more balanced. That's a majority not a minority
> >>
> >> You've said nothing about numbers so far. You could have 2 Who friends
> >> for all I know. :)
> >
> >Lots including 2 local groups and I am a veteran of many conventions
> >including the big Panopticons at Imperial College, London.
>
> And *none* of these people you know dislike JN-T's shows? Or is it
> just that you stop knowing people once they start voicing those sorts
> of opinions?
No, I said a majority not a unanimous collection. I can't believe that
you do not know one person who like that era.
In the officially licensed publications.
> >and on documentary footage filmed at the BBC.
>
> Which documentary footage exactly? I've not seen any such footage.
Doctor Who's Who's Who for one.
> >> >> The hiatus was, at the time, very clearly put down to the quality of
> >> >> the show (or lack of it) - nothing to do with scheduling or ratings,
> >> >> and anyway, the ratings for "Attack" were rather good (9.1million
> >> >> IIRC), so that was not the reason.
> >
> >> >I never mentioned ratings,
> >> >just a bad timeslot for the programmes content.
> >>
> >> Well, what other bearing would timeslots have on the show other than
> >> ratings?
> >
> >Well the suitability of the programme for the timeslot - what else?
>
> Which would have bearing on... What, exactly?
>
> You don't cancel a show because it's in the wrong timeslot, you just
> reschedule it, duhhh.
It was in such a wrong timeslot for its content that it caused many
complaints about violence. It was intended to be screened much later in
the evening. It proved to be an ideal excuse to "rest" it, lucky that,
since they were scrabbling round for "drama hours" at the time.
On the flipside, S24 was intended for a much earlier timeslot, which is
why it seemed so tame and childish in a lot of areas.
> >> >> I suspect I'm not going to get you to see the truth. Well, if you
> >> >> wanna blow JN-T, be my guest. Personally, I wouldn't ever hire him to
> >> >> produce a TV show after 'Who'. If he's so talented, why hasn't he
> >> >> worked since?
> >> >
> >> >I suspect I'm not going to get you to see the truth. Well, if you want
> >> >to hate JN-T be my guest. Personally I think he ranks with Lambert,
> >> >Wiles (and possibly Williams) as one of the best producers to grace the
> >> >series.
> >>
> >> Cute, but not convincing. Just like JN-T's stories - my, what an
> >> amazing coincidence! And, I notice you chose to ignore the last
> >> question. Tut tut!
> >
> >Last Question?
> >Answer - HE HAS.
>
> Where?
Lots of theatre
Rich
to combat ITV daytime TV. This cost millions, so loads of programmes had to
go....tripods, Juliet Bravo and loads of other early eighties BBC drama.
(Actually, I think Juliet Bravo, which was a top rated programme at the
time, got one more series but its episode count was severly cut....a bit
like DW when it returned.)
Rich
Adam Richards
wrote:
>Adam Richards wrote:
>
>> Ahhh, well. While I'm not a great fan of Paul Bernard, I think he at
>> least did a good job on "Frontier in Space" and "Day of the Daleks".
>> No, those aren't the best stories in the world, but I think it's
>> pretty good compared to most of what else was being shown on TV in
>> that era (just think: "The Tomorrow People" - urrgh!)
>
>Paul Bernard started that too!
Wasn't it Terry Nation? I've only seen two stories - they were both
appalling but I don't think P.Bernard directed either of them....
>> "Time Monster" to me looks like a TV production team having a laugh
>> and taking the piss, while, as I said, "Time And The Rani" is dressed
>> up with all this faux-serious pretension which seems to be screaming,
>> "THIS IS GOOD!! LOOK AT THESE GREAT EFFECTS! LOOK AT THIS FAB ACTRESS!
>> PLEASE, TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY!" But it isn't good; it's shit. There's
>> the difference, IMHO.
>
>Not the best way to end the season was it - this wasn't a mid season
>story where everyone could relax, but the big season finale, It's
>terrible.
But in those days the season ending was typically an overblown panto,
because the rest of the season was serious - unlike JN-T's seasons in
which the stories were *all* big overblown pantos.
<snip>
>> The whole point is that it's wrong - 2nd Doc goes on about Time Lords
>> and insults jamie by saying "Please stop speaking in that appalling
>> mongrel dialect". The latter problem is unattractive, and the former
>> fucks with continuity and renders much of the Troughton era suspect. I
>> love Troughton's performance in the story, but the script is plainly
>> written out of character, unless it's meant to the 2nd Doc from some
>> alternate reality.
>
>It makes sense to me, and certainly is NOT in character for Pertwee.
How can it make sense? In the last 2nd Doc story, "War Games" - where
Victoria is long gone - the Doctor clearly hasn't ever told Jamie or
Zoe anything about his people, or even that he's a Time Lord. Yet in
"Two Doctors", set before Victoria left, the Doc walks around freely
talking about Time Lords and that he is one and that they're his
people. It fucks on "The War games" and all the Troughton era.
Go ahead and ignore that continuity glitch if you want to; it doesn't
really bother me either, but it undermines my opinion of Saward very
seriously. Consequently, I think he was a pretty rubbishy script
editor. Yeah - there were glitches before this, but not on this scale,
surely not.
>> EastEnders, so you say. But EastEnders is a 30minute soap-opera that
>> began in 1984, and ran the whole year round, two days per week. It was
>> in fact commissioned by Grade's predecessor. The cancelled season 23
>> would have aired in 1986 and been 13 45minute episodes. The maths
>> doesn't add up, when you also take into account that EastEnders gained
>> no extra episodes in 1986. It did gain an extra episode, but this was
>> much, much later, in 1992 or 1993. I'd love to know where this
>> EastEnders bollocks theory came from.
>
>Started in Feb, 1985 actually, and a lot of programmes vanished to make
>way for it. The BBC only had so many "drama hours" to play with.
>Remember The Tripods?
Yes, and very rubbish it was too. A complete insult to the books. But
"Tripe Odds" was always going to be a finite series anyway, wasn't it?
Hadn't they done most of the books already when it was axed? I can't
say as I remember - I didn't watch all of it.
>That went for the exact same reason. In fact how
>many pre 1985 Drama series running on BBC at the time survived the next
>couple of years? Not many!!
The point is, how many of those were accused of being "tired and in
need of a rest" like Dr Who was?
<snip>
>> But EastEnders started before the original season 23 would have aired,
>> and did not gain any episodes when it was cancelled. So how could it
>> be responsible...?
>
>See above. Eastenders started Feb 1985 AFTER S22 started broadcasting.
>The drama hours were carved out AFTER S22 started production. S19
>through to S21 was used as a ratings bulldozer for EastEnders to judge
>the most popular evenings. Which is why those seasons was broadcast on
>every weekday over those three years. Tuesday and Thursday proved most
>popular.
Really? OK.
As I said, the point is, how many of those other shows were publically
pulled down as being "tired and in need of a rest"?
>> Arc of Infinity - OK, but was the location necessary to the story like
>> City of Death's was? no.
>
>Yes, infact the very fact that Amsterdam is below sea level is why it is
>on the curve of the Arc. Paris IS NOT important to City of Death,
ROTFL!!!!!
> the
>Mona Lisa could be any painting at any gallery in that story - such as
>Constable's Cornfield, set in England.
Jeez - watch the story!!!! "A painting like... THE MONA LISA" the Doc
says, in such a way that makes you understand exactly what he's
talking about: i.e., Constable's Cornfield was not half as famous and
world renowned as The Mona Lisa, nor was it painted by daVinci - one
of the Doc's favourite people, judging by how often he seems to drop
Leonardo's name throughout the show's history - who was also in the
plot.
>> >the perpetual whitewashing of percieved opinions on his work in fan
>> >publications he was "advisor" to - such as?
>>
>> DrWho magazine, and his attempt to get DWB closed down/sued/ taken off
>> shelves (the latter he succeeded at, and it was).
>
>DWB is still on sale.
It wasn't during the time JN-T had it banned from London bookshops....
>> >the hiring of innappropriate guest stars from comedy and
>> >light-entertainment shows - such as Ian Hogg, Christopher Gable, Maurice
>> >Colborn, etc, etc.?
>>
>> I agree, not many good ones, are there? :)
>
>Lots, just don't want to be typing all night.
Go ahead - it's a different type of excercise to what you usually seem
to do in this thread. :)
>> >the theatricality - I am from a theatre background
>>
>> Could've guessed that. You probably drink with JN-T, or want to be
>> like him. What a terrible thought.
>
>Bollox, I worked in TV BEFORE theatre, and I am not theatrical, just
>know what it means, unlike some...
No, you just have your own interpretation of what it means.
>> >(as well as TV) and saw none of this - explain.
>>
>> If you're from a theatre background, it would be very difficult to
>> explain - a stageyness; over-bright lighting; an atmosphere more akin
>> to a light entertainment show than to something like DrWho should be -
>> sinister and convincing.
>
>No way, lots of JNT stuff was dark. REVELATION, RESSURECTION, CAVES...
>And other era's have been far more stagey.
The three stories you mention were all good ones.
They're also all from the two seasons that JN-T made in an attempt to
pander to Hinchcliffe fans - he turned the lighting down and let the
violence run free, yeah, but you still had Saward writing /
commisssioning lots of impossibly convoluted, overblown scripts that
never went anywhere (except "Revelation" which I love, and Caves which
you mention above, arguably JN-T's best production).
JN-T tried all sorts of tactics to curry favour - imitations of other
eras, based not on any real substantial ideas he had, but more on
letting the script editor run the show for him.
I was thinking more along the lines of stories that JN-T himself
counted as his absolute favourites - "Time Flight", "Twin Dilemma",
"Timelash". These stories are all very LE and stagey. Glittery.
Childish. Pantomime. Crap.
>> >the slapstick - like what? I think Hartnell and Tom and Pertwee and
>> >especially Troughton had far more slapstick than any JNT era.
>>
>> ROTFLOL!!!
>
>Told you it was funny, you've probably just watched some Slapstick
>Troughton - Seeds of Death anyone?
Sigh... The whole thing isn't slapstick though, is it? The danger and
the drama are never undermined and made to look ridiculous and stupid
via the slapstick, are they? The slapstick in "Seeds of Death" is done
in such a way as to be witty and reminiscent of Buster Keaton and
Charlie Chaplin. The slapstick in a lot of JN-T stories is more like
the scene in "Trial" where the guy looks up a pipe and gets covered in
gunge - the LE Noel Edmunds variety to be precise.
>> >the stubbornness - ????????????????
>>
>> Well, the fans pleaded with him to do all sorts of things. Like stop
>> hiring Pip & Jane Baker and Peter Moffat, but he kept hiring them,
>> time after time.
>
>You were complaining about him pandering to fans before - make your mind
>up.
You are missing the point bigtime. Yes, he pandered to lots of people,
thinking he was gaining their favour. But he was stubborn about not
giving in to those who criticised him. e.g., he had this idea that if
you turn the lighting down, up the violence content and make the show
superficially like Hinchcliffe on the surface, you'll instantly please
all the fans of early Tom Baker stories. But when faced with actual
suggestions / criticisms from those fans (e.g. get rid of Moffat, let
Grimwade direct if he wanted to instead of forcing to remain as a
writer only, etc.) he never budged an inch, because to him criticisms
were seen as coming from the enemy. Criticisms were not to be listened
to, because a criticism was an expression of dislike - so why bother
listening to what it says?
He treated Peter Grimwade abominably, all because of a slight
criticism. Grimwade was forced never to direct again for the show when
that was his real passion. JN-T asked him to write again, but never to
direct. It was his way of punishing Grimwade. Crazy.
>> >and ignoring of any and all criticisms of his mistakes - like?
>>
>> He never brooked any criticism. An example was Bonnie Langford: poorly
>> conceived companion, no character, ill-suited non-actress with no
>> dramatic ability - he used to say, "Well, it got a reaction, didn't
>> it? That's a good thing, isn't it?" he is like the person who thinks
>> any attention is good - even name-calling and abuse, when it isn't;
>> even being ignored is better than being insulted and abused. When
>> anybody complained he used to say, "All the while these fans are
>> ageing; the memory cheats", he said. But it doesn't - not if you have
>> it taped on VHS!
>
>I loved the Pertwee era when I was 5. I have it now on VHS - believe me
>THE MEMORY CHEATS!!!!
He was also talking about Hinchcliffe, "Talons", "Robots of Death",
"Deadly Assassin", "Web of Fear", "The Daleks", *ALL* the old stories.
He was saying none of them were as good as his stories - patently
egomaniacal and deluded.
Anyway... What is so terribly wrong with the Pertwee era, apart from
it's utter averageness and innoffensiveness? Yeah, it has crappy
effects, but so do McCoy stories. I'm no big Pertwee fan really, but I
don't see much wrong with it. It looks like "average TV" from the
'70s, while most JN-T stories look like "below average pantomime" from
the '80s.
>> >the pandering to Australians/Americans - Jesus, you racist now?
>>
>> Racist? What's racist about getting annoyed when a British TV
>> programme's producer can't even listen or take heed of people watching
>> the show in its country of origin, but instead goes around pandering
>> to Americans and Australians? Two countries that are predominently
>> white, anglo-saxon and protestant - just like Britain, well I'll be...
>
>I didn't mean racist in a coloured sense, just that why should it be all
>Anglo-concentric.
That's not racism, that's ethnocentrism. When I lived in America, one
of the things I liked about DrWho was its simple Britishness - JN-T
sticking nods in to try making himself look good in the eyes of
Australians and Americans spoiled that for me. What made it even worse
was coming to live in Britain in '85 - I saw how false and sly all
those panderings were to Brit fans as well.
>> You're avoiding the issue anyway - as an American living in America, I
>> felt like the programme was pandering to me when Peri joined.
>
>I'm British, and I loved it... hence it was suitable for its country of
>origin.
You're missing the point again - I felt pandered to; it was obviously
an attempt to curry my favour - it wasn't directed at you at all!
>> >the endless dredging-up of elements from the show's past to curry favour
>> >with fans - like all eras?
>>
>> Explain your assertion there - where were the Hartnell aliens in
>> Troughton, Pertwee & Tom Baker stories, or the Pertwee villains in Tom
>> Baker stories, barring the Cybermen and Daleks?
>
> and the Master, and the Sontarans, UNIT of course, Ice Warriors...
You're not seeing the whole picture - JN-T at US conventions, getting
wild whoops of applause when he said, "And next year we'll bring
back... The Autons!" This wasn't the same as when villains were
brought back before JN-T. They were brought back to please the fans,
yes, but also because it happened to be logical to the story.
>> >the constant continuity cock-ups - courtesy of Levine?
>>
>> JN-T didn't listen to Levine. Levine was ignored except at the very
>> beginning.
>
>Said? Don't worry I can guess...
Well, show me the evidence which refutes it, then. You talk like
there's something you know which you aren't revealing. Well go on,
reveal it.
>> >All eras had cockups, JNT did better than most.
>>
>> ROTFLOL!!
>
>You just can't see can you? OPEN YOUR EYES AND OPEN YOUR MIND.
Oh, don't get angry... My mind is open - it isn't stuck worshipping a
sad, failed theatrical buffoon who really wanted to produce "Allo
Allo", but, well... Beggars can't be choosers. Yeah, I accept JN-T
produced some good DrWho: "Caves", "Greatest show", "Revelation". But
I also know that he had a very warped view of the show and his own
importance to it; the few times when he did a good job producing it,
the result was more by accident than by design.
>> >the neglect of the show in favour of appearing at American conventions,
>> >where he granted himself celebrity status along with the show's stars...
>> >- as with all producers who go.
>>
>> That is simply not true, Nathan. JN-T was the only producer who went
>> to US cons and treated himself like a star, coming out to an
>> intro-tape of Carly Simon singing "Nobody does it Better", wearing a
>> glittery Time Lord costume. I saw it, and it was just plain wrong. The
>> show was supposed to be the star, not him.
>
>He didn't grant that himself. If Letts or Hinchcliffe wanted to do that
>I'm sure they could.
They didn't want to do that, which is the whole point, Nathan. They
realised that the show was the important thing - not their egoes.
>They also had Star status.
Not at US conventions. I went to dozens and dozens, and can assure you
they *did not*.
>You are just complaining
>about JNT's personality now which has no bearing on the job he was
>doing.
There were crucial meetings and decisions he should have been
undertaking, but instead he was jetting off to America. It did affect
his job; that's why I brought it up.
>> >Happy now?
>>
>> For what reason?
>
>The fact that I had to respond to everyone of your little points that
>were irrelavent.
Awwwwwwwww. Sorry to inconvenience you. :)
>> >> Don't forget Bonnie Langford - you snipped her out conveniently,
>> >> too...
>> >
>> >Badly conceived - agreed, but nothing wrong with Bonnie.
>>
>> As a dancer, no. Did she dance in DrWho? As an actress, even she has
>> admitted she wasn't right for the show, and JN-T has said that he
>> hired her to annoy the fans.
>
>She admitted that because she was not welcomed by the fans. Bonny is
>actually a very good actress.
In what?
And answer my question - did she dance in DrWho?
<snip>
>> Well, there was a lot more to JN-T than a few McCoy stories -
>> something you seem unaware of...
>
>Yes, I LOVE 1981 - 1985, and I like the ones after.
Better than all the others? Put together? :)
<snip>
>> >> >Why publically announce he was going to leave the job he did if he
>> >> >didn't want to.
>> >>
>> >> Why not, if it makes the fans think he doesn't want to stay - and in
>> >> so doing, shutting up the "JN-T must go now" brigade?
>> >>
>> >> We don't know - this is what I'm saying. Did he ask to leave? Is there
>> >> anyone at the BBC who has said *anything* on this subject that proves
>> >> / disproves what he's said? For, as you say, there are two sides to
>> >> every story. Are there not?
>> >
>> >Yes, thats what I said too. You admit you don't **know**, you just have
>> >an opinion based on little or no fact.
>>
>> Strawmanism! I've always said I don't know - I'd like to know, but
>> until I hear someone else confirm JN-T, I choose not to believe what
>> he says, since so many other things he has said have been wrong.
>>
>> >> I find it hard to believe that's what he really wanted, when you take
>> >> into account the fact that he was sniffing around what was left of the
>> >> show for five years after it finished.
