Doc's 5,6 & 7 were reflection of JNT's attitude
Segonax
Hi All.
Dunno if my other message made it through or not, but I realised some
interesting similarities between JNT and his Doctors...
JNT lacked originality.
This was displayed immediately when he chose the young Peter Davison to be
a 'Tristram-clone' Doctor and Matthew Waterhouse to be a 'cosmic artful
dodger'.
Then, after three years as producer, his arrogant attitude was reflected in
(further lack of originality) Hartnell-clone Colin Baker. The costume
represented his screwy conception of Doctor Who. The result? A basic
failure of a Doctor, in viewing terms etc.
Then, he chose Sylvester McCoy, a Troughton-clone. JNT's silly, bumbling
conception of Who was represented in McCoy's characterisation, causing the
most disasterous excuse for Who the series has seen.
The aftermath: Peter Davison is virtually ignored for years, and the odd
fans who care are bringing him back in books, comic strips etc. Fans such
as Paul Cornell try and smooth out the ColDoc disaster by creating some
bizarre, warped mythology around him (ie. Time's Champion predecessor).
McCoy's character is darkened and lost beyond redemption in the NA's and
now everybody wants a regeneration. The fact is, he didn't have a character
in the first place.
A prediction: JNT's Doc #8 would have been a hopelessly depressed
Pertwee-clone, with almost no recognition to 'Doctor Who' whatsoever,
causing
the series' final death.
Further comment: don't tell me Tom Baker's departure had *nothing* to do
with JNT.
Admittedly, JNT strived for a more adult approach to the series (which, IMO
was doing fine in season 15), and he acheived this once: in _Caves of
Androzani_, illustrating the frightening amount of potential Who has.
Hopefully, Amblin will listen to what the fans have to say, read the best
of
the NA's and not totally ruin the series by over-Americanising it.
David McKinnon
Segonax <g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>JNT lacked originality.
Huh. Well, I don't know what you mean by that, but I think some of the
"Doctor Who" stories while he was producer are amongst the best the
show has ever seen. And amongst the most original -- what other story
is like "Caves of Androzani"? "Curse of Fenric"? "Castrovalva"?
>This was displayed immediately when he chose the young Peter Davison to be
>a 'Tristram-clone' Doctor and Matthew Waterhouse to be a 'cosmic artful
>dodger'.
Adric a "cosmic artiful dodger"? Apart from that bread-stealing scene in
"State of Decay", and some of the scenes in "Full Circle", I don't recall any
evidence of that kind of characterisation of Adric.
A moanin' minnie, yes. Annoying, yes. Arrogant, yes. But sneaky?
*Witty*? Dishonest? I don't see it.
And if you meant "Tristan Farnon" by "Tristram" above, then I again don't
see the resemblance, except that they were played by the same actor.
Tristan was young, irresponsible, happy-go-lucky, and easily discouraged.
Peter Davison's Doctor was old, meticulously dutiful, fairly serious,
and determined.
>Then, after three years as producer, his arrogant attitude was reflected in
>(further lack of originality) Hartnell-clone Colin Baker. The costume
>represented his screwy conception of Doctor Who. The result? A basic
>failure of a Doctor, in viewing terms etc.
"Hartnell-clone"? I hardly think that's fair. Colin was more outright
obnoxious than tetchy (as Hartnell was), and in any case was far more
energetic than Hartnell ever was. Could you see Doctor #1 leaping out
of the way of a rockfall? Or leaping on top of an Androgum and stifling
it to death?
>Then, he chose Sylvester McCoy, a Troughton-clone. JNT's silly, bumbling
>conception of Who was represented in McCoy's characterisation, causing the
>most disasterous excuse for Who the series has seen.
McCoy's and Troughton's characters were much more similar, I'll grant
you. But were McCoy's stories *all* awful? I liked "Curse of Fenric"
an awful lot, and it certainly had a lot more plot to it than some of the
Graham Williams season 17 stuff. "Remembrance of the Daleks" was pretty
good, too, I think, and "Happiness Patrol" is not bad for mind candy.
>The aftermath: Peter Davison is virtually ignored for years,
Compared to whom? Tom Baker is about the only Doctor who is more famous
in the role than Peter Davison, as far as I know. He certainly gets shown
in reruns here more often than Pertwee, Troughton, and Hartnell put together.
[various comments about the JNT years deleted]
>Admittedly, JNT strived for a more adult approach to the series (which, IMO
>was doing fine in season 15), and he acheived this once: in _Caves of
>Androzani_, illustrating the frightening amount of potential Who has.
So "Resurrection of the Daleks", "Curse of Fenric", "Castrovalva", "Kinda",
"Frontios", and "Logopolis" were all childish rubbish? I know I must be
misinterpreting you here, because this seems a bit much, but I'm struggling
to understand what you mean.
Basically, are you saying that "Caves of Androzani" is the only Who worth
watching after "The Horns of Nimon"?
If not, what *are* you saying?
>Hopefully, Amblin will listen to what the fans have to say, read the best
>of the NA's and not totally ruin the series by over-Americanising it.
Well ... I'm not sure what this has to do with the rest of the post, but
I, for one, hope that Amblin does *not* listen to the fans all that much,
and I don't care which NAs they read (as long as they don't steal plots from
the bad ones (-:).
Of course, I also hope Amblin doesn't ruin the series. That would be suck.
--David "Lord Niiiimoooon ... here, kitty, kitty" McKinnon
mcki...@math.berkeley.edu
Laurence Jason Koehn
>In article <g9106936-1...@graneekmac4.anu.edu.au>,
>Segonax <g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>JNT lacked originality.
>>This was displayed immediately when he chose the young Peter Davison to be
>>a 'Tristram-clone' Doctor and Matthew Waterhouse to be a 'cosmic artful
>>dodger'.
>Adric a "cosmic artiful dodger"? Apart from that bread-stealing scene in
>"State of Decay", and some of the scenes in "Full Circle", I don't recall any
>evidence of that kind of characterisation of Adric.
If I'm not mistaken, the "artful dodger" was the characterization originally
intended for Adric, but somehow he just ended up being rather bland. I think
he would have been better as an artful dodger--but I think it's more the
fault of the writers than of JNT.
>And if you meant "Tristan Farnon" by "Tristram" above, then I again don't
>see the resemblance, except that they were played by the same actor.
>Tristan was young, irresponsible, happy-go-lucky, and easily discouraged.
Davison himself has said that he played the Doctor "like Tristan, but
brave". But again, if anyone is to 'blame' for this, it is Davison, not
JNT. Personally I *liked* Davison's Doctor.
>Peter Davison's Doctor was old, meticulously dutiful, fairly serious,
>and determined.
-lk
James Hammerton
: (first time message, here goes...)
: Hi All.
: Dunno if my other message made it through or not, but I realised some
: interesting similarities between JNT and his Doctors...
: JNT lacked originality.
: This was displayed immediately when he chose the young Peter Davison to be
: a 'Tristram-clone' Doctor and Matthew Waterhouse to be a 'cosmic artful
: dodger'.
Whilst Davison's doctor was rather like Tristan from "All creature's great and
small" I though he did play the part rather well.
: Then, after three years as producer, his arrogant attitude was reflected in
: (further lack of originality) Hartnell-clone Colin Baker. The costume
Colin Baker's doctor was meant to be depressed and having a mid-life
crisis. How is this anything like Hartnell?
: represented his screwy conception of Doctor Who. The result? A basic
: failure of a Doctor, in viewing terms etc.
True, Colin Baker's era was a bit of a disaster - that was not Colin Baker's
fault, he can act well and could really have made a good doctor given the
chance - see how well he plays a Doctor-like character in the `Stranger'
videos. Also if you read the 6th Doctor Handbook you'll realise that behind the
scenes everything was in turmoil, with format and scheduling changes, an entire
season cancelled just when the scripts were ready, Eric Saward falling out
with JNT and the writer of 'Trial of a Timelord' dying. Some of this can be
blamed on JNT, but certainly not all, and hardly any of it on Colin Baker.
The entire team was under a lot of pressure, with the BBC big guns being
hostile and a hostile press.
: Then, he chose Sylvester McCoy, a Troughton-clone. JNT's silly, bumbling
: conception of Who was represented in McCoy's characterisation, causing the
: most disasterous excuse for Who the series has seen.
Here I would strongly disagree, yes season 24 was possibly the worst season
the program saw, but the last two seasons saw classics such as
`Remembrance of the Daleks', where McCoy plays the Doctor brilliantly,
combining his clowning about with a sinister edge to make a truly worthwhile DW
story, and `The Curse of Fenric' where McCoy's portrayal of a mysterious,
brooding and manipulative Doctor is superb. Both of these are every bit as
enjoyable as other classics such as the Pyramids of Mars, or Genesis of
the Daleks, and prove that McCoy too can play the part every bit as well
as _any_ of the others. Also McCoy volunteered to play the part of the
Doctor after the Beeb went over JNT's head and sacked Colin Baker. IMHO the
McCoy era, post season 24, was a big improvement on the Colin Baker era.
: The aftermath: Peter Davison is virtually ignored for years, and the odd
: fans who care are bringing him back in books, comic strips etc. Fans such
: as Paul Cornell try and smooth out the ColDoc disaster by creating some
: bizarre, warped mythology around him (ie. Time's Champion predecessor).
: McCoy's character is darkened and lost beyond redemption in the NA's and
: now everybody wants a regeneration. The fact is, he didn't have a character
: in the first place.
Where do you get these impressions from?
: A prediction: JNT's Doc #8 would have been a hopelessly depressed
: Pertwee-clone, with almost no recognition to 'Doctor Who' whatsoever,
: causing
: the series' final death.
I'm not so sure - the series was on a definite upwards swing in quality
at the end. Nevertheless JNT, IMHO, would have needed to be replaced had
the program continued, especially if this also involved a new doctor.
: Further comment: don't tell me Tom Baker's departure had *nothing* to do
: with JNT.
I expect it had a lot to do with him, but by then Tom Baker was growing over
possessive of the role, and I think it was time for a change. It should be
noted that the final season of Tom Baker's era got only 5.8 million viewers in
the UK, the subsequent 4 seasons(ie entire Davison era through to 1st season
Colin Baker) got between 7 and 9 million viewers - comparable to the figures
for Hartnell, Troughton and Pertwee, even if not up at the dizzying heights of
the Tom Baker era(with between 9 and 12 million viewers for most seasons).
This suggests the public were tiring of something towards the end of Tom
Baker's era.
: Admittedly, JNT strived for a more adult approach to the series (which, IMO
: was doing fine in season 15), and he acheived this once: in _Caves of
: Androzani_, illustrating the frightening amount of potential Who has.
Actually the series had become little more than a comedy show for seasons
16 and 17. Season 18 - JNT's first season and the last Tom Baker season - is an
improvement on that and has some very good stories in it, for example 'State
of Decay' and 'Keeper of Traken'. I think he made a refreshing change after
Graeme Williams had produced it, and did a competent job with Davison's
seasons. Stories such as Kinda, Castrovalva, Resurrection of the Daleks and
yes, Caves of Androzani were all very good and worthy of the program. The real
trouble only started with Twin Dilemma, and the Colin Baker era. It reached
it's low point in season 24 which became little better than pantomime. However
seasons 25 and 26 showed some real merit, but by then it was too late.
In my view the main mistake surrounding JNT's era was that he was allowed to
stay for so long - no other DW producer had been around for more than 4 years.
JNT was around for 9 years. In the Colin Baker era I felt he'd run out of
steam, unfortunately this also coincided with the BBC's new found hatred of
the program and consequently DW was pissed around with for the remaining
seasons. JNT was part of the problem, but not in my opinion the main
cause, and he has produced some very good stories(IMHO). He relied too much
on continuity references, and made some very questionable decisions(e.g.
Bonnie Langford, the 6th Doctor's costume, season 24's silliness, the Rani),
but he(and everyone else at that time involved) was under pressure to try and
stop the upper echelons of the Beeb axing the program, and to combat the
bad treatment of the program by the press.
: Hopefully, Amblin will listen to what the fans have to say, read the best
: of
: the NA's and not totally ruin the series by over-Americanising it.
This I can agree with - but I'm quite optimistic after reading the stuff
being posted by Randy & Jean Marc Lofficier.
: BFN
: g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au
James
--
James Hammerton, University of Edinburgh, Email: jam...@aisb.ed.ac.uk
"If I have not seen farther, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders." - Anonymous
Philip James Fairweather
(David McKinnon) wrote:
Could you see Doctor #1 leaping out
> of the way of a rockfall? Or leaping on top of an Androgum and stifling
> it to death?
>
Oh, I don't know...smashing a French work supervisor over the head with a
pickaxe in "The Reign of Terror" and beating up a Roboman with his stick in
"The Dalek Invasion of Earth" were fairly memorable occasions, but, yes,
the 6th Doctor was still nothing like him!
Philip Fairweather
(pjf...@hermes.cam.ac.uk)
Paul Cornell
g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au writes:
>(first time message, here goes...)
> Bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, DWBloving bollocks...
Whew, what's his second message going to be like? I love this man!
Somebody flame him for me, darlings...
ph999...@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu
> (first time message, here goes...)
> Hi All.
>
> Dunno if my other message made it through or not, but I realised some
> interesting similarities between JNT and his Doctors...
> JNT lacked originality.
> This was displayed immediately when he chose the young Peter Davison to be
> a 'Tristram-clone' Doctor and Matthew Waterhouse to be a 'cosmic artful
> dodger'.
First of all, it was Tristan with an "n", not an "m."
Secondly, I don't see how either of these points helps your argument.
For one thing, the Fifth Doctor was a hell of a lot more than just a Tristan
clone. For the other, I can't say I see how asking Waterhouse to play a
cosmic artful dodger means a lack of originality. Every character in the
history of drama fits into some sort of classical mold, and this happens
to be Adric's. Besides this, the phrase "cosmic artful dodger" was made
more for sound bites the press could clamp down on than the writers
and actors of the series.
> Then, after three years as producer, his arrogant attitude was reflected in
> (further lack of originality) Hartnell-clone Colin Baker. The costume
> represented his screwy conception of Doctor Who. The result? A basic
> failure of a Doctor, in viewing terms etc.
The costume represented the screwy effects of the fifth regeneration more
than anything else. Colin's Doctor was irascible and arrogant like Hartnell's,
but he was very different in that his mood swings were more dramatic,
his intelligence was much more constant, and he was much more of a crusading
hero than the not-wanting-to-interfere Doctor Hartnell played.
I could list some more differences, but I think my point is clear.
> Then, he chose Sylvester McCoy, a Troughton-clone. JNT's silly, bumbling
> conception of Who was represented in McCoy's characterisation, causing the
> most disasterous excuse for Who the series has seen.
Wrong. His choosing of Sylvester McCoy caused two of the best years Who
has ever seen.
As for McCoy being a Troughton clone, I'd say you're half-right. He's
about 50% Troughton. The rest is a mix of Hartnell's temper and a mysterious
aura that had been missing since Troughton left the series.
> The aftermath: Peter Davison is virtually ignored for years, and the odd
> fans who care are bringing him back in books, comic strips etc.
Pardon me, but I thought that the only way any of the Doctors could be
"brought back" were in books and comic strips since the BBC aren't making
the TV series.
Fans such
> as Paul Cornell try and smooth out the ColDoc disaster by creating some
> bizarre, warped mythology around him (ie. Time's Champion predecessor).
> McCoy's character is darkened and lost beyond redemption in the NA's and
> now everybody wants a regeneration. The fact is, he didn't have a character
> in the first place.
NAs are nothing more than speculation by each individual author. TV series
need to convince a lot more people before they reach an audience, hence they
don't fall into the pretentious pitfalls the NAs do.
BTW, I think the wish for a regeneration in some circles probably has more
to do with the number of NAs written about McCoy (which when added to the
TV shows make 30-something, don't they?).
> A prediction: JNT's Doc #8 would have been a hopelessly depressed
> Pertwee-clone, with almost no recognition to 'Doctor Who' whatsoever,
> causing
> the series' final death.
JNT would never have cast a Doc #8. He wanted to leave the series when
McCoy started, and McCoy was the only thing that kept him on. When McCoy
would have left, so would JNT.
> Further comment: don't tell me Tom Baker's departure had *nothing* to do
> with JNT.
Tom Baker's departure had nothing to do with JNT. We've learned this much
from when Chris Bidmead was here.
> Admittedly, JNT strived for a more adult approach to the series (which, IMO
> was doing fine in season 15), and he acheived this once: in _Caves of
> Androzani_, illustrating the frightening amount of potential Who has.
> Hopefully, Amblin will listen to what the fans have to say, read the best
> of
> the NA's and not totally ruin the series by over-Americanising it.
Hopefully Amblin will not read the NAs at all but just get on with their series.
>
> BFN
> g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au
Welcome aboard. It'll be fun arguing with you. :)
Segonax
> In article <g9106936-1...@graneekmac4.anu.edu.au>,
> Segonax <g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> >JNT lacked originality.
>
> Huh. Well, I don't know what you mean by that, but I think some of the
> "Doctor Who" stories while he was producer are amongst the best the
> show has ever seen. And amongst the most original -- what other story
> is like "Caves of Androzani"? "Curse of Fenric"? "Castrovalva"?
I knew I shouldn't have mentioned _Caves_, alot of fans are heated about it
being the 'best Who story ever'. IMO, it is not, but it *is* the most
adult.
It's also, surprisingly, the most religious.
The stories you mention above did not, of course, lack originality, but
their
originality was due to the writers, NOT JNT. JNT lacked originality by his
choice of Doctors (clones) and his introduction of tacky, soapy
relationships
between the companions and the Doctor, *especially* in the overrated
_Earthshock_.
> >This was displayed immediately when he chose the young Peter Davison to be
> >a 'Tristram-clone' Doctor and Matthew Waterhouse to be a 'cosmic artful
> >dodger'.
>
> Adric a "cosmic artiful dodger"? Apart from that bread-stealing scene in
> "State of Decay", and some of the scenes in "Full Circle", I don't recall any
> evidence of that kind of characterisation of Adric.
JNT was looking for a 'cosmic artful dodger' to be a companion. Complete
cliched rubbish.
> A moanin' minnie, yes. Annoying, yes. Arrogant, yes. But sneaky?
> *Witty*? Dishonest? I don't see it.
I said his attitude was reflected in his *choice* of Doctor
characterisations,
not companions.
> And if you meant "Tristan Farnon" by "Tristram" above, then I again don't
> see the resemblance, except that they were played by the same actor.
> Tristan was young, irresponsible, happy-go-lucky, and easily discouraged.
>
> Peter Davison's Doctor was old, meticulously dutiful, fairly serious,
> and determined.
Funny. JNT also stated that he wanted the 5th Doctor to be like Tristran
Farnon. He was executive producer of "All Creatures..." to my knowledge.
> >Then, after three years as producer, his arrogant attitude was reflected in
> >(further lack of originality) Hartnell-clone Colin Baker. The costume
> >represented his screwy conception of Doctor Who. The result? A basic
> >failure of a Doctor, in viewing terms etc.
>
> "Hartnell-clone"? I hardly think that's fair. Colin was more outright
> obnoxious than tetchy (as Hartnell was), and in any case was far more
> energetic than Hartnell ever was. Could you see Doctor #1 leaping out
> of the way of a rockfall? Or leaping on top of an Androgum and stifling
> it to death?
Absolutely not. But ColDoc's arrogant, tetchy nature is a blatant copy of
Hartnells. I might be able to scratch up a reference to this one too...
> >Then, he chose Sylvester McCoy, a Troughton-clone. JNT's silly, bumbling
> >conception of Who was represented in McCoy's characterisation, causing the
> >most disasterous excuse for Who the series has seen.
>
> McCoy's and Troughton's characters were much more similar, I'll grant
> you. But were McCoy's stories *all* awful? I liked "Curse of Fenric"
> an awful lot, and it certainly had a lot more plot to it than some of the
> Graham Williams season 17 stuff. "Remembrance of the Daleks" was pretty
> good, too, I think, and "Happiness Patrol" is not bad for mind candy.
No, McCoy's stories were not all awful for stories. As Who stories they
weren't Who, so this rather defies the purpose of a long-running series.
> >The aftermath: Peter Davison is virtually ignored for years,
>
> Compared to whom? Tom Baker is about the only Doctor who is more famous
> in the role than Peter Davison, as far as I know. He certainly gets shown
> in reruns here more often than Pertwee, Troughton, and Hartnell put together.
Peter Davison is famous but note that the show lost alot of its audience
at his arrival. He also seems to be less popular with the fans, and thus
comic strips etc. have concentrated more on the earlier or current Doctors.
> >Admittedly, JNT strived for a more adult approach to the series (which, IMO
> >was doing fine in season 15), and he acheived this once: in _Caves of
> >Androzani_, illustrating the frightening amount of potential Who has.
>
> So "Resurrection of the Daleks", "Curse of Fenric", "Castrovalva", "Kinda",
> "Frontios", and "Logopolis" were all childish rubbish? I know I must be
> misinterpreting you here, because this seems a bit much, but I'm struggling
> to understand what you mean.
I love all of these, but _Caves_ is by far the most adult and professional.
_Resurrection_ was badly and tackily done (filing into the ranks of good
Who ;),
_Frontios_ was brilliant, bar Mark Strickson.
> Basically, are you saying that "Caves of Androzani" is the only Who worth
> watching after "The Horns of Nimon"?
I'm saying that _Caves_ took full advantage of what "Doctor Who" is, with a
professional approach. Answering your question, I'd rather watch *anything*
than season 20.
ciao for now.
David McKinnon
Segonax <g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <353gq3$b...@agate.berkeley.edu>, mcki...@beirut.berkeley.edu
>(David McKinnon) wrote:
[re: "Caves of Androzani"]
>It's also, surprisingly, the most religious.
Huh?!? What's the climate like on your planet?
Please explain to me how "Caves of Androzani" was more religious than
"The Crusades". Or "Kinda".
In fact, I'd be interested to know how you find religious themes in "Caves"
at all.
>The stories you mention above did not, of course, lack originality, but
>their
>originality was due to the writers, NOT JNT.
>JNT lacked originality by his
>choice of Doctors (clones) and his introduction of tacky, soapy
>relationships
>between the companions and the Doctor, *especially* in the overrated
>_Earthshock_.
Well, we agree on one thing: that "Earthshock" is overrated. (-:
You claimed earlier that Colin Baker's Doctor was a clone of Hartnell's. This
means that you claim that they are *exactly* the same. Did you not mean to
claim this?
If you did, then it is manifestly incorrect. Colin's dress was *worlds*
different (in fact, worlds more awful), he was much younger, and he was much
more physically active. I bet I can find as many similarities between Tom
Baker's Doctor and Jon Pertwee's as you can between Hartnell's and Colin's.
How is Nyssa's relationship with the Doctor tackier than Jo Grant's? How
is Adric's character tackier than Zoe's?
>> >This was displayed immediately when he chose the young Peter Davison to be
>> >a 'Tristram-clone' Doctor and Matthew Waterhouse to be a 'cosmic artful
>> >dodger'.
>>
>> Adric a "cosmic artiful dodger"? Apart from that bread-stealing scene in
>> "State of Decay", and some of the scenes in "Full Circle", I don't recall
>> any evidence of that kind of characterisation of Adric.
>
>JNT was looking for a 'cosmic artful dodger' to be a companion. Complete
>cliched rubbish.
Well, I don't know what JNT said about what he wanted Adric to be. I *do*
know what Adric's character turned out to be, and it was nothing like a
cosmic artful dodger.
What's more, I don't *care* what JNT wanted. He was the producer for the
show. He was therefore, responsible for what was produced. Some excellent
Who was produced. Therefore, he was responsible for some excellent Who.
What part of that do you disagree with?
>> A moanin' minnie, yes. Annoying, yes. Arrogant, yes. But sneaky?
>> *Witty*? Dishonest? I don't see it.
>
>I said his attitude was reflected in his *choice* of Doctor
>characterisations,
>not companions.
"JNT was looking for a 'cosmic artful dodger' to be a companion. Complete
cliched rubbish."
"JNT lacked originality by his
choice of Doctors (clones) and his introduction of tacky, soapy
relationships
between the companions and the Doctor, *especially* in the overrated
_Earthshock_."
Are you criticising JNT's choice of companion characterisation, or not?
'Cause it sure looks to me like you are.
My passage quoted above is arguing that Adric was not a 'cosmic artful
dodger' -- this was clear from context. If you disagree with this claim,
please feel free to argue the point.
I further claim that some of the characters introduced while JNT was
producer were some of the best the series has ever seen: Ace and Turlough,
to name two.
>> And if you meant "Tristan Farnon" by "Tristram" above, then I again don't
>> see the resemblance, except that they were played by the same actor.
>> Tristan was young, irresponsible, happy-go-lucky, and easily discouraged.
>>
>> Peter Davison's Doctor was old, meticulously dutiful, fairly serious,
>> and determined.
>
>Funny. JNT also stated that he wanted the 5th Doctor to be like Tristran
>Farnon. He was executive producer of "All Creatures..." to my knowledge.
Yes, but Davison's Doctor *wasn't* like Tristan Farnon. Do you disagree?
As I said above, I don't care a pair of used Nissan Sentras what JNT wanted
the program to be like -- I care about what the program was like.
And during the nine years of JNT's tenure, there was some great Who, IMHO.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
>> "Hartnell-clone"? I hardly think that's fair. Colin was more outright
>> obnoxious than tetchy (as Hartnell was), and in any case was far more
>> energetic than Hartnell ever was. Could you see Doctor #1 leaping out
>> of the way of a rockfall? Or leaping on top of an Androgum and stifling
>> it to death?
>
>Absolutely not. But ColDoc's arrogant, tetchy nature is a blatant copy of
>Hartnells. I might be able to scratch up a reference to this one too...
So anyone arrogant and tetchy is a blatant copy of Hartnell? Like Pertwee,
I suppose. Or Rumpole of the Bailey? Or Charles Laughton in "Witness For
the Prosecution"?
"Arrogant and tetchy" is an awfully broad brush -- you're going to catch a
lot of characters with that. And to brand a pair with the name "clones",
I'm going to want a lot more than arrogance & tetchiness to bind them
together.
>No, McCoy's stories were not all awful for stories. As Who stories they
>weren't Who, so this rather defies the purpose of a long-running series.
What *is* "Who"? If you didn't like the McCoy stories, that's one thing. But
if you're going to claim that they go against the essential flavour of "Doctor
Who", you're going to have to make some pretty strong arguments.
"Doctor Who" has changed a lot over the years. "War Games" was nothing like
"Spearhead From Space", and yet I trust you still call "Spearhead" Who.
"Tomb of the Cybermen" was nothing like "The Ark", and yet I presume you
still call both of those "Who". What are your criteria?
>Peter Davison is famous but note that the show lost alot of its audience
>at his arrival. He also seems to be less popular with the fans, and thus
>comic strips etc. have concentrated more on the earlier or current Doctors.
This is simply wrong. The ratings for Peter Davison's first season are
several million higher than Tom Baker's last, and a good portion of this
newsgroup (at least the vocal ones) think Peter Davison is the best Doctor
there has been. (Hi, Chris!)
I wrote:
>> So "Resurrection of the Daleks", "Curse of Fenric", "Castrovalva", "Kinda",
>> "Frontios", and "Logopolis" were all childish rubbish? I know I must be
>> misinterpreting you here, because this seems a bit much, but I'm struggling
>> to understand what you mean.
To which Segonax replied:
>I love all of these, but _Caves_ is by far the most adult and professional.