>> >
>> >He was kept being asked back by the BBC.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> If he really wanted to leave, why didn't he? Did they put a gun to his
>> head or what? Come on.
No answer... Very convenient!
A: has anyone backed up his claims that he asked to leave, and
B: if he wanted to leave - why didn't he?
>> >> >Not a great idea if your bosses hear.
>> >>
>> >> Do you think JN-T's bosses are going to come back to something he says
>> >> to an audience from some convention panel in, say, Chicago? Do you
>> >> think they care what he says to a bunch of Dr Who fans? I don't think
>> >> they do.
>> >
>> >He said it in published interviews
>>
>> Published where? Somewhere that begged a response from ex-BBC
>> executives?
>
>In the officially licensed publications.
Read at close quarters by his ex-bosses? I doubt it.
>> >and on documentary footage filmed at the BBC.
>>
>> Which documentary footage exactly? I've not seen any such footage.
>
>Doctor Who's Who's Who for one.
An American documentary, shown in.... America. Right?
None of this answers the question: if he really wanted to leave, WHY
DIDN'T HE JUST LEAVE? Did he have a gun put to his head, or what?
>It was in such a wrong timeslot for its content that it caused many
>complaints about violence. It was intended to be screened much later in
>the evening. It proved to be an ideal excuse to "rest" it, lucky that,
>since they were scrabbling round for "drama hours" at the time.
>On the flipside, S24 was intended for a much earlier timeslot, which is
>why it seemed so tame and childish in a lot of areas.
You're putting all this blame on the BBC, when they didn't produce Dr
Who - JN-T did. Why didn't he just produce it for whatever timeslot it
was scheduled for?
Anyway, you don't need to make something childish just because it goes
out earlier, or more violent just because it goes out later - that
explanation is so silly and cynical; if that was an example of JN-T's
understanding of Dr Who, it proves his understanding was more suited
to a show like Brucie's all-star Generation game or Noel's House
Party!
<snip>
>> >> Cute, but not convincing. Just like JN-T's stories - my, what an
>> >> amazing coincidence! And, I notice you chose to ignore the last
>> >> question. Tut tut!
>> >
>> >Last Question?
>> >Answer - HE HAS.
>>
>> Where?
>
>Lots of theatre
But no telly. The man's a fat old has-been; case closed!
Adam Richards
Pettigrew) wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 23:56:47 GMT, the incredibly fluffy and wonderful
>Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk (Adam Richards) clattered away at the
>keyboard and came up with this:
>
>>Sorry I like "The Time Monster": IMHO, it's very silly and as such is
>>a good laugh, but "Time And The Rani" is just boring pantomime.
>
>It never fails to amaze me, the way my opinions on certain stories
>seem to be off at a tangent towards the majority of fandom.
>
>Time and the Rani, I have always loved from that night in 1987 and yet
>if there's one "boring pantomime", I tend to point to The Time
>Monster. Crikey, the last time I watched it, I think I gave up on it
>when Chronos flapped her lovely wings.
You're not saying most of fandom loves Time and the Rani, are you? I
hope not, for all our sakes!!!!! :)
Adam Richards
wrote:
>ji...@cableinet.co.uk (John Pettigrew) wrote:
>>Time and the Rani, I have always loved from that night in 1987 and yet
>>if there's one "boring pantomime", I tend to point to The Time
>>Monster. Crikey, the last time I watched it, I think I gave up on it
>>when Chronos flapped her lovely wings.
>
>The Time Monster is the only story I ever deliberately recorded over.
>(My collecting streak did eventually lead me to get hold of another
>copy, but I don't think I've watched it since!).
I always watch it to the end to see the nude Benton's shy, sexy grin.
Phwooooaarrrr! Just think of what's dangling there between his legs,
totally unhindered and unencumbered by any clothing whatsoever - I
keep wanting that camera to swing round and show us his saveloy... Oh
well, I suppose I can dream, can't I?
Jonathan Blum
Adam Richards <Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[re "Two Docs"]
>>It makes sense to me, and certainly is NOT in character for Pertwee.
>How can it make sense? In the last 2nd Doc story, "War Games" - where
>Victoria is long gone - the Doctor clearly hasn't ever told Jamie or
>Zoe anything about his people, or even that he's a Time Lord. Yet in
>"Two Doctors", set before Victoria left, the Doc walks around freely
>talking about Time Lords and that he is one and that they're his
>people. It fucks on "The War games" and all the Troughton era.
Like I said, it's Robert Holmes once again showing his revisionist view of
the trial (as in "Deadly Assassin").
[snip]
>>That went for the exact same reason. In fact how
>>many pre 1985 Drama series running on BBC at the time survived the next
>>couple of years? Not many!!
>The point is, how many of those were accused of being "tired and in
>need of a rest" like Dr Who was?
The others weren't given a rest; they were given the axe. Hardly suggests
that they were better thought-of than Who.
[snip]
>>> Arc of Infinity - OK, but was the location necessary to the story like
>>> City of Death's was? no.
>>Yes, infact the very fact that Amsterdam is below sea level is why it is
>>on the curve of the Arc. Paris IS NOT important to City of Death,
>ROTFL!!!!!
>> the
>>Mona Lisa could be any painting at any gallery in that story - such as
>>Constable's Cornfield, set in England.
>Jeez - watch the story!!!! "A painting like... THE MONA LISA" the Doc
>says, in such a way that makes you understand exactly what he's
>talking about: i.e., Constable's Cornfield was not half as famous and
>world renowned as The Mona Lisa,
The Mona Lisa is hardly the only world-renowned objet d'art in existence;
with the merest tweak of rewriting, you could probably tell the same story
featuring "The Scream", King Tut's sarcophagus, Michaelangelo's "David",
or probably half a dozen pieces of art in the British Museum in good old
London.
>nor was it painted by daVinci - one
>of the Doc's favourite people, judging by how often he seems to drop
>Leonardo's name throughout the show's history -
And how often was that, honestly?
>who was also in the
>plot.
This is a rather telling point -- they managed to set the story in
Renaissance Italy without having to go to Italy to shoot. They could have
done the same with Paris, and the only discernible effect would have been
to lose five minutes of running around landmarks from an episode or two.
For the bulk of "City of Death", Paris consists of a chateau, a cafe, and
a couple of art gallery sets -- which rather suggests how much insight
went into their portrayal of the city, come to think of it.
The foreign location shooting in "City of Death" was just as much a stunt,
a lets-show-off-how-glossy-we-can-make-the-show-look, as any of the later
ones. It seems a bit silly to distinguish between the two. (If anything,
the best use of foreign filming was in "Planet of Fire", in which the
story uses Lanzarote not as a collection of landmarks, but rather as a
source of convincing exotic landscapes which you could _never_ fake
successfully in the south of England...)
[snip]
>The three stories you mention were all good ones.
>They're also all from the two seasons that JN-T made in an attempt to
>pander to Hinchcliffe fans -
Oh, you just made that up.
[SNIP]
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
Adam Richards <Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>That is simply not true, Nathan. JN-T was the only producer who went
>to US cons and treated himself like a star, coming out to an
>intro-tape of Carly Simon singing "Nobody does it Better", wearing a
>glittery Time Lord costume.
Good heavens! Did he really?
If so, then my appreciation of the man has just gone up about ten-fold! I
haven't heard of anything so gloriously camp since the chorus line of drag
queens in pink chiffon doing Statue of Liberty poses with sparklers at
last year's Mardi Gras.
Can you *imagine* any other producer of a TV show getting that far into
the spirit of things? And managing to come up with something even more
knowingly extravagant than Jon Pertwee or Colin Baker throwing their arms
wide and declaiming "I AM THE DOCTOR"? Sounds like a great way to spend
your day off to me.
Do you think we'll _ever_ see J. Michael Straczynski turn up at a
convention in full Centauri regalia, for example? Only Steve Cole's
striptease at last Gallifrey even comes close...
[snip]
Regards,
Jon Blum
Daniel Frankham
>Do you think we'll _ever_ see J. Michael Straczynski turn up at a
>convention in full Centauri regalia, for example? Only Steve Cole's
>striptease at last Gallifrey even comes close...
There are some words, the perceived meaning of which is entirely
dependent on the social context in which one encounters them.
Which is why I just had a mental image of J Michael Straczynski
dressed as a giant penis.
Nathan Cooke
>
> On Thu, 04 Feb 1999 20:03:13 +0000, Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Adam Richards wrote:
> >
> >> Ahhh, well. While I'm not a great fan of Paul Bernard, I think he at
> >> least did a good job on "Frontier in Space" and "Day of the Daleks".
> >> No, those aren't the best stories in the world, but I think it's
> >> pretty good compared to most of what else was being shown on TV in
> >> that era (just think: "The Tomorrow People" - urrgh!)
> >
> >Paul Bernard started that too!
>
> Wasn't it Terry Nation? I've only seen two stories - they were both
> appalling but I don't think P.Bernard directed either of them....
Nothing ever to do with Terry. Paul Bernard directed over half the first
series, including the fisrt story.
Roger Price was the writer of ALL bar one of the stories.
> But in those days the season ending was typically an overblown panto,
> because the rest of the season was serious - unlike JN-T's seasons in
> which the stories were *all* big overblown pantos.
>
BOLLOX!!!!!!!
Inferno, Daemons, Green Death, Spiders- Pantomimes?
> >> The whole point is that it's wrong - 2nd Doc goes on about Time Lords
> >> and insults jamie by saying "Please stop speaking in that appalling
> >> mongrel dialect". The latter problem is unattractive, and the former
> >> fucks with continuity and renders much of the Troughton era suspect. I
> >> love Troughton's performance in the story, but the script is plainly
> >> written out of character, unless it's meant to the 2nd Doc from some
> >> alternate reality.
> >
> >It makes sense to me, and certainly is NOT in character for Pertwee.
>
> How can it make sense? In the last 2nd Doc story, "War Games" - where
> Victoria is long gone - the Doctor clearly hasn't ever told Jamie or
> Zoe anything about his people, or even that he's a Time Lord. Yet in
> "Two Doctors", set before Victoria left, the Doc walks around freely
> talking about Time Lords and that he is one and that they're his
> people. It fucks on "The War games" and all the Troughton era.
>
> Go ahead and ignore that continuity glitch if you want to; it doesn't
> really bother me either, but it undermines my opinion of Saward very
> seriously. Consequently, I think he was a pretty rubbishy script
> editor. Yeah - there were glitches before this, but not on this scale,
> surely not.
But Holmes (as I said before) has stated that he was under the
impression that the Doctor had ALWAYS been working for the CIA in return
for his freedom - no continuity glitch there then, if you accept HIS
resoning.
> >Started in Feb, 1985 actually, and a lot of programmes vanished to make
> >way for it. The BBC only had so many "drama hours" to play with.
> >Remember The Tripods?
>
> Yes, and very rubbish it was too. A complete insult to the books. But
> "Tripe Odds" was always going to be a finite series anyway, wasn't it?
> Hadn't they done most of the books already when it was axed? I can't
> say as I remember - I didn't watch all of it.
They put a lot into it (rubbish or not) and it was axed before the last
series - ironically to make way for the return of DOCTOR WHO because of
the shortage of drama hours. Lots of over well liked domestic drama's
vanished to, such as Juliet Bravo, etc.
>
> >That went for the exact same reason. In fact how
> >many pre 1985 Drama series running on BBC at the time survived the next
> >couple of years? Not many!!
>
> The point is, how many of those were accused of being "tired and in
> need of a rest" like Dr Who was?
The point is that they were cut with no explanation. I'm sure had there
been a Tripods/Juliet Bravo/etc fan group out there they would have been
given the same reasoning.
> >> Arc of Infinity - OK, but was the location necessary to the story like
> >> City of Death's was? no.
> >
> >Yes, infact the very fact that Amsterdam is below sea level is why it is
> >on the curve of the Arc. Paris IS NOT important to City of Death,
>
> ROTFL!!!!!
Explain...
> > the
> >Mona Lisa could be any painting at any gallery in that story - such as
> >Constable's Cornfield, set in England.
>
> Jeez - watch the story!!!! "A painting like... THE MONA LISA" the Doc
> says, in such a way that makes you understand exactly what he's
> talking about: i.e., Constable's Cornfield was not half as famous and
> world renowned as The Mona Lisa, nor was it painted by daVinci - one
> of the Doc's favourite people, judging by how often he seems to drop
> Leonardo's name throughout the show's history - who was also in the
> plot.
BOLLOX, it's just a painting, no matter about Leonardo - it could have
been any famous painter/painting combination. Oh yes, and he'd only ever
mentioned Leonardo on one previous occasion (Mandragora) where he states
he has never met him. Thinking about it they could have used
Shakespeare, it needn't have been a painting.
> >> >the perpetual whitewashing of percieved opinions on his work in fan
> >> >publications he was "advisor" to - such as?
> >>
> >> DrWho magazine, and his attempt to get DWB closed down/sued/ taken off
> >> shelves (the latter he succeeded at, and it was).
> >
> >DWB is still on sale.
>
> It wasn't during the time JN-T had it banned from London bookshops....
It was. I always received my copy, but then I don't go to London to buy
it. I can't get DWM from my local newsagent either, I have to go into
town, doesn't mean its banned though.
> >Bollox, I worked in TV BEFORE theatre, and I am not theatrical, just
> >know what it means, unlike some...
>
> No, you just have your own interpretation of what it means.
And you have your own, god knows what.
> I was thinking more along the lines of stories that JN-T himself
> counted as his absolute favourites - "Time Flight", "Twin Dilemma",
> "Timelash". These stories are all very LE and stagey. Glittery.
> Childish. Pantomime. Crap.
Like Romans, Time Monster, Seeds of Death, Horns of Nimon. You mentioned
above that you enjoyed the yearly Pertwee pantomime (?!?) For gods sake
be consistent.
In all the JNT interviews I have read he mentions the above stories as
those which HE WAS NOT keen on.
> >> >the slapstick - like what? I think Hartnell and Tom and Pertwee and
> >> >especially Troughton had far more slapstick than any JNT era.
> Sigh... The whole thing isn't slapstick though, is it? The danger and
> the drama are never undermined and made to look ridiculous and stupid
> via the slapstick, are they? The slapstick in "Seeds of Death" is done
> in such a way as to be witty and reminiscent of Buster Keaton and
> Charlie Chaplin. The slapstick in a lot of JN-T stories is more like
> the scene in "Trial" where the guy looks up a pipe and gets covered in
> gunge - the LE Noel Edmunds variety to be precise.
Bollox Seeds is all slapstick and not at all threatening (even Michael
Ferguson hates it). Trial (the first 8 at least) is genuinely chilling
in places.
> >> >the stubbornness - ????????????????
> >>
> >> Well, the fans pleaded with him to do all sorts of things. Like stop
> >> hiring Pip & Jane Baker and Peter Moffat, but he kept hiring them,
> >> time after time.
> >
> >You were complaining about him pandering to fans before - make your mind
> >up.
>
> You are missing the point bigtime. Yes, he pandered to lots of people,
> thinking he was gaining their favour. But he was stubborn about not
> giving in to those who criticised him. e.g., he had this idea that if
> you turn the lighting down, up the violence content and make the show
> superficially like Hinchcliffe on the surface, you'll instantly please
> all the fans of early Tom Baker stories. But when faced with actual
> suggestions / criticisms from those fans (e.g. get rid of Moffat, let
> Grimwade direct if he wanted to instead of forcing to remain as a
> writer only, etc.) he never budged an inch, because to him criticisms
> were seen as coming from the enemy. Criticisms were not to be listened
> to, because a criticism was an expression of dislike - so why bother
> listening to what it says?
>
> He treated Peter Grimwade abominably, all because of a slight
> criticism. Grimwade was forced never to direct again for the show when
> that was his real passion. JN-T asked him to write again, but never to
> direct. It was his way of punishing Grimwade. Crazy.
You are completely misunderstanding the situation that existed there,
and as Grimwade is dead I can see that I can't convivnce you otherwise
(incidentally it was all over a meal, not criticism and Saward took the
brunt of the bile from JNT).
> >> He never brooked any criticism. An example was Bonnie Langford: poorly
> >> conceived companion, no character, ill-suited non-actress with no
> >> dramatic ability - he used to say, "Well, it got a reaction, didn't
> >> it? That's a good thing, isn't it?" he is like the person who thinks
> >> any attention is good - even name-calling and abuse, when it isn't;
> >> even being ignored is better than being insulted and abused. When
> >> anybody complained he used to say, "All the while these fans are
> >> ageing; the memory cheats", he said. But it doesn't - not if you have
> >> it taped on VHS!
> >
> >I loved the Pertwee era when I was 5. I have it now on VHS - believe me
> >THE MEMORY CHEATS!!!!
>
> He was also talking about Hinchcliffe, "Talons", "Robots of Death",
> "Deadly Assassin", "Web of Fear", "The Daleks", *ALL* the old stories.
> He was saying none of them were as good as his stories - patently
> egomaniacal and deluded.
No he never. You show me the quote where he states that ALL of his
programms are better than ALL the others.
> Anyway... What is so terribly wrong with the Pertwee era, apart from
> it's utter averageness and innoffensiveness? Yeah, it has crappy
> effects, but so do McCoy stories. I'm no big Pertwee fan really, but I
> don't see much wrong with it. It looks like "average TV" from the
> '70s, while most JN-T stories look like "below average pantomime" from
> the '80s.
Because the JNT era was made for teens while the Letts era was made for
5 year olds.
> >> >the endless dredging-up of elements from the show's past to curry favour
> >> >with fans - like all eras?
> >>
> >> Explain your assertion there - where were the Hartnell aliens in
> >> Troughton, Pertwee & Tom Baker stories, or the Pertwee villains in Tom
> >> Baker stories, barring the Cybermen and Daleks?
> >
> > and the Master, and the Sontarans, UNIT of course, Ice Warriors...
>
> You're not seeing the whole picture - JN-T at US conventions, getting
> wild whoops of applause when he said, "And next year we'll bring
> back... The Autons!" This wasn't the same as when villains were
> brought back before JN-T. They were brought back to please the fans,
> yes, but also because it happened to be logical to the story.
Those villains could be interchanged for any others, all were bought
back for the popularity with viewers.
> >> >the constant continuity cock-ups - courtesy of Levine?
> >>
> >> JN-T didn't listen to Levine. Levine was ignored except at the very
> >> beginning.
> >
> >Said? Don't worry I can guess...
>
> Well, show me the evidence which refutes it, then. You talk like
> there's something you know which you aren't revealing. Well go on,
> reveal it.
You can't show me the evidence which proves it.
> >> >All eras had cockups, JNT did better than most.
> >>
> >> ROTFLOL!!
> >
> >You just can't see can you? OPEN YOUR EYES AND OPEN YOUR MIND.
>
> Oh, don't get angry... My mind is open - it isn't stuck worshipping a
> sad, failed theatrical buffoon who really wanted to produce "Allo
> Allo", but, well... Beggars can't be choosers. Yeah, I accept JN-T
> produced some good DrWho: "Caves", "Greatest show", "Revelation". But
> I also know that he had a very warped view of the show and his own
> importance to it; the few times when he did a good job producing it,
> the result was more by accident than by design.
I disagree.
> >> >> Don't forget Bonnie Langford - you snipped her out conveniently,
> >> >> too...
> >> >
> >> >Badly conceived - agreed, but nothing wrong with Bonnie.
> >>
> >> As a dancer, no. Did she dance in DrWho? As an actress, even she has
> >> admitted she wasn't right for the show, and JN-T has said that he
> >> hired her to annoy the fans.
> >
> >She admitted that because she was not welcomed by the fans. Bonny is
> >actually a very good actress.
>
> In what?
Lots of west end productions.
> And answer my question - did she dance in DrWho?
Who cares, she was hired as an actress not a dancer.
> <snip>
>
> >> Well, there was a lot more to JN-T than a few McCoy stories -
> >> something you seem unaware of...
> >
> >Yes, I LOVE 1981 - 1985, and I like the ones after.
>
> Better than all the others? Put together? :)
Some of them. As I said I like the early 60's stories too, but I would
say that on a whole it was a lot better than the formulaic 70's
>
> >> >> >Why publically announce he was going to leave the job he did if he
> >> >> >didn't want to.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why not, if it makes the fans think he doesn't want to stay - and in
> >> >> so doing, shutting up the "JN-T must go now" brigade?
> >> >>
> >> >> We don't know - this is what I'm saying. Did he ask to leave? Is there
> >> >> anyone at the BBC who has said *anything* on this subject that proves
> >> >> / disproves what he's said? For, as you say, there are two sides to
> >> >> every story. Are there not?
> >> >
> >> >Yes, thats what I said too. You admit you don't **know**, you just have
> >> >an opinion based on little or no fact.
> >>
> >> Strawmanism! I've always said I don't know - I'd like to know, but
> >> until I hear someone else confirm JN-T, I choose not to believe what
> >> he says, since so many other things he has said have been wrong.
> >>
> >> >> I find it hard to believe that's what he really wanted, when you take
> >> >> into account the fact that he was sniffing around what was left of the
> >> >> show for five years after it finished.
> >> >
> >> >He was kept being asked back by the BBC.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >>
> >> If he really wanted to leave, why didn't he? Did they put a gun to his
> >> head or what? Come on.
>
> No answer... Very convenient!
>
> A: has anyone backed up his claims that he asked to leave, and
> B: if he wanted to leave - why didn't he?
Because they wouldn't give him another job, and its stupid to make
yourself unemployed.
> >> >> >Not a great idea if your bosses hear.
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you think JN-T's bosses are going to come back to something he says
> >> >> to an audience from some convention panel in, say, Chicago? Do you
> >> >> think they care what he says to a bunch of Dr Who fans? I don't think
> >> >> they do.
> >> >
> >> >He said it in published interviews
> >>
> >> Published where? Somewhere that begged a response from ex-BBC
> >> executives?
> >
> >In the officially licensed publications.
>
> Read at close quarters by his ex-bosses? I doubt it.
>
> >> >and on documentary footage filmed at the BBC.
> >>
> >> Which documentary footage exactly? I've not seen any such footage.
> >
> >Doctor Who's Who's Who for one.
>
> An American documentary, shown in.... America. Right?
Yes, but made on BBC premises, in BBC offices.
> None of this answers the question: if he really wanted to leave, WHY
> DIDN'T HE JUST LEAVE? Did he have a gun put to his head, or what?
>
> >It was in such a wrong timeslot for its content that it caused many
> >complaints about violence. It was intended to be screened much later in
> >the evening. It proved to be an ideal excuse to "rest" it, lucky that,
> >since they were scrabbling round for "drama hours" at the time.
> >On the flipside, S24 was intended for a much earlier timeslot, which is
> >why it seemed so tame and childish in a lot of areas.
>
> You're putting all this blame on the BBC, when they didn't produce Dr
> Who - JN-T did. Why didn't he just produce it for whatever timeslot it
> was scheduled for?
He did. S22 was meant for a Saturday evening after 7pm. It was shifted
to teatime viewing. The previous 3 years had established Doctor Who as a
programme broadcast around 7pm.
Likewise S24 was made for Saturday teatime but was broadcast at 7.30pm
midweek - none of this was JNT's fault.
> Anyway, you don't need to make something childish just because it goes
> out earlier, or more violent just because it goes out later - that
> explanation is so silly and cynical; if that was an example of JN-T's
> understanding of Dr Who, it proves his understanding was more suited
> to a show like Brucie's all-star Generation game or Noel's House
> Party!
Thats nonsense, it does mean that the programme was more sophisticated
and could deal with more grown up concepts.
> >Lots of theatre
>
> But no telly. The man's a fat old has-been; case closed!
Plenty of good people with only one work to their name.
Your comments show your real unreasoned thoughts.
Azaxyr
>Because the JNT era was made for teens while the Letts era was made for
>5 year olds.
Ahh yes, 5 year obviously require a plot that
makes sense, and a story that intrigues them.
Once they hit puberty, though, they're too
horny to think - and thus they need bangs and
whistles, and screw the plot.
"All these worlds....
...Will make excellent sites for our garbage dumps."
John Pettigrew
>On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 19:17:45 GMT, ji...@cableinet.co.uk (John
>Pettigrew) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 23:56:47 GMT, the incredibly fluffy and wonderful
>>Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk (Adam Richards) clattered away at the
>>keyboard and came up with this:
>>
>>>Sorry I like "The Time Monster": IMHO, it's very silly and as such is
>>>a good laugh, but "Time And The Rani" is just boring pantomime.
>>
>>It never fails to amaze me, the way my opinions on certain stories
>>seem to be off at a tangent towards the majority of fandom.
>>
>>Time and the Rani, I have always loved from that night in 1987 and yet
>>if there's one "boring pantomime", I tend to point to The Time
>>Monster. Crikey, the last time I watched it, I think I gave up on it
>>when Chronos flapped her lovely wings.
>
>You're not saying most of fandom loves Time and the Rani, are you? I
>hope not, for all our sakes!!!!! :)
Er, no - far from it.
Most of fandom hates Time and the Rani and derides it for being a
farcical pantomime - I love it. (Read my post again...)
The same goes for Time Flight and Attack of the Cybermen. Most of
fandom seems to hate these stories but I always seem to be at odds
with "the majority view".
Azaxyr
>The same goes for Time Flight and Attack of the Cybermen. Most of
>fandom seems to hate these stories but I always seem to be at odds
>with "the majority view".
>
Er... Most of fandom hates Attack of the Cybermen???
This is news to me...
I'm sure it's news to most of fandom too.
William December Starr
n.c...@virgin.net said:
>> Arc of Infinity - OK, but was the location necessary to the story
>> like City of Death's was? no. [Adam Richards]
>
> Yes, infact the very fact that Amsterdam is below sea level is why
> it is on the curve of the Arc.
This is an aside from the main topic here, but... am I the only one
who finds that line of reasoning to be somewhat suspect? I mean,
since when do you have to go to a city (in the ass end backwater of
the universe) that's below sea level just to get a steady supply of
water? I mean, it's *water* for crying out loud, not stratified
asymmetric Unobtanium or something!
(By the way, I'm not plinking at Nathan Cooke here; IIRC, he's
just accurately reporting on what Johnny Byrne's script said.)
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
Adam Richards
wrote:
>Roger Price was the writer of ALL bar one of the stories.
That's right. Anyway, I've checked: Paul Bernard didn't direct any of
the "Tomorrow People" episodes I saw. My point still stands - IMHO the
makers of "Time Monster" were just having a laugh; the makers of "Time
and the Rani" thought they were making great TV - but they weren't;
they were making shittysmellypoopoos.
>> But in those days the season ending was typically an overblown panto,
>> because the rest of the season was serious - unlike JN-T's seasons in
>> which the stories were *all* big overblown pantos.
>>
>BOLLOX!!!!!!!
>Inferno, Daemons, Green Death, Spiders- Pantomimes?
My statement above is very reasonable; I still stand by it. Apart from
Inferno, all those stories were full of silly, pantomimic elements -
it was the "end of season" blow-out party. JN-T couldn't restrict
himself to the end of the season though - he had to have a silly,
glitzy gameshow party with every story. When he didn't (e.g. "Caves"),
it was because he was away in America.
>> How can it make sense? In the last 2nd Doc story, "War Games" - where
>> Victoria is long gone - the Doctor clearly hasn't ever told Jamie or
>> Zoe anything about his people, or even that he's a Time Lord. Yet in
>> "Two Doctors", set before Victoria left, the Doc walks around freely
>> talking about Time Lords and that he is one and that they're his
>> people. It fucks on "The War games" and all the Troughton era.
>
>But Holmes (as I said before) has stated that he was under the
>impression that the Doctor had ALWAYS been working for the CIA in return
>for his freedom - no continuity glitch there then, if you accept HIS
>resoning.
I don't - the POINT was that Eric Saward should have spotted that when
placed against the show's continuity, "2 Docs" didn't make sense, and
edited it accordingly. That was his job: "SCRIPT EDITOR".
>> The point is, how many of those were accused of being "tired and in
>> need of a rest" like Dr Who was?
>
>The point is that they were cut with no explanation.
So, the answer was "none". Thank you. Which shows a TV programme in
the worst light? Axed with no comment, or axed with added insult that
it's tired and needs a rest?
>I'm sure had there
>been a Tripods/Juliet Bravo/etc fan group out there they would have been
>given the same reasoning.
I'm sure those shows wouldn't even have been touched, let alone
"rested", if they'd had fan lobbies as big as Who's was then! The fact
is it was seriously shit, shit, shit; it was screaming for the axe.
JN-T's 24-hour party had to end sometime, Nathan. Please, accept that.
>> >Yes, infact the very fact that Amsterdam is below sea level is why it is
>> >on the curve of the Arc. Paris IS NOT important to City of Death,
>>
>> ROTFL!!!!!
>
>Explain...
Think of "City of Death", then think of... Milton Keynes. It doesn't
work, does it?
>> > the
>> >Mona Lisa could be any painting at any gallery in that story - such as
>> >Constable's Cornfield, set in England.
>>
>> Jeez - watch the story!!!! "A painting like... THE MONA LISA" the Doc
>> says, in such a way that makes you understand exactly what he's
>> talking about: i.e., Constable's Cornfield was not half as famous and
>> world renowned as The Mona Lisa, nor was it painted by daVinci - one
>> of the Doc's favourite people, judging by how often he seems to drop
>> Leonardo's name throughout the show's history - who was also in the
>> plot.
>
>BOLLOX, it's just a painting, no matter about Leonardo - it could have
>been any famous painter/painting combination.
"BOLLOX", yourself. It isn't just "a painting"; to some it's virtually
a cult. How many other paintings have you seen done as novelty posters
/ postcards with a spliff added for comic effect? How many others are
so well known in every part of the world, that the spliff joke added
to them would be so universally funny? I can think of one, maybe two -
the painting with the two farmers with pitchforks standing outside
their farmhouse, as sent up in "Rocky Horror Picture Show", to name
one.
Like it or not, the Mona Lisa has gone down into the world's
collective subconscious in a way that so few other painting ever have.
It's virtually a part of race memory. Yes, there *ARE* "other famous
paintings". But - as the Doc said, none
"Like THE MONA LISA".
So. I think the Mona Lisa / Paris is important to "City of Death"; you
don't. So. I understand Dr Who; you don't. Simple, isn't it?
>> >DWB is still on sale.
>>
>> It wasn't during the time JN-T had it banned from London bookshops....
>
>It was. I always received my copy, but then I don't go to London to buy
>it. I can't get DWM from my local newsagent either, I have to go into
>town, doesn't mean its banned though.
You seem to be completely disregarding the whole point: he tried to
have it banned from London bookshops, rather than face up to or ignore
the criticisms therein! He engaged in Big Brother tactics, and you're
defending that?
>> >Bollox, I worked in TV BEFORE theatre, and I am not theatrical, just
>> >know what it means, unlike some...
>>
>> No, you just have your own interpretation of what it means.
>
>And you have your own, god knows what.
Don't be silly - I told you what I thought it meant - if you can't or
won't understand plain English it ain't my fault.
>> I was thinking more along the lines of stories that JN-T himself
>> counted as his absolute favourites - "Time Flight", "Twin Dilemma",
>> "Timelash". These stories are all very LE and stagey. Glittery.
>> Childish. Pantomime. Crap.
>
>Like Romans, Time Monster, Seeds of Death, Horns of Nimon.
Horns of Nimon is wonderful, really because it knows it isn't very
good as "serious" Who - there's an irony to it. There are so many
different elements in there; it's not like "Meglos", "Timeflight",
"Terminus", "Twin Dilemma" or "Timelash", none of which knows anything
about how dreadful it is, except just one element: Paul Darrow's
performance in the latter.
>You mentioned
>above that you enjoyed the yearly Pertwee pantomime (?!?) For gods sake
>be consistent.
I have been - god, you really can't see in colour, can you? Just black
& white! Things aren't that simple: as I said, "Time Monster" looks
like a panto made by people who knew how to make good TV; it looks
like it's taking the piss. While JN-T's pantomime looks like boring
glittery shit that doesn't know it's boring glittery shit. You keep
missing that crucial difference.
>In all the JNT interviews I have read he mentions the above stories as
>those which HE WAS NOT keen on.
Does he? There's plenty of recorded evidence which says the opposite -
perhaps he's back-engineering his comments. It's well known that, at
the time they were made, he raved to various people about how *good*
he thought "Twin Dilemma" and "Timeflight" were.
>Bollox Seeds is all slapstick and not at all threatening (even Michael
>Ferguson hates it). Trial (the first 8 at least) is genuinely chilling
>in places.
Ferguson hates "Seeds of Death"? Well I don't agree with him, I think
it's tons of fun. It looks like it knows what it is and is happy with
itself as it is. And the creepy way episode one doesn't reveal the
monster - slapstick, was it?
"Trial" is just a mess. Bits are dramatic, bits are pantomime. It has
the bones of a classic; some small touches are well written, but too
much of it is poorly written, confusing, bombastic nonsense with a
panto production that is so totally clueless about exactly what it
wants to be that it's sad. I reckon a good producer could make a
re-written version as a very good story or movie, but as it is, it
just sucks.
>> He treated Peter Grimwade abominably, all because of a slight
>> criticism. Grimwade was forced never to direct again for the show when
>> that was his real passion. JN-T asked him to write again, but never to
>> direct. It was his way of punishing Grimwade. Crazy.
>
>You are completely misunderstanding the situation that existed there,
>and as Grimwade is dead I can see that I can't convivnce you otherwise
>(incidentally it was all over a meal, not criticism and Saward took the
>brunt of the bile from JNT).
HA!! At least my version credits JN-T with a professional reason for
treating Grimwade badly - a disagreement, but yours brings home that
it was completely UNPROFESSIONAL! A tantrum JN-T threw because he
didn't get invited to a dinner party! And you still stick up for JN-T?
Oh, the comedy never ends!! ROTFLOL til I burst!!!
>> He was also talking about Hinchcliffe, "Talons", "Robots of Death",
>> "Deadly Assassin", "Web of Fear", "The Daleks", *ALL* the old stories.
>> He was saying none of them were as good as his stories - patently
>> egomaniacal and deluded.
>
>No he never.
Perhaps not, but the gist of his comments was: "They're wrong because
those stories they remember being good aren't - it's their memory
playing tricks". There's no distinction between "The Gunfighters" and
"The Aztecs" in that, just blanket whitewashing of his own stuff.
>> Anyway... What is so terribly wrong with the Pertwee era, apart from
>> it's utter averageness and innoffensiveness? Yeah, it has crappy
>> effects, but so do McCoy stories. I'm no big Pertwee fan really, but I
>> don't see much wrong with it. It looks like "average TV" from the
>> '70s, while most JN-T stories look like "below average pantomime" from
>> the '80s.
>
>Because the JNT era was made for teens while the Letts era was made for
>5 year olds.
So? Plenty of stuff made for 5-year olds can appeal to everyone, not
just 5-year olds. I believe this applies to Letts' era, as well as
Troughton's and Hartnell's. It only really started being consciously
pitched towards a teenage audience with the Hinchcliffe stories.
You didn't really answer the question, "What is so terribly wrong with
the Pertwee era", did you?
>> JN-T at US conventions, getting
>> wild whoops of applause when he said, "And next year we'll bring
>> back... The Autons!" This wasn't the same as when villains were
>> brought back before JN-T. They were brought back to please the fans,
>> yes, but also because it happened to be logical to the story.
>
>Those villains could be interchanged for any others, all were bought
>back for the popularity with viewers.
But not to make fans love the producer personally, as when JN-T
brought old villains back...
>> >> JN-T didn't listen to Levine. Levine was ignored except at the very
>> >> beginning.
>> >
>> >Said? Don't worry I can guess...
>>
>> Well, show me the evidence which refutes it, then. You talk like
>> there's something you know which you aren't revealing. Well go on,
>> reveal it.
>
>You can't show me the evidence which proves it.
Sigh... Nothing can "prove" or "disprove" it when it's one man's word
against another, and I know that. But Levine's claims still stand,
because JN-T has never defended himself except with blanket denial.