>_Resurrection_ was badly and tackily done (filing into the ranks of good
>Who ;),
>_Frontios_ was brilliant, bar Mark Strickson.
I presume you're referring to production values here, because of the ones
I just mentioned, "Caves" has some of the least adult touches. The lava
monster? The milking of the hibernating queen bat? It sounded to me (and
it still does) like a clip from a silly fantasy novel.
The production values in "Caves of Androzani" were pretty good. But I thought
the effects in "Resurrection" were pretty good, too, compared to, say, "Green
Death".
Do you disagree?
>> Basically, are you saying that "Caves of Androzani" is the only Who worth
>> watching after "The Horns of Nimon"?
>
>I'm saying that _Caves_ took full advantage of what "Doctor Who" is, with a
>professional approach. Answering your question, I'd rather watch *anything*
>than season 20.
Well, I take it from your previous comments about loving "Kinda" et al, that
you *don't* hate everything but "Caves" after "Nimon". But what makes
season 20 so bad? Hell, if I were going to pick on JNT, I'd choose season
22, not season 20.
But pre-JNT Who had its clunkers, too. Like, say, season 17. Season 3.
And by the way, which of the pre-JNT stories "took full advantage of what
'Doctor Who' is"?
You seem to like some of the stories JNT produced.
He was responsible for these stories.
Why, then, do you not like JNT?
--David "TrollMaster 2000" McKinnon
mcki...@math.berkeley.edu
Segonax
wrote:
> > JNT lacked originality.
> > This was displayed immediately when he chose the young Peter Davison to be
> > a 'Tristram-clone' Doctor and Matthew Waterhouse to be a 'cosmic artful
> > dodger'.
>
> First of all, it was Tristan with an "n", not an "m."
Pedantics suck.
> Secondly, I don't see how either of these points helps your argument.
> For one thing, the Fifth Doctor was a hell of a lot more than just a Tristan
> clone. For the other, I can't say I see how asking Waterhouse to play a
> cosmic artful dodger means a lack of originality.
Because it's a cliche that, around that time, was as childish and dead as
Peter Cushing (omit the dead). JNT's choice of this characterisation for
a child, for "children to relate to", is completely lacking in originality
in every way. Considering Who is an original series, this demonstrates
outright his unsuitability as Producer.
> Every character in the
> history of drama fits into some sort of classical mold, and this happens
> to be Adric's. Besides this, the phrase "cosmic artful dodger" was made
> more for sound bites the press could clamp down on than the writers
> and actors of the series.
Rubbish. It was obvious Adric was supposed to be this way, with his
lock-picking, fruit-stealing etc.
> > Then, after three years as producer, his arrogant attitude was reflected in
> > (further lack of originality) Hartnell-clone Colin Baker. The costume
> > represented his screwy conception of Doctor Who. The result? A basic
> > failure of a Doctor, in viewing terms etc.
>
> The costume represented the screwy effects of the fifth regeneration more
> than anything else.
True, but it's ironic that season 22 failed also. JNT's conception was
considerably warped, illustrated by his violence and silliness
introductions.
The coat was a projection of his own Who adolescence. (or am I mistaken...
did he or did he not design ColDoc's character?)
> Colin's Doctor was irascible and arrogant like Hartnell's,
> but he was very different in that his mood swings were more dramatic,
> his intelligence was much more constant, and he was much more of a crusading
> hero than the not-wanting-to-interfere Doctor Hartnell played.
> I could list some more differences, but I think my point is clear.
...but he was essentially a Hartnell-clone. I seem to remember JNT wanting
to
bring back old, rehashed elements/Doctors "for a change".
> > Then, he chose Sylvester McCoy, a Troughton-clone. JNT's silly, bumbling
> > conception of Who was represented in McCoy's characterisation, causing the
> > most disasterous excuse for Who the series has seen.
>
> Wrong. His choosing of Sylvester McCoy caused two of the best years Who
> has ever seen.
<splutter> If you're talking about viewing terms, you're wrongly mistaken;
if
you're talking about good Who, you're as misguided as he was.
> As for McCoy being a Troughton clone, I'd say you're half-right. He's
> about 50% Troughton. The rest is a mix of Hartnell's temper and a mysterious
> aura that had been missing since Troughton left the series.
But essentially created with Troughton in mind. JNT lacked originality.
> > The aftermath: Peter Davison is virtually ignored for years, and the odd
> > fans who care are bringing him back in books, comic strips etc.
>
> Pardon me, but I thought that the only way any of the Doctors could be
> "brought back" were in books and comic strips since the BBC aren't making
> the TV series.
Yes, but note that PeteDoc is only just starting to surface in DWM comic
strips. The fact is, he's not good for comic strips. He's not bad on
screen,
but he lacks the action character needed for a comic strip.
> NAs are nothing more than speculation by each individual author.
Not true! NA's are revitalised Who, something the fans desperately wanted
after the McCoy axing. Unfortunately, they're mainly only good for the
fans.
> TV series
> need to convince a lot more people before they reach an audience, hence they
> don't fall into the pretentious pitfalls the NAs do.
If the NA's were taken seriously, they wouldn't be pretentious pitfalls.
> > A prediction: JNT's Doc #8 would have been a hopelessly depressed
> > Pertwee-clone, with almost no recognition to 'Doctor Who' whatsoever,
> > causing
> > the series' final death.
>
> JNT would never have cast a Doc #8. He wanted to leave the series when
> McCoy started, and McCoy was the only thing that kept him on. When McCoy
> would have left, so would JNT.
It was only a prediction. ;-)
> > Further comment: don't tell me Tom Baker's departure had *nothing* to do
> > with JNT.
>
> Tom Baker's departure had nothing to do with JNT. We've learned this much
> from when Chris Bidmead was here.
Accepted (because you seem reliable).
> > Admittedly, JNT strived for a more adult approach to the series (which, IMO
> > was doing fine in season 15), and he acheived this once: in _Caves of
> > Androzani_, illustrating the frightening amount of potential Who has.
> > Hopefully, Amblin will listen to what the fans have to say, read the best
> > of
> > the NA's and not totally ruin the series by over-Americanising it.
>
> Hopefully Amblin will not read the NAs at all but just get on with their series.
<bzzt> The NA's are what the fans want. If Amblin are going to cater for
both
the fans and the mundane, they should have a good idea of what both want.
> > BFN
> > g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au
>
> Welcome aboard. It'll be fun arguing with you. :)
That address will change shortly. Nice meeting you.
Segonax.
sc...@softserver.canberra.edu.au
>Peter Davison is famous but note that the show lost alot of its audience
>at his arrival. He also seems to be less popular with the fans, and thus
>comic strips etc. have concentrated more on the earlier or current Doctors.
But the first Missing Adventure stars Davison's Doctor...
Actually, I'm not sure that it's true that the show lost a lot of it's audience
with Davison's arrival.
Just have a look at the season ratings (from the original UK screenings)...
(Taken from Frank Durda IV's Dr. Who Story and Program Guide
Version 3(27) 1-Sep-94)
>Story Producer Script Editor
>
>Season 12 10.0 Million (Robot to Revenge of the Cybermen)
>4A Barry Letts Robert Holmes
>4B-4E Phillip Hinchcliffe Robert Holmes
>
>Season 13 10.1 Million (Terror of the Zygons to The Seeds of Doom)
>4F-4L Phillip Hinchcliffe Robert Holmes
>
>Season 14 11.1 Million (The Masque of Mandragora to
> The Talons of Weng-Chiang)
>4M-4S Phillip Hinchcliffe Robert Holmes
>
>Season 15 9.0 Million (Horror of Fang Rock to The Invasion of Time)
>4T-4Z Graham Williams Robert Holmes
>
>Season 16 8.4 Million (The Ribos Operation to The Armageddon Factor)
>5A-5F Graham Williams Anthony Read
>
>Season 17 11.2 Million (Destiny of the Daleks to Shada)
>5G-5M Graham Williams Douglas Adams
>
>Season 18 5.8 Million (The Leisure Hive to Logopolis)
>5N-5V John Nathan-Turner Christopher H. Bidmead
> (Barry Letts Executive Producer)
>
>Season 19 9.3 Million (Castrovalva to Timeflight)
>5W-6C John Nathan-Turner Eric Saward
>
>Season 20 7.1 Million (Arc of Infinity to The Five Doctors)
>6D-6K John Nathan-Turner Eric Saward
>
>Season 21 7.1 Million (Warriors of the Deep to The Twin Dilemma)
>6L-6R John Nathan-Turner Eric Saward
>
>Season 22 7.1 Million (Attack of the Cybermen to Revelation of the Daleks)
>6T-6Z John Nathan-Turner Eric Saward
>
>Season 23 4.8 Million (The Trial of a Time Lord)
>7A-7B John Nathan-Turner Eric Saward
>7C1-7C2 John Nathan-Turner None Credited
>
>Season 24 4.9 Million (Time and the Rani to Dragonfire)
>7D-7G John Nathan-Turner Andrew Cartmel
>
>Season 25 4.2 Million (Remembrance of the Daleks to
> The Greatest Show in the Galaxy)
>7H-7L John Nathan-Turner Andrew Cartmel
>
>Season 26 3.8 Million (Battlefield to Survival)
>7M-7Q John Nathan-Turner Andrew Cartmel
The audience jumped by 3.5 million, from 5.8 million in Tom Baker's last season,
to 9.3 million in Davison's first. Okay, so there was a drop of 5.4 million when
JNT started, but part of the reason for Season 17's high figure was the TV strike that
caused "City of Death" to have viewing figures of over 14 million. Season 17 had the best
ratings in the history of Doctor Who, but I don't think anyone is going to claim that
it was the *best* season in the shows history.
In fact, Colin Baker can't really be held responsible for the drop in the shows ratings in
the (late) eighties, either. Season 22 had the same average rating as Season 21. What
*really* nuked the series' ratings was the 18 month hiatus in 1986. There was a huge drop in
average ratings between Season 22 and Season 23, from which the show never recovered.
So all in all, although JNT had his faults, I think the most of the blame for the shows low
ratings in the late eighties can be laid at the feet of Michael Grade (Boo! Hiss!).
| Scott McLauchlan |"In the beginning the Universe was created.|
| Information Services Division | This has made a lot of people very angry, |
| University of Canberra | and been widely regarded as a bad move." |
|sc...@softserver.canberra.edu.au| - DOUGLAS ADAMS|
Don A. Smith
How about :
Fighting with a roman assassin and tossing him out the window. (The Romans)
Knocking a Voord out with his staff (Keys of Marinus)
Calling Ian and Barbara traitors and spies one minute, and being nice to
them the next. (Edge of Destruction)
No, not at all like Colin. :-)
Don
Christopher D. Heer
>(first time message, here goes...)
>Hi All.
Hi. Welcome to rec.arts.drwho. Sit back and relax. Enjoy the show.
>Dunno if my other message made it through or not, but I realised some
>interesting similarities between JNT and his Doctors...
>JNT lacked originality.
What fun! A JNT thread!
>This was displayed immediately when he chose the young Peter Davison to be
>a 'Tristram-clone' Doctor and Matthew Waterhouse to be a 'cosmic artful
>dodger'.
IMHO I don't see how Peter Davison was an unoriginal choice *at all*. The
Doctor had never been a young character before; it was a gamble. In addition,
I don't see Davison's portrayal of the Doctor as a "Tristan" clone either.
Tristan, IMHO, lacked a lot of the 5th Doctor's self-assurance.
>Then, after three years as producer, his arrogant attitude was reflected in
>(further lack of originality) Hartnell-clone Colin Baker.
Colin was a Hartnell clone? Well, they could both be acidic, I suppose, but
the similarity ends there. Very, very different Doctors.
>The costume
>represented his screwy conception of Doctor Who.
How so? That's a pretty sweeping statement; you need to back it up. And it
doesn't support your "unoriginality" thesis at all; quite the reverse, in fact.
>The result? A basic
>failure of a Doctor, in viewing terms etc.
His ratings were low, but not as low as McCoy's became. And I think there was
a lot more to do with the failure than Colin being a Hartnell clone in a
screwy costume. I recommend the "Sixth Doctor Handbook" for all the juicy
details.
>Then, he chose Sylvester McCoy, a Troughton-clone.
A very superficial comparison. Once again, very different Doctors.
>JNT's silly, bumbling conception of Who was represented in McCoy's
>characterisation,
But I thought it was his "screwy" conception of Who, which was represented by
Colin's costume.
Which is it?
>causing the most disasterous excuse for Who the series has seen.
No way. Timelash or Horns of Nimon, maybe, but the most disasterous excuse?
Curse of Fenric?
>The aftermath: Peter Davison is virtually ignored for years, and the
>odd fans who care are bringing him back in books, comic strips etc. Fans
>such as Paul Cornell try and smooth out the ColDoc disaster by creating
>some bizarre, warped mythology around him (ie. Time's Champion
>predecessor). McCoy's character is darkened and lost beyond redemption in the
>NA's and now everybody wants a regeneration. The fact is, he didn't have a
>character in the first place.
Well, you can't blame the NAs on JNT. Will you saddle their goofy
characterisation of Ace on him too?
Personally I thought McCoy had a great character. Shit scripts, by and large,
but a great character.
>A prediction: JNT's Doc #8 would have been a hopelessly depressed
>Pertwee-clone, with almost no recognition to 'Doctor Who'
Somehow I rather doubt that. You've made little or no case for your
Colin->Hartnell and McCoy->Troughton comparisons.
>whatsoever, causing the series' final death. Further comment: don't tell me
>Tom Baker's departure had *nothing* to do with JNT.
I'm sure it had something to do with it. The Tom Baker Show had been
cancelled, and the Emperor was dethroned. IMHO this was one of the best
things JNT did.
>Admittedly, JNT strived for a more adult approach to the series (which, IMO
>was doing fine in season 15),
What about 16? Or 17? I think Season 18 blows the crap out of those two.
>and he acheived this once: in _Caves of Androzani_, illustrating the
>frightening amount of potential Who has.
IMHO that was thanks to Robert Holmes, Graeme Harper, and Peter Davison, who
turned in his absolute best and most inspired performance.
--
Christopher D. Heer -- ch...@isisph.com -- Not just cheer. . . all TempaCheer!
Isis Pharmaceuticals: where a drug | My opinions are mine, not Isis'.
can be a drug! | Unless they license them, of course.
Join the IRC Special.K.Club and Win Valuable Prizes!
Segonax
<pa...@cornell.demon.co.uk.> wrote:
Whoops, didn't know you read all messages on this group. Let me rephrase my
comment: Paul Cornell's (and others) total obsession with Colin Baker,
because the majority hate him. Minorities are one thing Paul, but when it
comes to obsession....
Let me guess - you *loved* _Transit_ too?
ciao
Segonax
sc...@softserver.canberra.edu.au wrote:
> In article <g9106936-1...@graneekmac11.anu.edu.au>
> g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au (Segonax) writes:
> >Peter Davison is famous but note that the show lost alot of its audience
> >at his arrival. He also seems to be less popular with the fans, and thus
> >comic strips etc. have concentrated more on the earlier or current Doctors.
>
> But the first Missing Adventure stars Davison's Doctor...
>
> Actually, I'm not sure that it's true that the show lost a lot of it's audience
> with Davison's arrival.
Speaking from experience, from people I've chatted to about Who. Most
stopped
watching it with the arrival of Peter Davison.
{brilliant informative posting deleted}
> The audience jumped by 3.5 million, from 5.8 million in Tom Baker's last season,
> to 9.3 million in Davison's first. Okay, so there was a drop of 5.4 million when
> JNT started, but part of the reason for Season 17's high figure was the TV strike that
> caused "City of Death" to have viewing figures of over 14 million. Season 17 had the best
> ratings in the history of Doctor Who, but I don't think anyone is going to claim that
> it was the *best* season in the shows history.
It sucked. Graham Williams had a good idea, though, with his Time Lord,
Time Lady travelling scenario. Take a look at TomDoc and Romana on _Destiny
of the Daleks_ video cover to see what I mean.
> In fact, Colin Baker can't really be held responsible for the drop in the shows ratings in
> the (late) eighties, either. Season 22 had the same average rating as Season 21. What
> *really* nuked the series' ratings was the 18 month hiatus in 1986. There was a huge drop in
> average ratings between Season 22 and Season 23, from which the show never recovered.
The hiatus was JNT's fault. Michael Grade had every reason to hiatus the
series
with the pointless violence and silliness at that time.
> So all in all, although JNT had his faults, I think the most of the blame for the shows low
> ratings in the late eighties can be laid at the feet of Michael Grade (Boo! Hiss!).
Agreed! Some think it should have been his, and not the Master's face
bloating
the screen at PeteDoc's regeneration.
>
> | Scott McLauchlan |"In the beginning the Universe was created.|
> | Information Services Division | This has made a lot of people very angry, |
> | University of Canberra | and been widely regarded as a bad move." |
> |sc...@softserver.canberra.edu.au| - DOUGLAS ADAMS|
Hooray!! Another Canberran. email on the way, dude...
Segonax.
Aden Steinke
In article <1994Sep13.210109.5289@rivers>, ph999...@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu
wrote:
{big snip}
> Wrong. His choosing of Sylvester McCoy caused two of the best years Who
> has ever seen.
Definitely a matter of opinion, mine is diametrically opposed.
{even bigger snip}
> Hopefully Amblin will not read the NAs at all but just get on with their
> series.
Well said!
Aden
--
Aden Steinke, /\_/\
a.st...@uow.edu.au < o.o >
All his own work. > ^ <
Any resemblance to the opionions of the UOW SOMEWHERE, SOMEHOW
are entirely acidental. A CAT IS WATCHING YOU
Segonax
(David McKinnon) wrote:
> >It's also, surprisingly, the most religious.
>
> Huh?!? What's the climate like on your planet?
>
> Please explain to me how "Caves of Androzani" was more religious than
> "The Crusades". Or "Kinda".
<ducking head to avoid fireballs>
I feel _Caves_ has VERY strong religious undertones. On the surface, it's
not at all religious, a brutal military climate without a God.
> In fact, I'd be interested to know how you find religious themes in "Caves"
> at all.
It probably doesn't. :-)
> >The stories you mention above did not, of course, lack originality, but
> >their
> >originality was due to the writers, NOT JNT.
> >JNT lacked originality by his
> >choice of Doctors (clones) and his introduction of tacky, soapy
> >relationships
> >between the companions and the Doctor, *especially* in the overrated
> >_Earthshock_.
>
> Well, we agree on one thing: that "Earthshock" is overrated. (-:
The only passable character is Tegan.
> You claimed earlier that Colin Baker's Doctor was a clone of Hartnell's. This
> means that you claim that they are *exactly* the same. Did you not mean to
> claim this?
"Clone" has other connotations aside from straight duplicate.
> If you did, then it is manifestly incorrect. Colin's dress was *worlds*
> different (in fact, worlds more awful), he was much younger, and he was much
> more physically active. I bet I can find as many similarities between Tom
> Baker's Doctor and Jon Pertwee's as you can between Hartnell's and Colin's.
>
> How is Nyssa's relationship with the Doctor tackier than Jo Grant's? How
> is Adric's character tackier than Zoe's?
Zoe has attitude. Jo's and JonDoc's relationship is comparable to Nyssa and
PeteDoc's.
> What's more, I don't *care* what JNT wanted. He was the producer for the
> show. He was therefore, responsible for what was produced. Some excellent
> Who was produced. Therefore, he was responsible for some excellent Who.
>
> What part of that do you disagree with?
Nothing. JNT, however, created the ideas for the characterisations of the
Doctors.
> "JNT was looking for a 'cosmic artful dodger' to be a companion. Complete
> cliched rubbish."
>
> "JNT lacked originality by his
> choice of Doctors (clones) and his introduction of tacky, soapy
> relationships
> between the companions and the Doctor, *especially* in the overrated
> _Earthshock_."
>
> Are you criticising JNT's choice of companion characterisation, or not?
> 'Cause it sure looks to me like you are.
I am. I'm saying his attitude was reflected in the characterisations of the
Doctors.
> I further claim that some of the characters introduced while JNT was
> producer were some of the best the series has ever seen: Ace and Turlough,
> to name two.
True. His characters wered, they simply lacked originality. When this comes
to the Doctors, this isn't what's needed.
> Yes, but Davison's Doctor *wasn't* like Tristan Farnon. Do you disagree?
Haven't seen "All Creatures" in ages. No comment.
> >No, McCoy's stories were not all awful for stories. As Who stories they
> >weren't Who, so this rather defies the purpose of a long-running series.
>
> What *is* "Who"?
Not seasons 24-26.
> If you didn't like the McCoy stories, that's one thing. But
> if you're going to claim that they go against the essential flavour of "Doctor
> Who", you're going to have to make some pretty strong arguments.
The flavour of Doctor Who *was* in them, but they couldn't be enjoyed by
a general audience, unlike TomDoc's stories, making them not Who. Who isn't
a program just for the fans.
> "Doctor Who" has changed a lot over the years. "War Games" was nothing like
> "Spearhead From Space", and yet I trust you still call "Spearhead" Who.
> "Tomb of the Cybermen" was nothing like "The Ark", and yet I presume you
> still call both of those "Who". What are your criteria?
Pyramids of Mars, Robots of Death, Resurrection of the Daleks. Actually the
*one* decent, close-to-Who story JNT produced was _Remembrance_.
> To which Segonax replied:
> >I love all of these, but _Caves_ is by far the most adult and professional.
> >_Resurrection_ was badly and tackily done (filing into the ranks of good
> >Who ;),
> >_Frontios_ was brilliant, bar Mark Strickson.
> I presume you're referring to production values here, because of the ones
> I just mentioned, "Caves" has some of the least adult touches. The lava
> monster? The milking of the hibernating queen bat? It sounded to me (and
> it still does) like a clip from a silly fantasy novel.
>
> The production values in "Caves of Androzani" were pretty good. But I thought
> the effects in "Resurrection" were pretty good, too, compared to, say, "Green
> Death".
>
> Do you disagree?
I disagree about _Caves_. SFX don't make a production professional. If you
want this watch "Space Rangers".
> Why, then, do you not like JNT?
His attitude, his childishness and his lack of creativity.
ciao for now
David McKinnon
>> Please explain to me how "Caves of Androzani" was more religious than
>> "The Crusades". Or "Kinda".
To which Segonax replied:
><ducking head to avoid fireballs>
>I feel _Caves_ has VERY strong religious undertones. On the surface, it's
>not at all religious, a brutal military climate without a God.
No, you're not listening. *Why* do you think "Caves" is religious? I
already know that you think it is, and I want to know why.
In my opinion, "The Crusades" and "Kinda" have much stronger religious
overtones than "Caves", for the simple reason that "The Crusades" have
to do with rampantly pro-Christian characterisations of the Crusades
of the Middle Ages, and the former is ridden with Hindu imagery.
(Or so I'm told -- I don't know much about Hinduism, myself.)
I wrote:
>> In fact, I'd be interested to know how you find religious themes in "Caves"
>> at all.
Segonax wrote:
>It probably doesn't. :-)
What is the antecedent of "it"?
If by this you mean that "Caves" does not have religious overtones, then
I agree. But then what was all the stuff you were talking about before?
I wrote:
>> You claimed earlier that Colin Baker's Doctor was a clone of Hartnell's.
>> This means that you claim that they are *exactly* the same. Did you not
>> mean to claim this?
Segonax replied:
>"Clone" has other connotations aside from straight duplicate.
Ah, OK, so you didn't mean to claim that Colin and Hartnell were identical.
So what do you claim, then?
I wrote:
>> I bet I can find as many similarities between Tom Baker's Doctor and
>> Jon Pertwee's as you can between Hartnell's and Colin's.
My bet still stands. For Tom and Jon, I list arrogance, impatience with
fools, a penchant for cracking one-liners, a continuing feud with the
Master, and similar height as similarities between their two characters.
That's three more similarities than you've come up with for Colin and
Hartnell.
Why don't you slam Phillip Hinchcliffe for making a Pertwee clone out
of Tom Baker?
I wrote:
>> How is Nyssa's relationship with the Doctor tackier than Jo Grant's? How
>> is Adric's character tackier than Zoe's?
Segonax wrote:
>Zoe has attitude. Jo's and JonDoc's relationship is comparable to Nyssa and
>PeteDoc's.
Zoe has attitude? Check out "Mind Robber" -- she runs squealing to the
Doctor every time there's a problem or a danger.
Or "Invasion" -- everything she does on her own lands her in trouble,
and she has to get bailed out by the Doctor.
Or "War Games" -- she does little more then follow the Doctor around all
story long.
All Zoe ever really gets is a few mentions of how clever she is (like in
"Krotons" and "Invasion", for example), but when push comes to shove, she
really is kind of useless.
Adric, on the other hand, is much more of a complicated character. He's
trickier, and he uses his ability to actually *do* things. He computes
things. He plays clever (and often not-so-clever) mock-treachery games
with the villains. He's annoying as all get out, but he's a damn sight
more competent than Zoe.
I wrote:
>> What's more, I don't *care* what JNT wanted. He was the producer for the
>> show. He was therefore, responsible for what was produced. Some excellent
>> Who was produced. Therefore, he was responsible for some excellent Who.
>>
>> What part of that do you disagree with?
Segonax wrote:
>Nothing. JNT, however, created the ideas for the characterisations of the
>Doctors.
So you agree that JNT was responsible for good Who. Good, then we agree:
JNT was a good producer of Who, because he produced good Who.
I wrote:
>> I further claim that some of the characters introduced while JNT was
>> producer were some of the best the series has ever seen: Ace and Turlough,
>> to name two.
Segonax replied:
>True. His characters wered, they simply lacked originality. When this comes
>to the Doctors, this isn't what's needed.
You might as well say that trains are rectangular brown things made of
clay. I say his characters were *more* original than the characters of
pre-JNT. Turlough, Ace, and Adric, all were very different from any
character which had come before, both in their interactions with the
Doctor, and in their natures.
You don't seem to justify anything you say.
I wrote:
>> Yes, but Davison's Doctor *wasn't* like Tristan Farnon. Do you disagree?
Segonax replied:
>Haven't seen "All Creatures" in ages. No comment.
But this didn't stop you when you commented earlier that Davison's Doctor
was a "Tristram-clone" [sic].
Segonax claimed:
>> >No, McCoy's stories were not all awful for stories. As Who stories they
>> >weren't Who, so this rather defies the purpose of a long-running series.
I asked:
>> What *is* "Who"?
And Segonax replied:
>Not seasons 24-26.
No, you're not listening again. I didn't ask what Who *wasn't*. I asked
what it *was*. If you don't know, why did you slander JNT by saying
seasons 24-26 weren't Who? If you do know, why didn't you tell me?
I wrote:
>> If you didn't like the McCoy stories, that's one thing. But
>> if you're going to claim that they go against the essential flavour of
>> "Doctor Who", you're going to have to make some pretty strong arguments.
Segonax replied:
>The flavour of Doctor Who *was* in them, but they couldn't be enjoyed by
>a general audience, unlike TomDoc's stories, making them not Who. Who isn't
>a program just for the fans.
Oh, so now they *are* Who. Make up your mind -- which is it?
Millions of people watched seasons 24-26. There aren't a million Who fans
in the world, let alone in the UK, so *someone* was watching the McCoy
stories and enjoying them.
I wrote:
>> "Doctor Who" has changed a lot over the years. "War Games" was nothing like
>> "Spearhead From Space", and yet I trust you still call "Spearhead" Who.
>> "Tomb of the Cybermen" was nothing like "The Ark", and yet I presume you
>> still call both of those "Who". What are your criteria?
Segonax replied:
>Pyramids of Mars, Robots of Death, Resurrection of the Daleks. Actually the
>*one* decent, close-to-Who story JNT produced was _Remembrance_.
Wait ... JNT produced "Resurrection", too.
You list four stories as being "Who". Does that mean that all the other
146 stories were *not* Who?
If not, then what is it about the "Who" stories that makes them different
from a story that wasn't "Who"?
I wrote:
>> I presume you're referring to production values here, because of the ones
>> I just mentioned, "Caves" has some of the least adult touches. The lava
>> monster? The milking of the hibernating queen bat? It sounded to me (and
>> it still does) like a clip from a silly fantasy novel.
>>
>> The production values in "Caves of Androzani" were pretty good. But I
>> thought the effects in "Resurrection" were pretty good, too, compared to,
>> say, "Green Death".
>>
>> Do you disagree?
Segonax replied:
>I disagree about _Caves_. SFX don't make a production professional. If you
>want this watch "Space Rangers".
I'm ... I'm utterly confused.
You're saying that "Caves" is not professional because you don't like
"Space Rangers"?
I claim that "Resurrection of the Daleks" is more adult than "Caves of
Androzani", for the reasons listed above. I also claim that anything
at all in season 21 is more adult than 80% of the stories before "Spearhead
From Space".
I asked:
>> Why, then, do you not like JNT?
Segonax replied:
>His attitude, his childishness and his lack of creativity.
What attitude? What childishness? What lack of creativity?
I think JNT produced good Who. I therefore think he was a good producer.
You think JNT produced good Who. You think he was a bad producer.
You're weird, sir.
--David "I don't care if Segonax is a woman --
it's a 'Peanuts' reference, dammit! (-:" McKinnon
mcki...@math.berkeley.edu
Scott McLauchlan
>I don't know why he pointlessly fired Douglas <musician> and used the BBC
>radiophonic workshop. ANY electronic musician that uses a Hammond-organ
>piano sound deserves firing.
>
I think you mean Dudley Simpson (by the way, did you know he is Australian?)
Segonax
D. Heer) wrote:
> >Dunno if my other message made it through or not, but I realised some
> >interesting similarities between JNT and his Doctors...
> >JNT lacked originality.
>
> What fun! A JNT thread!
I thought it may have been what people needed with the Amblin hype.
> >This was displayed immediately when he chose the young Peter Davison to be
> >a 'Tristram-clone' Doctor and Matthew Waterhouse to be a 'cosmic artful
> >dodger'.
>
> IMHO I don't see how Peter Davison was an unoriginal choice *at all*. The
> Doctor had never been a young character before; it was a gamble. In addition,
> I don't see Davison's portrayal of the Doctor as a "Tristan" clone either.
> Tristan, IMHO, lacked a lot of the 5th Doctor's self-assurance.
But PeteDoc was essentially created with Tristran in mind, due to JNT's
relations with "All Creatures...". The fact that he stole an idea from
another
show means lack of originality. There could have been a young, original
Doctor with a hell of a lot more action than Davison. If Davison *hadn't*
been
such a woss his character would probably have been more popular.
> >Then, after three years as producer, his arrogant attitude was reflected in
> >(further lack of originality) Hartnell-clone Colin Baker.
>
> Colin was a Hartnell clone? Well, they could both be acidic, I suppose, but
> the similarity ends there. Very, very different Doctors.
Agreed, but I think JNT wanted to bring back some of the original elements.
Why bother? Why not expand on the character and bring back the elements in
the *stories*. Sure, so there will be some elements from each Doctor in the
current Doctor, but not carbon copies.
> >The costume
> >represented his screwy conception of Doctor Who.
>
> How so? That's a pretty sweeping statement; you need to back it up. And it
> doesn't support your "unoriginality" thesis at all; quite the reverse, in fact.
JNT obviously had little conception of what Who was, underlined by the
violence and silliness. The costume seemed to represent this, ironically,
as
McCoy's characterisation seemed to represent how much control his
understanding had over the concept of Who. He had some good ideas, but when
it came to Who it was the writers and directors that did the good job.
> >The result? A basic
> >failure of a Doctor, in viewing terms etc.
>
> His ratings were low, but not as low as McCoy's became. And I think there was
> a lot more to do with the failure than Colin being a Hartnell clone in a
> screwy costume. I recommend the "Sixth Doctor Handbook" for all the juicy
> details.
Got it, read a few pages and wondered if I was reading DWM.
> >Then, he chose Sylvester McCoy, a Troughton-clone.
>
> A very superficial comparison. Once again, very different Doctors.
But, ironically, very alike. This is why I predict JNT's Doc 8 would have
been a Pertwee-clone.
> >JNT's silly, bumbling conception of Who was represented in McCoy's
> >characterisation,
>
> But I thought it was his "screwy" conception of Who, which was represented by
> Colin's costume.
>
> Which is it?
Both. His screwy conception was season 22, his absolute shambling
conception was season 24 onwards.
> >causing the most disasterous excuse for Who the series has seen.
>
> No way. Timelash or Horns of Nimon, maybe, but the most disasterous excuse?
> Curse of Fenric?
mmm. OK I'll accept this as reasonable Who, bar the sex. It tried to be
more
adult, but they still thought it was a children's series so it was
basically
pretentious rubbish. (but I love it ;)
> >The aftermath: Peter Davison is virtually ignored for years, and the
> >odd fans who care are bringing him back in books, comic strips etc. Fans
> >such as Paul Cornell try and smooth out the ColDoc disaster by creating
> >some bizarre, warped mythology around him (ie. Time's Champion
> >predecessor). McCoy's character is darkened and lost beyond redemption in the
> >NA's and now everybody wants a regeneration. The fact is, he didn't have a
> >character in the first place.
>
> Well, you can't blame the NAs on JNT. Will you saddle their goofy
> characterisation of Ace on him too?
Funny. Did PDE create the mercenary Ace or did Paul Cornell? It always
seems
the heads of series are the most incapable.
Basically, the NA's carried on from where JNT left off. The fans loved
season
26 (well, most of the fans) and so the NA's were subject to his influence.
Fortunately, real fans (ie. Jim Mortimore, Andy Lane) wrote some of the
books.
I don't care much for rehashes (Legacy, Iceberg) but the original ones
(Lucifer
Rising, White Darkness) are how Who is supposed to be. I also think alot of
the "Stranger" series elements could be thrown together with some of the NA
concepts to make great new Who.
As for Ace, I don't know why they've bothered keeping her on so long. OK,
so
she was everyone's screwy teenage idol in the series, but her character has
been massacred. Benny, unfortunately, doesn't seem to have a character. She
remains constant throughout each book and there's no real development.
She's
there just to be brilliant, and this is fine but after the xxth many book
it
gets a little flat.
> Personally I thought McCoy had a great character. Shit scripts, by and large,
> but a great character.
Agreed, but there was nothing really solid. That's why he's died in the
NA's.
The solidity in the TV McCoy was pretentiousness eg. his Morgaine speech
near
the end of _Battlefield_. This doesn't stand in 90's sci-fi.
> >A prediction: JNT's Doc #8 would have been a hopelessly depressed
> >Pertwee-clone, with almost no recognition to 'Doctor Who'
>
> Somehow I rather doubt that. You've made little or no case for your
> Colin->Hartnell and McCoy->Troughton comparisons.
To my understanding, JNT created both Col and SlyDoc with Hartnell and
Troughton in mind.
> >whatsoever, causing the series' final death. Further comment: don't tell me
> >Tom Baker's departure had *nothing* to do with JNT.
>
> I'm sure it had something to do with it. The Tom Baker Show had been
> cancelled, and the Emperor was dethroned. IMHO this was one of the best
> things JNT did.
You've got a point. But viewers wanted Tom Baker. If he would have
regenerated at the end of season 17, there would have been the same massive
audience drop there was by season 19. It was Tom Baker that kept people
watching, NOT the new flashy format.
> >Admittedly, JNT strived for a more adult approach to the series (which, IMO
> >was doing fine in season 15),
>
> What about 16? Or 17? I think Season 18 blows the crap out of those two.
This is due to the writers JNT hired, NOT his own personal contribution. I
don't know why he pointlessly fired Douglas <musician> and used the BBC
radiophonic workshop. ANY electronic musician that uses a Hammond-organ
piano sound deserves firing.
> >and he acheived this once: in _Caves of Androzani_, illustrating the
> >frightening amount of potential Who has.
>
> IMHO that was thanks to Robert Holmes, Graeme Harper, and Peter Davison, who
> turned in his absolute best and most inspired performance.
hmm. A brilliant performance but not very Doctorish. Still, that's half the
point considering Tom Baker did it in his best story: _The Seeds of Doom_.
BFN
Segonax.
Segonax
sc...@softserver.canberra.edu.au (Scott McLauchlan) wrote:
> In article <g9106936-1...@graneekmac6.anu.edu.au> g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au (Segonax) writes:
>
> >I don't know why he pointlessly fired Douglas <musician> and used the BBC
> >radiophonic workshop. ANY electronic musician that uses a Hammond-organ
> >piano sound deserves firing.
> >
>
> I think you mean Dudley Simpson (by the way, did you know he is Australian?)
yep. So is Tristram Cary, the original background composer for the early
Dalek episodes.
Segonax.
Segonax
(David McKinnon) wrote:
> To which Segonax replied:
> ><ducking head to avoid fireballs>
> >I feel _Caves_ has VERY strong religious undertones. On the surface, it's
> >not at all religious, a brutal military climate without a God.
>
> No, you're not listening. *Why* do you think "Caves" is religious? I
> already know that you think it is, and I want to know why.
OKOK, I think Caves is religious because it has no superficial religious
tones whatsoever. Here's how I interpret the characters:
The Doctor: a man striving against God in the brutal climate.
Sharaz Jek: his twisted, unhappy and psychotic self, trapped in the centre,
seeking understanding from Mary (Peri).
The rest of the characters have their places, I'm sure, but it's all pure
speculation so I haven't bothered.
> I wrote:
> >> You claimed earlier that Colin Baker's Doctor was a clone of Hartnell's.
> >> This means that you claim that they are *exactly* the same. Did you not
> >> mean to claim this?
>
> Segonax replied:
> >"Clone" has other connotations aside from straight duplicate.
>
> Ah, OK, so you didn't mean to claim that Colin and Hartnell were identical.
>
> So what do you claim, then?
I claim that ColDoc was constructed with BillDoc in mind, therefore
ColDoc is a BillDoc clone.
> Why don't you slam Phillip Hinchcliffe for making a Pertwee clone out
> of Tom Baker?
Because the two Doctors were absolute classics, they were so different yet
had characteristics of each other. The *characters* were completely
different,
unlike the above stated in my original argument.
> I wrote:
> >> How is Nyssa's relationship with the Doctor tackier than Jo Grant's? How
> >> is Adric's character tackier than Zoe's?
>
> Segonax wrote:
> >Zoe has attitude. Jo's and JonDoc's relationship is comparable to Nyssa and
> >PeteDoc's.
>
> Zoe has attitude? Check out "Mind Robber" -- she runs squealing to the
> Doctor every time there's a problem or a danger.
She's a girl, feminism was just beginning. She was, also, intelligent and
used her intelligence and looks to create attitude. Adric was simply
bumbling and tacky, the fault of the production. IF they (JNT?) had taken
the characters more seriously, it probably wouldn't have happened. ANY
character can be made decent on screen, you just need the right team.
> Or "Invasion" -- everything she does on her own lands her in trouble,
> and she has to get bailed out by the Doctor.
One of the most classic scenes in Who history is her causing the computer
to
self-destruct in episode two.
> Adric, on the other hand, is much more of a complicated character. He's
> trickier, and he uses his ability to actually *do* things. He computes
> things. He plays clever (and often not-so-clever) mock-treachery games
> with the villains. He's annoying as all get out, but he's a damn sight
> more competent than Zoe.
Fine, so the character may be mildly more interesting, but the way it's
presented on screen is a failure. The responsibility for this can only be
placed onto JNT.
> Segonax wrote:
> >Nothing. JNT, however, created the ideas for the characterisations of the
> >Doctors.
>
> So you agree that JNT was responsible for good Who. Good, then we agree:
>
> JNT was a good producer of Who, because he produced good Who.
*Some* great Who. Alot of it I can't stand watching more than once in two
months.
> You might as well say that trains are rectangular brown things made of
> clay. I say his characters were *more* original than the characters of
> pre-JNT. Turlough, Ace, and Adric, all were very different from any
> character which had come before, both in their interactions with the
> Doctor, and in their natures.
>
> You don't seem to justify anything you say.
Crap. Ace is warped, her only winning point being her teenage psychology.
When this goes, you get a disaster like her NA character because, as a
character, she doesn't stand very well. This is why you need her to be a
screwed up teenager or a militant bitch.
I can't help thinking she was also created with Leela in mind.
Turlough is dark and mysterious, a good character, but unfortunately he was
only used well once - in _Planet of Fire_ - his final story!
Adric, well the fact that everybody hates him seems to say something
doesn't
it?
> I wrote:
> >> Yes, but Davison's Doctor *wasn't* like Tristan Farnon. Do you disagree?
>
> Segonax replied:
> >Haven't seen "All Creatures" in ages. No comment.
>
> But this didn't stop you when you commented earlier that Davison's Doctor
> was a "Tristram-clone" [sic].
Because I read in "Twenty Years in the TARDIS" that JNT wanted Davison to
be like Tristran Farnon, only more confident. A Tristran-clone.
> I asked:
> >> What *is* "Who"?
>
> And Segonax replied:
> >Not seasons 24-26.
>
> No, you're not listening again. I didn't ask what Who *wasn't*. I asked
> what it *was*. If you don't know, why did you slander JNT by saying
> seasons 24-26 weren't Who? If you do know, why didn't you tell me?
OK, Who, IMO is very, very complex. Somebody should analyze it one day.
This is probably what Amblin will do, and through this will completely ruin
the series altogether.
You can, however, point out vital points that make Who win, like the fact
that
it appeals to the public as well as the fans. Seasons 24-26 didn't.
Almost everyone I've spoken to who watched Tom Baker, and then switched
on to watch Slyvester McCoy, watched about 2 minutes and switched off
immediately, thinking "am I watching this?!".
> >The flavour of Doctor Who *was* in them, but they couldn't be enjoyed by
> >a general audience, unlike TomDoc's stories, making them not Who. Who isn't
> >a program just for the fans.
>
> Oh, so now they *are* Who. Make up your mind -- which is it?
See above comment.
> Millions of people watched seasons 24-26. There aren't a million Who fans
> in the world, let alone in the UK, so *someone* was watching the McCoy
> stories and enjoying them.
Millions of people also watched the Tom Baker stories. Only just about 8
times
more than watched the Slyvester McCoys. You'll probably also find that the
millions who watched SlyDoc's were kiddies.
> Segonax replied:
> >Pyramids of Mars, Robots of Death, Resurrection of the Daleks. Actually the
> >*one* decent, close-to-Who story JNT produced was _Remembrance_.
>
> Wait ... JNT produced "Resurrection", too.
>
> You list four stories as being "Who". Does that mean that all the other
> 146 stories were *not* Who?
They tried to be.
> If not, then what is it about the "Who" stories that makes them different
> from a story that wasn't "Who"?
Good Who TV stories have good plots and a mature production and direction.
There's a heavy dose of cliches, but not a total flood of them, in every
element.
> >I disagree about _Caves_. SFX don't make a production professional. If you
> >want this watch "Space Rangers".
>
> I'm ... I'm utterly confused.
>
> You're saying that "Caves" is not professional because you don't like
> "Space Rangers"?
I'm saying that the professionality in a production isn't reflected in its
SFX.
> I claim that "Resurrection of the Daleks" is more adult than "Caves of
> Androzani", for the reasons listed above. I also claim that anything
> at all in season 21 is more adult than 80% of the stories before "Spearhead
> From Space".
Season 21 is in my top three favourite seasons. I can't say whether it's
more adult than pre SFS because I haven't seen many.
> I asked:
> >> Why, then, do you not like JNT?
>
> Segonax replied:
> >His attitude, his childishness and his lack of creativity.
>
> What attitude? What childishness? What lack of creativity?
erm...amend "creativity" to "originality", and read somebody's analysis
of JNT.
> I think JNT produced good Who. I therefore think he was a good producer.
>
> You think JNT produced good Who. You think he was a bad producer.
I don't think he completely failed. I think he lacked originality and
failed
to expand the Who format, rehashing old ideas and cliches. But he did
produce some great stuff. Therefore, he had his good and bad points, the
majority
bad since two seasons in nine were good.
> You're weird, sir.
<yawn>
> --David "I don't care if Segonax is a woman --
ARGHH!!! You've discovered my secret!!
Segonax.
David McKinnon
Segonax <g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>OKOK, I think Caves is religious because it has no superficial religious
>tones whatsoever.
Hmm. An interesting thesis ... by this same argument, about 90% of all Who
stories are actually *religious*. Wow. And James Watson thought the show
had an anti-Christian bias!
>Here's how I interpret the characters:
>The Doctor: a man striving against God in the brutal climate.
>Sharaz Jek: his twisted, unhappy and psychotic self, trapped in the centre,
>seeking understanding from Mary (Peri).
>The rest of the characters have their places, I'm sure, but it's all pure
>speculation so I haven't bothered.
In all seriousness, the argument seems a little stretched. The Doctor
struggles in practically every story, very often in brutal climates. And
the companion fairly often gets propositioned by the badguy, who is
usually mentally unbalanced in some way.
There are also many other reasons to suspect that Robert Holmes (the writer)
included these themes in his story, which I suspect owes more to "The Phantom
of the Opera" than the Bible.
>I claim that ColDoc was constructed with BillDoc in mind, therefore
>ColDoc is a BillDoc clone.
Oh, OK, so that's your definition of clone. What's wrong with having
two Doctors be clones of one another then? It's certainly not a matter
of lack of originality, because Doc6 had so many features and qualities
that were not present in Doc1, he was a very different character. Even ...
original.
I wrote:
>> Why don't you slam Phillip Hinchcliffe for making a Pertwee clone out
>> of Tom Baker?
Segonax replied:
>Because the two Doctors were absolute classics, they were so different yet
>had characteristics of each other. The *characters* were completely
>different, unlike the above stated in my original argument.
Unfortunately, you have presented little evidence to support this. I have
already listed more similarities between Doc3's and Doc4's characters than
you have between Doc6's and Doc1's. In order to prove your point, then,
you're going to have to explain why Doc1 and Doc6 were more similar than
Doc3 and Doc4.
I wrote:
>> Zoe has attitude? Check out "Mind Robber" -- she runs squealing to the
>> Doctor every time there's a problem or a danger.
Segonax replied:
>She's a girl, feminism was just beginning. She was, also, intelligent and
>used her intelligence and looks to create attitude. Adric was simply
>bumbling and tacky, the fault of the production. IF they (JNT?) had taken
>the characters more seriously, it probably wouldn't have happened. ANY
>character can be made decent on screen, you just need the right team.
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "attitude", but I think Zoe was largely
a helpless wet. She had some stronger stories ("The Krotons", for example,
and bits of "Invasion"), but for the most part, she shivered and cried.
Particularly in the "Mind Robber" -- out of the scads of dangerous
situations, she screamed for the Doctor's help every time but once, in the
Karkus scene.
I wrote:
>> Or "Invasion" -- everything she does on her own lands her in trouble,
>> and she has to get bailed out by the Doctor.
To which Segonax replied:
>One of the most classic scenes in Who history is her causing the computer
>to self-destruct in episode two.
Yep, I agree. And if I recall correctly, she also helps the UNIT missile
attack near the end. But for most of the story, she's being captured by
Vaughn, screaming at Cybermen, being bossed around by UNIT officers, and
being rescued by the Doctor.
I wrote:
>> Adric, on the other hand, is much more of a complicated character. He's
>> trickier, and he uses his ability to actually *do* things. He computes
>> things. He plays clever (and often not-so-clever) mock-treachery games
>> with the villains. He's annoying as all get out, but he's a damn sight
>> more competent than Zoe.
Segonax replied:
>Fine, so the character may be mildly more interesting, but the way it's
>presented on screen is a failure. The responsibility for this can only be
>placed onto JNT.
If the character is more interesting, how was the onscreen character a
failure? You may, of course, be referring to Matthew Waterhouse's ... er,
performance, in which case I agree with you somewhat. But you can't blame
JNT for Waterhouse's incompetence.
I wrote:
>> JNT was a good producer of Who, because he produced good Who.
Segonax cautioned:
>*Some* great Who. Alot of it I can't stand watching more than once in two
>months.
Well, that almost goes without saying. I'd rather gnaw off my own arm
at the elbow than watch "Silver Nemesis", for example. But I'd say the
same for "The Ark", too. The question is, was JNT's Who *overall* worse
than pre-JNT Who? And I don't think it was. Of course, your mileage may
vary.
>Crap. Ace is warped, her only winning point being her teenage psychology.
Actually, I don't like her "teenage psychology" aspects at all -- I think
it damaged stories like "Greatest Show" and "Ghost Light" a great deal.
What I like about Ace is the fact that she exerts a great deal of her own
influence on the plot. Most companions existed primarily to ask questions
of the Doctor, look pretty, and give the villains someone to blackmail the
Doctor with. Ace, on the other hand, made things happen herself.
>When this goes, you get a disaster like her NA character because, as a
>character, she doesn't stand very well. This is why you need her to be a
>screwed up teenager or a militant bitch.
Why is her NA character a disaster? (Btw, I haven't read many NAs, so I'm
restricting my comments here to onscreen characterisation.) Why does her
character not stand up well? You give no evidence, and I have given a
significant amount of evidence to the contrary.
I'm not saying there is no evidence to support your position -- only that
you haven't shown any.
>I can't help thinking she was also created with Leela in mind.
So? I *liked* Leela. And besides, the only similarity I can really see is
strength of character, and determination. Otherwise, they were completely
different:
Leela is a bloodthirsty killer, while Ace does little more than
shout "Wicked!" when she makes a big bang.
Leela is usually very scantily clad, while (apart from 3 seconds of
"Fenric" (-:) never shows more skin than her face, hands, and maybe a
rolled-up sleeve or two.
Ace is psychologically vulnerable in some ways (see "Ghost Light" or "Greatest
Show"), while Leela's determination and resourcefulness are never cracked,
even when she is betrayed by the Doctor in "Invasion of Time" far more
ruthlessly than Ace was in "Fenric".
Segonax wrote:
>Turlough is dark and mysterious, a good character, but unfortunately he was
>only used well once - in _Planet of Fire_ - his final story!
Your unsupported opinion again. I think he was great in "Mawdryn Undead",
actually, and not bad, if a little inconsistent, in "Enlightenment" as well.
Why? Because of his motivations. In "Mawdryn", for example, his vacillation
about his appointed task is a major plot engine -- Turlough's actions
largely dictate the course of the story. For example, if Turlough hadn't
sabotaged the transmat, the Doctor wouldn't have been stranded.
Segonax continued:
>Adric, well the fact that everybody hates him seems to say something
>doesn't it?
Yep. It says that people don't like his character. Me included, for the
most part, although I thought he had a few good stories. But I don't think
Adric was bad because he was unoriginal; I think he was bad because he was
an annoying little geek.
>> I wrote:
>> >> Yes, but Davison's Doctor *wasn't* like Tristan Farnon. Do you disagree?
>>
>> Segonax replied:
>> >Haven't seen "All Creatures" in ages. No comment.
I admonished:
>> But this didn't stop you when you commented earlier that Davison's Doctor
>> was a "Tristram-clone" [sic].
And Segonax weaseled:
>Because I read in "Twenty Years in the TARDIS" that JNT wanted Davison to
>be like Tristran Farnon, only more confident. A Tristran-clone.
Well, for the record, it's "Tristan Farnon", without the 'r'. Y'know, like
"Tristan und Isolde". And anyway, I repeat myself:
What does it matter what JNT *wanted* the character to be like?
He *wasn't* like Tristan Farnon.
>> I asked:
>> >> What *is* "Who"?
[bickering deleted]
Segonax replied:
>OK, Who, IMO is very, very complex. Somebody should analyze it one day.
>This is probably what Amblin will do, and through this will completely ruin
>the series altogether.
>You can, however, point out vital points that make Who win, like the fact
>that
>it appeals to the public as well as the fans. Seasons 24-26 didn't.
>Almost everyone I've spoken to who watched Tom Baker, and then switched
>on to watch Slyvester McCoy, watched about 2 minutes and switched off
>immediately, thinking "am I watching this?!".
All right, let's see here ... basically, you don't know what Who is -- OK,
no problem; I can't really put my finger on it, either. So we look for clues.
The only clue you point out is that Tom Baker's Who was popular, but McCoy's
wasn't. Fair enough -- that's true. But why was it true?
I don't know. But I've heard some persuasive arguments made here on the
net that the unpopularity of "Doctor Who" during seasons 23-26 was due
largely to the two hiatuses, since it was after both hiatuses that the
most substantial drops in viewership are to be found. (Please correct
me if I'm wrong on this.)
Incidentally, in my first exposure to McCoy Who, I watched almost an hour
and a half ... and *then* switched it off, thinking "Am I watching this?!"
Mind you, it was "Greatest Show" I saw, so I plead extenuating circumstances.
(-:
I wrote:
>> Millions of people watched seasons 24-26. There aren't a million Who fans
>> in the world, let alone in the UK, so *someone* was watching the McCoy
>> stories and enjoying them.
Segonax replied:
>Millions of people also watched the Tom Baker stories. Only just about 8
>times more than watched the Slyvester McCoys.
True, although I don't remember the numbers well enough to know if the 8 times
figure is a hyperbole or not. But that's not the point -- I have never argued
that McCoy's shows were as popular as the Tom Baker ones. It's just that
the number clearly show that more people than just the fans were watching
McCoy.
>You'll probably also find that
>the millions who watched SlyDoc's were kiddies.
Supposition. You have no evidence to support that claim, nor, I suspect,
will you ever have.
I asked:
>> If not, then what is it about the "Who" stories that makes them different
>> from a story that wasn't "Who"?
Segonax answered:
>Good Who TV stories have good plots and a mature production and direction.
>There's a heavy dose of cliches, but not a total flood of them, in every
>element.
OK, I agree. This makes almost every Hartnell story, half of the Troughton
stories, and a few of the Pertwee stories non-Who. Some of the Tom Baker
stories are also, by this definition, non-Who (see "Nimon, Horns of").
In the first four years of JNT Who, your definition of non-Who applies to ...
"Meglos". Oh, and "Twin Dilemma" and "The Five Doctors". 'Course, it
depends on what you mean by a good plot, I suppose, but if you up the standard
for JNT, you up it for pre-JNT, too, and lots more stories will hit the axe.
JNT's last five years were much more disappointing, though, I'll concede.
But the common factor here wasn't JNT, because he produced four years of the
most consistently good Who since Hinchcliffe (who only lasted three years,
himself), and in any case, there is still the odd good story buried in the
muck of seasons 22-26.
>> I asked:
>> >> Why, then, do you not like JNT?
>>
>> Segonax replied:
>> >His attitude, his childishness and his lack of creativity.
I countered:
>> What attitude? What childishness? What lack of creativity?
Segonax squirmed:
>erm...amend "creativity" to "originality", and read somebody's analysis
>of JNT.
Well, I think I've dealt with the originality issue, to the extent that
you've produced arguments on it. Unless you can give me some more compelling
evidence that JNT lacked originality, I'm not going to believe you, because
I can see plenty of originality in his work.
I still fail to see how JNT's attitude damaged Who in any way. And as
for childishness ... have you ever seen any of a dozen Hartnell shows?