That's not good enough - people need explanations of why he behaved
that way. Levine has explained himself properly; JN-T hasn't.
I didn't actually ask you to prove anything, merely to refute Levine's
claims. So go on, refute them, as I asked you to. You can't, can you?
>> >You just can't see can you? OPEN YOUR EYES AND OPEN YOUR MIND.
>>
>> Oh, don't get angry... My mind is open - it isn't stuck worshipping a
>> sad, failed theatrical buffoon who really wanted to produce "Allo
>> Allo", but, well... Beggars can't be choosers. Yeah, I accept JN-T
>> produced some good DrWho: "Caves", "Greatest show", "Revelation". But
>> I also know that he had a very warped view of the show and his own
>> importance to it; the few times when he did a good job producing it,
>> the result was more by accident than by design.
>
>I disagree.
I gathered that much... Presumably because you look up to him and want
him to be your big, cuddly daddy? :)
None of your other defences of him hold water, so why is still a
mystery to me.
>> >Bonny is actually a very good actress.
>>
>> In what?
>
>Lots of west end productions.
Well that's where she should have stayed - JN-T can't see the
difference between theatre and telly; that's why he thought she'd be
good in Who - surprise, she wasn't!
>> And answer my question - did she dance in DrWho?
>
>Who cares, she was hired as an actress not a dancer.
Well, it would have proved JN-T hired her for her talent and not just
her personality. She has a nice bubbly personailty, but sadly no
talent for TV acting, so it must be concluded that he hired her for
the wrong reasons. If not, it just proves that JN-T knows sweet-fa
about the difference between what looks good on a stage, and what
looks good on TV.
>> >> Well, there was a lot more to JN-T than a few McCoy stories -
>> >> something you seem unaware of...
>> >
>> >Yes, I LOVE 1981 - 1985, and I like the ones after.
>>
>> Better than all the others? Put together? :)
>
>Some of them. As I said I like the early 60's stories too, but I would
>say that on a whole it was a lot better than the formulaic 70's
What about the formulaic Saward stories, where lots of people run up
and down corridors, then get killed for no reason, then everything
explodes at the end? Or the formulaic Certmel stories where nothing
makes sense and at the end it's all explained via knowing looks,
pixiedust and fairytale magic?
>> A: has anyone backed up his claims that he asked to leave, and
>> B: if he wanted to leave - why didn't he?
>
>Because they wouldn't give him another job,
So you admit it! The BBC wouldn't inflict him on another show! He was
a tainted man - and what's worse is, he tainted DrWho. The BBC hated
Dr Who in the end because he had made it in his own image.
>and its stupid to make yourself unemployed.
Exactly - he put his own interests before the show's at every turn.
>> An American documentary, shown in.... America. Right?
>
>Yes, but made on BBC premises, in BBC offices.
Yeah, and I really bet all his bosses were listening in. And, like,
*cared* what he was even saying to some camera filming an American
documentary. Silly beyond words.
>> None of this answers the question: if he really wanted to leave, WHY
>> DIDN'T HE JUST LEAVE? Did he have a gun put to his head, or what?
He wanted to stay - if he didn't, he could have gone into theatre, but
no, he had to ride the beast to its death. He thought DrWho was "his";
that's well known.
>> Anyway, you don't need to make something childish just because it goes
>> out earlier, or more violent just because it goes out later - that
>> explanation is so silly and cynical; if that was an example of JN-T's
>> understanding of Dr Who, it proves his understanding was more suited
>> to a show like Brucie's all-star Generation game or Noel's House
>> Party!
>
>Thats nonsense
ROTFLOLTIB!!! And you're a maker of TV yourself? REALLY? Oh,
hilarious!! No wonder I've never seen any TV with your name on the
credits. You're a laughaminute you are - oh, my sides are hurting!
>It does mean that the programme was more sophisticated
>and could deal with more grown up concepts.
You're defending a cynical policy of compromising the content
according to what timeslot you've been given, when it is easily
possible to make TV drama that can be broadcast at any time of day,
without compromising its artistic merit. And if you can't see that, I
pity the people who have to watch the TV you make, oh dear.
>> >Lots of theatre
>>
>> But no telly. The man's a fat old has-been; case closed!
>
>Plenty of good people with only one work to their name.
Doesn't mean JN-T is one of them. He's a one-trick pony.
>Your comments show your real unreasoned thoughts.
They're the truth - why not face up to it?
Adam Richards
wrote:
>In article <36c22374...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>Adam Richards <Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>That is simply not true, Nathan. JN-T was the only producer who went
>>to US cons and treated himself like a star, coming out to an
>>intro-tape of Carly Simon singing "Nobody does it Better", wearing a
>>glittery Time Lord costume.
>
>Good heavens! Did he really?
Yes, he did.
>If so, then my appreciation of the man has just gone up about ten-fold! I
>haven't heard of anything so gloriously camp since the chorus line of drag
>queens in pink chiffon doing Statue of Liberty poses with sparklers at
>last year's Mardi Gras.
Well yes, but there's such a thing as over-doing it, IMHO! :)
Adam Richards
wrote:
>In fact, I think Holmes was using "Two Doctors" as a chance to canonize
>his personal theory -- referred to in an earlier DWM interview -- that the
>Time Lords had occasionally been pulling the Doctor's strings before "The
>War Games", that they'd sent him on some of his adventures, and that his
>"trial" in "War Games" was a sham set up because he'd drawn too much
>attention to himself.
Fascinating idea - but couldn't he have, like, said this in the script
of "2 Docs" with a throwaway line or something? It doesn't really make
sense as shown on screen, does it? I mean, why does the Doc in "War
Games" explain the Timelords so reluctantly, if Jamie already knows
about them?
Adam Richards
wrote:
>The others weren't given a rest; they were given the axe. Hardly suggests
>that they were better thought-of than Who.
How many of those shows had fandoms as loud, pushy and uncritically
adoring of their programme as Dr Who did? Not one, I'd bet...
>The Mona Lisa is hardly the only world-renowned objet d'art in existence;
Well, obviously.
>with the merest tweak of rewriting, you could probably tell the same story
>featuring "The Scream", King Tut's sarcophagus, Michaelangelo's "David",
>or probably half a dozen pieces of art in the British Museum in good old
>London.
The point is, they got The Mona Lisa. *The* most famous painting. It
was a case of, do you settle for third or go for first?
>The foreign location shooting in "City of Death" was just as much a stunt,
>a lets-show-off-how-glossy-we-can-make-the-show-look, as any of the later
>ones. It seems a bit silly to distinguish between the two.
Not at all - how many stories like that did Graham Williams or other
producers do? And how many people went on the shoot? How long did they
stay in Paris and what else did they do while they were there?
The point is, JN-T's junkets were holidays for the whole crew:
pointless except to allow the cast, producer and his friends the
luxury of spending 2 weeks in some foriegn oasis, and there were going
to be more and more of them if it had carried on; if there'd been no
hiatus. It was an extravagance, not a necessity.
Azaxyr
>I don't - the POINT was that Eric Saward should have spotted that when
>placed against the show's continuity, "2 Docs" didn't make sense, and
>edited it accordingly. That was his job: "SCRIPT EDITOR".
Er, have you seen Earthshock and Ressurection
of the Daleks?
I doubt it, cause if you had, you wouldn't be
putting the responsibility of continuity on Eric
Saward...
Hey, as PRODUCER, JNT should have realized
by this time that Eric Saward doesn't have a clue
when it comes to continuity... Sure, he writes
good stories, just as long as you don't try to
make sense of them!
Eng6gcgs
Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk (Adam Richards) writes:
>On 25 Jan 1999 13:16:54 GMT, jb...@zipper.zip.com.au (Jonathan Blum)
>wrote:
>
>>In fact, I think Holmes was using "Two Doctors" as a chance to canonize
>>his personal theory -- referred to in an earlier DWM interview -- that the
>>Time Lords had occasionally been pulling the Doctor's strings before "The
>>War Games", that they'd sent him on some of his adventures, and that his
>>"trial" in "War Games" was a sham set up because he'd drawn too much
>>attention to himself.
>
>Fascinating idea - but couldn't he have, like, said this in the script
>of "2 Docs" with a throwaway line or something? It doesn't really make
>sense as shown on screen, does it? I mean, why does the Doc in "War
>Games" explain the Timelords so reluctantly, if Jamie already knows
>about them?
Because DW is fiction, and 'War Games' was written fifteen years before '2Docs'
perhaps. ;-)
Eng6gcgs
Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk (Adam Richards) writes:
>>>Anyway... What is so terribly wrong with the Pertwee era, apart from
>>>it's utter averageness and innoffensiveness? Yeah, it has crappy
>>>effects, but so do McCoy stories. I'm no big Pertwee fan really, but I
>>>don't see much wrong with it. It looks like "average TV" from the
>>>'70s, while most JN-T stories look like "below average pantomime" from
>>>the '80s.
I can think of a few that do, but "most" is a bit like saying most Colin Baker
stories feature Mel.
>>Because the JNT era was made for teens while the Letts era was made for
>>5 year olds.
>
>So? Plenty of stuff made for 5-year olds can appeal to everyone, not
>just 5-year olds.
This is absolutely true.
>I believe this applies to Letts' era, as well as Troughton's and Hartnell's.
It only >really started being consciously pitched towards a teenage audience
with the >Hinchcliffe stories.
>
>You didn't really answer the question, "What is so terribly wrong with
>the Pertwee era", did you?
Been here before (so many times - and I know everyone hates me for it), but
I'll jump in and do it anyway:
As you say, they are inoffensive; offensively inoffensive, so bloody flaccid
and dull as to make wathcing them a chore.
That it has crap FX is no problem - in all honesty, I don't see them as that
crap in comparrison to contemporary TV. That it's more interested in FX than in
storytelling is a problem (the 80s have crap FX, but that's completely made up
for by the power, imagination, complexity and ingenuity of the stories - and
there's four things that seasons 7 to 11 seem terribly afraid of going near,
preffering to think of themselves as approaching gritty, didactic drama when it
hasn't really got the balls to do even that).
The "Doctor" is pro-establishment, not only works with UNIT (and the excuses
really don't wash) but actively seeks out establishments to ally himself with
wherever he goes, upholds the status quo (or what was the status quo before
some nasty, most likely somewhat ethnic, aliens invaded) regardless of how
corrupt or un-ethical it is, and gets his authority froms authorities (and
notice how if the establishment actually does come close to being the baddies,
some pathetic, genric excuse appears - look at 'Green Death,' has the potential
to be an OK story, has a wonderful ending, but is so very, very bad and part of
the reason is that the real bad guy, capitalism, is let-off by the introduction
of Crap Crazy Computer #32). He's hypocritical, blandly written,
one-dimensional, and the most interesting and successful portrayal of the third
Doctor was written by an author who (ostensibly) hates the character in a book
which was largely about being the complete opposite of what the Pertwee era
was.
Guns, explosions and running around are used to entertain instead of things
like plot and characterisation (again, unlike the vast majority of 80s
stories). Admittedly, lots of men in uniform isn't entirely un-appealing, but
still I'd like there to be something more to all these people than the clothes
they wear and the things they carry.
UNIT (just so, so wrong).
Jo Grant (and especially replacing one of the show's greatest companions, Liz
Shaw, with one of its worst, Jo fucking Grant). And Sarah-Jane works much, much
better with the fourth Doctor (and it's a testimony to Lis Sladen that she
manages to make that proto-Sam Jones likeable).
It only has three really good stories ('Carnival of Monsters,' cause it's just
great, 'Frontier in Space' because it works, deals with the subject without
becoming over-blown, self-contradicting, dull or preachey, and 'Planet of the
Spiders' because it's a wonderful excercise in post-modernism, and watching the
people who have crafted this era take the piss out of themselves to such a high
degree really redeems them and goes a small way to excusing the crimes they
perpetrated on DW [joking], and even the simplified, childish, this-era-ish
presentation of Buddhism is excused by the fact that the third Doctor *finally*
gets involved with a revolution, and lots of interesting, entertaining stuff
happens [which instantly marks it, and these other two stories, out from the
rest of the era]).
The idea of trapping the Doctor on Earth removes one of the series' defining,
most interesting and most useful aspects. Idiots!
The Master is over-used, often written poorly, and only really saved by a
wonderful performance.
Gadgets replace gravitas, brawn replaces brain, guns save the day and the
Doctor becomes part of a cosy little family that cripples any attempt at
strength or depth in storytelling and character development (not that there are
many such attempts).
Despite the wonderful costumes and the attempt at jokes, it doesn't even manage
to be witty and stylish (compare with, say, 'Avengers,' or even the Williams
era, which do manage it and are perfectly watchable).
Some of the series' worst stories, I mean the really, *really* bad ones
('Planet of the Daleks,' 'Sea Devils,' 'Green Death,' 'Invasion of the
Dinosaurs,' 'Monster of Peladon' - things that make one want to commit acts of
savagery one one's fellows). And usually patchy writing (when they can be
bothered to actually write stuff - I have the strong image that this era used
something like "UNITand/orBANGS" in the same way ST scripts use "TECHNOBABBLE")
in even the few stories that are watchable.
Derivitive, reductive, formulaic (the era is about trying to find a formula -
defining a nice, comfy formula for the show [a really bad idea that utterly
ignores what DW is really about]; being given a formula for how to live be
those who rule you, and sticking to it; formalising social interactions and
hierarchies; basically, all stuff that is the antithesis of DW), anally
retentive, mis-guided, many wasted oppourtunities, vomit-inducing, limiting,
debilitating, dull (did I mention how dull I find this era?), and so on.
>>>JN-T at US conventions, getting
>>>wild whoops of applause when he said, "And next year we'll bring
>>>back... The Autons!" This wasn't the same as when villains were
>>>brought back before JN-T. They were brought back to please the fans,
>>>yes, but also because it happened to be logical to the story.
Well of course it was logical to the story - 8 times out of 10, the story was
almost a carbon copy of those monsters' first appearance, not to use them would
seem un-chartiable (although that doesn't stop the Pertwee era using any number
of monsters in what is, in this era's case, an Auton plot).
>>Those villains could be interchanged for any others, all were bought
>>back for the popularity with viewers.
>
>But not to make fans love the producer personally, as when JN-T
>brought old villains back...
Goodness, I didn't realise you had such insight into JNT's head (I'm truly
afraid for you).
[snip]
>Sigh... Nothing can "prove" or "disprove" it when it's one man's word
>against another, and I know that. But Levine's claims still stand,
>because JN-T has never defended himself except with blanket denial.
>That's not good enough - people need explanations of why he behaved
>that way. Levine has explained himself properly;
When?
>JN-T hasn't.
>I didn't actually ask you to prove anything, merely to refute Levine's
>claims. So go on, refute them, as I asked you to. You can't, can you?
What *are* his claims???
>>>>You just can't see can you? OPEN YOUR EYES AND OPEN YOUR MIND.
>>>
>>>Oh, don't get angry... My mind is open - it isn't stuck worshipping a
>>>sad, failed theatrical buffoon who really wanted to produce "Allo
>>>Allo", but, well... Beggars can't be choosers. Yeah, I accept JN-T
>>>produced some good DrWho: "Caves", "Greatest show", "Revelation".
and 'Warrior's Gate,' 'Castrovalva,' 'Black Orchid,' 'Kinda,' 'Snakedance,'
'Enlightenment,' 'Warriors of the Deep,' 'Awakening,' 'Frontios,'
'Resurrection,' 'Planet of Fire,' 'Remembrance,' 'Happiness Patrol,' 'Fenric'
(best "Monster" story ever), 'Ghostlight' (best TV DW ever), 'Survival'
(realism in DW, that's a fucking shock) - and that's just the great stories,
never mind the OK ones.
>>>But I also know that he had a very warped view of the show and his own
>>>importance to it; the few times when he did a good job producing it,
>>>the result was more by accident than by design.
>>
>>I disagree.
>
>I gathered that much... Presumably because you look up to him and want
>him to be your big, cuddly daddy? :)
There's a someone for everyone.
>None of your other defences of him hold water, so why is still a
>mystery to me.
And always will be - plenty of people like the Pertwee era, love it in fact,
and I can't even begin to fathom their reasoning.
>>>>Bonny is actually a very good actress.
>>>
>>>In what?
She was, actually, terrific as Violet Elizabeth Bott - spot on, absolutely
amazing. Of course, whether or not you want to call that acting is up to you.
>>Lots of west end productions.
>
>Well that's where she should have stayed - JN-T can't see the
>difference between theatre and telly; that's why he thought she'd be
>good in Who - surprise, she wasn't!
And? I mean, yeah, she's crap, so what. You say Mel, I say Jo (and Mel,
usually, but that rather spoils my point), it's all the same thing - two
somewhat less than accomplished performers, two crap companions who scream out
(chortle) to be axed (or at least given a good kicking).
[snip]
>>>>>Well, there was a lot more to JN-T than a few McCoy stories -
>>>>>something you seem unaware of...
>>>>
>>>>Yes, I LOVE 1981 - 1985, and I like the ones after.
>>>
>>>Better than all the others? Put together? :)
On a personal note:
Season 26 is the best season, 19-21 and 25 all highly regarded in my book too,
though so are seasons 6, 16, 17, 14 and 15 a bit, 4 and 5 a bit (though haven't
really seen enough from 4 and 5 to offer a rounded view).
'Ghostlight' the best TV DW story ('Enlightenment' a close second, 'Deadly
Assassin' third).
Davison, Troughton and McCoy are my favourite Doctors.
>>Some of them. As I said I like the early 60's stories too, but I would
>>say that on a whole it was a lot better than the formulaic 70's
>
>What about the formulaic Saward stories, where lots of people run up
>and down corridors, then get killed for no reason, then everything
>explodes at the end?
Hmm. Firstly, you did say how much you liked 'Revelation,' didn't you?
Secondly, OK there is 'Attack of the Cybes,' pretty awful, but 'Earthshock'
sets about subverting formula and manages quite well, 'Resurrection' only seems
not to make sense because it requires the viewer to pay attention, and again
subverts formula (including, towards the end, the formula it has established
for itself).