They were transparently childish -- much more so than *anything* JNT
produced.
I wrote:
>> I think JNT produced good Who. I therefore think he was a good producer.
>>
>> You think JNT produced good Who. You think he was a bad producer.
Segonax replied:
>I don't think he completely failed. I think he lacked originality and
>failed to expand the Who format, rehashing old ideas and cliches. But he did
>produce some great stuff. Therefore, he had his good and bad points, the
>majority bad since two seasons in nine were good.
Each sentence is an unsupported opinion, except the last, which is a trivial
deduction from an unsupported opinion, followed by an unsupported opinion.
I think he succeeded brilliantly for four seasons, changed the Who format
considerably, and produced some great stories, even in his last season.
He probably should have left after season 21, but then, whoever did season
3 should never have been hired in the first place. (-:
--David "It's like she's arguing coherently ... but she's not!" McKinnon
mcki...@math.berkeley.edu
Christopher D. Heer
>In article <g9106936-1...@graneekmac5.anu.edu.au>,
>Segonax <g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>>I claim that ColDoc was constructed with BillDoc in mind, therefore
>>ColDoc is a BillDoc clone.
>Oh, OK, so that's your definition of clone. What's wrong with having
>two Doctors be clones of one another then? It's certainly not a matter
>of lack of originality, because Doc6 had so many features and qualities
>that were not present in Doc1, he was a very different character. Even ...
>original.
Anyway, that's an unfair burden to place on JNT. JNT came into the show with
four Doctors already having played the role. He *has* to think about the
previous Doctors.
Claiming that, since JNT was considering some Hartnell-esque elements,
therefore Colin is a Hartnell clone, is spurious logic at best.
>Segonax continued:
>>Adric, well the fact that everybody hates him seems to say something
>>doesn't it?
>Yep. It says that people don't like his character. Me included, for the
>most part, although I thought he had a few good stories. But I don't think
>Adric was bad because he was unoriginal; I think he was bad because he was
>an annoying little geek.
I actually have nothing to add here, but I've included it because the previous
paragraph typed by David made me laugh out loud. Funny, funny stuff, Dave!
>>> I wrote:
>>> Yes, but Davison's Doctor *wasn't* like Tristan Farnon. Do you disagree?
>>> Segonax replied:
>>> >Haven't seen "All Creatures" in ages. No comment.
>I admonished:
>>> But this didn't stop you when you commented earlier that Davison's Doctor
>>> was a "Tristram-clone" [sic].
>And Segonax weaseled:
>>Because I read in "Twenty Years in the TARDIS" that JNT wanted Davison to
>>be like Tristran Farnon, only more confident. A Tristran-clone.
>Well, for the record, it's "Tristan Farnon", without the 'r'. Y'know, like
>"Tristan und Isolde". And anyway, I repeat myself:
> What does it matter what JNT *wanted* the character to be like?
> He *wasn't* like Tristan Farnon.
Besides, basing your slam on some throwaway comment in "Twenty Years. . . " is
ridiculous.
>>You can, however, point out vital points that make Who win, like the fact
>>that
>>it appeals to the public as well as the fans. Seasons 24-26 didn't.
>>Almost everyone I've spoken to who watched Tom Baker, and then switched
>>on to watch Slyvester McCoy, watched about 2 minutes and switched off
>>immediately, thinking "am I watching this?!".
Hmm. Some Who viewers I knew who had only seen Tom Baker and a couple of
Pertwee episodes before were pretty damned impressed by Fenric. I'd say
that's as scientific a survey as yours.
>All right, let's see here ... basically, you don't know what Who is -- OK,
>no problem; I can't really put my finger on it, either. So we look for clues.
>The only clue you point out is that Tom Baker's Who was popular, but McCoy's
>wasn't. Fair enough -- that's true. But why was it true?
>I don't know. But I've heard some persuasive arguments made here on the
>net that the unpopularity of "Doctor Who" during seasons 23-26 was due
>largely to the two hiatuses, since it was after both hiatuses that the
>most substantial drops in viewership are to be found. (Please correct
>me if I'm wrong on this.)
You are not wrong. Those were the big drops. Monkeying about with the time
slot sure didn't help, either.
>I wrote:
>>> Millions of people watched seasons 24-26. There aren't a million Who fans
>>> in the world, let alone in the UK, so *someone* was watching the McCoy
>>> stories and enjoying them.
>Segonax replied:
>>Millions of people also watched the Tom Baker stories. Only just about 8
>>times more than watched the Slyvester McCoys.
>True, although I don't remember the numbers well enough to know if the 8 times
>figure is a hyperbole or not.
It is a hyperbole. McCoy's ratings were in the 4 million range. Tom Baker,
with a couple of exceptions, seemed to range from 10-12 million.
Sounds more like 3 times than 8 times, but I'm not going to dispute that Tom
Baker's episodes did a lot better than McCoy's.
>Segonax answered:
>>Good Who TV stories have good plots and a mature production and direction.
>>There's a heavy dose of cliches, but not a total flood of them, in every
>>element.
>OK, I agree. This makes almost every Hartnell story, half of the Troughton
>stories, and a few of the Pertwee stories non-Who. Some of the Tom Baker
>stories are also, by this definition, non-Who (see "Nimon, Horns of").
Another laughing paragraph. But Dave is right; I can point to loads of
pre-JNT episodes that fail Segonax's definition of "good Who."
>In the first four years of JNT Who, your definition of non-Who applies to ...
>"Meglos". Oh, and "Twin Dilemma" and "The Five Doctors". 'Course, it
>depends on what you mean by a good plot, I suppose, but if you up the standard
>for JNT, you up it for pre-JNT, too, and lots more stories will hit the axe.
>JNT's last five years were much more disappointing, though, I'll concede.
>But the common factor here wasn't JNT, because he produced four years of the
>most consistently good Who since Hinchcliffe (who only lasted three years,
>himself), and in any case, there is still the odd good story buried in the
>muck of seasons 22-26.
> --David "It's like she's arguing coherently ... but she's not!" McKinnon
> mcki...@math.berkeley.edu
Hehehehe. Nice MST reference, Dave. :)
Christopher D. Heer | We're bad. . . we're the Special.K.Club!
ch...@isisph.com | "Why do they always eat their ragweed without
My opinions are mine! | without ketchup?" -- Dr. Who, "Survival"
The Admiral
|In article <g9106936-1...@graneekmac6.anu.edu.au> g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au (Segonax) writes:
|
|>D. Heer) wrote:
|
|>> Colin was a Hartnell clone? Well, they could both be acidic, I suppose,
|>> but the similarity ends there. Very, very different Doctors.
|
|>Agreed, but I think JNT wanted to bring back some of the original elements.
|
|bother. Next you say "Sure, so there will be some elements from each Doctor,
|but not carbon copies." You're not being remotely coherent.
|
|I asserted that Colin was *not* a carbon copy of Hartnell. While both could
|be acidic from time to time, the actual character was quite different. You've
|done absolutely zero to refute this. Should I assume you cannot?
Fellows, let me just inject at this juncture that Colin himself likens
what he intended with his Doctor to certain characters in "Crime and
Punishment", NOT to Bill Hartnell... He wanted to portray a Doctor
that initially the viewer was not going to like and was definitely
uncertain about...but with time, the viewer would figure out that
deep down, this is still the Doc we know and love and he's the only
nice guy around, despite his acidic surface nature. 'Course, he
expected to need about four years to get all that to work out and
was only given two to do it in, so we never got beyond the acidic
we-still-can't-trust-this-guy stage in the programme...
--
-- Copyright 1994 Michael "The Admiral" Zecca, ze...@starfury.cgd.ucar.edu
| "Oh, God. It's starting again. It's starting again!" | Special.K.Club |
| -- Major Louis Krantz, "Babylon Squared" | Member |
Who *are* these jokers Selig and Reinsdorf anyway? End the strike NOW!
Christopher D. Heer
>In article <cheer.968...@isisph.com>, ch...@isisph.com (Christopher
>D. Heer) wrote:
>> >This was displayed immediately when he chose the young Peter Davison to be
>> >a 'Tristram-clone' Doctor and Matthew Waterhouse to be a 'cosmic artful
>> >dodger'.
>> IMHO I don't see how Peter Davison was an unoriginal choice *at all*. The
>> Doctor had never been a young character before; it was a gamble. In addition,
>> I don't see Davison's portrayal of the Doctor as a "Tristan" clone either.
>> Tristan, IMHO, lacked a lot of the 5th Doctor's self-assurance.
>But PeteDoc was essentially created with Tristran in mind, due to JNT's
>relations with "All Creatures...". The fact that he stole an idea from
>another
>show means lack of originality. There could have been a young, original
>Doctor with a hell of a lot more action than Davison. If Davison *hadn't*
>been
>such a woss his character would probably have been more popular.
I wasn't aware his character was so unpopular.
Do you think more "action" was necessary? Is that what Doctor Who is about to
you? I don't think he "stole" anything. . . sure, he may have formulated some
ideas based on a performance of the actor in question. That's to be expected,
I should think. Nonetheless, Davison's character as the Doctor ended up
*quite* different from Tristan.
By the way, Colin was picked partly with the thought of injecting action into
the series. Is that what you wanted, or was that unoriginal by season 21?
>> >Then, after three years as producer, his arrogant attitude was reflected in
>> >(further lack of originality) Hartnell-clone Colin Baker.
>>
>> Colin was a Hartnell clone? Well, they could both be acidic, I suppose, but
>> the similarity ends there. Very, very different Doctors.
>Agreed, but I think JNT wanted to bring back some of the original elements.
>Why bother? Why not expand on the character and bring back the elements in
>the *stories*. Sure, so there will be some elements from each Doctor in the
>current Doctor, but not carbon copies.
First you say he wanted to bring back some of the original elements, but why
bother. Next you say "Sure, so there will be some elements from each Doctor,
but not carbon copies." You're not being remotely coherent.
I asserted that Colin was *not* a carbon copy of Hartnell. While both could
be acidic from time to time, the actual character was quite different. You've
done absolutely zero to refute this. Should I assume you cannot?
>> >The costume
>> >represented his screwy conception of Doctor Who.
>> How so? That's a pretty sweeping statement; you need to back it up. And it
>> doesn't support your "unoriginality" thesis at all; quite the reverse, in fact.
>JNT obviously had little conception of what Who was, underlined by the
>violence and silliness. The costume seemed to represent this, ironically,
>as
>McCoy's characterisation seemed to represent how much control his
>understanding had over the concept of Who. He had some good ideas, but when
>it came to Who it was the writers and directors that did the good job.
A few points, here.
1: You've done nothing to demonstrate *how* the costume represents his screwy
conception of Who.
2: Writers and directors did the good job? Which he picked, of course. Why
is it that every few months we have to get someone here that blames all the
good stuff on JNT's staff and all the bad stuff on JNT?
>> >The result? A basic
>> >failure of a Doctor, in viewing terms etc.
>> His ratings were low, but not as low as McCoy's became. And I think there was
>> a lot more to do with the failure than Colin being a Hartnell clone in a
>> screwy costume. I recommend the "Sixth Doctor Handbook" for all the juicy
>> details.
>Got it, read a few pages and wondered if I was reading DWM.
And this means precisely what? Really, you have an annoying tendency to make
remarks without any backup whatsoever.
>> >Then, he chose Sylvester McCoy, a Troughton-clone.
>>
>> A very superficial comparison. Once again, very different Doctors.
>But, ironically, very alike. This is why I predict JNT's Doc 8 would have
>been a Pertwee-clone.
You still offer no support for your assertion. I dispute your prediction.
>> >JNT's silly, bumbling conception of Who was represented in McCoy's
>> >characterisation,
>> But I thought it was his "screwy" conception of Who, which was represented by
>> Colin's costume.
>> Which is it?
>Both. His screwy conception was season 22, his absolute shambling
>conception was season 24 onwards.
Ah. I see. Well, thanks for clearing that up, then.
>> >causing the most disasterous excuse for Who the series has seen.
>>
>> No way. Timelash or Horns of Nimon, maybe, but the most disasterous excuse?
>> Curse of Fenric?
>mmm. OK I'll accept this as reasonable Who, bar the sex. It tried to be
>more
>adult, but they still thought it was a children's series so it was
>basically
>pretentious rubbish. (but I love it ;)
A few more points.
1: What sex?
2: It was pretentious rubbish, but you love it? Love what? Curse of Fenric?
I am so lost in your winding thought processes now it's not EVEN funny.
>> Well, you can't blame the NAs on JNT. Will you saddle their goofy
>> characterisation of Ace on him too?
>Funny. Did PDE create the mercenary Ace or did Paul Cornell? It always
>seems
>the heads of series are the most incapable.
Certainly the easiest targets for blame.
>Basically, the NA's carried on from where JNT left off. The fans loved
>season
>26 (well, most of the fans) and so the NA's were subject to his influence.
>Fortunately, real fans (ie. Jim Mortimore, Andy Lane) wrote some of the
>books.
So there are fans, and there are real fans. Gee, how do I get to be a real
fan?
>> Personally I thought McCoy had a great character. Shit scripts, by and large,
>> but a great character.
>Agreed, but there was nothing really solid. That's why he's died in the
>NA's.
So you agree that he *did* have a great character, even if there was nothing
solid. (?)
>To my understanding, JNT created both Col and SlyDoc with Hartnell and
>Troughton in mind.
Slight elements, perhaps, but both very different doctors; something you've
done nothing to argue against.
>> I'm sure it had something to do with it. The Tom Baker Show had been
>> cancelled, and the Emperor was dethroned. IMHO this was one of the best
>> things JNT did.
>You've got a point. But viewers wanted Tom Baker. If he would have
>regenerated at the end of season 17, there would have been the same massive
>audience drop there was by season 19. It was Tom Baker that kept people
>watching, NOT the new flashy format.
What rubbish. Davison's ratings were just fine, and Colin's first season was
respectable too. *After* the show was put on hiatus, and cut in half, and
moved to a different time slot, and screwed up by BBC powers-that-be. . .
*then* the ratings plummeted.
>> >Admittedly, JNT strived for a more adult approach to the series (which, IMO
>> >was doing fine in season 15),
>>
>> What about 16? Or 17? I think Season 18 blows the crap out of those two.
>This is due to the writers JNT hired, NOT his own personal contribution. I
>don't know why he pointlessly fired Douglas <musician> and used the BBC
>radiophonic workshop. ANY electronic musician that uses a Hammond-organ
>piano sound deserves firing.
But you ignored the question (although you imply that you agree with my
assertion). Was season 18 better than 16 and 17 or not? IMHO season 17 was
nearly complete crap. Amusing at times, but still crap.
And the music from Logopolis was some of my favourite stuff. Perfect for a
funeral atmosphere.
[re: caves of androzani]
>hmm. A brilliant performance but not very Doctorish.
Define "Doctorish." Do you mean "Tom Bakerish" here?
>Still, that's half the
>point considering Tom Baker did it in his best story: _The Seeds of Doom_.
Did what? Watch your antecedents.
Kate Orman
"The majority hate him"? Do they? Just because the Sixth Doctor (*not*
Colin) tends to come low on fave Doctor surveys doesn't mean he's despised
- it just means other Doctors are more popular. Unless you've got a "Who's
your *least* favourite Doctor?" poll up your sleeve... Hartnell usually
comes lower than Col - does that mean "the majority" despise him?
>Let me guess - you *loved* _Transit_ too?
Still my favourite NA. :-)
--
Kate Orman
"You are endlessly agitating, unceasingly mischievous. Will you never
stop?" - Light, in Marc Platt's "Ghost Light", 1989
Segonax
D. Heer) wrote:
> >But PeteDoc was essentially created with Tristran in mind, due to JNT's
> >relations with "All Creatures...". The fact that he stole an idea from
> >another
> >show means lack of originality. There could have been a young, original
> >Doctor with a hell of a lot more action than Davison. If Davison *hadn't*
> >been
> >such a woss his character would probably have been more popular.
>
> I wasn't aware his character was so unpopular.
It was, because alot of casual watchers switched off when he arrived.
> By the way, Colin was picked partly with the thought of injecting action into
> the series. Is that what you wanted, or was that unoriginal by season 21?
I thought Colin's character was fabulous action-wise, a refreshing change
from Davison. Originality is irrelevent here.
> First you say he wanted to bring back some of the original elements, but why
> bother. Next you say "Sure, so there will be some elements from each Doctor,
> but not carbon copies." You're not being remotely coherent.
OK. I meant that in each Doctor, there should be some elements from each
previous Doctor, but not a total mouthful, as in Colin's case.
> I asserted that Colin was *not* a carbon copy of Hartnell. While both could
> be acidic from time to time, the actual character was quite different. You've
> done absolutely zero to refute this. Should I assume you cannot?
Colin has, on-screen, the same arrogance and tetchiness as Hartnell. This,
to
my knowledge, was deliberate. This wasn't even part of ColDoc's *real*
character, so the characters were different. The arrogance was apparently
something thrown in for a laugh.
> A few points, here.
>
> 1: You've done nothing to demonstrate *how* the costume represents his screwy
> conception of Who.
OKOK, I'm not a great psychologist but it looked like the coat, in its
screwed up, mishapen manner, was a projection of JNT's own conception of
Who,
since, he was in charge of the series, he designed the coat, and was
basically out of control. Projection is a defense mechanism. Somebody as
insecure as
he was shouldn't have been allowed to be in charge of a brilliant series.
> 2: Writers and directors did the good job? Which he picked, of course. Why
> is it that every few months we have to get someone here that blames all the
> good stuff on JNT's staff and all the bad stuff on JNT?
OK, so he did a good job in picking writers (bar Eric Saward). One of his
few
strong points. Then again, good writers were reasonably easy to come by,
nobody as unprofessional as him would show their face in the industry.
> >> lot more to do with the failure than Colin being a Hartnell clone in a
> >> screwy costume. I recommend the "Sixth Doctor Handbook" for all the juicy
> >> details.
>
> >Got it, read a few pages and wondered if I was reading DWM.
>
> And this means precisely what? Really, you have an annoying tendency to make
> remarks without any backup whatsoever.
It means that it was simply a compilation of DWM and DWB articles and
interviews, which is fair enough if you want a compact volume, but simply
another money-making, ripping-off-Who-fans, Dalek Attack-ish Speilberg
inspirer.
> >But, ironically, very alike. This is why I predict JNT's Doc 8 would have
> >been a Pertwee-clone.
>
> You still offer no support for your assertion. I dispute your prediction.
What would you predict JNT's Doc#8 to be like then?
> >mmm. OK I'll accept this as reasonable Who, bar the sex. It tried to be
> >more
> >adult, but they still thought it was a children's series so it was
> >basically
> >pretentious rubbish. (but I love it ;)
>
> A few more points.
>
> 1: What sex?
Ace's "I'm not a little girl" speech and the way she tricked the guard so
the Doctor could release Sorin. This is the closest the series got to sex,
bar a few insinuations in _Caves of Androzani_.
> 2: It was pretentious rubbish, but you love it? Love what? Curse of Fenric?
> I am so lost in your winding thought processes now it's not EVEN funny.
It's pretentious rubbish but I love it. Zilda's crying in _Robots of Death_
is badly acted hysteria but I love it.
> >> Well, you can't blame the NAs on JNT. Will you saddle their goofy
> >> characterisation of Ace on him too?
>
> >Funny. Did PDE create the mercenary Ace or did Paul Cornell? It always
> >seems
> >the heads of series are the most incapable.
>
> Certainly the easiest targets for blame.
Your point?
> >Basically, the NA's carried on from where JNT left off. The fans loved
> >season
> >26 (well, most of the fans) and so the NA's were subject to his influence.
> >Fortunately, real fans (ie. Jim Mortimore, Andy Lane) wrote some of the
> >books.
>
> So there are fans, and there are real fans. Gee, how do I get to be a real
> fan?
Real fans, who love the series so much as to put as much effort into it
as Mortimore/Lane did in _Lucifer Rising_. A knock-out of a book.
> >> Personally I thought McCoy had a great character. Shit scripts, by and large,
> >> but a great character.
>
> >Agreed, but there was nothing really solid. That's why he's died in the
> >NA's.
>
> So you agree that he *did* have a great character, even if there was nothing
> solid. (?)
Yep. He had a good, unsolid character.
> >> I'm sure it had something to do with it. The Tom Baker Show had been
> >> cancelled, and the Emperor was dethroned. IMHO this was one of the best
> >> things JNT did.
>
> >You've got a point. But viewers wanted Tom Baker. If he would have
> >regenerated at the end of season 17, there would have been the same massive
> >audience drop there was by season 19. It was Tom Baker that kept people
> >watching, NOT the new flashy format.
>
> What rubbish. Davison's ratings were just fine,
What rubbish. Many (millions?) stopped watching at his arrival.
> >> What about 16? Or 17? I think Season 18 blows the crap out of those two.
>
> >This is due to the writers JNT hired, NOT his own personal contribution. I
> >don't know why he pointlessly fired Douglas <musician> and used the BBC
> >radiophonic workshop. ANY electronic musician that uses a Hammond-organ
> >piano sound deserves firing.
>
> But you ignored the question (although you imply that you agree with my
> assertion). Was season 18 better than 16 and 17 or not? IMHO season 17 was
> nearly complete crap. Amusing at times, but still crap.
Disagreed. _City of Death_ is in my top 12.
> And the music from Logopolis was some of my favourite stuff. Perfect for a
> funeral atmosphere.
There was the odd decent theme, but when you get people like Keff
McCullough
you begin to wonder if it really is Who.
Segonax.
Segonax
(Kate Orman) wrote:
> In article <g9106936-1...@graneekmac4.anu.edu.au> g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au (Segonax) writes:
>
> >JNT lacked originality.
>
> This is an essential quality in a Doctor Who producer - if Hinchcliffe and
> Williams are anything to go by. :-)
How did Hinchcliffe and Williams lack originality?
Let me rephrase my argument: JNT lacked everything that Hinchcliffe and
Williams had, and more.
ciao for now
Segonax.
Segonax
(Kate Orman) wrote:
> >Whoops, didn't know you read all messages on this group. Let me rephrase my
> >comment: Paul Cornell's (and others) total obsession with Colin Baker,
> >because the majority hate him. Minorities are one thing Paul, but when it
> >comes to obsession....
>
> "The majority hate him"? Do they? Just because the Sixth Doctor (*not*
> Colin) tends to come low on fave Doctor surveys doesn't mean he's despised
> - it just means other Doctors are more popular. Unless you've got a "Who's
> your *least* favourite Doctor?" poll up your sleeve... Hartnell usually
> comes lower than Col - does that mean "the majority" despise him?
OK, the majority dislike him. Hate is a powerful word.
Hartnell is low because he's archaic, and nobody watches him. Those that
do watch him (me included) can't stand to sit through more than two
minutes.
I guess his stories were enjoyable in 1963, but most aren't now.
> >Let me guess - you *loved* _Transit_ too?
>
> Still my favourite NA. :-)
yet very, very depressing. Listen to "The Final Cut" instead :-).
Segonax.
Segonax
(David McKinnon) wrote:
> In article <g9106936-1...@graneekmac5.anu.edu.au>,
> Segonax <g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> >OKOK, I think Caves is religious because it has no superficial religious
> >tones whatsoever.
>
> Hmm. An interesting thesis ... by this same argument, about 90% of all Who
> stories are actually *religious*. Wow. And James Watson thought the show
> had an anti-Christian bias!
Think about it. Caves has a brutal, military climate with massive
corporations,
where people are ignored as individuals. Essentially cyberpunk.
A distinct lack of *something* exists, that men such as Morgus try to
replace.
> >Here's how I interpret the characters:
> >The Doctor: a man striving against God in the brutal climate.
> >Sharaz Jek: his twisted, unhappy and psychotic self, trapped in the centre,
> >seeking understanding from Mary (Peri).
> >The rest of the characters have their places, I'm sure, but it's all pure
> >speculation so I haven't bothered.
>
> In all seriousness, the argument seems a little stretched. The Doctor
> struggles in practically every story, very often in brutal climates. And
> the companion fairly often gets propositioned by the badguy, who is
> usually mentally unbalanced in some way
Fair enough, it was only a hunch... ;-)
> I wrote:
> >> Why don't you slam Phillip Hinchcliffe for making a Pertwee clone out
> >> of Tom Baker?
>
> Segonax replied:
> >Because the two Doctors were absolute classics, they were so different yet
> >had characteristics of each other. The *characters* were completely
> >different, unlike the above stated in my original argument.
>
> Unfortunately, you have presented little evidence to support this.
> I have
> already listed more similarities between Doc3's and Doc4's characters than
> you have between Doc6's and Doc1's. In order to prove your point, then,
> you're going to have to explain why Doc1 and Doc6 were more similar than
> Doc3 and Doc4.
Similarity in character is irrelevent, because Doc's 1 and 6 are actually
quite different in *character*. On-screen, ColDoc had alot of pointless
arrogance and tetchiness that was very, very alike to BillDoc. It was
reasonably obvious (a fact?) that JNT was trying to make the two alike.
ie. a clone, completely pointless because it introduced unneeded silliness,
removed when ColDoc's character was taken seriously in _Vengence on Varos_
and particularly _Revelation of the Daleks_. Unfortunately, the unsuccess
JNT had made of season 22 had sinked in by the stage ColDoc's character
was decent (Revelation), causing the hiatus.
> Segonax replied:
> >She's a girl, feminism was just beginning. She was, also, intelligent and
> >used her intelligence and looks to create attitude. Adric was simply
> >bumbling and tacky, the fault of the production. IF they (JNT?) had taken
> >the characters more seriously, it probably wouldn't have happened. ANY
> >character can be made decent on screen, you just need the right team.
>
> Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "attitude", but I think Zoe was largely
> a helpless wet. She had some stronger stories ("The Krotons", for example,
> and bits of "Invasion"), but for the most part, she shivered and cried.
> Particularly in the "Mind Robber" -- out of the scads of dangerous
> situations, she screamed for the Doctor's help every time but once, in the
> Karkus scene.
Why then, was she so popular?
When I say "attitude" I mean good, on-screen 'kick-arse'ness, displayed in
the computer screen and in every Sarah Jane Smith scene that comes to mind.
I personally don't think the Doctor should have this, he should be more
mysterious, scientific and childishness. This is where ColDoc also went
wrong.
What I want is McCoy, Cartmel (perhaps), JNT and Harper - the perfect
combination!
> Yep, I agree. And if I recall correctly, she also helps the UNIT missile
> attack near the end. But for most of the story, she's being captured by
> Vaughn, screaming at Cybermen, being bossed around by UNIT officers, and
> being rescued by the Doctor.
So what. Wouldn't you be frightened being a little girl and captured by
aliens?
> [Adric]
> Segonax replied:
> >Fine, so the character may be mildly more interesting, but the way it's
> >presented on screen is a failure. The responsibility for this can only be
> >placed onto JNT.
>
> If the character is more interesting, how was the onscreen character a
> failure? You may, of course, be referring to Matthew Waterhouse's ... er,
> performance, in which case I agree with you somewhat. But you can't blame
> JNT for Waterhouse's incompetence.
It was a failure because of the way JNT made him appear onscreen. Sure,
Waterhouse sucked (sometimes) but his general demeanour was the fault of
JNT. He seemed to do this with the Cybermen also.
> >Crap. Ace is warped, her only winning point being her teenage psychology.
>
> Actually, I don't like her "teenage psychology" aspects at all -- I think
> it damaged stories like "Greatest Show" and "Ghost Light" a great deal.
But it made her a success. As for her nitro-nine throwing, it's silly,
immature and warped, particularly when they're trying to be more adult,
unlike Leela's knife throwing, which was in character considering her
upbringing.