>Or the formulaic Certmel stories where nothing
>makes sense and at the end it's all explained via knowing looks,
>pixiedust and fairytale magic?
Hmm. So, that's 'Silver Nemesis.' One out of 10. Pretty impressive ratio (and
better than the Pertwee's era, which is basically story after atory of
formulaic running around and blowing things up, all explained by bogusly moral
speeches, shooting the villain, and cod science).
>>>A: has anyone backed up his claims that he asked to leave, and
>>>B: if he wanted to leave - why didn't he?
>>
>>Because they wouldn't give him another job,
>
>So you admit it! The BBC wouldn't inflict him on another show! He was
>a tainted man - and what's worse is, he tainted DrWho. The BBC hated
>Dr Who in the end because he had made it in his own image.
At the time(s) (IIRC) that he was looking to leave and was "forced" (I don't
find this particulalry hard to believe - he has explained why it was done
several times, but hey, what do WhoFans care for the logical and plausable) to
stay:
1) To start with there were no free production placements, and none likely to
be free that weren't going to be offered to people involved in those shows
already, so he would have had to have taken a demotion or left the BBC.
2) Later on, I don't think there were any equivalent jobs left in BBC Drama.
>>and its stupid to make yourself unemployed.
>
>Exactly - he put his own interests before the show's at every turn.
Ah. So, he was like just about every other indivudal who has worked on the
series. God, what a bastard he must be (I'm responding to what I assume to be a
slightly sarcastic comment with a slightly sarcastic comment - I mean, you
don't mean the above sincerely, do you?!).
[snip]
>>>None of this answers the question: if he really wanted to leave, WHY
>>>DIDN'T HE JUST LEAVE?
BECAUSE, FOR SOME STRANGE, UNFATHOMABLE REASON, HE DIDN'T REALLY WANT TO BE
DEMOTED/UNEMPLOYED. I MEAN, CALL THE MAN CRAZY, EVIL, A CAPITALIST EVEN,
WHATEVER, I GUESS WHEN YOU COME DOWN TO IT HE WAS JUST HUMAN - AND NOT THE GOD
WE HAD ALL SUPPOSED TO HIM TO BE, EH, ALTHOUGH HE CERTAINLY HAD THE CLOBBER.
>>>Did he have a gun put to his head, or what?
>
>He wanted to stay - if he didn't, he could have gone into theatre, but no, he
had
>to ride the beast to its death. He thought DrWho was "his"; that's well known.
No, that's assumed by a lot of silly people who really whould know better. I
mean, lets be honest, if you want to apply the criteria for and logic behind
your above comments Terrance Dicks is the guy you want to pick on - there's
someone who won't let 'Who' go (not that I'm criticising it, hey if he can earn
a buck who am to say he shouldn't - I oppose the entire capitalist-imperialist
dogma of the west, but I doubt picking on people like Terrance Dicks is the way
forward to revolution - but when he doesn't even try any more and gives us
things like 'T8D' and 'Catastrophea' you really have to wonder). I'd say the
only person who actually thought DW was his was Tom Baker (and he was almost
certainly right at the time), but even in his case to make such a comment is a
bit silly and generally made without much thought or analysis.
[snip]
>>It does mean that the programme was more sophisticated
>>and could deal with more grown up concepts.
>
>You're defending a cynical policy of compromising the content
>according to what timeslot you've been given,
No he isn't.
>when it is easily possible to make TV drama that can be broadcast at any time
>of day, without compromising its artistic merit.
But if he was, what would be wrong with that? You cut your cloth according to
your means - if you can get away with more violence and horror, you do, there's
really no reason not to, and since it's only effect on the artistic merit of
the show was to increase it, where is the problem? Could you please explain
precisely where your objection lies - what do you find so worrying about
violence and sophistication?
>And if you can't see that, I pity the people who have to watch the TV you
make,
>oh dear.
>
>>>>Lots of theatre
>>>
>>>But no telly. The man's a fat old has-been; case closed!
>>
>>Plenty of good people with only one work to their name.
>
>Doesn't mean JN-T is one of them. He's a one-trick pony.
>
>>Your comments show your real unreasoned thoughts.
>
>They're the truth - why not face up to it?
Hmm. Perhaps because, if you'll forgive me for pointing it out to you, they are
*opinion* (and I should know about opinions and opining, as you'll be able to
tell if you've read the rest of me post, lad). I mean, by all means present
them strongly, and I don;t expect you to add all the IMOs (I don't do it myself
that much), but don't claim that your subjective, blinkered opinions are
somehow truth. JNT hasn't produced telly (that I'm aware of) since DW, fine, a
simple fact. That he's a fat old has-been, a one trick pony, or that the case
is closed, is a personal opinion dear, and nothing more (I know fatter people,
older people, people who really are has-beens, real one-trick ponies, real
metaphorical one-trick ponies, and cases that have actually been closed, and
I'm still irritatingly young - or so Elder fans tell me).
Philip Craggs
>
> ji...@cableinet.co.uk (John Pettigrew) writes:
>
> >The same goes for Time Flight and Attack of the Cybermen. Most of
> >fandom seems to hate these stories but I always seem to be at odds
> >with "the majority view".
> >
>
> Er... Most of fandom hates Attack of the Cybermen???
> This is news to me...
> I'm sure it's news to most of fandom too.
>
lot of unfair criticism in my book. As does Time Flight. And while we
are at it, so does 'Timelash', 'Delta and the Bannermen', 'Battlefield'
and 'The Pit'.
--
Philip Craggs
'What is called a reason for living is also an excellent reason for
dying.' (Albert Camus).
Paradise Towers: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/3694/
Philip Craggs
>
> On 25 Jan 1999 13:16:54 GMT, jb...@zipper.zip.com.au (Jonathan Blum)
> wrote:
>
> >In fact, I think Holmes was using "Two Doctors" as a chance to canonize
> >his personal theory -- referred to in an earlier DWM interview -- that the
> >Time Lords had occasionally been pulling the Doctor's strings before "The
> >War Games", that they'd sent him on some of his adventures, and that his
> >"trial" in "War Games" was a sham set up because he'd drawn too much
> >attention to himself.
>
> Fascinating idea - but couldn't he have, like, said this in the script
> of "2 Docs" with a throwaway line or something? It doesn't really make
> sense as shown on screen, does it?
It does if you *gasp* use your imagination which some WHo fans seen to
hate to do. It really annoys me when people slate a story because every
last stupid detail is not shown on screen. I've even read posts which
criticised a story because we saw someone get through on the telephone
first time and we didn't see them trying it a few times first!
I mean, why does the Doc in "War
> Games" explain the Timelords so reluctantly, if Jamie already knows
> about them?
>
ANd they say JNT was too hot on needless continuety!
Have you not heard of the season 6b theory? Allow me to explain. The
idea is that the Time Lords decided not to regenerate the Doctor at 'The
War Games', but instead used him as an agent for a while before sentence
was carried out. That is why the Doctor looks older and expects to pick
Victoria up again. They were returned to him because the Time Lords
recognised that he works better with a companion.
Nathan Cooke
>
> On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 18:37:35 +0000, Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Roger Price was the writer of ALL bar one of the stories.
>
> That's right. Anyway, I've checked: Paul Bernard didn't direct any of
> the "Tomorrow People" episodes I saw. My point still stands - IMHO the
> makers of "Time Monster" were just having a laugh; the makers of "Time
> and the Rani" thought they were making great TV - but they weren't;
> they were making shittysmellypoopoos.
Just because you didn't see any with his name on didn't mean he never
did it.
> My statement above is very reasonable; I still stand by it. Apart from
> Inferno, all those stories were full of silly, pantomimic elements -
> it was the "end of season" blow-out party. JN-T couldn't restrict
> himself to the end of the season though - he had to have a silly,
> glitzy gameshow party with every story. When he didn't (e.g. "Caves"),
> it was because he was away in America.
You made that up, it completely untrue.
> >> How can it make sense? In the last 2nd Doc story, "War Games" - where
> >> Victoria is long gone - the Doctor clearly hasn't ever told Jamie or
> >> Zoe anything about his people, or even that he's a Time Lord. Yet in
> >> "Two Doctors", set before Victoria left, the Doc walks around freely
> >> talking about Time Lords and that he is one and that they're his
> >> people. It fucks on "The War games" and all the Troughton era.
> >
> >But Holmes (as I said before) has stated that he was under the
> >impression that the Doctor had ALWAYS been working for the CIA in return
> >for his freedom - no continuity glitch there then, if you accept HIS
> >resoning.
>
> I don't - the POINT was that Eric Saward should have spotted that when
> placed against the show's continuity, "2 Docs" didn't make sense, and
> edited it accordingly. That was his job: "SCRIPT EDITOR".
But it does make sense, adapt, its your job as viewer.
> >> The point is, how many of those were accused of being "tired and in
> >> need of a rest" like Dr Who was?
> >
> >The point is that they were cut with no explanation.
>
> So, the answer was "none". Thank you. Which shows a TV programme in
> the worst light? Axed with no comment, or axed with added insult that
> it's tired and needs a rest?
Nonsense. They had to comment on Who, it was the only one reported on
the six o clock news. They had to make up an excuse which covered them.
> >I'm sure had there
> >been a Tripods/Juliet Bravo/etc fan group out there they would have been
> >given the same reasoning.
>
> I'm sure those shows wouldn't even have been touched, let alone
> "rested", if they'd had fan lobbies as big as Who's was then! The fact
> is it was seriously shit, shit, shit; it was screaming for the axe.
Not true They all went.
> JN-T's 24-hour party had to end sometime, Nathan. Please, accept that.
No, because its not true.
> Think of "City of Death", then think of... Milton Keynes. It doesn't
> work, does it?
Could be London, Stratford, anywhere with an artistic culture.
> >> > the
> >> >Mona Lisa could be any painting at any gallery in that story - such as
> >> >Constable's Cornfield, set in England.
> >>
> >> Jeez - watch the story!!!! "A painting like... THE MONA LISA" the Doc
> >> says, in such a way that makes you understand exactly what he's
> >> talking about: i.e., Constable's Cornfield was not half as famous and
> >> world renowned as The Mona Lisa, nor was it painted by daVinci - one
> >> of the Doc's favourite people, judging by how often he seems to drop
> >> Leonardo's name throughout the show's history - who was also in the
> >> plot.
look, Tom is an actor. He could have said ANYTHING in that line and it
would have had the same intonation "A painting like The Scream", "A play
like Hamlet", etc.
> Like it or not, the Mona Lisa has gone down into the world's
> collective subconscious in a way that so few other painting ever have.
> It's virtually a part of race memory. Yes, there *ARE* "other famous
> paintings". But - as the Doc said, none
>
> "Like THE MONA LISA".
>
> So. I think the Mona Lisa / Paris is important to "City of Death"; you
> don't. So. I understand Dr Who; you don't. Simple, isn't it?
No because its obvious that youre quite mad and I am reasonable and
sane. I think I understand it far better tan you, who is just a twisted
little nobody trying to score points.
> >> >DWB is still on sale.
> >>
> >> It wasn't during the time JN-T had it banned from London bookshops....
> >
> >It was. I always received my copy, but then I don't go to London to buy
> >it. I can't get DWM from my local newsagent either, I have to go into
> >town, doesn't mean its banned though.
>
> You seem to be completely disregarding the whole point: he tried to
> have it banned from London bookshops, rather than face up to or ignore
> the criticisms therein! He engaged in Big Brother tactics, and you're
> defending that?
"tried" to have it banned now, you change your story at every turn don't
you. NO I don't defend that. I am not here to defend JNT's person, just
to comment on how his time as producer was not bad.
> >> I was thinking more along the lines of stories that JN-T himself
> >> counted as his absolute favourites - "Time Flight", "Twin Dilemma",
> >> "Timelash". These stories are all very LE and stagey. Glittery.
> >> Childish. Pantomime. Crap.
> >
> >Like Romans, Time Monster, Seeds of Death, Horns of Nimon.
>
> Horns of Nimon is wonderful, really because it knows it isn't very
> good as "serious" Who - there's an irony to it. There are so many
> different elements in there; it's not like "Meglos", "Timeflight",
> "Terminus", "Twin Dilemma" or "Timelash", none of which knows anything
> about how dreadful it is, except just one element: Paul Darrow's
> performance in the latter.
I lIke Horns too, doesn't stop it being silly though does it, and it is
no different to those you mention.
Every era does it, not just JNT.
> >You mentioned
> >above that you enjoyed the yearly Pertwee pantomime (?!?) For gods sake
> >be consistent.
>
> I have been - god, you really can't see in colour, can you? Just black
> & white! Things aren't that simple: as I said, "Time Monster" looks
> like a panto made by people who knew how to make good TV; it looks
> like it's taking the piss. While JN-T's pantomime looks like boring
> glittery shit that doesn't know it's boring glittery shit. You keep
> missing that crucial difference.
Because there is none
> >In all the JNT interviews I have read he mentions the above stories as
> >those which HE WAS NOT keen on.
>
> Does he? There's plenty of recorded evidence which says the opposite -
> perhaps he's back-engineering his comments. It's well known that, at
> the time they were made, he raved to various people about how *good*
> he thought "Twin Dilemma" and "Timeflight" were.
These comments were made at the time, not just recently.
> >> He treated Peter Grimwade abominably, all because of a slight
> >> criticism. Grimwade was forced never to direct again for the show when
> >> that was his real passion. JN-T asked him to write again, but never to
> >> direct. It was his way of punishing Grimwade. Crazy.
> >
> >You are completely misunderstanding the situation that existed there,
> >and as Grimwade is dead I can see that I can't convivnce you otherwise
> >(incidentally it was all over a meal, not criticism and Saward took the
> >brunt of the bile from JNT).
>
> HA!! At least my version credits JN-T with a professional reason for
> treating Grimwade badly - a disagreement, but yours brings home that
> it was completely UNPROFESSIONAL! A tantrum JN-T threw because he
> didn't get invited to a dinner party! And you still stick up for JN-T?
> Oh, the comedy never ends!! ROTFLOL til I burst!!!
I repeat, I'm not sticking up for JNT's personal and private life, we
all have flaws, but JNT was still a good producer.
And it wasn't a dinner party it was a lunch meeting. So get your facts
riht before you comment.
> >> He was also talking about Hinchcliffe, "Talons", "Robots of Death",
> >> "Deadly Assassin", "Web of Fear", "The Daleks", *ALL* the old stories.
> >> He was saying none of them were as good as his stories - patently
> >> egomaniacal and deluded.
> >
> >No he never.
>
> Perhaps not,
So now you admit you've been lying, I see, well theres not much point in
going further then is there...
> I gathered that much... Presumably because you look up to him and want
> him to be your big, cuddly daddy? :)
Not worth commenting on really - get a life
> You're defending a cynical policy of compromising the content
> according to what timeslot you've been given, when it is easily
> possible to make TV drama that can be broadcast at any time of day,
> without compromising its artistic merit. And if you can't see that, I
> pity the people who have to watch the TV you make, oh dear.
I don't defend it, but its the case unfortunately. Even EastEnders was
forced into a later slot due to complaints about its content. It used to
be broadcast at 7pm, see even 30 minutes can make a huge difference.
Nathan Cooke
>
> Adam Richards wrote:
> >
> > On 25 Jan 1999 13:16:54 GMT, jb...@zipper.zip.com.au (Jonathan Blum)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In fact, I think Holmes was using "Two Doctors" as a chance to canonize
> > >his personal theory -- referred to in an earlier DWM interview -- that the
> > >Time Lords had occasionally been pulling the Doctor's strings before "The
> > >War Games", that they'd sent him on some of his adventures, and that his
> > >"trial" in "War Games" was a sham set up because he'd drawn too much
> > >attention to himself.
> >
> > Fascinating idea - but couldn't he have, like, said this in the script
> > of "2 Docs" with a throwaway line or something? It doesn't really make
> > sense as shown on screen, does it?
>
> It does if you *gasp* use your imagination which some WHo fans seen to
> hate to do. It really annoys me when people slate a story because every
> last stupid detail is not shown on screen. I've even read posts which
> criticised a story because we saw someone get through on the telephone
> first time and we didn't see them trying it a few times first!
YES!
> I mean, why does the Doc in "War
> > Games" explain the Timelords so reluctantly, if Jamie already knows
> > about them?
> >
> ANd they say JNT was too hot on needless continuety!
> Have you not heard of the season 6b theory? Allow me to explain. The
> idea is that the Time Lords decided not to regenerate the Doctor at 'The
> War Games', but instead used him as an agent for a while before sentence
> was carried out. That is why the Doctor looks older and expects to pick
> Victoria up again. They were returned to him because the Time Lords
> recognised that he works better with a companion.
NOOOO!!!!!!!
I prefer Holmes' idea that the Doctor was ALWAYS doing jobs for the CIA
in return for his freedom. This was highly secret and the High Council
never knew it. Hence when the Doctor reveals his presence they act and
exile him. Leaving the CIA pretty pissed off. I think that Peladon
proves this. It's not a big job for the Timelords (like Colony or 3
Docs), but the CIA secretly using the TARDIS.
I really dislike the season 6b theory, it makes little sense
dramatically or for the characters, particularly Victoria (It was far
better in TV Comic). But hey, its all theory - wouldn't want to FORCE
anyone to believe in me!
Nathan Cooke
Adam Richards
wrote:
>Adam Richards wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 18:37:35 +0000, Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Roger Price was the writer of ALL bar one of the stories.
>>
>> That's right. Anyway, I've checked: Paul Bernard didn't direct any of
>> the "Tomorrow People" episodes I saw. My point still stands - IMHO the
>> makers of "Time Monster" were just having a laugh; the makers of "Time
>> and the Rani" thought they were making great TV - but they weren't;
>> they were making shittysmellypoopoos.
>
>Just because you didn't see any with his name on didn't mean he never
>did it.
DUH - I'm not commenting on the ones I haven't seen, only the ones I
*have* seen, i.e. the ones Bernard directed could be totally fabulous
and brilliant.
>> My statement above is very reasonable; I still stand by it. Apart from
>> Inferno, all those stories were full of silly, pantomimic elements -
>> it was the "end of season" blow-out party. JN-T couldn't restrict
>> himself to the end of the season though - he had to have a silly,
>> glitzy gameshow party with every story. When he didn't (e.g. "Caves"),
>> it was because he was away in America.
>
>You made that up, it completely untrue.
No, it comes from DWB - which you're going to say is all lies anyway,
so why do I bother? JN-T was in America when "Caves" was made.
>> >> How can it make sense? In the last 2nd Doc story, "War Games" - where
>> >> Victoria is long gone - the Doctor clearly hasn't ever told Jamie or
>> >> Zoe anything about his people, or even that he's a Time Lord. Yet in
>> >> "Two Doctors", set before Victoria left, the Doc walks around freely
>> >> talking about Time Lords and that he is one and that they're his
>> >> people. It fucks on "The War games" and all the Troughton era.
>> >
>> >But Holmes (as I said before) has stated that he was under the
>> >impression that the Doctor had ALWAYS been working for the CIA in return
>> >for his freedom - no continuity glitch there then, if you accept HIS
>> >resoning.
>>
>> I don't - the POINT was that Eric Saward should have spotted that when
>> placed against the show's continuity, "2 Docs" didn't make sense, and
>> edited it accordingly. That was his job: "SCRIPT EDITOR".
>
>But it does make sense
Only with your massive (and un-canonical) retconning.
>adapt, its your job as viewer.
Why should I, if Eric, as the script editor didn't bother doing *his*
job?
>> >> The point is, how many of those were accused of being "tired and in
>> >> need of a rest" like Dr Who was?
>> >
>> >The point is that they were cut with no explanation.
>>
>> So, the answer was "none". Thank you. Which shows a TV programme in
>> the worst light? Axed with no comment, or axed with added insult that
>> it's tired and needs a rest?
>
>Nonsense. They had to comment on Who, it was the only one reported on
>the six o clock news. They had to make up an excuse which covered them.
Read my above sentence please - your response doesn't actually respond
to it. It doesn't answer the question I asked. You don't read very
well, do you? :)
>> >I'm sure had there
>> >been a Tripods/Juliet Bravo/etc fan group out there they would have been
>> >given the same reasoning.
>>
>> I'm sure those shows wouldn't even have been touched, let alone
>> "rested", if they'd had fan lobbies as big as Who's was then! The fact
>> is it was seriously shit, shit, shit; it was screaming for the axe.
>
>Not true They all went.
The only reason DrWho didn't go was because the fans were so
annoyingly vocal and uncritically adoring of the show - that says
nothing about the actual quality of the show, or whether or not it in
fact deserved to be axed.
>> JN-T's 24-hour party had to end sometime, Nathan. Please, accept that.
>
>No, because its not true.
You're just not making sense, now. *What* isn't true? The 24-hour
party, or that the 24-hour party had to end? Please, be clear in what
you're writing. Nathan.
>> Think of "City of Death", then think of... Milton Keynes. It doesn't
>> work, does it?
>
>Could be London, Stratford, anywhere with an artistic culture.
Ha!!! Ask any passer by in the street what he or she thinks about this
Paris vs. Stratford argument and I bet every one would say "Paris".
>> >> > the
>> >> >Mona Lisa could be any painting at any gallery in that story - such as
>> >> >Constable's Cornfield, set in England.
>> >>
>> >> Jeez - watch the story!!!! "A painting like... THE MONA LISA" the Doc
>> >> says, in such a way that makes you understand exactly what he's
>> >> talking about: i.e., Constable's Cornfield was not half as famous and
>> >> world renowned as The Mona Lisa, nor was it painted by daVinci - one
>> >> of the Doc's favourite people, judging by how often he seems to drop
>> >> Leonardo's name throughout the show's history - who was also in the
>> >> plot.
>
>look, Tom is an actor. He could have said ANYTHING in that line and it
>would have had the same intonation "A painting like The Scream", "A play
>like Hamlet", etc.
Yeah - but more people would have had to go, "Sorry, where"? and
"Sorry, which painting?", instead of instantly coming back with, "Ahh
yes - Paris, The Mona Lisa!" Before I moved to the UK I'd never heard
of Stratford.
All this talk is silly - Paris and The Mona Lisa are important to the
story, because that's where the story was set in the script - it was
written for Paris, so filming it with Stratford or Hamlet would've
been a nonsense, and a cheapification of the script.
>> Like it or not, the Mona Lisa has gone down into the world's
>> collective subconscious in a way that so few other painting ever have.
>> It's virtually a part of race memory. Yes, there *ARE* "other famous
>> paintings". But - as the Doc said, none
>>
>> "Like THE MONA LISA".
>>
>> So. I think the Mona Lisa / Paris is important to "City of Death"; you
>> don't. So. I understand Dr Who; you don't. Simple, isn't it?
>
>No because its obvious that youre quite mad and I am reasonable and
>sane. I think I understand it far better tan you, who is just a twisted
>little nobody
So says a person who does not know me, and who has never met me. I am
someone - to my lover, to my friends and to my enemies.
And to you, evidently - or you would have ignored me. I await your
apology, Nathan.
>trying to score points.
Oh dear. Isn't making (or scoring, whatever you want to call it)
points the whole raison detre of usenet?
>> >> >DWB is still on sale.
>> >>
>> >> It wasn't during the time JN-T had it banned from London bookshops....
>> >
>> >It was. I always received my copy, but then I don't go to London to buy
>> >it. I can't get DWM from my local newsagent either, I have to go into
>> >town, doesn't mean its banned though.
>>
>> You seem to be completely disregarding the whole point: he tried to
>> have it banned from London bookshops, rather than face up to or ignore
>> the criticisms therein! He engaged in Big Brother tactics, and you're
>> defending that?
>
>"tried" to have it banned now, you change your story at every turn don't
>you.
Sigh... You know very well what the gist of my meaning was - and if
you don't, then you're an idiot. He did have it banned from some
London bookshops, that is a fact. Now will you please stop sulking and
come back to the point!
>NO I don't defend that.
Thank you.
>I am not here to defend JNT's person,
Well, that's what you seem to be doing in this thread with alarming
regularity, Nat. :)
>just to comment on how his time as producer was not bad.
Not *all* bad*, or *never* bad? You don't ever specify.
If it's the former, I agree with you - hey I love some JN-T stories; I
just think you're being rather too uncritical. Hence, the necessity of
having to ask, "Not *all* bad, or *Never* bad".
Look Nathan, JN-T did ban DWB from London bookshops in his capacity as
producer of Dr Who. There is no way in the world he could or would
just phone up the bookshop and say, "Hi, I'd like you to stop selling
DWB". No, he had it done as The Producer Of Dr Who, by enforcing the
BBC copyright regulations on fan publications. Yes, he did it for
personal reasons, but the fact is it is one of the things he did,
officially, through BBC channels, as a BBC employee; and doing that
was wrong because it's abusing the system.
>> >> I was thinking more along the lines of stories that JN-T himself
>> >> counted as his absolute favourites - "Time Flight", "Twin Dilemma",
>> >> "Timelash". These stories are all very LE and stagey. Glittery.
>> >> Childish. Pantomime. Crap.
>> >
>> >Like Romans, Time Monster, Seeds of Death, Horns of Nimon.
>>
>> Horns of Nimon is wonderful, really because it knows it isn't very
>> good as "serious" Who - there's an irony to it. There are so many
>> different elements in there; it's not like "Meglos", "Timeflight",
>> "Terminus", "Twin Dilemma" or "Timelash", none of which knows anything
>> about how dreadful it is, except just one element: Paul Darrow's
>> performance in the latter.
>
>I lIke Horns too, doesn't stop it being silly though does it
But it's not only silly, it's also *meant* to be silly, unlike
"Timelash" and "Time and the Rani"!
> and it is
>no different to those you mention.
There are *crucial* differences - "Horns" knows very well that it's
rubbish, and elements like the *consciously* silly story, and
everyone's OTT acting (including Tom & Lalla, much of the time) point
that out. While "Timelash", "Time and the Rani", etc. are silly and
crap without intending to be.
It's the difference between having someone pick up a cream pie, shove
it in his face and say, "Look at me, isn't this funny?" (Horns) and
someone slipping up on a banana skin and going, "Oww, my arse hurts,
boo-hoo!" (Timelash).
One has the person intending to be funny (in "Horns"'s case, it's via
the intentionally silly story, the acting that's so knowingly hammy it
can't be unintentional, and dialogue that is obviously taking the piss
- e.g. "Weakling Scum" every five minutes). While the other has the
person made to look funny via misfortune (in "Timelash"'s case, it's
via abominably dull, po-faced writing; amateurish editing; bland
direction and wooden acting.)
>Every era does it, not just JNT.
Yes, but JN-T does it with a much larger proportion of his stories
than other producers have done.
>> >You mentioned
>> >above that you enjoyed the yearly Pertwee pantomime (?!?) For gods sake
>> >be consistent.
>>
>> I have been - god, you really can't see in colour, can you? Just black
>> & white! Things aren't that simple: as I said, "Time Monster" looks
>> like a panto made by people who knew how to make good TV; it looks
>> like it's taking the piss. While JN-T's pantomime looks like boring
>> glittery shit that doesn't know it's boring glittery shit. You keep
>> missing that crucial difference.
>
>Because there is none
See above.
>> >In all the JNT interviews I have read he mentions the above stories as
>> >those which HE WAS NOT keen on.
>>
>> Does he? There's plenty of recorded evidence which says the opposite -
>> perhaps he's back-engineering his comments. It's well known that, at
>> the time they were made, he raved to various people about how *good*
>> he thought "Twin Dilemma" and "Timeflight" were.
>
>These comments were made at the time, not just recently.
Where? I've heard that he raved about the above two stories as being
better and deserving of more attention than the ones which immediately
preceded them. This was in DWB, and in Whovian Times.
>> >> He treated Peter Grimwade abominably, all because of a slight
>> >> criticism. Grimwade was forced never to direct again for the show when
>> >> that was his real passion. JN-T asked him to write again, but never to
>> >> direct. It was his way of punishing Grimwade. Crazy.
>> >
>> >You are completely misunderstanding the situation that existed there,
>> >and as Grimwade is dead I can see that I can't convivnce you otherwise
>> >(incidentally it was all over a meal, not criticism and Saward took the
>> >brunt of the bile from JNT).
>>
>> HA!! At least my version credits JN-T with a professional reason for
>> treating Grimwade badly - a disagreement, but yours brings home that
>> it was completely UNPROFESSIONAL! A tantrum JN-T threw because he
>> didn't get invited to a dinner party! And you still stick up for JN-T?
>> Oh, the comedy never ends!! ROTFLOL til I burst!!!
>
>I repeat, I'm not sticking up for JNT's personal and private life, we
>all have flaws,
Very true.
>but JNT was still a good producer.
Sometimes IMHO, but not often enough to make him one of the best,
sadly.
>And it wasn't a dinner party it was a lunch meeting. So get your facts
>riht before you comment.
Dinner party, lunch meeting, whatever - the outcome of JN-T's
behaviour was the same: one of the show's more talented directors was
never allowed to work on the show again in the capacity which he most
enjoyed and was best suited.
>> >> He was also talking about Hinchcliffe, "Talons", "Robots of Death",
>> >> "Deadly Assassin", "Web of Fear", "The Daleks", *ALL* the old stories.
>> >> He was saying none of them were as good as his stories - patently
>> >> egomaniacal and deluded.
>> >
>> >No he never.
>>
>> Perhaps not,
>
>So now you admit you've been lying,
How?
>I see, well theres not much point in going further then is there...
Jeez, is no one allowed to change their mind around here? In case you
missed it, that was a sign that you were beginning to bring me around
with what you were saying. To wit, that he was saying all his stories
were better than all other producers' stories - the difference between
that and what I say below is that there is an inherent distinction in
the above statement, and I was saying that I accept the inherent
distinction was my own.
Why you feel this suddenly points out that I've been "lying all along"
is most mysterious. And convenient, too. You could have just not
wanted to deal with the point I'd made:
the gist of his comments was: "They're wrong because
those stories they remember being good aren't - it's their memory
playing tricks". There's no distinction between "The Gunfighters" and
"The Aztecs" in that, just blanket whitewashing of his own stuff.
He is defaming the viewers who *have* got these things on video, and
for whom the memory *doesn't* cheat. This is egomanical in the
extreme: he is putting their opinions down with a factoid, which for a
lot of people is not a fact at all. You said that for you, memories of
the Pertwee era cheated. Well, for a lot of people, me included, they
*didn't*
>> I gathered that much... Presumably because you look up to him and want
>> him to be your big, cuddly daddy? :)
>
>Not worth commenting on really - get a life
Why comment, if it's not worth commenting on? Get a sense of humour!
>> You're defending a cynical policy of compromising the content
>> according to what timeslot you've been given, when it is easily
>> possible to make TV drama that can be broadcast at any time of day,
>> without compromising its artistic merit. And if you can't see that, I
>> pity the people who have to watch the TV you make, oh dear.
>
>I don't defend it, but its the case unfortunately. Even EastEnders was
>forced into a later slot due to complaints about its content. It used to
>be broadcast at 7pm, see even 30 minutes can make a huge difference.
Exactly, it was put into that timeslot based on its content - i.e.,
not the other way around - it didn't dictate its content in a silly,
tabloid-esque "Sun-Vision" manner due to what timeslot it thought it
would get, like JN-T did.
Which is why EastEnders was viewed by millions upon millions of
people, while JN-T's DrWho was only watched by some die-hard viewers
hoping against hope they'd one day get a new producer before it died
(me), and about 30,000 uncritically adoring fans who wouldn't know
shit if you fed them a turd while it was still warm (you, I'm afraid).
Azaxyr
>> Er... Most of fandom hates Attack of the Cybermen???
>> This is news to me...
>> I'm sure it's news to most of fandom too.
>>
>Actually that is the impression that i've always had. Attack...gets a
>lot of unfair criticism in my book. As does Time Flight. And while we
>are at it, so does 'Timelash', 'Delta and the Bannermen', 'Battlefield'
>and 'The Pit'.
No, all those get perfectly fair criticism.
John Carlson
> I prefer Holmes' idea that the Doctor was ALWAYS doing jobs for the CIA
> in return for his freedom. This was highly secret and the High Council
> never knew it. Hence when the Doctor reveals his presence they act and
> exile him. Leaving the CIA pretty pissed off. I think that Peladon
> proves this. It's not a big job for the Timelords (like Colony or 3
> Docs), but the CIA secretly using the TARDIS.
For me this just dose not fit with ethos of the Hartnell era at all. I
can see him being just too much a of a loose cannon to be anyones agent.
But by season five I can see Troughton taking on a few jobs for the
backroom boys if he knows he is being given a large measure of freedom
in return.
Best
John Carlson
Nathan Cooke
> >> That's right. Anyway, I've checked: Paul Bernard didn't direct any of
> >> the "Tomorrow People" episodes I saw. My point still stands - IMHO the
> >> makers of "Time Monster" were just having a laugh; the makers of "Time
> >> and the Rani" thought they were making great TV - but they weren't;
> >> they were making shittysmellypoopoos.
> >
> >Just because you didn't see any with his name on didn't mean he never
> >did it.
>
> DUH - I'm not commenting on the ones I haven't seen, only the ones I
> *have* seen, i.e. the ones Bernard directed could be totally fabulous
> and brilliant.
But there not, infact I rather like the ones he never di, although his
first episode, admittedly is good, but thats just the writing.
> >> My statement above is very reasonable; I still stand by it. Apart from
> >> Inferno, all those stories were full of silly, pantomimic elements -
> >> it was the "end of season" blow-out party. JN-T couldn't restrict
> >> himself to the end of the season though - he had to have a silly,
> >> glitzy gameshow party with every story. When he didn't (e.g. "Caves"),
> >> it was because he was away in America.
> >
> >You made that up, it completely untrue.
>
> No, it comes from DWB - which you're going to say is all lies anyway,
> so why do I bother? JN-T was in America when "Caves" was made.
No he wasn't - check the studio spools and production photo's before you
make such ridiculous statements. He was there. This just proves how
reliable DWB was.
> >> I don't - the POINT was that Eric Saward should have spotted that when
> >> placed against the show's continuity, "2 Docs" didn't make sense, and
> >> edited it accordingly. That was his job: "SCRIPT EDITOR".
> >
> >But it does make sense
>
> Only with your massive (and un-canonical) retconning.
No, only with the writer explaining what he intended - no retcon
required.
> >> >> The point is, how many of those were accused of being "tired and in
> >> >> need of a rest" like Dr Who was?
> >> >
> >> >The point is that they were cut with no explanation.
> >>
> >> So, the answer was "none". Thank you. Which shows a TV programme in
> >> the worst light? Axed with no comment, or axed with added insult that
> >> it's tired and needs a rest?
> >
> >Nonsense. They had to comment on Who, it was the only one reported on
> >the six o clock news. They had to make up an excuse which covered them.
>
> Read my above sentence please - your response doesn't actually respond
> to it. It doesn't answer the question I asked. You don't read very
> well, do you? :)
Yes it does, it explains why they had to make up an excuse. If BBC
management had issued a press release saying that Doctor Who was being
rested for no other reason than the fact that they needed hours for
EastEnders than all hell would have broken loose. This way they had a
way out, and the fact that S22 was scheduled appallingly gave them the
excuse.
> >> JN-T's 24-hour party had to end sometime, Nathan. Please, accept that.
> >
> >No, because its not true.
>
> You're just not making sense, now. *What* isn't true? The 24-hour
> party, or that the 24-hour party had to end? Please, be clear in what
> you're writing. Nathan.
Both - quite clear,
O R D O I H A V E T O S P E L L E V E R Y T H I N G
O U T T O Y O U L I K E A F I V E Y E A R O L D . . .
> >> Think of "City of Death", then think of... Milton Keynes. It doesn't
> >> work, does it?
> >
> >Could be London, Stratford, anywhere with an artistic culture.
>
> Ha!!! Ask any passer by in the street what he or she thinks about this
> Paris vs. Stratford argument and I bet every one would say "Paris".
WHAT? That makes no sense whatsoever, there is no argument. Face it,
that plot could have been set anywhere.