> What I like about Ace is the fact that she exerts a great deal of her own
> influence on the plot. Most companions existed primarily to ask questions
> of the Doctor, look pretty, and give the villains someone to blackmail the
> Doctor with. Ace, on the other hand, made things happen herself.
True, I guess JNT picked up on his previous failures and decided to put
some effort into companion characterisation this time.
> >When this goes, you get a disaster like her NA character because, as a
> >character, she doesn't stand very well. This is why you need her to be a
> >screwed up teenager or a militant bitch.
>
> Why is her NA character a disaster? (Btw, I haven't read many NAs, so I'm
Because everybody wants her dead.
I told I friend I was thinking of writing an NA, and the first thing he
said
was "kill Ace"!
Also, I think you'll find, she's hated amongst the NA writers (Cornell,
Orman,
Lane, most of the NA circle).
Everybody wants her dead because she returned from "the Dalek wars" (now
that's original, isn't it PDE?) scarred and brutal from shredding Daleks.
She's still screwed up, she just carrys guns now and wears black leotards
and
knee-length boots. (oh whip me)
> >I can't help thinking she was also created with Leela in mind.
>
> So? I *liked* Leela. And besides, the only similarity I can really see is
> strength of character, and determination. Otherwise, they were completely
> different:
>
> Leela is a bloodthirsty killer, while Ace does little more than
> shout "Wicked!" when she makes a big bang.
But they were a change from the previously companion, both savages.
I seem to recall an "Ace is like Leela" debate around here a long time ago.
> Leela is usually very scantily clad, while (apart from 3 seconds of
> "Fenric" (-:) never shows more skin than her face, hands, and maybe a
> rolled-up sleeve or two.
Leela was in _Fenric_? ah, so *that's* the haemovore in the policeman's
outfit.
> Ace is psychologically vulnerable in some ways (see "Ghost Light" or "Greatest
> Show"), while Leela's determination and resourcefulness are never cracked,
> even when she is betrayed by the Doctor in "Invasion of Time" far more
> ruthlessly than Ace was in "Fenric".
I could go into a detailed list of their demeanour similarities, but that's
already been done, unless someone else wants to oblige...?
> Your unsupported opinion again. I think he was great in "Mawdryn Undead",
> actually, and not bad, if a little inconsistent, in "Enlightenment" as well.
> Why? Because of his motivations. In "Mawdryn", for example, his vacillation
> about his appointed task is a major plot engine -- Turlough's actions
> largely dictate the course of the story. For example, if Turlough hadn't
> sabotaged the transmat, the Doctor wouldn't have been stranded.
Whoopee do. So he had motivation. His character still sucked until _Fire_
(where he had *real* motivation).
> Segonax continued:
> >Adric, well the fact that everybody hates him seems to say something
> >doesn't it?
>
> Yep. It says that people don't like his character. Me included, for the
> most part, although I thought he had a few good stories. But I don't think
> Adric was bad because he was unoriginal; I think he was bad because he was
> an annoying little geek.
I think he was bad because he trolloped around in a toddler's suit. I think
Waterhouse himself may have been affected by that worse-than-Sarah's-smock-
in-Planet-of-Evil-outfit because when he got out of it in _Black Orchid_ he
was the best he's ever been. This is, of course, the fault of JNT.
> Well, for the record, it's "Tristan Farnon", without the 'r'. Y'know, like
> "Tristan und Isolde". And anyway, I repeat myself:
>
> What does it matter what JNT *wanted* the character to be like?
> He *wasn't* like Tristan Farnon.
Speaking of music, JNT totally stuffed up in this rank too by accepting the
disaster theme of season 23 and the synthy, early-80's-computer-game jibe
in the McCoy era. The new logo also sucks beyond belief.
Yes, PeteDoc was like Tristan, as JNT wanted him to be. Shy, soft-spoken,
occasionally misplaced (_Earthshock_ soap scene with Adric).
> Segonax replied:
> >OK, Who, IMO is very, very complex. Somebody should analyze it one day.
> >This is probably what Amblin will do, and through this will completely ruin
> >the series altogether.
> >You can, however, point out vital points that make Who win, like the fact
> >that
> >it appeals to the public as well as the fans. Seasons 24-26 didn't.
> >Almost everyone I've spoken to who watched Tom Baker, and then switched
> >on to watch Slyvester McCoy, watched about 2 minutes and switched off
> >immediately, thinking "am I watching this?!".
>
> All right, let's see here ... basically, you don't know what Who is -- OK,
> no problem; I can't really put my finger on it, either. So we look for clues.
Everybody has an intuitive idea of what Who is (I love this post :).
> The only clue you point out is that Tom Baker's Who was popular, but McCoy's
> wasn't. Fair enough -- that's true. But why was it true?
Because nobody really saw McCoy as the Doctor, apart from the fans who
could
identify him as being the Doctor because he had some previous-incarnation
elements. As a result, he appealed -only- to the fans, everyone else
switched
off.
> I don't know. But I've heard some persuasive arguments made here on the
> net that the unpopularity of "Doctor Who" during seasons 23-26 was due
> largely to the two hiatuses, since it was after both hiatuses that the
> most substantial drops in viewership are to be found. (Please correct
> me if I'm wrong on this.)
The hiatuses were caused because of JNT. What can I say?
> Incidentally, in my first exposure to McCoy Who, I watched almost an hour
> and a half ... and *then* switched it off, thinking "Am I watching this?!"
> Mind you, it was "Greatest Show" I saw, so I plead extenuating circumstances.
> (-:
One of the few real McCoy stories. A reasonably Who story because it had a
sense of menace.
> >You'll probably also find that
> >the millions who watched SlyDoc's were kiddies.
>
> Supposition. You have no evidence to support that claim, nor, I suspect,
> will you ever have.
Hypothesis. Considering it was at its most childish (Dapol picked up on
this
by making those pathetic plastic dolls and TARDIS sets with children
playing
with them on the front as promos), it would have appealed more to children
and
fans than anyone else.
Of course I don't have evidence because I don't do the surveys, and I don't
live in the UK.
> JNT's last five years were much more disappointing, though, I'll concede.
> But the common factor here wasn't JNT, because he produced four years of the
> most consistently good Who since Hinchcliffe (who only lasted three years,
> himself), and in any case, there is still the odd good story buried in the
> muck of seasons 22-26.
Consistently good, as far as Peter Davison Who goes, which isn't very good.
> Well, I think I've dealt with the originality issue, to the extent that
> you've produced arguments on it. Unless you can give me some more compelling
> evidence that JNT lacked originality, I'm not going to believe you, because
> I can see plenty of originality in his work.
His main 'work' has been creating and casting the Doctors and companions.
Everything else, to my understanding (ie. the way the show is made) is up
to the directors, writers and script-editors he hires. He makes the big
decisions.
> I still fail to see how JNT's attitude damaged Who in any way. And as
> for childishness ... have you ever seen any of a dozen Hartnell shows?
> They were transparently childish -- much more so than *anything* JNT
> produced.
Let's just say he was arrogant after three years of "producing Doctor Who".
This attitude was reflected not only in ColDoc, but in his blatant
irresponsibility by including the violence and silly humour.
> Segonax replied:
> >I don't think he completely failed. I think he lacked originality and
> >failed to expand the Who format, rehashing old ideas and cliches. But he did
> >produce some great stuff. Therefore, he had his good and bad points, the
> >majority bad since two seasons in nine were good.
>
> Each sentence is an unsupported opinion, except the last, which is a trivial
> deduction from an unsupported opinion, followed by an unsupported opinion.
My God, and I've just taken a dialectic course. <slapping wrist>
> I think he succeeded brilliantly for four seasons, changed the Who format
> considerably, and produced some great stories, even in his last season.
> He probably should have left after season 21, but then, whoever did season
> 3 should never have been hired in the first place. (-:
But ultimately had more stuff ups than good points, making him a failure as
producer, disliked by many people and exhausted to the point of HIM wanting
to leave himself.
ciao for now
Segonax.
Alan C. Burns
>> I wasn't aware his character was so unpopular.
>It was, because alot of casual watchers switched off when he arrived.
[Stuff deleted]
>> >You've got a point. But viewers wanted Tom Baker. If he would have
>> >regenerated at the end of season 17, there would have been the same massive
>> >audience drop there was by season 19. It was Tom Baker that kept people
>> >watching, NOT the new flashy format.
>>
>> What rubbish. Davison's ratings were just fine,
>What rubbish. Many (millions?) stopped watching at his arrival.
There's one thing you're forgetting here. There was something else
besides the Doctor that changed for Season 19 -- the time slot.
Doctor Who was moved from the Saturday afternoon slot it had occupied
for 18 years to being shown twice a week on Monday and Tuesday nights.
And even at that, I don't think the drop in ratings was very substantial.
Of course, I'm no authority on ratings (and I'm sure someone will correct
me if I'm wrong :-), but I believe Tom Baker drew an audience of about
6-8 million during his first couple of seasons and peaked at 12-14
million in Season 17. Davison's first season drew a steady 10.5 million.
All in all, I'd say that's not a bad start for a show with a new lead
and a new time slot.
--
Alan C. Burns | Win if you can, lose if you must. But always
ac...@Ra.MsState.Edu | cheat.
Toby Barrett
(hope I've spelled it correctly). I remember hearing once (can't remember
where) that, far from having a religious meaning, "Caves" was a political
comment on the British miners' strike of 1983/84. I saw the programme a
while back but, apart from having a corrupt and callous ruler (Thatcher?)
and an exploited mining class (the miners?), I couldn't see much of a
parallel.
Has anyone else heard this theory? (Apologies if I'm dragging up an old
topic.)
Toby Barrett, at BNR Europe, UK
toby...@bnr.co.uk
Christopher D. Heer
>In article <35ibrc$j...@agate.berkeley.edu>, mcki...@lhasa.berkeley.edu
>(David McKinnon) wrote:
>> In article <g9106936-1...@graneekmac5.anu.edu.au>,
>> Segonax <g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>Similarity in character is irrelevent, because Doc's 1 and 6 are actually
>quite different in *character*. On-screen, ColDoc had alot of pointless
>arrogance and tetchiness that was very, very alike to BillDoc. It was
>reasonably obvious (a fact?) that JNT was trying to make the two alike.
>ie. a clone, completely pointless because it introduced unneeded silliness,
>removed when ColDoc's character was taken seriously in _Vengence on Varos_
>and particularly _Revelation of the Daleks_. Unfortunately, the unsuccess
>JNT had made of season 22 had sinked in by the stage ColDoc's character
>was decent (Revelation), causing the hiatus.
Well. . . no, I disagree.
First of all, if you go back and actually watch some Hartnell episodes (I
recommend Time Meddler, BTW, as one of his best) and then watch a couple of
Colin episodes. . . the arrogance and tetchiness is very, very different.
IMHO there's a completely different flavour there.
YET AGAIN you are making assertions with nothing behind them, as you say it
introduced "unneeded silliness". . . what unneeded silliness?
Oh, and there are a lot of arguments as to what exactly caused the hiatus, but
I don't think you can simply point to the "unsuccess" JNT made of the season.
The hiatus was as much BBC power politics as anything else. Read the Sixth
Doctor handbook. More than three pages.
>What I want is McCoy, Cartmel (perhaps), JNT and Harper - the perfect
>combination!
Is this sarcasm or serious? If it's sarcasm. . . Graeme Harper was probably
the best director to ever hit Doctor Who, IMHO. If it's serious. . .
WHAT!?!?!? No fair changing your opinion halfway through the post.
>> What I like about Ace is the fact that she exerts a great deal of her own
>> influence on the plot. Most companions existed primarily to ask questions
>> of the Doctor, look pretty, and give the villains someone to blackmail the
>> Doctor with. Ace, on the other hand, made things happen herself.
>True, I guess JNT picked up on his previous failures and decided to put
>some effort into companion characterisation this time.
For which you credit him nothing, yes?
[re: Turlough]
>> Your unsupported opinion again. I think he was great in "Mawdryn Undead",
>> actually, and not bad, if a little inconsistent, in "Enlightenment" as well.
>> Why? Because of his motivations. In "Mawdryn", for example, his vacillation
>> about his appointed task is a major plot engine -- Turlough's actions
>> largely dictate the course of the story. For example, if Turlough hadn't
>> sabotaged the transmat, the Doctor wouldn't have been stranded.
>Whoopee do. So he had motivation. His character still sucked until _Fire_
>(where he had *real* motivation).
Your opinion. I thought he was great in Mawdryn/etc., and certainly one of
the most *original* companions in years.
>> Segonax continued:
>> >Adric, well the fact that everybody hates him seems to say something
>> >doesn't it?
>> Yep. It says that people don't like his character. Me included, for the
>> most part, although I thought he had a few good stories. But I don't think
>> Adric was bad because he was unoriginal; I think he was bad because he was
>> an annoying little geek.
>I think he was bad because he trolloped around in a toddler's suit. I think
>Waterhouse himself may have been affected by that worse-than-Sarah's-smock-
>in-Planet-of-Evil-outfit because when he got out of it in _Black Orchid_ he
>was the best he's ever been. This is, of course, the fault of JNT.
Now I've heard everything. The *costume* made him an annoying geek? ARE YOU
SERIOUS!?!?
Gack.
Matthew Waterhouse cannot act his way out of a paper bag. Period. His
delivery is flat and wooden; he has almost no facial expressions, and his very
persona exudes putziness. No costume change could have fixed that. This is,
of course, the fault of Matthew Waterhouse.
[re: Davison: original or not?]
>> Well, for the record, it's "Tristan Farnon", without the 'r'. Y'know, like
>> "Tristan und Isolde". And anyway, I repeat myself:
>> What does it matter what JNT *wanted* the character to be like?
>> He *wasn't* like Tristan Farnon.
>Speaking of music, JNT totally stuffed up in this rank too by accepting the
>disaster theme of season 23 and the synthy, early-80's-computer-game jibe
>in the McCoy era.
Well I will agree that the season 23 theme sucked like a Hoover, but I didn't
think the McCoy theme was so bad. . . frankly, though, the Howell mix will
always be my favourite.
>The new logo also sucks beyond belief.
EH. . . it was OK. But not significant enough to get me caring one way or the
other. I try not to spend too much time getting worked up over logos.
>Yes, PeteDoc was like Tristan, as JNT wanted him to be. Shy, soft-spoken,
>occasionally misplaced (_Earthshock_ soap scene with Adric).
He could also be more forceful. He also, IMHO, was the only person ever to
play the Doctor that could *act*. Really *act*. He proved you could be
really good at the role without having to be funny.
[re: McCoy's popularity]
>> The only clue you point out is that Tom Baker's Who was popular, but McCoy's
>> wasn't. Fair enough -- that's true. But why was it true?
>Because nobody really saw McCoy as the Doctor, apart from the fans who
>could
>identify him as being the Doctor because he had some previous-incarnation
>elements. As a result, he appealed -only- to the fans, everyone else
>switched
>off.
I think we've pointed out many, many times now that obviously more than just
the "fans" were watching.
>> I don't know. But I've heard some persuasive arguments made here on the
>> net that the unpopularity of "Doctor Who" during seasons 23-26 was due
>> largely to the two hiatuses, since it was after both hiatuses that the
>> most substantial drops in viewership are to be found. (Please correct
>> me if I'm wrong on this.)
>The hiatuses were caused because of JNT. What can I say?
That it's your opinion, and you don't really know? That would do for a start.
The hiatuses were caused by Jonathan Powell. Reasons for them are a constant
source of debate, but one thing is clear: had JNT and the fans not lobbied,
the original hiatus would have been a cancellation. Remember, the big
viewership drops were *after* the hiatuses (hiati?).
[quality of JNT's shows]
>> JNT's last five years were much more disappointing, though, I'll concede.
>> But the common factor here wasn't JNT, because he produced four years of the
>> most consistently good Who since Hinchcliffe (who only lasted three years,
>> himself), and in any case, there is still the odd good story buried in the
>> muck of seasons 22-26.
>Consistently good, as far as Peter Davison Who goes, which isn't very good.
Well I certainly disagree with that, but do you dispute that it was the most
consistently good Who since Hinchcliffe? Or do you believe the Williams
tenure was better? <gag>
>> Well, I think I've dealt with the originality issue, to the extent that
>> you've produced arguments on it. Unless you can give me some more compelling
>> evidence that JNT lacked originality, I'm not going to believe you, because
>> I can see plenty of originality in his work.
>His main 'work' has been creating and casting the Doctors and companions.
>Everything else, to my understanding (ie. the way the show is made) is up
>to the directors, writers and script-editors he hires. He makes the big
>decisions.
>> I still fail to see how JNT's attitude damaged Who in any way. And as
>> for childishness ... have you ever seen any of a dozen Hartnell shows?
>> They were transparently childish -- much more so than *anything* JNT
>> produced.
>Let's just say he was arrogant after three years of "producing Doctor Who".
>This attitude was reflected not only in ColDoc, but in his blatant
>irresponsibility by including the violence and silly humour.
Well, the humour was put in at the order of Powell and Grade, to *replace* the
violence. You can't have it both ways.
>> Segonax replied:
>> >I don't think he completely failed. I think he lacked originality and
>> >failed to expand the Who format, rehashing old ideas and cliches. But he did
>> >produce some great stuff. Therefore, he had his good and bad points, the
>> >majority bad since two seasons in nine were good.
>> Each sentence is an unsupported opinion, except the last, which is a trivial
>> deduction from an unsupported opinion, followed by an unsupported opinion.
>My God, and I've just taken a dialectic course. <slapping wrist>
Did you pass?
>> I think he succeeded brilliantly for four seasons, changed the Who format
>> considerably, and produced some great stories, even in his last season.
>> He probably should have left after season 21, but then, whoever did season
>> 3 should never have been hired in the first place. (-:
>But ultimately had more stuff ups than good points, making him a failure as
>producer, disliked by many people and exhausted to the point of HIM wanting
>to leave himself.
Of course he wanted to leave. Anyone in that line of work wants to move on,
and Doctor Who was not considered "choice" property for producing due to
budgets, etc. He wanted to move onward and upward, but I think he did have
more good points than stuff ups.
--
Christopher D. Heer | We're bad. . . we're the Special.K.Club!
ch...@isisph.com | "Why do they always eat their ragweed
Christopher D. Heer
>In article <cheer.988...@isisph.com>, ch...@isisph.com (Christopher
>D. Heer) wrote:
>> >But PeteDoc was essentially created with Tristran in mind, due to JNT's
>> >relations with "All Creatures...". The fact that he stole an idea from
>> >another
>> >show means lack of originality. There could have been a young, original
>> >Doctor with a hell of a lot more action than Davison. If Davison *hadn't*
>> >been
>> >such a woss his character would probably have been more popular.
>> I wasn't aware his character was so unpopular.
>It was, because alot of casual watchers switched off when he arrived.
Did they? Funny, his ratings actually looked pretty good.
Or do you mean in America? Since Americans were watching nothing but Tom
Baker reruns for years on end, it's not surprising they had trouble with a new
Doctor.
No, Davison's UK ratings look pretty good. . . how do you define "a lot"? 10
viewers? 2 million?
>> By the way, Colin was picked partly with the thought of injecting action into
>> the series. Is that what you wanted, or was that unoriginal by season 21?
>I thought Colin's character was fabulous action-wise, a refreshing change
>from Davison. Originality is irrelevent here.
Why? Because it doesn't support your argument? OK, let me see if I have
this, now. When JNT injects bits of old Doctors, that's unoriginal. But when
he creates new aspects, etc., that's irrelevent.
Gosh, I wish *I* could argue like that. . .
>> First you say he wanted to bring back some of the original elements, but
>> why bother. Next you say "Sure, so there will be some elements from each
>> Doctor, but not carbon copies." You're not being remotely coherent.
>OK. I meant that in each Doctor, there should be some elements from each
>previous Doctor, but not a total mouthful, as in Colin's case.
>
>> I asserted that Colin was *not* a carbon copy of Hartnell. While both could
>> be acidic from time to time, the actual character was quite different. You've
>> done absolutely zero to refute this. Should I assume you cannot?
>Colin has, on-screen, the same arrogance and tetchiness as Hartnell. This,
>to
>my knowledge, was deliberate. This wasn't even part of ColDoc's *real*
>character, so the characters were different. The arrogance was apparently
>something thrown in for a laugh.
I dispute that the arrogance and tetchiness were the same. In fact, I
challenge you to point out examples of just how similar they are. I'm willing
to bet you cannot, because they are, in fact, different. Go rewatch some
Hartnell episodes, and then a couple of Colins. IMHO it's pretty obvious.
What, by the way, was his *real* character? I'm not sure I understand that
comment at all.
>> A few points, here.
>>
>> 1: You've done nothing to demonstrate *how* the costume represents his screwy
>> conception of Who.
>OKOK, I'm not a great psychologist but it looked like the coat, in its
>screwed up, mishapen manner, was a projection of JNT's own conception of
>Who,
>since, he was in charge of the series, he designed the coat, and was
>basically out of control. Projection is a defense mechanism. Somebody as
>insecure as
>he was shouldn't have been allowed to be in charge of a brilliant series.
Well, I'm certainly not going to *defend* that barfy outfit. In fact, I
suspect that even Mike Zecca, He Who Worships Colin Baker's Toe Jam, will not
defend the costume. However, I think the amateur psychology is stretching
things a bit. And it hangs on your assertion that JNT was out of control,
something I am not convinced of.
(lookie this, Zecca, Segonax has me *defending* Colin. . . how the HELL did
that happen?)
>> 2: Writers and directors did the good job? Which he picked, of course.
>>Why is it that every few months we have to get someone here that blames all
>>the good stuff on JNT's staff and all the bad stuff on JNT?
>OK, so he did a good job in picking writers (bar Eric Saward).
No argument there; I've no love lost for Saward.
>One of his few
>strong points. Then again, good writers were reasonably easy to come by,
>nobody as unprofessional as him would show their face in the industry.
What a goofy thing to say. *Bad* writers are all over the place, as are good
ones. Choosing good writers is not automatically easy, and I certainly have
to give JNT credit for finding people like Chris Bidmead.
>> >But, ironically, very alike. This is why I predict JNT's Doc 8 would have
>> >been a Pertwee-clone.
>>
>> You still offer no support for your assertion. I dispute your prediction.
>What would you predict JNT's Doc#8 to be like then?
I have no idea. I am not a fortune teller.
>> >mmm. OK I'll accept this as reasonable Who, bar the sex. It tried to be
>> >more
>> >adult, but they still thought it was a children's series so it was
>> >basically
>> >pretentious rubbish. (but I love it ;)
>> A few more points.
>> 1: What sex?
>Ace's "I'm not a little girl" speech and the way she tricked the guard so
>the Doctor could release Sorin. This is the closest the series got to sex,
>bar a few insinuations in _Caves of Androzani_.
OK, I admit, that skirted the line and I wasn't nuts about it.
>> >> Well, you can't blame the NAs on JNT. Will you saddle their goofy
>> >> characterisation of Ace on him too?
>> >Funny. Did PDE create the mercenary Ace or did Paul Cornell? It always
>> >seems
>> >the heads of series are the most incapable.
>> Certainly the easiest targets for blame.
>Your point?
I made it earlier. The credit for good stuff always goes to the individual
writers, actors, whatever, but the bad stuff always gets dumped on the one in
charge.
>> >> Personally I thought McCoy had a great character. Shit scripts, by and
>> >> large, but a great character.
>> >Agreed, but there was nothing really solid. That's why he's died in the
>> >NA's.
>> So you agree that he *did* have a great character, even if there was nothing
>> solid. (?)
>Yep. He had a good, unsolid character.
Oh, *now* I understand. . .
>> >> I'm sure it had something to do with it. The Tom Baker Show had been
>> >> cancelled, and the Emperor was dethroned. IMHO this was one of the best
>> >> things JNT did.
>> >You've got a point. But viewers wanted Tom Baker. If he would have
>> >regenerated at the end of season 17, there would have been the same massive
>> >audience drop there was by season 19. It was Tom Baker that kept people
>> >watching, NOT the new flashy format.
>> What rubbish. Davison's ratings were just fine,
>What rubbish. Many (millions?) stopped watching at his arrival.
You must have a different ratings source than I do. What are your numbers?
>> >> What about 16? Or 17? I think Season 18 blows the crap out of those two.
>> >This is due to the writers JNT hired, NOT his own personal contribution. I
>> >don't know why he pointlessly fired Douglas <musician> and used the BBC
>> >radiophonic workshop. ANY electronic musician that uses a Hammond-organ
>> >piano sound deserves firing.
>> But you ignored the question (although you imply that you agree with my
>> assertion). Was season 18 better than 16 and 17 or not? IMHO season 17 was
>> nearly complete crap. Amusing at times, but still crap.
>Disagreed. _City of Death_ is in my top 12.
A good story. But Logopolis is in my top 5, whereas Destiny of the Daleks and
the Creature from the Nightmare of Nimon are all in my bottom 20. The signal
to noise ratio during Williams was horrible.
--
Christopher D. Heer | We're bad. . . we're the Special.K.Club!
ch...@isisph.com | "Why do they always eat their ragweed
Christopher D. Heer
^^^^^^^^
Like a tendency to lose complete control over his actors, an inability to keep
the series even remotely serious, and a love for silliness like K9?
Williams had a *few* good stories during his tenure, but not many, and the
only real accomplishment he had IMHO was avoiding the talking cabbage
companion.
Christopher D. Heer
>In article <35bc7i$b...@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au>, kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au
>(Kate Orman) wrote:
>> "The majority hate him"? Do they? Just because the Sixth Doctor (*not*
>> Colin) tends to come low on fave Doctor surveys doesn't mean he's despised
>> - it just means other Doctors are more popular. Unless you've got a "Who's
>> your *least* favourite Doctor?" poll up your sleeve... Hartnell usually
>> comes lower than Col - does that mean "the majority" despise him?
>OK, the majority dislike him. Hate is a powerful word.
>Hartnell is low because he's archaic, and nobody watches him. Those that
>do watch him (me included) can't stand to sit through more than two
>minutes.
>I guess his stories were enjoyable in 1963, but most aren't now.
Speak for yourself. No wonder you make so many goofy assertions about how
similar Hartnell and Colin are.
Maybe some of us have a less narrow-minded, Tom-Baker-Centric view of Who than
you do.
Personally, I enjoy a lot of Hartnell's episodes, and Time Meddler is in my
top 10.
Steve Traylen
re-assert my Defence of Davison........
Segonax
>>What rubbish. Many (millions?) stopped watching at his arrival.
>
Chris
>You must have a different ratings source than I do. What are your numbers?
>
Lots of stuff above and below deleted to stop me posting in a Yadalleesque
way....
I have to say that Segonax is talking a complete load of Bollocks...
Season 18....Ratings
Leisure Hive 5.1M
Meglos 4.65M
Full Circle 5.25M
State of Decay 5.2M
Warriors Gate 7.5M
Keeper of Traken 6.25M
Logopolis 6.7M
Considering that Horns of Nimon from the previous season averaged 8.75M, I
would say the public was ready for a change.... so long comes Petey boy and
miraculously 2 Million people turn off, but 4MIllion new people turned on!
Result The Davison years averaged about 7-8 Million, I think Castrovalva
had well over 9 million, not sure of the numbers but they were certainly
over 2 Million greater than most of season 18, even Colin when he was put
on Hiatus was getting 6Million.......
Nuff said......
Steve Traylen
"He's back, and it's about time!"
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Geophysics - UW-Madison stra...@geology.wisc.edu
Join the r.a.dw chat on IRC #drwho - 4PM Eastern
spigi fligi hertlemeyer
but I did have a hard time watching them although I don't
think i really cringed watching a hartnell episode until i
watched _The Gunfighters_. I almost want to see it again just
to see what I think of it now but I remember it as having
worse american accents than nicola bryant's and hartnell just
looked really out of place during the whole thing. I mean it
looked like everyone involved had spent time watching
_bonanza_ and _the wild wild west_ for inspiration.
-Spigillini, the pasta that bites back
--------------------------------------------------------------------
sy...@samsara.circus.com mic...@gorn.iuma.com mic...@deeptht.armory.com
"don't try to get away I'm here to stay my name is your fa^it" - Curve
"NOBODY FUCKING MOVE. This is a fucking raid. Do what we say or the
kangaroo opens his gob and we all go bang!!" - TANK GIRL
David McKinnon
Segonax <g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au> wrote:
[re: my claim that Doc3 and Doc4 are as similar as Doc1 and Doc6]
>Similarity in character is irrelevent, because Doc's 1 and 6 are actually
>quite different in *character*. On-screen, ColDoc had alot of pointless
>arrogance and tetchiness that was very, very alike to BillDoc. It was
>reasonably obvious (a fact?) that JNT was trying to make the two alike.
[speculation about cause of hiatus deleted]
Similarity in character is irrelevant? My dear girl, that's the whole
point of the discussion!
I say Doc6 and Doc1 were clearly not clones of each other. Chris Heer
agrees with me. We have presented evidence. You have not.
We win. Yay!
I wrote:
>> Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "attitude", but I think Zoe was largely
>> a helpless wet. She had some stronger stories ("The Krotons", for example,
>> and bits of "Invasion"), but for the most part, she shivered and cried.
>> Particularly in the "Mind Robber" -- out of the scads of dangerous
>> situations, she screamed for the Doctor's help every time but once, in the
>> Karkus scene.
Segonax replied:
>Why then, was she so popular?
>When I say "attitude" I mean good, on-screen 'kick-arse'ness, displayed in
>the computer screen and in every Sarah Jane Smith scene that comes to mind.
That's the same definition of "attitude" that I have. Zoe had very little
of it. Have you *seen* "Mind Robber"? Zoe is the most whining, frightened,
whimpering little cretin that you've ever seen.
I wrote:
>> Yep, I agree. And if I recall correctly, she also helps the UNIT missile
>> attack near the end. But for most of the story, she's being captured by
>> Vaughn, screaming at Cybermen, being bossed around by UNIT officers, and
>> being rescued by the Doctor.
Segonax replied:
>So what. Wouldn't you be frightened being a little girl and captured by
>aliens?
Now you're explaining *why* Zoe didn't have attitude.
Of course it's understandable. I didn't say that I disliked Zoe's
character -- on the contrary, I think she's a fine companion (except in
"Mind Robber" (-:). But she *didn't* have attitude.
Adric did, though. He argued, whined, cajoled, debated, and betrayed.
He bickered with Tegan, Nyssa, the Doctor ... practically everyone in sight,
in fact. *That's* attitude.
> [Adric]
>
>It was a failure because of the way JNT made him appear onscreen. Sure,
>Waterhouse sucked (sometimes) but his general demeanour was the fault of
>JNT. He seemed to do this with the Cybermen also.
Matthew Waterhouse had the repsonsiblity for how Adric appeared onscreen,
not JNT. It is Waterhouse's fault. Period.
Segonax wrote:
>> >Crap. Ace is warped, her only winning point being her teenage psychology.
I replied:
>> Actually, I don't like her "teenage psychology" aspects at all -- I think
>> it damaged stories like "Greatest Show" and "Ghost Light" a great deal.
Segonax answered:
>But it made her a success. As for her nitro-nine throwing, it's silly,
>immature and warped, particularly when they're trying to be more adult,
>unlike Leela's knife throwing, which was in character considering her
>upbringing.
Wait ... you have already said that Ace was not a success. That "everyone
hated her in the NAs". That "only the fans could appreciate seasons 24-26."
Cheat. (-:
The nitro-nine throwing was perfectly in character -- I knew plenty of
people in high school who liked big bangs and explosives just as much as
Ace did. The only difference is that Ace put the explosives to much
better use than they did.
[glowing comments about Ace deleted]
Great! So we have some good JNT characterisation at last.
I wrote:
>> Leela is a bloodthirsty killer, while Ace does little more than
>> shout "Wicked!" when she makes a big bang.
Segonax replied:
>But they were a change from the previously companion, both savages.
>I seem to recall an "Ace is like Leela" debate around here a long time ago.
Mel was a change from the previous companion. Doesn't make her like
Leela, now does it?
I don't remember an "Ace is like Leela" debate here, although I might just
have forgotten it. I *do* remember an argument I had with Jon Blum that
Leela is just as deep an interesting a character as Ace, though.
Even if such an argument happened, though, I still claim that the two
characters are very different. I argued as much in my previous post,
and you didn't answer my arguments.
I wrote:
>> Leela is usually very scantily clad, while (apart from 3 seconds of
>> "Fenric" (-:) never shows more skin than her face, hands, and maybe a
>> rolled-up sleeve or two.
Segonax replied:
>Leela was in _Fenric_? ah, so *that's* the haemovore in the policeman's
>outfit.
Yes, sorry. There's a missing "Ace" between "while" and "(apart".
I still have a valid point, though.
I pointed out:
>> Ace is psychologically vulnerable in some ways (see "Ghost Light" or
>> "Greatest
>> Show"), while Leela's determination and resourcefulness are never cracked,
>> even when she is betrayed by the Doctor in "Invasion of Time" far more
>> ruthlessly than Ace was in "Fenric".
Segonax answered:
>I could go into a detailed list of their demeanour similarities, but that's
>already been done, unless someone else wants to oblige...?
There are far more differences than similarities. I have pointed out some
major ones. You have pointed out only one similarity: that they're both
somewhat aggressive. Jamie was also aggresive. Is he the same as Leela
or Ace?
[re Turlough]
Segonax wrote:
>Whoopee do. So he had motivation. His character still sucked until _Fire_
>(where he had *real* motivation).
Why did his character suck? You can't just write down the answer without
showing your working, because you won't get any partial credit otherwise.
I say his character was excellent in "Mawdryn". He had difficult decisions
to take that drastically affected the course of the story. Indeed, a huge
chunk of the plot was *built* around Turlough's character.
[why Adric sucked]
Segonax wrote:
>I think he was bad because he trolloped around in a toddler's suit. I think
>Waterhouse himself may have been affected by that worse-than-Sarah's-smock-
>in-Planet-of-Evil-outfit because when he got out of it in _Black Orchid_ he
>was the best he's ever been. This is, of course, the fault of JNT.
So first Adric sucked because JNT was unoriginal, and now he sucks because
he wore a silly outfit. Make up your mind.
I still say he sucked because a sack of loam could have been more convincing
in the role than Matthew Waterhouse.
I asked (for the umpteenth time):
>> What does it matter what JNT *wanted* the character to be like?
>> He *wasn't* like Tristan Farnon.
Segonax replied:
[bizarre music digression snipped]
>Yes, PeteDoc was like Tristan, as JNT wanted him to be. Shy, soft-spoken,
>occasionally misplaced (_Earthshock_ soap scene with Adric).
But you said you hadn't seen much "All Creatures".
Tristan was not shy (he hit on anything with two X chromosomes), he was
not soft-spoken (he was constantly whingeing and complaining about how
bad his lot was), and ... well, OK, he was occasionally misplaced.
Peter Davison's Doctor was scrupulously honest (unlike Tristan), determined
(unlike Tristan), responsible (unlike Tristan), and asexual (unlike Tristan).
What similarities did you have in mind, then?
I asked:
>> The only clue you point out is that Tom Baker's Who was popular, but McCoy's
>> wasn't. Fair enough -- that's true. But why was it true?
Segonax replied:
>Because nobody really saw McCoy as the Doctor, apart from the fans who
>could
>identify him as being the Doctor because he had some previous-incarnation
>elements. As a result, he appealed -only- to the fans, everyone else
>switched
>off.
It has been proved conclusively many times on the net, in posts directed
directly at *you*, that there were many more McCoy viewers than just the
fans. Are you deliberately lying, or do you just have a balloon where
your skull ought to be?
Segonax opined:
>> >You'll probably also find that
>> >the millions who watched SlyDoc's were kiddies.
I pointed out:
>> Supposition. You have no evidence to support that claim, nor, I suspect,
>> will you ever have.
Segonax replied:
>Hypothesis. Considering it was at its most childish (Dapol picked up on
>this
>by making those pathetic plastic dolls and TARDIS sets with children
>playing
>with them on the front as promos), it would have appealed more to children
>and
>fans than anyone else.
Dapol has been making Who merchandise for years and years. The shameless
merchandising of childish Who paraphernalia started with "The Daleks",
in 1963.
Besides, you don't seem to understand the nature of debate. You make the
claim that McCoy's viewers were mostly children. Since that had not been
true in the past, and since most TV viewers are not children, the null
hypothesis is that most McCoy viewers were *not* children.
By Occam's Razor, then, we believe the null hypothesis until it is proven
wrong. I support the null hypothesis. You don't. You're the one who
therefore must provide evidence for your claim.
You did take a course in this, didn't you?
Segonax weaseled:
>Of course I don't have evidence because I don't do the surveys, and I don't
>live in the UK.
Oh! So you're admitting that you don't know what you're talking about.
How nice of you. Why are you wasting bandwidth then?
I wrote:
>> JNT's last five years were much more disappointing, though, I'll concede.
>> But the common factor here wasn't JNT, because he produced four years of the
>> most consistently good Who since Hinchcliffe (who only lasted three years,
>> himself), and in any case, there is still the odd good story buried in the
>> muck of seasons 22-26.
Segonax replied:
>Consistently good, as far as Peter Davison Who goes, which isn't very good.
I disagree -- I think Davison Who is excellent, on the whole. No Nimons,
no Cheetah People, no Dominators, no Monoids, no Mr. Popplewicks. I defy
you to find a story in seasons 19-21 that is as comprehensively bad as
"Horns of Nimon".
[re JNT]
>His main 'work' has been creating and casting the Doctors and companions.
>Everything else, to my understanding (ie. the way the show is made) is up
>to the directors, writers and script-editors he hires. He makes the big
>decisions.
Nope. JNT's responsibility was to produce good Who. That's what "producer"
means. He is responsible for hiring good writers (like Bidmead and Briggs,
for example), good directors (like Harper), good script-editors (like
Bidmead), good actors (like Davison), and everything else. He did a good
job, on the whole, and he made some mistakes.
>Let's just say he was arrogant after three years of "producing Doctor Who".
*You* can say such things without evidence, but I prefer to stay in the
realm of reality.
>This attitude was reflected not only in ColDoc, but in his blatant
>irresponsibility by including the violence and silly humour.
Like "Nightmare of Eden", for example? Was Graham Williams arrogant too?
In any case, how does violence and silly humour imply that JNT was
arrogant? I don't see the connection at all.
--David "DW Mornington Crescent is *way* mor fun than this" McKinnon
mcki...@math.berkeley.edu
Kate Orman
>(Kate Orman) wrote:
>
>> >Whoops, didn't know you read all messages on this group. Let me rephrase my
>> >comment: Paul Cornell's (and others) total obsession with Colin Baker,
>> >because the majority hate him. Minorities are one thing Paul, but when it
>> >comes to obsession....
>>
>> "The majority hate him"? Do they? Just because the Sixth Doctor (*not*
>> Colin) tends to come low on fave Doctor surveys doesn't mean he's despised
>> - it just means other Doctors are more popular. Unless you've got a "Who's
>> your *least* favourite Doctor?" poll up your sleeve... Hartnell usually
>> comes lower than Col - does that mean "the majority" despise him?
>
>OK, the majority dislike him. Hate is a powerful word.
You haven't managed to even establish that "the majority dislike him".
Let's see some evidence.
>> >Let me guess - you *loved* _Transit_ too?
>>
>> Still my favourite NA. :-)
>
>yet very, very depressing. Listen to "The Final Cut" instead :-).
"Transit" depressing... well, only in the sense that I curl into a little
foetal ball and wail, "OOoooooooOOOOOOOOooooooooooooiwishidwrittenthat!!!".
I hate it - er, sorry, dislike it - when that happens.
Kate Orman
>(Kate Orman) wrote:
>
>> In article <g9106936-1...@graneekmac4.anu.edu.au> g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au (Segonax) writes:
>>
>> >JNT lacked originality.
>>
>> This is an essential quality in a Doctor Who producer - if Hinchcliffe and
>> Williams are anything to go by. :-)
>
>How did Hinchcliffe and Williams lack originality?
Seen "The Manchurian Candidate" or "Frankenstein" or "The Phantom of the
Opera" or "The Thing" or "The Prisoner of Zenda" lately? :-)
R.P. AUGOOD
>From: stra...@geology.wisc.edu (Steve Traylen)
>Subject: Re: Doc's 5,6 & 7 were reflection of JNT's attitude
>Date: 20 Sep 1994 12:54:39 -0500
>I hope Chris doesn't mind me jumping in here (or Heer) but I have to
>re-assert my Defence of Davison........
>Segonax
>>>What rubbish. Many (millions?) stopped watching at his arrival.
>>
>Chris
>>You must have a different ratings source than I do. What are your numbers?
>>
>Lots of stuff above and below deleted to stop me posting in a Yadalleesque
>way....
>I have to say that Segonax is talking a complete load of Bollocks...
>Season 18....Ratings
>Leisure Hive 5.1M
>Meglos 4.65M
>Full Circle 5.25M
>State of Decay 5.2M
>Warriors Gate 7.5M
>Keeper of Traken 6.25M
>Logopolis 6.7M
>Considering that Horns of Nimon from the previous season averaged 8.75M, I
Yes, but didn't Horns coincide with the ITV Christmas strike of '79?
Aden Steinke
In article <35aolo$9...@agate.berkeley.edu>, mcki...@jaffna.berkeley.edu
(David McKinnon) wrote in correspondence with one
g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au (Segonax):
{gigantic snip}
> Zoe has attitude? Check out "Mind Robber" -- she runs squealing to the
> Doctor every time there's a problem or a danger.
>
> Or "Invasion" -- everything she does on her own lands her in trouble,
> and she has to get bailed out by the Doctor.
>
> Or "War Games" -- she does little more then follow the Doctor around all
> story long.
>
> All Zoe ever really gets is a few mentions of how clever she is (like in
> "Krotons" and "Invasion", for example), but when push comes to shove, she
> really is kind of useless.
What about Zoe in Seeds, demonstrating intelligence, compassion and
determination? What is so great about a character with 'attitude', Who is
not about how to survive life on the streets, beat up passersby etc.
{another huge snip}
> Millions of people watched seasons 24-26. There aren't a million Who fans
> in the world, let alone in the UK, so *someone* was watching the McCoy
> stories and enjoying them.
But less than half as many as those who watched Who in its heyday before
JNT I seem to recall.
JNT produced the occasional good Who story, and IMHO the proportion dropped
as the seasons went on - for this reason I do not like the overall work of
JNT. By the ratings much of the world agreed with me.
{huge snip}
aden
Aden Steinke, /\_/\
a.st...@uow.edu.au < o.o >
All his own work. > ^ <
Any resemblance to the opionions of the UOW SOMEWHERE, SOMEHOW
are entirely acidental. A CAT IS WATCHING YOU
Work Shoes
>In article <g9106936-2...@graneekmac4.anu.edu.au> g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au (Segonax) writes:
>>
>>In article <3539lu$m...@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au>, kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au
>>(Kate Orman) wrote:
>>
>>
>>How did Hinchcliffe and Williams lack originality?
>
>Seen "The Manchurian Candidate" or "Frankenstein" or "The Phantom of the
>Opera" or "The Thing" or "The Prisoner of Zenda" lately? :-)
At least they weren't parodies. ;D
>Kate Orman
>"You are endlessly agitating, unceasingly mischievous. Will you never
>stop?" - Light, in Marc Platt's "Ghost Light", 1989
-frak
Segonax
D. Heer) wrote:
> >> I wasn't aware his character was so unpopular.
>
> >It was, because alot of casual watchers switched off when he arrived.
>
> Did they? Funny, his ratings actually looked pretty good.
>
> Or do you mean in America? Since Americans were watching nothing but Tom
> Baker reruns for years on end, it's not surprising they had trouble with a new
> Doctor.
>
> No, Davison's UK ratings look pretty good. . . how do you define "a lot"? 10
> viewers? 2 million?
I mean, at Davison's arrival, the series lost a lot of its audience -
millions.
> >I thought Colin's character was fabulous action-wise, a refreshing change
> >from Davison. Originality is irrelevent here.
>
> Why? Because it doesn't support your argument? OK, let me see if I have
> this, now. When JNT injects bits of old Doctors, that's unoriginal. But when
> he creates new aspects, etc., that's irrelevent.
>
> Gosh, I wish *I* could argue like that. . .
You miss my point - getting some action into season 23 is neither original
nor unoriginal. It's needed. Therefore, originality is irrelevent in this
argument.
> I dispute that the arrogance and tetchiness were the same. In fact, I
> challenge you to point out examples of just how similar they are. I'm willing
> to bet you cannot, because they are, in fact, different. Go rewatch some
> Hartnell episodes, and then a couple of Colins. IMHO it's pretty obvious.
I know how Hartnell's Doctor is. I know how C.Baker's Doctor is. The latter
had arrogance that was obviously a rehash of the former. Boring, and not
part of ColDoc's real character anyway, unlike Hartnells.
> Well, I'm certainly not going to *defend* that barfy outfit. In fact, I
> suspect that even Mike Zecca, He Who Worships Colin Baker's Toe Jam, will not
> defend the costume. However, I think the amateur psychology is stretching
> things a bit. And it hangs on your assertion that JNT was out of control,
> something I am not convinced of.
Oh come off it. He sloppily threw in some violence and humour to 'liven
things
up a bit' (it seemed), or to give things a change. Did he think about the
consequences? Do any serious planning or were his ideas just simple,
unplanned
ideas because he didn't take Who seriously?
> >> 2: Writers and directors did the good job? Which he picked, of course.
> >>Why is it that every few months we have to get someone here that blames all
> >>the good stuff on JNT's staff and all the bad stuff on JNT?
>
> >OK, so he did a good job in picking writers (bar Eric Saward).
>
> No argument there; I've no love lost for Saward.
He wrote one good story: _The Visitation_. Earthshock is crummy beyond
belief.
> >One of his few
> >strong points. Then again, good writers were reasonably easy to come by,
> >nobody as unprofessional as him would show their face in the industry.
>
> What a goofy thing to say. *Bad* writers are all over the place, as are good
> ones. Choosing good writers is not automatically easy, and I certainly have
> to give JNT credit for finding people like Chris Bidmead.
I guess so. The writers he favoured, note, were those in close connection
with
him like Saward.
> >Your point?
>
> I made it earlier. The credit for good stuff always goes to the individual
> writers, actors, whatever, but the bad stuff always gets dumped on the one in
> charge.
And why not. If there's a stuffup, it's their responsibility.
> >Yep. He had a good, unsolid character.
>
> Oh, *now* I understand. . .
Crappy sarcasm, don't write for Benny.
> >Disagreed. _City of Death_ is in my top 12.
>
> A good story. But Logopolis is in my top 5, whereas Destiny of the Daleks and
> the Creature from the Nightmare of Nimon are all in my bottom 20. The signal
> to noise ratio during Williams was horrible.
_Destiny_ is unique. I don't know where the egyptian influence came from.
Segonax.
DAVID RICHARDSON
>I mean, at Davison's arrival, the series lost a lot of its audience -
>millions.
Rubbish! There was a big drop at the beginning of season 18 for some
reason (poor stupid idiots, what a brilliant season!), but it went up
several million for Davo's first season, and was very consistent through his
time.
[a hundred or so lines or other quoting, _not_ commented on, deleted]
____________________________________________________________________
David (Lord) J Richardson djr...@eng3.eng.monash.edu.au
<< Insert witty quote here >> bo...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
Segonax
(Kate Orman) wrote:
> >OK, the majority dislike him. Hate is a powerful word.
>
> You haven't managed to even establish that "the majority dislike him".
> Let's see some evidence.
Viewing figures, letters to DWM. Answer this: why would so many people
go the trouble of trying to martyrise him if people didn't hate him?
Same goes for Transit...;-)
> >> >Let me guess - you *loved* _Transit_ too?
> >>
> >> Still my favourite NA. :-)
> >
> >yet very, very depressing. Listen to "The Final Cut" instead :-).
>
> "Transit" depressing... well, only in the sense that I curl into a little
> foetal ball and wail, "OOoooooooOOOOOOOOooooooooooooiwishidwrittenthat!!!".
Know the feeling <sobbing after reading Hummer>.
However, Transit didn't seem to have any real structure. It seemed
Aaronovitch had an idea, and he constructed the entire story from front to
finish based on this idea, without any formal planning.
> I hate it - er, sorry, dislike it - when that happens.
ciao
Segonax.
Segonax
D. Heer) wrote:
> >OK, the majority dislike him. Hate is a powerful word.
> >Hartnell is low because he's archaic, and nobody watches him. Those that
> >do watch him (me included) can't stand to sit through more than two
> >minutes.
> >I guess his stories were enjoyable in 1963, but most aren't now.
>
> Speak for yourself. No wonder you make so many goofy assertions about how
> similar Hartnell and Colin are.
>
> Maybe some of us have a less narrow-minded, Tom-Baker-Centric view of Who than
> you do.
Right. <grabbing tree branch>
My view of Who stretches through all incarnations. I compare alot of it to
the Baker peak areas, because frankly that was when who was REALLY Who.
It had been developed throughout the previous incarnations and had become
a massive success then.
Then, when JNT walks in, what we have come to know as "Who", deteriorates
somewhat, and keeps deteriorating until the point of some of the non-caring
New Adventures.
There is no definite "Who" by now, and so you either have rehashes
(Legacy),
brilliant reprisals (Lucifer Rising, Love and War) or complete flops (The
Pit).
I almost agree with some fans' assertions: Doctor Who died after _Trial of
a
Timelord_.
> Personally, I enjoy a lot of Hartnell's episodes, and Time Meddler is in my
> top 10.
I enjoy alot of Hartnell stories, but when screened on TV I pay more
attention
to the armrest.
Segonax.
Segonax
(David McKinnon) wrote:
> In article <g9106936-2...@graneekmac4.anu.edu.au>,
> Segonax <g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> [re: my claim that Doc3 and Doc4 are as similar as Doc1 and Doc6]
>
> >Similarity in character is irrelevent, because Doc's 1 and 6 are actually
> >quite different in *character*. On-screen, ColDoc had alot of pointless
> >arrogance and tetchiness that was very, very alike to BillDoc. It was
> >reasonably obvious (a fact?) that JNT was trying to make the two alike.
> Similarity in character is irrelevant? My dear girl, that's the whole
> point of the discussion!
You didn't have a clue about my sarcasm did you? Segonax is a guy. <blush>
And it's not the whole point of the argument.
> I say Doc6 and Doc1 were clearly not clones of each other. Chris Heer
> agrees with me. We have presented evidence. You have not.
>
> We win. Yay!
Well obviously, NOT complete clones of each other. Any fool can see that
(you
lose).
ColDoc had substantial cloned, and thus false, characteristics of BillDoc.
> Segonax replied:
> >Why then, was she so popular?
> >When I say "attitude" I mean good, on-screen 'kick-arse'ness, displayed in
> >the computer screen and in every Sarah Jane Smith scene that comes to mind.
>
> That's the same definition of "attitude" that I have. Zoe had very little
> of it. Have you *seen* "Mind Robber"? Zoe is the most whining, frightened,
> whimpering little cretin that you've ever seen.
Like I said, it's realistic. Many other companions' reactions are cliched.
> I wrote:
> >> Yep, I agree. And if I recall correctly, she also helps the UNIT missile
> >> attack near the end. But for most of the story, she's being captured by
> >> Vaughn, screaming at Cybermen, being bossed around by UNIT officers, and
> >> being rescued by the Doctor.
>
> Segonax replied:
> >So what. Wouldn't you be frightened being a little girl and captured by
> >aliens?
>
> Now you're explaining *why* Zoe didn't have attitude.
She had attitude, yet she was human. Accounts for the realism of the series
around that time.
> Adric did, though. He argued, whined, cajoled, debated, and betrayed.
> He bickered with Tegan, Nyssa, the Doctor ... practically everyone in sight,
> in fact. *That's* attitude.
It's not attitude because he was a little geek, in your words.
> >It was a failure because of the way JNT made him appear onscreen. Sure,
> >Waterhouse sucked (sometimes) but his general demeanour was the fault of
> >JNT. He seemed to do this with the Cybermen also.
>
> Matthew Waterhouse had the repsonsiblity for how Adric appeared onscreen,
> not JNT. It is Waterhouse's fault. Period.
Like hell. Waterhouse acted how he was told. If he went his way he'd have
been
fired.
> Segonax answered:
> >But it made her a success. As for her nitro-nine throwing, it's silly,
> >immature and warped, particularly when they're trying to be more adult,
> >unlike Leela's knife throwing, which was in character considering her
> >upbringing.
>
> Wait ... you have already said that Ace was not a success. That "everyone
> hated her in the NAs". That "only the fans could appreciate seasons 24-26."
>
> Cheat. (-:
She is a success, pre-_Deceit_. Read the NA's then try again.
> The nitro-nine throwing was perfectly in character -- I knew plenty of
> people in high school who liked big bangs and explosives just as much as
> Ace did. The only difference is that Ace put the explosives to much
> better use than they did.
The nitro-nine throwing was in character for a warped persona. They did,
however, try to make it looked like "Ace" was *not* warped.
They failed, because once she grew up (in the NA's) nothing else could be
done
with her useless character so Darvill-Evans made her into <space left for
NA writers>.
> Great! So we have some good JNT characterisation at last.
Wrong again. See above.
> Mel was a change from the previous companion. Doesn't make her like
> Leela, now does it?
I meant a change as in from nice, sweet, normal, to something with a bang.
<ha ha>
> I don't remember an "Ace is like Leela" debate here, although I might just
> have forgotten it. I *do* remember an argument I had with Jon Blum that
> Leela is just as deep an interesting a character as Ace, though.
Steven Manfred may have been involved.
> Even if such an argument happened, though, I still claim that the two
> characters are very different. I argued as much in my previous post,
> and you didn't answer my arguments.
The two -characters- are different, but their demeanours (?) and roles as
a 'Doctor Who companion' are very similar.
> Segonax answered:
> >I could go into a detailed list of their demeanour similarities, but that's
> >already been done, unless someone else wants to oblige...?
>
> There are far more differences than similarities. I have pointed out some
> major ones. You have pointed out only one similarity: that they're both
> somewhat aggressive. Jamie was also aggresive. Is he the same as Leela
> or Ace?
No. He's male.
> [re Turlough]
>
> Segonax wrote:
> >Whoopee do. So he had motivation. His character still sucked until _Fire_
> >(where he had *real* motivation).
>
> Why did his character suck? You can't just write down the answer without
> showing your working, because you won't get any partial credit otherwise.
Look at _The King's Demons_..."DON'T try me TO FARRR!!!" and the infamous
"TRACTATOOOORRRRS!!!!"
This two hapless lines are basic representations of how bland his character
was.
> I say his character was excellent in "Mawdryn". He had difficult decisions
> to take that drastically affected the course of the story. Indeed, a huge
> chunk of the plot was *built* around Turlough's character.