Others on this forum agree.
> >> >> Jeez - watch the story!!!! "A painting like... THE MONA LISA" the Doc
> >> >> says, in such a way that makes you understand exactly what he's
> >> >> talking about: i.e., Constable's Cornfield was not half as famous and
> >> >> world renowned as The Mona Lisa, nor was it painted by daVinci - one
> >> >> of the Doc's favourite people, judging by how often he seems to drop
> >> >> Leonardo's name throughout the show's history - who was also in the
> >> >> plot.
> >
> >look, Tom is an actor. He could have said ANYTHING in that line and it
> >would have had the same intonation "A painting like The Scream", "A play
> >like Hamlet", etc.
>
> Yeah - but more people would have had to go, "Sorry, where"? and
> "Sorry, which painting?", instead of instantly coming back with, "Ahh
> yes - Paris, The Mona Lisa!" Before I moved to the UK I'd never heard
> of Stratford.
Just goes to show what a uneducated little mind you have. Everyone has
heard of Shakespeare, at least more people than Da Vinci.
> All this talk is silly - Paris and The Mona Lisa are important to the
> story, because that's where the story was set in the script - it was
> written for Paris, so filming it with Stratford or Hamlet would've
> been a nonsense, and a cheapification of the script.
Just goes to show that you know NOTHING about what you are talking
about. The script was infact set in Monte Carlo!
> >> Like it or not, the Mona Lisa has gone down into the world's
> >> collective subconscious in a way that so few other painting ever have.
> >> It's virtually a part of race memory. Yes, there *ARE* "other famous
> >> paintings". But - as the Doc said, none
> >>
> >> "Like THE MONA LISA".
> >>
> >> So. I think the Mona Lisa / Paris is important to "City of Death"; you
> >> don't. So. I understand Dr Who; you don't. Simple, isn't it?
> >
> >No because its obvious that youre quite mad and I am reasonable and
> >sane. I think I understand it far better tan you, who is just a twisted
> >little nobody
>
> So says a person who does not know me, and who has never met me. I am
> someone - to my lover, to my friends and to my enemies.
>
> And to you, evidently - or you would have ignored me. I await your
> apology, Nathan.
Me too, and I apologise to descending into the gutter to join you. Your
post that I was responding to was full of cheap jibes and insults aginst
me personally and I was responding in a similar matter. I'll try to
control myself, I suggest you do the same.
> >trying to score points.
>
> Oh dear. Isn't making (or scoring, whatever you want to call it)
> points the whole raison detre of usenet?
Not when there is no basis for any of it.
> >> >> >DWB is still on sale.
> >> >>
> >> >> It wasn't during the time JN-T had it banned from London bookshops....
> >> >
> >> >It was. I always received my copy, but then I don't go to London to buy
> >> >it. I can't get DWM from my local newsagent either, I have to go into
> >> >town, doesn't mean its banned though.
> >>
> >> You seem to be completely disregarding the whole point: he tried to
> >> have it banned from London bookshops, rather than face up to or ignore
> >> the criticisms therein! He engaged in Big Brother tactics, and you're
> >> defending that?
> >
> >"tried" to have it banned now, you change your story at every turn don't
> >you.
>
> Sigh... You know very well what the gist of my meaning was - and if
> you don't, then you're an idiot.
tut, tut, tut -at it agian aren't we.
> He did have it banned from some
> London bookshops, that is a fact. Now will you please stop sulking and
> come back to the point!
The fact is that he never. DWB was a subscription based fanzine
available via post and at events. Forbidden Planet stocked it and always
did.
> >NO I don't defend that.
>
> Thank you.
>
> >I am not here to defend JNT's person,
>
> Well, that's what you seem to be doing in this thread with alarming
> regularity, Nat. :)
No I'm not, I'm defending his stint as producer. Learn the difference,
everyone else understands, youre the only one arguing against with
spurious points.
To get back to the original point, you said the majority of fans hated
JNT's productions. This thread proves THAT YOU are the minority.
> >just to comment on how his time as producer was not bad.
>
> Not *all* bad*, or *never* bad? You don't ever specify.
>
> If it's the former, I agree with you - hey I love some JN-T stories; I
> just think you're being rather too uncritical. Hence, the necessity of
> having to ask, "Not *all* bad, or *Never* bad".
Right from the start I said I hated Pip and Jane, Time and the Rani,
Andrew Morgan, etc.
But what I say is that ALL producers had their equivalents.
> Look Nathan, JN-T did ban DWB from London bookshops in his capacity as
> producer of Dr Who. There is no way in the world he could or would
> just phone up the bookshop and say, "Hi, I'd like you to stop selling
> DWB". No, he had it done as The Producer Of Dr Who, by enforcing the
> BBC copyright regulations on fan publications. Yes, he did it for
> personal reasons, but the fact is it is one of the things he did,
> officially, through BBC channels, as a BBC employee; and doing that
> was wrong because it's abusing the system.
No he didn't, and if you look at the BBC's track record on this you will
see that its not just Who. BBC Soliciters are stopping fan based
Teletubbies web sites and merchandise and all sorts of stuff. If you
think thats bad, ten jeez, you should look at some of the old ITC stuff
- litigation city!! You are putting your own views on a common policy.
> >> >> I was thinking more along the lines of stories that JN-T himself
> >> >> counted as his absolute favourites - "Time Flight", "Twin Dilemma",
> >> >> "Timelash". These stories are all very LE and stagey. Glittery.
> >> >> Childish. Pantomime. Crap.
> >> >
> >> >Like Romans, Time Monster, Seeds of Death, Horns of Nimon.
> >>
> >> Horns of Nimon is wonderful, really because it knows it isn't very
> >> good as "serious" Who - there's an irony to it. There are so many
> >> different elements in there; it's not like "Meglos", "Timeflight",
> >> "Terminus", "Twin Dilemma" or "Timelash", none of which knows anything
> >> about how dreadful it is, except just one element: Paul Darrow's
> >> performance in the latter.
> >
> >I lIke Horns too, doesn't stop it being silly though does it
>
> But it's not only silly, it's also *meant* to be silly, unlike
> "Timelash" and "Time and the Rani"!
>
> > and it is
> >no different to those you mention.
>
> There are *crucial* differences - "Horns" knows very well that it's
> rubbish, and elements like the *consciously* silly story, and
> everyone's OTT acting (including Tom & Lalla, much of the time) point
> that out. While "Timelash", "Time and the Rani", etc. are silly and
> crap without intending to be.
Thats the stupidest argument I have ever heard. Is it OK to make crap
WHO as long as you say its meant to be crap????
> It's the difference between having someone pick up a cream pie, shove
> it in his face and say, "Look at me, isn't this funny?" (Horns) and
> someone slipping up on a banana skin and going, "Oww, my arse hurts,
> boo-hoo!" (Timelash).
I don't get the point, your sense of humour seriously needs checking if
you think either of the above is amusing.
> One has the person intending to be funny (in "Horns"'s case, it's via
> the intentionally silly story, the acting that's so knowingly hammy it
> can't be unintentional, and dialogue that is obviously taking the piss
> - e.g. "Weakling Scum" every five minutes). While the other has the
> person made to look funny via misfortune (in "Timelash"'s case, it's
> via abominably dull, po-faced writing; amateurish editing; bland
> direction and wooden acting.)
Timelash is funnier given the fact that its acted in great seriousness,
like all comedy one should not be aware of it. Ask Andrew Read about
Horns, I doubt he'll tell you that he was taking the piss.
> >Every era does it, not just JNT.
>
> Yes, but JN-T does it with a much larger proportion of his stories
> than other producers have done.
No, not true.
> >> >In all the JNT interviews I have read he mentions the above stories as
> >> >those which HE WAS NOT keen on.
> >>
> >> Does he? There's plenty of recorded evidence which says the opposite -
> >> perhaps he's back-engineering his comments. It's well known that, at
> >> the time they were made, he raved to various people about how *good*
> >> he thought "Twin Dilemma" and "Timeflight" were.
> >
> >These comments were made at the time, not just recently.
>
> Where? I've heard that he raved about the above two stories as being
> better and deserving of more attention than the ones which immediately
> preceded them. This was in DWB, and in Whovian Times.
Oh you have "heard", then IT MUST BE TRUE. I was in England at the time,
got all the mags (including DWB) went to the conventions and JNT was
always willing to talk about his mistakes which included Time Flight
(although I quite like that) Warriors of the Deep and Timelash.
> >> >> He treated Peter Grimwade abominably, all because of a slight
> >> >> criticism. Grimwade was forced never to direct again for the show when
> >> >> that was his real passion. JN-T asked him to write again, but never to
> >> >> direct. It was his way of punishing Grimwade. Crazy.
> >> >
> >> >You are completely misunderstanding the situation that existed there,
> >> >and as Grimwade is dead I can see that I can't convivnce you otherwise
> >> >(incidentally it was all over a meal, not criticism and Saward took the
> >> >brunt of the bile from JNT).
> >>
> >> HA!! At least my version credits JN-T with a professional reason for
> >> treating Grimwade badly - a disagreement, but yours brings home that
> >> it was completely UNPROFESSIONAL! A tantrum JN-T threw because he
> >> didn't get invited to a dinner party! And you still stick up for JN-T?
> >> Oh, the comedy never ends!! ROTFLOL til I burst!!!
> >
> >I repeat, I'm not sticking up for JNT's personal and private life, we
> >all have flaws,
>
> Very true.
>
> >but JNT was still a good producer.
>
> Sometimes IMHO, but not often enough to make him one of the best,
> sadly.
fair enough thats your opinion, I have no quarrel with that.
> >And it wasn't a dinner party it was a lunch meeting. So get your facts
> >riht before you comment.
>
> Dinner party, lunch meeting, whatever - the outcome of JN-T's
> behaviour was the same: one of the show's more talented directors was
> never allowed to work on the show again in the capacity which he most
> enjoyed and was best suited.
There was always an atmosphere, but mainly with Saward. The outcome of
Grimwade never directing was not a product of that, otherwise he
wouldn't have written Planet of Fire.
> >> >> He was also talking about Hinchcliffe, "Talons", "Robots of Death",
> >> >> "Deadly Assassin", "Web of Fear", "The Daleks", *ALL* the old stories.
> >> >> He was saying none of them were as good as his stories - patently
> >> >> egomaniacal and deluded.
> >> >
> >> >No he never.
> >>
> >> Perhaps not,
> >
> >So now you admit you've been lying,
>
> How?
Because you state a fact, I oppose it and then you admit I was right.
Thats how.
> >I see, well theres not much point in going further then is there...
>
> Jeez, is no one allowed to change their mind around here? In case you
> missed it, that was a sign that you were beginning to bring me around
> with what you were saying. To wit, that he was saying all his stories
> were better than all other producers' stories - the difference between
> that and what I say below is that there is an inherent distinction in
> the above statement, and I was saying that I accept the inherent
> distinction was my own.
> the gist of his comments was: "They're wrong because
> those stories they remember being good aren't - it's their memory
> playing tricks". There's no distinction between "The Gunfighters" and
> "The Aztecs" in that, just blanket whitewashing of his own stuff.
he never said that in a blanket way. The memory does cheat, thake that
from a huge fan of Pertwee at 5 yo.
Both the above stories I think are great. There have always been good
stories and there have always been bad stories. Simple as that.
> He is defaming the viewers who *have* got these things on video, and
> for whom the memory *doesn't* cheat. This is egomanical in the
> extreme: he is putting their opinions down with a factoid, which for a
> lot of people is not a fact at all. You said that for you, memories of
> the Pertwee era cheated. Well, for a lot of people, me included, they
> *didn't*
How old were you when you first saw them. I remember Death being one of
the finest stories ever, the city, the daleks, the exilons - superb
(helped by the Weetabix promotion no doubt) In 1987 I bought the video,
invited some friends round, and died of embarrassment.
> >> I gathered that much... Presumably because you look up to him and want
> >> him to be your big, cuddly daddy? :)
> >
> >Not worth commenting on really - get a life
>
> Why comment, if it's not worth commenting on? Get a sense of humour!
lol
> >> You're defending a cynical policy of compromising the content
> >> according to what timeslot you've been given, when it is easily
> >> possible to make TV drama that can be broadcast at any time of day,
> >> without compromising its artistic merit. And if you can't see that, I
> >> pity the people who have to watch the TV you make, oh dear.
> >
> >I don't defend it, but its the case unfortunately. Even EastEnders was
> >forced into a later slot due to complaints about its content. It used to
> >be broadcast at 7pm, see even 30 minutes can make a huge difference.
>
> Exactly, it was put into that timeslot based on its content - i.e.,
> not the other way around - it didn't dictate its content in a silly,
> tabloid-esque "Sun-Vision" manner due to what timeslot it thought it
> would get, like JN-T did.
Thats nonsense, there is no distinction. S22 was made for a later slot
than it was given. S24 was made for an earlier slot than it was given.
EastEnders came in for a lot of stick because of its 7pm slot which it
was made for.
> Which is why EastEnders was viewed by millions upon millions of
> people, while JN-T's DrWho was only watched by some die-hard viewers
> hoping against hope they'd one day get a new producer before it died
> (me), and about 30,000 uncritically adoring fans who wouldn't know
> shit if you fed them a turd while it was still warm (you, I'm afraid).
Back to personal insults again are we?
JNT's who got higher ratings than other eras sometimes, and lower other
times. The series has always had its ups and downs.
Nathan Cooke
Yes, maybe they leant on Troughton more because they were scared of
Hartnell. But they always knew he was there.
Richard Molesworth
Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net> wrote in article
<36BC84...@virgin.net>...
> No he wasn't - check the studio spools and production photo's before you
> make such ridiculous statements. He was there. This just proves how
> reliable DWB was.
The BBC kept no studio material rom 'Caves'. A private collector does hold
a 70-minute iso-camera recording tape of studio material from part 4, and I
can assure you that JNT does not appear on it.
Come to think of it, I can't think of a single production photo from this
story that he appeasr on either....
Richard
Richard Molesworth
Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net> wrote in article
<36BC84...@virgin.net>...
> Just goes to show that you know NOTHING about what you are talking
> about. The script was infact set in Monte Carlo!
'A Gamble In Time' _may_ have been set in Monte Carlo. 'City of Death' was
most certainly set in Paris.....
Richard
Richard Molesworth
Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net> wrote in article
<36BC84...@virgin.net>...
> The fact is that he never. DWB was a subscription based fanzine
> available via post and at events. Forbidden Planet stocked it and always
> did.
Although DWB was available on subscrption, it was also available from
specialist outlets. From issue 3, that is, when JNT saw to it that the
magazine was withdrawn from sale at 'Forbiden Planet' in London. Much,
much later, he managed to get the magazine withdrawn from sale from the
merchandise stall on the tour with the 'Ultimate Adventure' stageplay.
Richard
Nyctolops
>Adam Richards wrote:
>>I mean, why does the Doc in "War
>> Games" explain the Timelords so reluctantly, if Jamie already knows
>> about them?
>>
>ANd they say JNT was too hot on needless continuety!
>Have you not heard of the season 6b theory? Allow me to explain. The
>idea is that the Time Lords decided not to regenerate the Doctor at 'The
>War Games', but instead used him as an agent for a while before sentence
>was carried out. That is why the Doctor looks older and expects to pick
>Victoria up again. They were returned to him because the Time Lords
>recognised that he works better with a companion.
I have heard of the Season 6b theory and it doesn't all gel with me.
If the Time Lords returned Jaimie to the Doctor (restoring his memory
in the process, or he wouldn't know about Victoria) why does the
Doctor decide that the Jaimie he sees in The Five Doctors is a fake,
because he does remember the Doctor? Or are you saying that the Time
Lords fetched Jaimie back, restored his memories of his time with the
Doctor, sent the two of them on some missions, then erased Jaimie's
memories again and sent him back to Culloden?
Karen Jo Nyctolops
rec.arts.drwho General Information FAQ
http://nitro9.earth.uni.edu/doctor/FAQ/faq 1.txt
John Pettigrew
aza...@aol.com (Azaxyr) clattered away at the keyboard and came up
with this:
>ji...@cableinet.co.uk (John Pettigrew) writes:
>
>
>
>>The same goes for Time Flight and Attack of the Cybermen. Most of
>>fandom seems to hate these stories but I always seem to be at odds
>>with "the majority view".
>>
>
>Er... Most of fandom hates Attack of the Cybermen???
>This is news to me...
>I'm sure it's news to most of fandom too.
No, I'm sure I'm right on this one, Azzy. I'm sure the majority view
is that becasue most of the characters die and the strong continuity
references to The Tenth Planet are important, it alienates the casual
viewer. I *love* this story but it's usually derided in fandom.
John Pettigrew
wonderful Philip Craggs <donald...@diamond.co.uk> clattered away
at the keyboard and came up with this:
>Adam Richards wrote:
>>
>> On 25 Jan 1999 13:16:54 GMT, jb...@zipper.zip.com.au (Jonathan Blum)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In fact, I think Holmes was using "Two Doctors" as a chance to canonize
>> >his personal theory -- referred to in an earlier DWM interview -- that the
>> >Time Lords had occasionally been pulling the Doctor's strings before "The
>> >War Games", that they'd sent him on some of his adventures, and that his
>> >"trial" in "War Games" was a sham set up because he'd drawn too much
>> >attention to himself.
>>
>> Fascinating idea - but couldn't he have, like, said this in the script
>> of "2 Docs" with a throwaway line or something? It doesn't really make
>> sense as shown on screen, does it?
>
>It does if you *gasp* use your imagination which some WHo fans seen to
>hate to do. It really annoys me when people slate a story because every
>last stupid detail is not shown on screen. I've even read posts which
>criticised a story because we saw someone get through on the telephone
>first time and we didn't see them trying it a few times first!
>
>I mean, why does the Doc in "War
>> Games" explain the Timelords so reluctantly, if Jamie already knows
>> about them?
>>
>ANd they say JNT was too hot on needless continuety!
>Have you not heard of the season 6b theory? Allow me to explain. The
>idea is that the Time Lords decided not to regenerate the Doctor at 'The
>War Games', but instead used him as an agent for a while before sentence
>was carried out. That is why the Doctor looks older and expects to pick
>Victoria up again. They were returned to him because the Time Lords
>recognised that he works better with a companion.