He did well in _Mawdryn_, but his character still sucked.
> [why Adric sucked]
>
> Segonax wrote:
> >I think he was bad because he trolloped around in a toddler's suit. I think
> >Waterhouse himself may have been affected by that worse-than-Sarah's-smock-
> >in-Planet-of-Evil-outfit because when he got out of it in _Black Orchid_ he
> >was the best he's ever been. This is, of course, the fault of JNT.
>
> So first Adric sucked because JNT was unoriginal, and now he sucks because
> he wore a silly outfit. Make up your mind.
Both. I gave one reason above.
> But you said you hadn't seen much "All Creatures".
>
> Tristan was not shy (he hit on anything with two X chromosomes), he was
> not soft-spoken (he was constantly whingeing and complaining about how
> bad his lot was), and ... well, OK, he was occasionally misplaced.
>
> Peter Davison's Doctor was scrupulously honest (unlike Tristan), determined
> (unlike Tristan), responsible (unlike Tristan), and asexual (unlike Tristan).
> What similarities did you have in mind, then?
Take this evidence: JNT stated that he wanted the fifth Doctor to be like
Tristan Farnon. References include DWM, a few Who reference books,
including
"Twenty-One Years in the TARDIS".
> Segonax replied:
> >Because nobody really saw McCoy as the Doctor, apart from the fans who
> >could
> >identify him as being the Doctor because he had some previous-incarnation
> >elements. As a result, he appealed -only- to the fans, everyone else
> >switched
> >off.
>
> It has been proved conclusively many times on the net, in posts directed
> directly at *you*, that there were many more McCoy viewers than just the
> fans. Are you deliberately lying, or do you just have a balloon where
> your skull ought to be?
OK, there were many more viewers than fans. Same goes for every era. There
were just many more non-fans watching pre-season 22.
> Segonax replied:
> >Hypothesis. Considering it was at its most childish (Dapol picked up on
> >this
> >by making those pathetic plastic dolls and TARDIS sets with children
> >playing
> >with them on the front as promos), it would have appealed more to children
> >and
> >fans than anyone else.
>
> Dapol has been making Who merchandise for years and years. The shameless
> merchandising of childish Who paraphernalia started with "The Daleks",
> in 1963.
As it was a children's program. The series developed alot since then.
> You did take a course in this, didn't you?
Yep, but there's nothing wrong with modifying the formulae a bit....:-)
I can't see how non-fans would even want to sit through, say, _Paradise
Towers_ or _The Happiness Patrol_ or even _The Curse of Fenric_.
> Segonax weaseled:
> >Of course I don't have evidence because I don't do the surveys, and I don't
> >live in the UK.
>
> Oh! So you're admitting that you don't know what you're talking about.
> How nice of you. Why are you wasting bandwidth then?
No I'm not. I'm saying I can't supply you with your much-needed (for some
pointless reason) evidence, because I didn't do the surveys. You're taking
one comment I write and twisting it to your own hacking advantage. Shame
on you.
> I disagree -- I think Davison Who is excellent, on the whole. No Nimons,
> no Cheetah People, no Dominators, no Monoids, no Mr. Popplewicks. I defy
> you to find a story in seasons 19-21 that is as comprehensively bad as
> "Horns of Nimon".
_Horns of Nimon_ wasn't made to be good. It was made to be funny. And it
was.
Sooooo GOADdammmnned hysterical <weep>.
Still, I guess this is a reflection of how they knew how well the series
had
developed since Tom Baker, and they could afford to have the one-off
comedy.
Didn't _Horns_ have the highest rating figures of that season?
> >His main 'work' has been creating and casting the Doctors and companions.
> >Everything else, to my understanding (ie. the way the show is made) is up
> >to the directors, writers and script-editors he hires. He makes the big
> >decisions.
>
> Nope. JNT's responsibility was to produce good Who. That's what "producer"
> means. He is responsible for hiring good writers (like Bidmead and Briggs,
> for example), good directors (like Harper), good script-editors (like
> Bidmead), good actors (like Davison), and everything else. He did a good
> job, on the whole, and he made some mistakes.
He did a reasonable job, on the whole, and he made alot of mistakes.
> >This attitude was reflected not only in ColDoc, but in his blatant
> >irresponsibility by including the violence and silly humour.
>
> Like "Nightmare of Eden", for example? Was Graham Williams arrogant too?
NOE's violence was less serious than that of season 22's. Therefore it was
passable into Who. The series was very realistic at season 21, and I think
a continuation was trying to be made into 22. Thus, when violence is
included
with realism, it becomes disturbing and you get hiatii.
ciao for now
Segonax.
Kate Orman
>(Kate Orman) wrote:
>
>> >OK, the majority dislike him. Hate is a powerful word.
>>
>> You haven't managed to even establish that "the majority dislike him".
>> Let's see some evidence.
>
>Viewing figures, letters to DWM. Answer this: why would so many people
>go the trouble of trying to martyrise him if people didn't hate him?
>Same goes for Transit...;-)
Col's ratings and audience appreciation figures were *better* than
Sylvester's, and yet he does worse on fan polls... why is a simple defence
of a Doctor you like "martyrising" (ouch!) them?
>Know the feeling <sobbing after reading Hummer>.
(Tips hat)
>However, Transit didn't seem to have any real structure. It seemed
>Aaronovitch had an idea, and he constructed the entire story from front to
>finish based on this idea, without any formal planning.
He wrote "Remembrance" that way, too.
Kate Orman
>My view of Who stretches through all incarnations. I compare alot of it to
>the Baker peak areas, because frankly that was when who was REALLY Who.
>It had been developed throughout the previous incarnations and had become
>a massive success then.
>Then, when JNT walks in, what we have come to know as "Who", deteriorates
>somewhat, and keeps deteriorating until the point of some of the non-caring
>New Adventures.
Er... Segonax, the Williams era kind of intervenes there. :-)
Kate Orman
In article <g9106936-2...@graneekmac6.anu.edu.au> g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au (Segonax) writes:
>Your portrayal of gay and lesbian characters was the best I've seen,
>simply,
>because you wrote them as real people.
[snip]
>So please, when writing _Human Nature_, don't make it _Love and War_ PT
>III,
>and we've already had enough AIDS, homosexuality etc. forced upon us, so
>please don't make it another gay whinge session.
He's a hypocritical homophobe! THWUNK, THWUNK, THWUNK-etty TWUNK!!!
Segonax
<pa...@cornell.demon.co.uk.> wrote:
> In article <g9106936-2...@graneekmac4.anu.edu.au> Segonax,
> g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au writes:
>
> >My God, and I've just taken a dialectic course. <slapping wrist>
> >
> Hahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahaahahaahahahahahahahahahaahhaah!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!
Now that I've got you reading, Paul, I just wanted to say I think you did a
great job with _Love and War_. Well done.
Your portrayal of gay and lesbian characters was the best I've seen,
simply,
because you wrote them as real people.
HOWEVER.
_Love and War_ is NOT God's gift to the New Adventures, and neither are
you.
So please, when writing _Human Nature_, don't make it _Love and War_ PT
III,
and we've already had enough AIDS, homosexuality etc. forced upon us, so
please don't make it another gay whinge session.
The main characters would also be more credible if you bothered to take
into account character development that has occurred since _Love and War_.
Benny was paper thin in _No Future_, not to mention Ace.
Finally, have you written any non-Who material?
TTFN
Segonax.
James Armstrong
In article <g9106936-2...@graneekmac4.anu.edu.au> g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au (Segonax) writes:
>In article <35bc7i$b...@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au>, kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au
>(Kate Orman) wrote:
>> >Whoops, didn't know you read all messages on this group. Let me rephrase my
>> >comment: Paul Cornell's (and others) total obsession with Colin Baker,
>> >because the majority hate him. Minorities are one thing Paul, but when it
>> >comes to obsession....
>> "The majority hate him"? Do they? Just because the Sixth Doctor (*not*
>> Colin) tends to come low on fave Doctor surveys doesn't mean he's despised
>> - it just means other Doctors are more popular. Unless you've got a "Who's
>> your *least* favourite Doctor?" poll up your sleeve... Hartnell usually
>> comes lower than Col - does that mean "the majority" despise him?
>OK, the majority dislike him. Hate is a powerful word.
"Majority" is probably the wrong word to use here, since it implies
50+e%. I don't think the winners in least favorite polls reach
that percentage.
The correct word to use is "plurality."
sandminer
|> g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au (Segonax) writes:
|> >
|> >
|> >How did Hinchcliffe and Williams lack originality?
|>
|> Seen "The Manchurian Candidate" or "Frankenstein" or "The Phantom of the
|> Opera" or "The Thing" or "The Prisoner of Zenda" lately? :-)
A picky point, but using unoriginal elements in an interesting way is not
necessarily incompatible with being considerably original simultaneously.
Take "Deadly Assassin" as an example. Yes, there's a take on the awesome
climactic sequence in "The Manchurian Candidate", but it's been spun around
and then had a completely different story built on it, freewheeling with
brilliant lines and touches, which then goes off on a totally different line.
It's not a fixed cake getting shared out, with unoriginal stuff depriving
original ideas of airtime. What I love about Robert Holmes' stories (so most
of Hinchcliffe's) is that he seems to create a structure with room to get so
much into - both the familiar and the original - more than just about anyone
else, so the stories are just bursting with energy.
[Generalisation][IMHO][I'm just remembering the good ones]
And when he's on form, like "Pyramids", the weird thing is that there are
*so* many good ideas in it, but it all fits so beautifully, ties together
which such a strong *feel*, and every aspect seems totally in place, that
the most incongruous things can happen and you just think "Of course that's
how it is, how could it possibly be any way different".
[Communication shortfall, can't express intensity of this properly]
I don't see why craft and imagination of that order shouldn't be called
originality.
[Not trying to break Kate's butterfly comment on a wheel; just overtaken
by how much I like these stories]
[[Not presuming that I could "break" a comment of the Kate's]]
Hinchcliffe was a damn good producer for seeing what could be done with
Doctor Who, and getting the most out of every department.
[IMHO]
On the other hand, I was so switched off by Colin Baker's first season, I
lost Doctor Who for five years. According to Paul Cornell ("The Androzani
Effect") that's down to Eric Saward's inadequacy.
[Simplification]
But JNT has to take some of the blame, because he chooses the team. All JNT's
seasons (to CB1 anyway) show marked variability in scripts. JNT was not a
writer. Not his fault: most people aren't. But the show's problem, and the
producer's responsibility to cure.
[IMHO][So far as I know][IMHO][IMHO]
sandminer.
[Appropriately defensive, having seen the flames lashed out just because
somebody wasn't painstakingly lumberingly so humble]
-an insect, an ant, a base grovelling termite.
[IMHO]
sandminer
>Besides, you don't seem to understand the nature of debate. You make the
>claim that McCoy's viewers were mostly children. Since that had not been
>true in the past, and since most TV viewers are not children, the null
>hypothesis is that most McCoy viewers were *not* children.
>By Occam's Razor, then, we believe the null hypothesis until it is proven
>wrong. I support the null hypothesis. You don't. You're the one who
>therefore must provide evidence for your claim.
Be careful arguing about prior probabilities when the are Bayesians on
the net :-)
Probabilities are subjective. Segonax might have persuaded herself that
all sorts of factors might be more correlated with the viewership of
Doctor Who than its past composition. If she strongly believes that these
factors have changed, this may lead her to the belief that "most McCoy
viewers were children" is indeed the more probable a-priori. For her that
would then be "*the* null hypothesis" (useless phrase).
People can hold to (seemingly) quite bizarre systems of priors - I should
know, I tried discussing the probability of God with James Watson :-)
But until the data comes in, they can all be quite *logically* consistent.
sandminer.
Though in this case Segonax happens to be wrong.
[All IMHO etc. Standard disclaimers]
David McKinnon
>> No, Davison's UK ratings look pretty good.
Segonax:
>I mean, at Davison's arrival, the series lost a lot of its audience -
>millions.
Bzzt! Thank you for playing!
That's the third time you have claimed that the ratings for the first few
Davison stories was significantly less than the ratings for the last few
Tom Baker stories, and this is at least the third time that it has been
pointed out that this is manifestly incorrect.
You can go on repeating that black is white if you like, but that won't make
all the zebra crossings disappear.
Segonax:
>> >I thought Colin's character was fabulous action-wise, a refreshing change
>> >from Davison. Originality is irrelevent here.
Chris:
>> Why? Because it doesn't support your argument? OK, let me see if I have
>> this, now. When JNT injects bits of old Doctors, that's unoriginal. But
>> when he creates new aspects, etc., that's irrelevent.
>>
>> Gosh, I wish *I* could argue like that. . .
Segonax:
>You miss my point - getting some action into season 23 is neither original
>nor unoriginal. It's needed. Therefore, originality is irrelevent in this
>argument.
Wait ... you mean to tell me that there was no action in season 21? Really?
This is the season that starred "Warriors of the Deep", "Caves of
Androzani", and of course the shockingly dull "Resurrection of the Daleks".
Chris:
>> I dispute that the arrogance and tetchiness were the same. In fact, I
>> challenge you to point out examples of just how similar they are. I'm
>> willing to bet you cannot, because they are, in fact, different. Go
>> rewatch some
>> Hartnell episodes, and then a couple of Colins. IMHO it's pretty obvious.
Segonax:
>I know how Hartnell's Doctor is. I know how C.Baker's Doctor is. The latter
>had arrogance that was obviously a rehash of the former. Boring, and not
>part of ColDoc's real character anyway, unlike Hartnells.
Bzzt! I'm sorry -- you didn't phrase your answer in the form of a coherent
argument.
Chris says they're different. Segonax say they're clones.
Chris uses a dictionary definition of "different". Segonax makes up his own.
Chris gives reasons for his claims. Segonax does not.
Chris wins!
Chris:
>> Well, I'm certainly not going to *defend* that barfy outfit.
I love this line. (-:
>> In fact, I suspect that even Mike Zecca, He Who Worships Colin Baker's
>> Toe Jam, will not defend the costume. However, I think the amateur
>> psychology is stretching things a bit. And it hangs on your assertion
>> that JNT was out of control, something I am not convinced of.
Segonax:
>Oh come off it. He sloppily threw in some violence and humour to 'liven
>things
>up a bit' (it seemed), or to give things a change. Did he think about the
>consequences? Do any serious planning or were his ideas just simple,
>unplanned
>ideas because he didn't take Who seriously?
You don't have the remotest idea of the answers to those questions. You're
speculating wildly.
You have, so far, cited only two pieces of supporting evidence for any of
your assertions of the last two weeks. One was blatantly false (the Davison
ratings garbage), and the other was irrelevant (an interview with JNT -- I'll
deal with this one later).
Why, then, should we believe anything you say? I know I don't.
Chris:
>> The credit for good stuff always goes to the individual writers, actors,
>> whatever, but the bad stuff always gets dumped on the one in
>> charge.
Segonax:
>And why not. If there's a stuffup, it's their responsibility.
But ... the good stuff gets dumped on the guy in charge, too. JNT was
responsible for all the Who between "Leisure Hive" and "Survival". The bad
and the good. He deserves credit for Chris Bidmead, and blame for Pip'n'Jane.
He deserves credit for Graeme Harper, and blame for whatever shmoe directed
"Terminus".
Geez. It's a wonder your head doesn't implode from the pressure imbalance.
Segonax:
>> >Disagreed. _City of Death_ is in my top 12.
Chris:
>> A good story. But Logopolis is in my top 5, whereas Destiny of the Daleks
>> and the Creature from the Nightmare of Nimon are all in my bottom 20. The
>> signal to noise ratio during Williams was horrible.
Segonax:
>_Destiny_ is unique. I don't know where the egyptian influence came from.
Whoo-ee! I'll say "Destiny" is unique -- Chris' (I think it was his)
description of the "Dalek cheerleaders" will live with me always. (-:
And this Egypt fetish all of a sudden ... forgive me for being dense,
but what does this have to do with the price of cheese?
--David "'Pyramids of Mars' was Hinchcliffe, right?" McKinnon
mcki...@math.berkeley.edu
David McKinnon
>> Similarity in character is irrelevant? My dear girl, that's the whole
>> point of the discussion!
Segonax:
>You didn't have a clue about my sarcasm did you? Segonax is a guy. <blush>
Sorry about that. But that's what happens when you don't explain yourself
properly on the net -- people misinterpret what you say.
>And it's not the whole point of the argument.
Sure it is. We both agree that Doc1 and Doc6 are different in character.
Arrogance and tetchiness are character traits, and those are the only two
similarities you have mentioned. If you're not talking about character,
what *are* you talking about?
[re: attitude]
David:
>> Adric did, though. He argued, whined, cajoled, debated, and betrayed.
>> He bickered with Tegan, Nyssa, the Doctor ... practically everyone in sight,
>> in fact. *That's* attitude.
Segonax:
>It's not attitude because he was a little geek, in your words.
"Little" and "geek" are the only words of mine in that sentence. Adric was
an annoying little geek. He also happened to have attitude. He made a habit
of running around and behaving in an annoying fashion. People with attitude
often do this.
Anyway, I don't see the point of this argument -- Adric's having attitude
or not seems to me to be quite irrelevant to the question of JNT's competence
as a Who producer.
David:
>> Matthew Waterhouse had the repsonsiblity for how Adric appeared onscreen,
>> not JNT. It is Waterhouse's fault. Period.
Segonax:
>Like hell. Waterhouse acted how he was told. If he went his way he'd have
>been fired.
First of all, from the little I've heard about the matter, Matthew Waterhouse
*did* go his own way, most of the time, although I'm quite prepared to
believe that I have been misinformed.
Second, JNT cannot possibly dictate every single facet of how Matthew
Waterhouse acts. It is simply impossible. Therefore, the question is not
whether Waterhouse had influence over Adric's behaviour and appearance, but
rather *how much* influence Waterhouse had.
Actually, that's an entertaining thought. Anyone else agree with me that
if JNT had attached strings to Waterhouse's limbs, knocked him unconscious
before filming, and moved his limbs manually, that Adric would have been
a more convincing character?
[re Turlough]
Segonax:
>> >Whoopee do. So he had motivation. His character still sucked until _Fire_
>> >(where he had *real* motivation).
David:
>> Why did his character suck? You can't just write down the answer without
>> showing your working, because you won't get any partial credit otherwise.
Segonax:
>Look at _The King's Demons_..."DON'T try me TO FARRR!!!" and the infamous
>"TRACTATOOOORRRRS!!!!"
>This two hapless lines are basic representations of how bland his character
>was.
OK, these lines were delivered a bit over the top. But that's a criticism
of Mark Strickson, not the character of Turlough.
Or do you really believe that JNT told Strickson to act badly at those
specific points?
David:
>> I say his character was excellent in "Mawdryn". He had difficult decisions
>> to take that drastically affected the course of the story. Indeed, a huge
>> chunk of the plot was *built* around Turlough's character.
Segonax:
>He did well in _Mawdryn_, but his character still sucked.
Huh? Turlough did well, but he sucked?
Put your analyst on danger money, baby.
David:
>> Tristan was not shy (he hit on anything with two X chromosomes), he was
>> not soft-spoken (he was constantly whingeing and complaining about how
>> bad his lot was), and ... well, OK, he was occasionally misplaced.
>>
>> Peter Davison's Doctor was scrupulously honest (unlike Tristan), determined
>> (unlike Tristan), responsible (unlike Tristan), and asexual (unlike
>> Tristan). What similarities did you have in mind, then?
Segonax:
>Take this evidence: JNT stated that he wanted the fifth Doctor to be like
>Tristan Farnon. References include DWM, a few Who reference books,
>including "Twenty-One Years in the TARDIS".
Ah. "JNT said so."
At least you're *trying* to give supporting evidence.
First, JNT didn't say they were similar, he said he wanted them to be similar.
Second, as things turned out, they weren't similar. So despite JNT's
offhanded comment, they weren't similar. Whatever his wishes may have
been, the two characters were not similar.
Third, what's so bad about having one character being based on a different
one? It happens all the time in Who, even in your beloved Letts and
Hinchcliffe years.
Segonax:
>OK, there were many more viewers than fans. Same goes for every era. There
>were just many more non-fans watching pre-season 22.
Ah, finally. We make some progress. Thank you.
I agree. There were two severe drops in popularity ratings during the JNT
years. First was after season 22, and the second was after season 23.
You blame JNT and his alleged unoriginality and arrogance for these drops.
I don't. I blame the two hiatuses, which came ... well, whaddya know?
After season 22, and after season 23! Funny thing. Plus there was a lot
of monkeying around with the time slot, too. Seems to me that these had
a lot more to do with the drop in popularity than some mysterious JNT
character flaws.
Segonax:
>I can't see how non-fans would even want to sit through, say, _Paradise
>Towers_ or _The Happiness Patrol_ or even _The Curse of Fenric_.
OK, difference of opinion. I can easily see it. In fact, I watched several
non-fans sit through "Fenric" when it came on KTEH a few weeks ago. They
made merciless fun of the haemovores, but other than that, they seemed to
enjoy it OK.
Segonax:
>> >Of course I don't have evidence because I don't do the surveys, and I don't
>> >live in the UK.
David:
>> Oh! So you're admitting that you don't know what you're talking about.
>> How nice of you. Why are you wasting bandwidth then?
Segonax:
>No I'm not. I'm saying I can't supply you with your much-needed (for some
>pointless reason) evidence, because I didn't do the surveys. You're taking
>one comment I write and twisting it to your own hacking advantage. Shame
>on you.
OK, I'll try it again, real slow-like.
1) You make a claim about McCoy viewership.
2) I ask you for evidence to support your claim.
3) You say you don't have any. (Because you didn't do the surveys.)
4) Therefore I have to wonder why you believe your claim.
I think it's quite understandable that you don't have any evidence. I'm
not blaming you for that in itself. But if you have no evidence, no matter
what the reason, it is rash and unreasonable to make claims.
Let's say I said, "There are furry mutants with seven arms living in Tibet."
You say (not unreasonably) "What evidence do you have that there are mutants
in Tibet?"
I respond, "Oh, I don't have any. I mean, I've never been anywhere *near*
Tibet."
Are you going to believe me? If so, I've got this great, golden bridge in
Kathmandu that I'd be willing to sell for just a few thousand ...
Segonax:
>> >This attitude was reflected not only in ColDoc, but in his blatant
>> >irresponsibility by including the violence and silly humour.
David:
>> Like "Nightmare of Eden", for example? Was Graham Williams arrogant too?
Segonax:
>NOE's violence was less serious than that of season 22's. Therefore it was
>passable into Who. The series was very realistic at season 21, and I think
>a continuation was trying to be made into 22. Thus, when violence is
>included with realism, it becomes disturbing and you get hiatii.
But violence was included with realism in season 21, too! Or did you forget
about the body parts in the Tractators' machine, or the fact that everyone
dies in "Warriors" and "Caves", or the trooper whose face disintegrates
on camera in "Resurrection"?
There have been disturbing images throughout the history of Who. "Inferno"
destroyed the whole bloody world on camera, in gruesome detail, fer cryin'
out loud. Seems to me that Beeb politics is a much more plausible reason
for the hiatuses. I don't know the full picture, though -- perhaps someone
else can confirm or deny this speculation for me.
(See? That's what you're supposed to do when you speculate without
information.)
I feel like the interviewer in "This is Spinal Tap".
--David "No, yer don't understand ... our one goes up to *11*" McKinnon
mcki...@math.berkeley.edu
Jennikatra
of a Timelord_.
Arggh. I've been trying not to entwine myself in this, uh, debate, 'cause
it started when I was taking a break and I was hundreds of posts behind...
I think that's crap. Quote the whole DWM whine: "DW died after Trial of a
Time Lord and I do not count anything after!" Whine, whine. Yeah, well,
*I* agree with the response to that which said "Obviously, you can't
count." ;-)
Since you read DWM, you may have seen me; look at my .sig and guess... :-)
And please don't tell me that I'm not a real fan for enjoying McCoy or say
that I was a kiddie when I first saw him. I've been a fan for about 13
years, so that's real enough :-), and I was in my 20s when I fell in lust
with McCoy. Yeah, y'see, some of my appreciation for him isn't childish.
<grin> I don't ask you to understand, though.
I do wonder why your screen name's Segonax, since that was from a McCoy
story, and you're trying to convince us that McCoy was crap...
"A good, unsolid character." I'd still like to know what the hell that
meant...
BTW, your having said at one point that everyone *you* knew couldn't bear
McCoy's stories doesn't mean that holds true for everyone. I know a few
McCoy fans, but you won't hear me saying that means that everyone likes
him. I'm a bit turned off by Colin Baker's Doctor, but you won't hear me
saying that everyone agrees with me. Oh, never mind... I already have a
reputation, allegedly, for trying to say that everyone online should agree
with me, which is total crap. I really should avoid these arguments... :-)
RSHadley / Jen
jenni...@aol.com
"Amnesia? I forget what that is..."
Jennikatra
>>Your portrayal of gay and lesbian characters was the best I've seen,
simply, because you wrote them as real people.
Oh my God, imagine that! Imagine that gays are human!
>HOWEVER. _Love and War_ is NOT God's gift to the New Adventures, and
neither are you.
And you're not God's gift to fandom, dear (no, I say to my detractors,
neither am I!). Even if you do think that everyone should agree with you
that JNT dragged the program to its death and McCoy was crap.
Oh gee, I just adore snarling at people who write DWM letters like this...
;-)
>So please, when writing _Human Nature_, don't make it _Love and War_ PT
III, and we've already had enough AIDS, homosexuality etc. forced upon us,
so please don't make it another gay whinge session.
Why, Segonax, aren't you a darling! You're so precious. *Life* "forces"
you to encounter things you'd rather not, honey, so I'm terribly sorry
that you have to endure mentions of AIDS and homosexuality. My father is
an AIDS researcher, so I have to "endure" mentions of AIDS in my life
*much* more than you probably do! I can endure it, so why can't you?
Watch your mouth when spouting off about gay whinge sessions, dear; you
never know who may be gay or bisexual or who may feel like protecting
friends who are. I think Kate Orman already showed you that...
Besides, aren't you having a straight whinge session with all your
proclamations about the series? ;-)
Segonax
(Jennikatra) wrote:
> Why, Segonax, aren't you a darling! You're so precious. *Life* "forces"
> you to encounter things you'd rather not, honey, so I'm terribly sorry
> that you have to endure mentions of AIDS and homosexuality.
You miss my point. It's been forced upon the world, opprrrresssing us.
Give us a break!
Like I said, I enjoyed reading Paul's characterisation.
> My father is
> an AIDS researcher, so I have to "endure" mentions of AIDS in my life
> *much* more than you probably do! I can endure it, so why can't you?
I have endured it. It's been stuffed down my throat. Now I'd like to get on
with my SF reading. (see previous message about L&W)
> Watch your mouth when spouting off about gay whinge sessions, dear; you
> never know who may be gay or bisexual or who may feel like protecting
> friends who are. I think Kate Orman already showed you that...
OK, the "gay whinge session" would have come across as offensive, I'll
watch my wording next time.
> Besides, aren't you having a straight whinge session with all your
> proclamations about the series? ;-)
Nope, I'm having a JNT whinge session because I'm sick of the Amblin
whinge sessions. ;-)
And, incidentaly, regarding the debate here some time ago, I wouldn't care
if the Doctor was played by a homosexual male, or if he acted like one.
The one element of his character that should remain constant, however, is
his Time Lord character, the part of the Doctor that is constant throughout
each incarnation.
Segonax.
Segonax
I give my opinions, whatever facts I state I provide evidence for.
You haven't been reading.