Or alternatively, the parallel universe Doctor theory (c) John
Pettigrew, which states that the Second Doctor in The Two Doctors was
an alternative version who was never sentenced to exile and
regenerated. He was restricted to only having one companion and he
was given a Stattenheim remote control device in return for doing
missions for the CIA.
Nathan Cooke
>
> Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net> wrote in article
> <36BC84...@virgin.net>...
>
> > make such ridiculous statements. He was there. This just proves how
> > reliable DWB was.
>
> a 70-minute iso-camera recording tape of studio material from part 4, and I
> can assure you that JNT does not appear on it.
>
> Come to think of it, I can't think of a single production photo from this
> story that he appeasr on either....
I also hold the footage :)
And if you read the Harper Classics, Graeme states that he was always
talking over shots with John, in particular the scenes in Morgus' office
where Harper and JNT discussed several shots in the gallery.
Nathan Cooke
>
> Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net> wrote in article
> <36BC84...@virgin.net>...
>
> > about. The script was infact set in Monte Carlo!
>
> most certainly set in Paris.....
Yes, but Paris was inserted into Fisher's original story just because
they disscovered it was possible to go. I was making the point that
Paris was not an integral part of the story.
Nathan Cooke
>
> Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net> wrote in article
> <36BC84...@virgin.net>...
>
> > available via post and at events. Forbidden Planet stocked it and always
> > did.
>
> specialist outlets. From issue 3, that is, when JNT saw to it that the
> magazine was withdrawn from sale at 'Forbiden Planet' in London. Much,
> much later, he managed to get the magazine withdrawn from sale from the
> merchandise stall on the tour with the 'Ultimate Adventure' stageplay.
Which is what I meant by stating Forbidden Planet and "events" i.e the
play and conventions/comic marts etc.
Forbidden Planet always had it in stock when I visited throughout the
mid - late 80's.
Nathan Cooke
> >> Games" explain the Timelords so reluctantly, if Jamie already knows
> >> about them?
> >>
> >ANd they say JNT was too hot on needless continuety!
> >Have you not heard of the season 6b theory? Allow me to explain. The
> >idea is that the Time Lords decided not to regenerate the Doctor at 'The
> >War Games', but instead used him as an agent for a while before sentence
> >was carried out. That is why the Doctor looks older and expects to pick
> >Victoria up again. They were returned to him because the Time Lords
> >recognised that he works better with a companion.
>
> If the Time Lords returned Jaimie to the Doctor (restoring his memory
> in the process, or he wouldn't know about Victoria) why does the
> Doctor decide that the Jaimie he sees in The Five Doctors is a fake,
> because he does remember the Doctor? Or are you saying that the Time
> Lords fetched Jaimie back, restored his memories of his time with the
> Doctor, sent the two of them on some missions, then erased Jaimie's
> memories again and sent him back to Culloden?
Season 6B doesn't sit well with me either. I prefer Holmes' idea that
the Docotr always worked for the CIA in return for his freedom. Your
point makes this even more plausible.
Jonathan Blum
Adam Richards <Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 25 Jan 1999 13:16:54 GMT, jb...@zipper.zip.com.au (Jonathan Blum)
>wrote:
>>In fact, I think Holmes was using "Two Doctors" as a chance to canonize
>>his personal theory -- referred to in an earlier DWM interview -- that the
>>Time Lords had occasionally been pulling the Doctor's strings before "The
>>War Games", that they'd sent him on some of his adventures, and that his
>>"trial" in "War Games" was a sham set up because he'd drawn too much
>>attention to himself.
>Fascinating idea - but couldn't he have, like, said this in the script
>of "2 Docs" with a throwaway line or something?
Considering how JNT got slammed for the scenes in "Attack of the Cybermen"
which consisted of characters standing around explaining continuity
details from stories made 20 years previously, I figure it's probably best
that this time they just got on with the story at hand. I think the
implications work better than spelling out a retcon. Let the fans figure
out the details at home. :-)
Regards,
Jon Blum
Nyctolops
>In article <36d092ee...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>Adam Richards <Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 25 Jan 1999 13:16:54 GMT, jb...@zipper.zip.com.au (Jonathan Blum)
>>wrote:
>>>In fact, I think Holmes was using "Two Doctors" as a chance to canonize
>>>his personal theory -- referred to in an earlier DWM interview -- that the
>>>Time Lords had occasionally been pulling the Doctor's strings before "The
>>>War Games", that they'd sent him on some of his adventures, and that his
>>>"trial" in "War Games" was a sham set up because he'd drawn too much
>>>attention to himself.
>
>>Fascinating idea - but couldn't he have, like, said this in the script
>>of "2 Docs" with a throwaway line or something?
>
>Considering how JNT got slammed for the scenes in "Attack of the Cybermen"
>which consisted of characters standing around explaining continuity
>details from stories made 20 years previously, I figure it's probably best
>that this time they just got on with the story at hand. I think the
>implications work better than spelling out a retcon. Let the fans figure
>out the details at home. :-)
>
Figuring out the details at home is a whole lot more fun anyway. If
everything fit together perfectly and everything was clearly
explained, what on Earth would we on talk about on radw?
Nyctolops
>Nyctolops wrote:
>
>>I have heard of the Season 6b theory and it doesn't all gel with me.
>>If the Time Lords returned Jaimie to the Doctor (restoring his memory
>>in the process, or he wouldn't know about Victoria) why does the
>>Doctor decide that the Jaimie he sees in The Five Doctors is a fake,
>>because he does remember the Doctor? Or are you saying that the Time
>>Lords fetched Jaimie back, restored his memories of his time with the
>>Doctor, sent the two of them on some missions, then erased Jaimie's
>>memories again and sent him back to Culloden?
>>
>>
>>
>
>No, you've gotten the order wrong. Five Docs happens first. The 2nd Doc doesn't
>know that Jamie will eventually be returned to him. Later, the Time Lords
>return Jamie to him and the events of The Two Doctors take place. This also
>gels with the fact that it takes time for the Time Lords to realise that the
>Doctor works better with a companion.
This is Series 6b we are talking about, right? So in the Doctor's
timeline The Two Doctors takes place sometime after the War Games. We
don't know when in the Second Doctor's timeline The Five Doctors takes
place, except that he knows about the results of his trial. This bit
always struck me as a bit odd, as the Doctor seems to be acting on his
own and not on a mission for the CIA when he goes to visit the
Brigadier. The Doctor even tells the Brigadier that he is "bending"
the Laws of Time. My personal theory is that the Second Doctor picked
up a bit more than he should have from the telepathic conference with
the Third Doctor in The Three Doctors and slipped off to see the
Brigadier sometime later because he knew he wouldn't get another
chance to see him before he regenerated.
Nyctolops
>Jon Blum wrote:
>>
>>Considering how JNT got slammed for the scenes in "Attack of the Cybermen"
>>which consisted of characters standing around explaining continuity
>>details from stories made 20 years previously, I figure it's probably best
>>that this time they just got on with the story at hand. I think the
>>implications work better than spelling out a retcon. Let the fans figure
>>out the details at home. :-)
>>
>>
>
>Oddly, I agree with Jon on this one. One of the things that I like about Doctor
>Who is that there are so many different ways to explain different things. It is
>utterly amasing how many different routes we can take to get from point A to
>point B. One of the things that I have hated so far with the MA/NAs is that
>many of the authors have made their pet theories fact. I hate this. Just let
>the fans use their own explanations for how these things occur. Don't ruin our
>theories by putting your own into the continuity.
Oddly enough, having my pet theories bashed by the books doesn't
bother me much at all; I just come up with a new one. Sometimes an
author will have a story that actually comes very close to my pet
theory and I just absolutely love it. There were some elements in
First Frontier that meshed in with my theories on what happened to the
Master after Survival rather closely in spots and David A. McIntee did
it so much more elegantly than I did in my mind that I was absolutely
delighted. On the other hand, Lungbarrow completely smashed my pet
theory on why the Doctor *really* left Gallifrey into tiny little
bits, but Lungbarrow was much more interesting to me than my theory
had been that I didn't mind at all. Sometimes I just have to
rearrange my theory a little bit to accomodate a new book. Anyway,
isn't that why they are called "theories"--they are constantly
changing and being updated due to new information?
Dastari
>I have heard of the Season 6b theory and it doesn't all gel with me.
>If the Time Lords returned Jaimie to the Doctor (restoring his memory
>in the process, or he wouldn't know about Victoria) why does the
>Doctor decide that the Jaimie he sees in The Five Doctors is a fake,
>because he does remember the Doctor? Or are you saying that the Time
>Lords fetched Jaimie back, restored his memories of his time with the
>Doctor, sent the two of them on some missions, then erased Jaimie's
>memories again and sent him back to Culloden?
>
>
>
No, you've gotten the order wrong. Five Docs happens first. The 2nd Doc doesn't
know that Jamie will eventually be returned to him. Later, the Time Lords
return Jamie to him and the events of The Two Doctors take place. This also
gels with the fact that it takes time for the Time Lords to realise that the
Doctor works better with a companion.
This sig under construction
Denis Leary and Bob working for a better tomorrow!
Dastari
>In article <36d092ee...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>Adam Richards <Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 25 Jan 1999 13:16:54 GMT, jb...@zipper.zip.com.au (Jonathan Blum)
>>wrote:
>>>In fact, I think Holmes was using "Two Doctors" as a chance to canonize
>>>his personal theory -- referred to in an earlier DWM interview -- that the
>>>Time Lords had occasionally been pulling the Doctor's strings before "The
>>>War Games", that they'd sent him on some of his adventures, and that his
>>>"trial" in "War Games" was a sham set up because he'd drawn too much
>>>attention to himself.
>
>>Fascinating idea - but couldn't he have, like, said this in the script
>>of "2 Docs" with a throwaway line or something?
>
>Considering how JNT got slammed for the scenes in "Attack of the Cybermen"
>which consisted of characters standing around explaining continuity
>details from stories made 20 years previously, I figure it's probably best
>that this time they just got on with the story at hand. I think the
>implications work better than spelling out a retcon. Let the fans figure
>out the details at home. :-)
>
>
Oddly, I agree with Jon on this one. One of the things that I like about Doctor
Who is that there are so many different ways to explain different things. It is
utterly amasing how many different routes we can take to get from point A to
point B. One of the things that I have hated so far with the MA/NAs is that
many of the authors have made their pet theories fact. I hate this. Just let
the fans use their own explanations for how these things occur. Don't ruin our
theories by putting your own into the continuity.
Dastari
>This is Series 6b we are talking about, right?
Yup
>So in the Doctor's
>timeline The Two Doctors takes place sometime after the War Games.
Yup
> We
>don't know when in the Second Doctor's timeline The Five Doctors takes
>place, except that he knows about the results of his trial.
Which places it after War Games.
> This bit
>always struck me as a bit odd, as the Doctor seems to be acting on his
>own and not on a mission for the CIA when he goes to visit the
>Brigadier.
He was probably between missions.
> The Doctor even tells the Brigadier that he is "bending"
>the Laws of Time.
The Two Doctors implies that the Doctor doesn't always do what he's told. (Why
else do the Time Lords take control of the TARDIS to take him to the station?)
> My personal theory is that the Second Doctor picked
>up a bit more than he should have from the telepathic conference with
>the Third Doctor in The Three Doctors and slipped off to see the
>Brigadier sometime later because he knew he wouldn't get another
>chance to see him before he regenerated.
>
>
If you regard the novels as canon, which you appear to, then you must know that
this can't be. The Empire of Glass makes it quite clear that the Doctors minds
were wiped after the Three Doctors.
Daniel Frankham
>On Sat, 06 Feb 1999 08:19:28 +0000, the incredibly fluffy and
>wonderful Philip Craggs <donald...@diamond.co.uk> clattered away
>at the keyboard and came up with this:
>>Have you not heard of the season 6b theory? Allow me to explain. The
>>idea is that the Time Lords decided not to regenerate the Doctor at 'The
>>War Games', but instead used him as an agent for a while before sentence
>>was carried out. That is why the Doctor looks older and expects to pick
>>Victoria up again. They were returned to him because the Time Lords
>
>Or alternatively, the parallel universe Doctor theory (c) John
>Pettigrew, which states that the Second Doctor in The Two Doctors was
>an alternative version who was never sentenced to exile and
>regenerated. He was restricted to only having one companion and he
>was given a Stattenheim remote control device in return for doing
>missions for the CIA.
It seems that the Doctor Substitution Theory (Š Daniel Frankham) is
overdue for an airing...
Shortly after his trial, and before the sentence was carried out, a
faction of Time Lords (probably the CIA or a faction thereof) rescue
the Doctor, on the condition that he work for them in return for his
freedom.
At the same time, they kidnap another hapless Time Lord, erase his
memory, and substitute the memories of the Doctor. Thus, when the Time
Lord tribunal checks up on the Doctor, they see that someone calling
himself the Doctor has indeed arrived on Earth at the appropriate
time. The conspirators make a few minor alterations to the new
"Doctor'"s memories, so he is not aware that (eg) he used to have only
one heart, which might tip him off if he realised his memories don't
concur with his actual biology.
Thus, from season 7 on, the protagonist of the show is a different
Time Lord to the one was saw in seasons 1 to 6. We don't see the
"real" Doctor again until The Two Doctors (or maybe The Five
Doctors)...
This theory explains:
The 2nd Doctor and Jamie being so much older in T2D.
Dialogue between the Doctor and Jamie which seems to make it
impossible to place T2D in the conventional Troughton era.
The 2nd Doctor's TARDIS being as up-to-date as the 6th Doctor's in
T2D; also, the 2nd Doctor having a gadget the 6th Doctor "always
wanted".
The faces in the Brain of Morbius: some of them are previous
incarnations of the Time Lord who was given the Doctor's memories.
The 1st Doctor's biology being different to the 3rd and subsequent
Doctors -- one heart, and needing artificial assistance to
"rejuvenate".
The fact that the 6th Doctor can say "I always wanted one of those",
without observing that he must have had one if he used to be the 2nd
Doctor, suggests that by his 6th incarnation the Doctor must be aware
that he is not the "original" Doctor, and he has presumably come to
terms with this. I suspect that the "original" Doctor's
not-quite-a-Time-Lord biology may mean that he can't regenerate
normally... the Troughton Doctor may thus have been the last "real"
Doctor.
===========================================================================
The television critic, whatever his pretensions, does not labour in the
same vineyard as those he criticizes; his grapes are all sour.
--Frederic Raphael
Richard Molesworth
Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net> wrote in article
<36BCCA...@virgin.net>...
> Richard Molesworth wrote:
> >
> > Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net> wrote in article
> > <36BC84...@virgin.net>...
> >
> > > No he wasn't - check the studio spools and production photo's before
you
> > > make such ridiculous statements. He was there. This just proves how
> > > reliable DWB was.
> >
> > The BBC kept no studio material rom 'Caves'. A private collector does
hold
> > a 70-minute iso-camera recording tape of studio material from part 4,
and I
> > can assure you that JNT does not appear on it.
> >
> > Come to think of it, I can't think of a single production photo from
this
> > story that he appeasr on either....
>
> I also hold the footage :)
> And if you read the Harper Classics, Graeme states that he was always
> talking over shots with John, in particular the scenes in Morgus' office
> where Harper and JNT discussed several shots in the gallery.
So the 'studio spools and production photo's' don't really back up your
argument then...???
Richard
Richard Molesworth
Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net> wrote in article
<36BCCA...@virgin.net>...
> Richard Molesworth wrote:
> >
> > Nathan Cooke <n.c...@virgin.net> wrote in article
> > <36BC84...@virgin.net>...
> >
> > > The fact is that he never. DWB was a subscription based fanzine
> > > available via post and at events. Forbidden Planet stocked it and
always
> > > did.
> >
> > Although DWB was available on subscrption, it was also available from
> > specialist outlets. From issue 3, that is, when JNT saw to it that the
> > magazine was withdrawn from sale at 'Forbiden Planet' in London. Much,
> > much later, he managed to get the magazine withdrawn from sale from the
> > merchandise stall on the tour with the 'Ultimate Adventure' stageplay.
>
> Which is what I meant by stating Forbidden Planet and "events" i.e the
> play and conventions/comic marts etc.
> Forbidden Planet always had it in stock when I visited throughout the
> mid - late 80's.
Hang on a moment. The debate went something like this....
Nathan
> >> >> >DWB is still on sale.
Adam
> >> >> It wasn't during the time JN-T had it banned from London
bookshops....
Nathan
> >> >It was. I always received my copy, but then I don't go to London to
buy
> >> >it. I can't get DWM from my local newsagent either, I have to go into
> >> >town, doesn't mean its banned though.
Adam
> >> You seem to be completely disregarding the whole point: he tried to
> >> have it banned from London bookshops, rather than face up to or ignore
> >> the criticisms therein! He engaged in Big Brother tactics, and you're
> >> defending that?
Nathan
> >"tried" to have it banned now, you change your story at every turn don't
> >you.
Adam
> Sigh... You know very well what the gist of my meaning was - and if
> you don't, then you're an idiot.
.> He did have it banned from some
> London bookshops, that is a fact. Now will you please stop sulking and
> come back to the point!
Nathan
The fact is that he never. DWB was a subscription based fanzine
available via post and at events. Forbidden Planet stocked it and always
did.
You were quite catagorically stating that JNT _never_ banned FP from
selling DWB. Well he did. And he also stopped it being sold at other
places. FP stopped stocking DWB from issue 3 in 1983. They did start
selling it again some considerable time later.
Richard
John Carlson
> Yes, maybe they leant on Troughton more because they were scared of
> Hartnell. But they always knew he was there.
Just like local government realy.
Best
John Carlson
Nathan Cooke
Easily solved this one Dastari, just done accept the books as canon.
Read them and enjoy them as you would any comic strip or other media
who. That way you can discount it all if the series ever came back. If I
was to ever get commissioned to write a novel I would never expect it to
be considered canon, I would certainly follow continuity of the series,
but not neccessarily other books.
Thats how me and you can completely differ over that Season 6b theory,
personally I think it sucks :)