Next time, write me a message when you have something to say, an opinion,
an argument. Don't waste space with pointless bickering.
And for God's sake, stop hand-holding with Chris.
ciao for now
Segonax.
Segonax
(Kate Orman) wrote:
> >Viewing figures, letters to DWM. Answer this: why would so many people
> >go the trouble of trying to martyrise him if people didn't hate him?
> >Same goes for Transit...;-)
>
> Col's ratings and audience appreciation figures were *better* than
> Sylvester's, and yet he does worse on fan polls... why is a simple defence
> of a Doctor you like "martyrising" (ouch!) them?
you left something out in that sentence
> >However, Transit didn't seem to have any real structure. It seemed
> >Aaronovitch had an idea, and he constructed the entire story from front to
> >finish based on this idea, without any formal planning.
>
> He wrote "Remembrance" that way, too.
yeah, well he has talent. Through-composing is an interesting method, but
I like structured works better...
Segonax.
Segonax
(Kate Orman) wrote:
> >Your portrayal of gay and lesbian characters was the best I've seen,
> >simply,
> >because you wrote them as real people.
>
> [snip]
>
> >So please, when writing _Human Nature_, don't make it _Love and War_ PT
> >III,
> >and we've already had enough AIDS, homosexuality etc. forced upon us, so
> >please don't make it another gay whinge session.
>
> He's a hypocritical homophobe! THWUNK, THWUNK, THWUNK-etty TWUNK!!!
<sound of Kate juddering to a halt>
re: _Love and War_. Gays are no more 'different' and 'special' than anyone
else.
Change 'homophobe' to 'humanphobe' and you'll get the label for all sexual
types today.
Segonax.
Segonax
(Jennikatra) wrote:
> In article <g9106936-2...@graneekmac6.anu.edu.au>
> g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au (Segonax) writes:
> >I almost agree with some fans' assertions: Doctor Who died after _Trial
> of a Timelord_.
>
> Arggh. I've been trying not to entwine myself in this, uh, debate, 'cause
> Since you read DWM, you may have seen me; look at my .sig and guess... :-)
hmm. You're the one that flamed Craig Hinton, aren't you? ;-) I enjoyed
that
letter.
> I do wonder why your screen name's Segonax, since that was from a McCoy
> story, and you're trying to convince us that McCoy was crap...
It was also from a Tom Baker story, to my memory, a planet.
> "A good, unsolid character." I'd still like to know what the hell that
> meant...
OK. McCoy's character was good, a success, but unsolid in that his actual
*solid*, meaty moments relied on pretentious humanist speeches, eg. his
final Morgaine speech. His character is good, but it doesn't stand for
much,
thus it has become rather shadowy in the NA's. Do you get the general
gist of what I'm talking about?
Basically, he has little solid character, and so you need to make him
'human',
removing him from his mysterious 'Time Lord' status he had from Tom Baker
backwards. One line that comes to mind when thinking of this is:
"do you think your little spec in the galaxy is the only one with
intelligent
life?" - _Horror of Fang Rock_.
ciao for now
Segonax.
James Armstrong
>>What rubbish. Many (millions?) stopped watching at his arrival.
>besides the Doctor that changed for Season 19 -- the time slot.
>Doctor Who was moved from the Saturday afternoon slot it had occupied
>for 18 years to being shown twice a week on Monday and Tuesday nights.
>
>And even at that, I don't think the drop in ratings was very substantial.
>Of course, I'm no authority on ratings (and I'm sure someone will correct
>me if I'm wrong :-), but I believe Tom Baker drew an audience of about
>6-8 million during his first couple of seasons and peaked at 12-14
>million in Season 17. Davison's first season drew a steady 10.5 million.
>
>All in all, I'd say that's not a bad start for a show with a new lead
>and a new time slot.
Ratings:
Destiny of the Daleks: 13.0, 12.7, 13.8, 14.4
City of Death: 12.4, 14.1, 15.4, 16.1
The Creature from the Pit: 9.3, 10.8, 10.2, 9.6
Nightmare of Eden: 8.7, 9.6, 9.6, 9.4
The Horns of Nimon: 6.0, 8.8, 9.8, 10.4
Note: The first two stories were shown during an ITV strike, and
have inflated ratings. The last three averaged 9.3.
The Leisure Hive: 5.9, 5.0, 5.5, 4.5
Meglos: 5.0, 4.2, 4.7, 4.7
Full Circle: 5.9, 3.7, 5.9, 5.5
State of Decay: 5.8, 5.3, 4.4, 5.4
Warrior's Gate: 7.1, 6.7, 8.3, 7.8
The Keeper of Traken: 7.6, 6.1, 5.2, 6.1
Logopolis: 7.1, 7.7, 5.8, 6.1
The average rratings for this season were 5.8, however after Christmas,
the ratings were 6.8, a full million viewers higher, which may have
justified the move from starting the season in September to January.
Also, it should be noted that the introduction of Adric (WWBA) resulted
in a drop of 2.2 million viewers, as the nausea induced kept them away
from their sets for a week.
Castrovalva: 10.1, 8.7, 10.4, 10.5
Four to Doomsday: 8.6, 8.8, 9.1, 9.6
Kinda: 8.5, 9.5, 8.7, 9.1
The Visitation: 9.3, 9.5, 10.1, 10.2
Black Orchid: 9.1, 9.2
Earthshock: 9.3, 9.0, 9.9, 9.1
Time-Flight: 10.1, 8.5, 9.1, 8.3
Average ratings: 9.3. The move to weeknights and change of
lead brought back 3.5 million viewers, justifying the move. Also,
it should be noted that viewing jumped 1 million on Adric(WWBA)'s
death. The difference between Monday and Tuesday was 9.4 vs 9.2;
not significant.
Arc of Infinity:* 7.2, 7.3, 6.9, 7.2
Snakedance: 6.7, 7.7, 6.6, 7.4
Mawdryn Undead: 6.5, 7.5, 7.4, 7.7
Terminus: 7.0, 7.5, 6.5, 7.4
Enlightenment: 6.6, 7.2, 6.2, 7.3
The King's Demons: 5.8, 7.2
Average ratings: 7.0. The days were switched, again, to Tuesday-
Wednesday.
* Starting episode three, through The Twin Dilemma, I was one of these.
The Five Doctors: 7.7
Warriors of the Deep: 7.6, 7.5, 7.3, 6.6
The Awakening: 7.9, 6.6
Frontios: 8.0, 5.8, 7.8, 5.6
Resurrection of the Daleks: 7.3, 8.0
Planet of Fire: 7.4, 6.1, 7.4, 7.0
The Caves of Androzani: 6.9, 6.6, 7.8, 7.8
The Twin Dilemma: 7.6, 7.4, 7.0, 6.3
Average rating: 7.1. A slight increase from the previous year,
perhaps bolstered by a regeneration and the Daleks. Again, the
days were changed to Thursday-Friday, perhaps proving DW fans
don't date. ;-) The two 45 minute episodes of Resurrection
suggested that viewers can watch the show in 45 minute segments.
Davisons's overall ratings: 7.9 for 69 broadcasts.
Attack of the Cybermen: 8.9, 7.2
Vengeance on Varos: 7.2, 7.0
Mark of the Rani: 6.3, 7.3
The Two Doctors: 6.6, 6.0, 6.9
Timelash: 6.7, 7.4
Revelation of the Daleks: 7.4, 7.7
Average rating: 7.1. The move to Saturdays and 45 minute episodes
didn't hurt the ratings one bit, yet still the show was put on
hiatus. Even the more violent aspect of the show didn't depress
ratings. Fools.
The Trail of a Time Lord: 4.9, 4.87, 3.92, 3.72, 4.76, 4.60,
5.15, 4.98, 5.23, 4.65, 5.34, 5.20,
4.38, 5.64
Average rating: 4.81. Disaster. An 18 month hiatus, followed by
the removal of the steps that brought back viewers in 1982. Added
to this, the BBC monkeyed with the schedule for episode 13,
starting it 27 minutes earlier than the others, which probably
screwed up folks with VCR's.
On top of this, I feel JNT screwed up this season by creating a
show too long and intricate for the casual viewer to follow and
understand, this was a very bad move for an effort to regain
viewers.
Colin Baker's average rating: 6.06
Time and the Rani: 5.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.9
Paradise Towers: 4.5, 5.2, 5.0, 5.0
Delta and the Bannermen: 5.3, 5.1, 5.4
Dragonfire: 5.5, 5.0, 4.7
Average: 4.9
Sigh.
James Armstrong
>Just an incidental comment on the the discussion of "Caves of Androzani"
>(hope I've spelled it correctly). I remember hearing once (can't remember
>where) that, far from having a religious meaning, "Caves" was a political
>comment on the British miners' strike of 1983/84. I saw the programme a
>while back but, apart from having a corrupt and callous ruler (Thatcher?)
>and an exploited mining class (the miners?), I couldn't see much of a
>parallel.
>
>Has anyone else heard this theory? (Apologies if I'm dragging up an old
>topic.)
Unlikely. Caves of Androzani was broadcast starting March 8, 1984.
The Miner's Strike started on March 1, 1984, with the closure of
Cortonwood. I doubt if the BBC worked that quickly!
Aden Steinke
In article <35v3rp$5...@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, jenni...@aol.com
(Jennikatra) wrote:
{snip}
> Why, Segonax, aren't you a darling! You're so precious. *Life* "forces"
> you to encounter things you'd rather not, honey, so I'm terribly sorry
> that you have to endure mentions of AIDS and homosexuality. My father is
> an AIDS researcher, so I have to "endure" mentions of AIDS in my life
> *much* more than you probably do! I can endure it, so why can't you?
Dr Who is not something to be endured, that is a very bizzare concept,
rather it should be something to enjoy - so why should it force / confront
the viewer with things they would rather not be confronted with? For the
last 28 or so years I have always thought of Dr Who as a form of escapism
rather than searching social commentary.
Aden
--
Kate Orman
>
>kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) writes:
>|> g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au (Segonax) writes:
>|> >
>|> >How did Hinchcliffe and Williams lack originality?
>|>
>|> Seen "The Manchurian Candidate" or "Frankenstein" or "The Phantom of the
>|> Opera" or "The Thing" or "The Prisoner of Zenda" lately? :-)
>
>A picky point, but using unoriginal elements in an interesting way is not
>necessarily incompatible with being considerably original simultaneously.
Oh, I enjoy the rip-offs in those eras immensely, and they do sometimes
use the stolen elements in clever ways, such as the android double in
"Tara". But the point still stands - they were no more original than JNT,
and in some cases, a lot *less* original.
Jennikatra
aden_s...@uow.edu.au (Aden Steinke) writes:
>Dr Who is not something to be endured, that is a very bizzare concept,
rather it should be something to enjoy - so why should it force / confront
the viewer with things they would rather not be confronted with?
Well, I think I know what your favorite era, to the exclusion of most of
the rest of the series, is, but let me tell you: not everyone enjoyed
that. Critics found something to whine about re: even that.
Oh well, at least you're not telling me -- yet -- that I'm not a real fan
'cause I like what you don't, or don't like all that you do. :-)
Y'know what? It's about 1:15 AM here, an' I don't want to be forced to
confront this thread any longer. ;-) <yawn>
Paul Cornell
g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au writes:
>> --David "I don't care if Segonax is a woman --
>
>ARGHH!!! You've discovered my secret!!
Oh no, really? I didn't think that anybody with internal gonads could be
this crap...(By the way, I went to a lot of trouble recently to insult
you, Seggy, in a recent posting: Segonax Responsible For Plague, etc,
please read it and comment, as its at least as personal and mindless as
your bollocks about JNT and I want to know you've suffered a bit because
of it.)
Sysop Gallif Connect
One must question both of you hippy druggie rejects of the 1960's.
Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin (Lev. 18:22)
Sysop Gallif Connect
> Oooo goody! I've been looking an excuse to KILLfile Segonax, and guess what!
>
> In article <g9106936-2...@graneekmac6.anu.edu.au> g910...@karajan.an
>
> >Your portrayal of gay and lesbian characters was the best I've seen,
> >simply,
> >because you wrote them as real people.
>
> [snip]
>
> >So please, when writing _Human Nature_, don't make it _Love and War_ PT
> >III,
> >and we've already had enough AIDS, homosexuality etc. forced upon us, so
> >please don't make it another gay whinge session.
>
> He's a hypocritical homophobe! THWUNK, THWUNK, THWUNK-etty TWUNK!!!
>
Calm down Dionysis.
>
> --
> Kate Orman
> "You are endlessly agitating, unceasingly mischievous. Will you never
> stop?" - Light, in Marc Platt's "Ghost Light", 1989
Christopher D. Heer
>In article <cheer.996...@isisph.com>, ch...@isisph.com (Christopher
>D. Heer) wrote:
>> >> I wasn't aware his character was so unpopular.
>> >It was, because alot of casual watchers switched off when he arrived.
>> Did they? Funny, his ratings actually looked pretty good.
>> Or do you mean in America? Since Americans were watching nothing but Tom
>> Baker reruns for years on end, it's not surprising they had trouble with a new
>> Doctor.
>> No, Davison's UK ratings look pretty good. . . how do you define "a lot"? 10
>> viewers? 2 million?
>I mean, at Davison's arrival, the series lost a lot of its audience -
>millions.
You keep saying that. The actual ratings completely dispute this, and
several have posted them. Do you think that by constantly repeating this
you'll make it so?
>> I dispute that the arrogance and tetchiness were the same. In fact, I
>> challenge you to point out examples of just how similar they are. I'm willing
>> to bet you cannot, because they are, in fact, different. Go rewatch some
>> Hartnell episodes, and then a couple of Colins. IMHO it's pretty obvious.
>I know how Hartnell's Doctor is. I know how C.Baker's Doctor is. The latter
>had arrogance that was obviously a rehash of the former. Boring, and not
>part of ColDoc's real character anyway, unlike Hartnells.
I'll say it again. Give some examples. You just keep repeating that it's
"obvious." I disagree. Nobody can win this one, because you refuse to give
concrete support for your thesis. You made the assertion, so the burden of
proof is on you.
>> Well, I'm certainly not going to *defend* that barfy outfit. In fact, I
>> suspect that even Mike Zecca, He Who Worships Colin Baker's Toe Jam, will not
>> defend the costume. However, I think the amateur psychology is stretching
>> things a bit. And it hangs on your assertion that JNT was out of control,
>> something I am not convinced of.
>Oh come off it. He sloppily threw in some violence and humour to 'liven
>things
>up a bit' (it seemed), or to give things a change. Did he think about the
>consequences? Do any serious planning or were his ideas just simple,
>unplanned
>ideas because he didn't take Who seriously?
I don't know. You don't either. We can make suppositions, is all. And
you're not even referring to the paragraph I wrote, which was about the
costume.
>> >> 2: Writers and directors did the good job? Which he picked, of course.
>> >>Why is it that every few months we have to get someone here that blames all
>> >>the good stuff on JNT's staff and all the bad stuff on JNT?
>> >OK, so he did a good job in picking writers (bar Eric Saward).
>> No argument there; I've no love lost for Saward.
>He wrote one good story: _The Visitation_. Earthshock is crummy beyond
>belief.
Well, I thought Earthshock was better than *that*, but the script was weak.
>> >One of his few
>> >strong points. Then again, good writers were reasonably easy to come by,
>> >nobody as unprofessional as him would show their face in the industry.
>> What a goofy thing to say. *Bad* writers are all over the place, as are good
>> ones. Choosing good writers is not automatically easy, and I certainly have
>> to give JNT credit for finding people like Chris Bidmead.
>I guess so. The writers he favoured, note, were those in close connection
>with
>him like Saward.
When I need to hire someone, the first thing I do is think of acquaintences
that might fit the bill. A natural reaction.
>> >Your point?
>> I made it earlier. The credit for good stuff always goes to the individual
>> writers, actors, whatever, but the bad stuff always gets dumped on the one in
>> charge.
>And why not. If there's a stuffup, it's their responsibility.
But why doesn't the one in charge get *any* credit for when things go right?
>> >Disagreed. _City of Death_ is in my top 12.
>> A good story. But Logopolis is in my top 5, whereas Destiny of the Daleks and
>> the Creature from the Nightmare of Nimon are all in my bottom 20. The signal
>> to noise ratio during Williams was horrible.
>_Destiny_ is unique. I don't know where the egyptian influence came from.
Destiny sure is unique. It is uniquely the worst appearance of the Daleks
I've ever seen. The Doctor defeated Daleks by throwing a *hat* over the
eyepiece. Feh.
--
Christopher D. Heer | "He's back, and it's about time!"
ch...@isisph.com | -- Doctor Who: coming to FOX, May 1995!
My opinions are mine! | Be the first on your block to join the Special.K.Club!
Work Shoes
>In article <1994Sep23.2...@ucl.ac.uk> j.h...@ucl.ac.uk writes:
>>
>>kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) writes:
>Oh, I enjoy the rip-offs in those eras immensely, and they do sometimes
>use the stolen elements in clever ways, such as the android double in
>"Tara". But the point still stands - they were no more original than JNT,
>and in some cases, a lot *less* original.
>
>--
>Kate Orman
Well, no one else would be stupid enough to interpret 'Dr.Who' in that
derisive way that JNT seemed to. I assert that because of the embarrasing
cliches he introduced. For example, the question marks, the fixed
'Dr.Who' clown uniform, the self advertising-sensationalist sig. tune (I
know; but Howell is a genius and anyway his style didn't become an
integral part of the show, instead the music became more and more insipid
almost becoming organ/soap operaish and then that McCoy era be-bop
stuff...)
It would have been nice if JNT could have been really original.
Instead he merely introduced gloss and shine. The show became evem more
formulaic. The clown uniforms, the stock Earth girl companions, a
required snidely whiplash nemesis and on and on. A producer like this
can't create shows like 'Genesis of the Daleks' or 'Deadly Assassin' or
'Hand of Fear' or 'Sun Makers'(this last one without being terribly
preachy and awkward about it) or even have episodes with risque dialogue
like 'praise be the company' and 'destroy...free!' ... Look, can you
imagine something like 'Genisis' done with be-bop music? That's the way
this guy would do it.
I can forgive so called rip offs in a scrunched for time medium like
television. Star Trek did it a lot (I mean the 60's show, not the big
90's yawn).
Occasionally it seemed as if he was trying to be a little too
abstruse. Those 'Kinda' stories and the like seemed to claim to be based
on Buddhist ideas etc. Even the music for that episode was done by
Howell. It was rather haunting. Did JNT sit in his office squirming
uncomfortably because of an episode like that? Was it too erie or weird?
Did he give young writers lofty instructions and then produce shoddy
amateurish episodes? Just what was going on anyway?!
If he wanted to be original, oh, I can think of so many possibilities.
They are infinite. And you don't have to change the shape of the TARDIS
(duh, 'cause it's different and new it's original) or anything dumb like
that. May he could travel alone for awhile. Maybe he could have an alien
companion like that shape shifter, Frobisher. (you ever notice that some
o' those comics were better than any JNT show. Maybe he hired the wrong
writers) If he wanted to do a series he could have the Doctor park his
TARDIS for awhile and get involved in some kind of scientific research
(and kiddies, without realising, would discover that in science you
collect a bunch of data and then classify it etc etc) and maybe
Sontarrans would factor into it politcally instead of doing some boring,
dry, stiff, lame assed been done a gazillion times court room drama. How
television!
Original? What did he do that was original?!?
-frank
Kate Orman
>
>In article <35v3rp$5...@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, jenni...@aol.com
>(Jennikatra) wrote:
>
>{snip}
>
>> Why, Segonax, aren't you a darling! You're so precious. *Life* "forces"
>> you to encounter things you'd rather not, honey, so I'm terribly sorry
>> that you have to endure mentions of AIDS and homosexuality. My father is
>> an AIDS researcher, so I have to "endure" mentions of AIDS in my life
>> *much* more than you probably do! I can endure it, so why can't you?
>
>Dr Who is not something to be endured, that is a very bizzare concept,
>rather it should be something to enjoy - so why should it force / confront
>the viewer with things they would rather not be confronted with? For the
>last 28 or so years I have always thought of Dr Who as a form of escapism
>rather than searching social commentary.
Alas, social commentary has been a part of Doctor Who from as early as
"Planet of the Giants", with its environmentalist message. That doesn't
mean you can't enjoy the series as "escapism", or prefer the "escapist"
stories to the ones which "confront" the viewer. But Doctor Who has
*often* done just that - as well as often just being a fun run-around.
Christopher D. Heer
><yawn>
>I give my opinions, whatever facts I state I provide evidence for.
>You haven't been reading.
You haven't been thinking. You haven't provided evidence for your facts, and
we keep demonstrating that, and you just keep shouting louder.
>Next time, write me a message when you have something to say, an opinion,
>an argument. Don't waste space with pointless bickering.
It just becomes frustrating to try and discuss an issue with someone who makes
spurious arguments and refuses to back them up, is all.
>And for God's sake, stop hand-holding with Chris.
Jealous? <wiggles eyebrows>
Wembley
>In article <35tv94$a...@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au>, kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au
>(Kate Orman) wrote:
>
>>
>> He's a hypocritical homophobe! THWUNK, THWUNK, THWUNK-etty TWUNK!!!
>
><sound of Kate juddering to a halt>
Sorry - I think that was the sound of you
plunging head first into the yawning chasm that
is Kate's kill file.
Wembley (coo isn't it dark in here)
--
Coming in May 1995...
Doctor Who
"He's back - And it's about time."
DAVID RICHARDSON
>Y'know what? It's about 1:15 AM here, an' I don't want to be forced to
>confront this thread any longer. ;-) <yawn>
I've now read this in your last half-dozen posts, and I'm sick of _it_! :)
____________________________________________________________________
David (Lord) J Richardson djr...@eng3.eng.monash.edu.au
<< Insert witty quote here >> bo...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
D R Blythe
: Original? What did he do that was original?!? [JNT]
I didn't want to get involved... but Mummy, he started it! :)
Several answers to the above question present themselves. If we take
"original" to mean "original for DW", then :
- introducing a companion with a secret agenda to assassinate the
Doctor (Sara K doesn't really count)
- basing a whole season around the concept of entropy and decay (18)
- basing a whole season around the concept of evolution and change (26)
- setting a whole season around one story (23)
- giving his script-ed carte blanche to alter the entire feel of the
show in one fell swoop (season 24)
- casting a youthful Doctor
- casting a Doctor who was superficially brash and unlikekable but
underneath it all, warm-hearted and caring
- introducing as many new writers and directors as possible
- stories that were set inside the mind (Kinda, Snakedance)
- mixing the traditional with the unsettling on a regular basis
(Kinda followed by The Vis, Battlefield followed by GL)
- featuring a fair proportion of ethnic minority actors
- Two Dalek stories by the same author that are poles apart -
one a traditional, enjoyable runabout,,the other a piece of
black humour in which the Doctor hardly features, and which
presents character traits for the first time such as boozing,
sexual jealousy and nose-picking (!)
- killing off a long-running companion
- introducing a companion who would rather get in there and
start bashing the villains herself, and not scream and wait
for the Doctor to come and save her
- extensively market the show in the US
I'm going to stop there, because I'm not even a big fan of JNT -
someone who is (Kate?) could probably do more justice to this
list. As a matter of interest, I would vote for JNT as both
best and worst producer of all time.
Segonax
wrote:
> In article <g9106936-1...@graneekmac10.anu.edu.au> g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au (Segonax) writes:
>
> >If the NA's were taken seriously, they wouldn't be pretentious pitfalls.
> <snip>
> ><bzzt> The NA's are what the fans want. If Amblin are going to cater for
> Anyway, enough of my opinions; the point of this message of to counter the
> sweeping and baseless accusation that "NA's are what the fans want".
>
> **Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! **
Really? Fans wanted new Who, the NA's are new Who. Some fans, like
yourself,
may not like them, but they are, essentially, what fans want. Something to
fill in the gap from one hiatus to the next.
I think Amblin should take them into consideration when composing how Who
should be because the fans wrote them: the fans wrote what they identified
as
basic Who, with added experimentation.
Therefore, you've got: 1. Basic Who;
2. What fans want from Who, illustrated through the experimentation. Not
the actual *content* of the experimentation, but the expansion itself.
If Amblin are going to make Who a success, and to make both non-fans and
fans
happy, they will have to take into account what both sides want.
The NA's represent what a chunk of fans want.
Of course, I don't think Amblin really care, I think they're going to do
things
their own way and write the occasional letter to DWM to ease the 'raving
hysterical fans' wrath.
Segonax.
Segonax
D. Heer) wrote:
> In article <g9106936-2...@graneekmac6.anu.edu.au> g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au (Segonax) writes:
>
> ><yawn>
> >I give my opinions, whatever facts I state I provide evidence for.
> >You haven't been reading.
>
> You haven't been thinking. You haven't provided evidence for your facts, and
> we keep demonstrating that, and you just keep shouting louder.
<covering ears>
> >Next time, write me a message when you have something to say, an opinion,
> >an argument. Don't waste space with pointless bickering.
>
> It just becomes frustrating to try and discuss an issue with someone who makes
> spurious arguments and refuses to back them up, is all.
I well and truly backed up everything I asserted. What were you having
trouble understanding?
> >And for God's sake, stop hand-holding with Chris.
>
> Jealous? <wiggles eyebrows>
OKOK, stop playing footsies instead.
Segonax.
Christopher D. Heer
>In article <cheer.104...@isisph.com>, ch...@isisph.com (Christopher
>D. Heer) wrote:
>> In article <g9106936-2...@graneekmac6.anu.edu.au> g910...@karajan.anu.edu.au (Segonax) writes:
>> ><yawn>
>> >I give my opinions, whatever facts I state I provide evidence for.
>> >You haven't been reading.
>> You haven't been thinking. You haven't provided evidence for your facts, and
>> we keep demonstrating that, and you just keep shouting louder.
><covering ears>
>> >Next time, write me a message when you have something to say, an opinion,
>> >an argument. Don't waste space with pointless bickering.
>> It just becomes frustrating to try and discuss an issue with someone who makes
>> spurious arguments and refuses to back them up, is all.
>I well and truly backed up everything I asserted. What were you having
>trouble understanding?
ARGH!
I've POSTED OVER AND OVER lists of your assertions that have no factual basis.
You've just repeated your assertions. (Like the one, FOR EXAMPLE, about
Davison losing viewers; something that is not born out by the facts.)
<knocks head against a wall>
ph999...@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu
> In article <365e3r$8...@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au> kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) writes:
>>In article <1994Sep23.2...@ucl.ac.uk> j.h...@ucl.ac.uk writes:
>>>kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) writes:
>
>>Oh, I enjoy the rip-offs in those eras immensely, and they do sometimes
>>use the stolen elements in clever ways, such as the android double in
>>"Tara". But the point still stands - they were no more original than JNT,
>>and in some cases, a lot *less* original.
>>
>
> Well, no one else would be stupid enough to interpret 'Dr.Who' in that
> derisive way that JNT seemed to. I assert that because of the embarrasing
> cliches he introduced. For example, the question marks, the fixed
> 'Dr.Who' clown uniform, the self advertising-sensationalist sig. tune (I
> know; but Howell is a genius and anyway his style didn't become an
> integral part of the show, instead the music became more and more insipid
> almost becoming organ/soap operaish and then that McCoy era be-bop
> stuff...)
The question marks and the costume of each Doctor were intended as trademarks
of the series in the same way the TARDIS and the Daleks were, and I think
he succeeded. I like them.
As for having the "uniform" fixed in every story, that would only apply to
Davison it seems, as the others did indeed switch through their eras.
(Colin's vests during the Trial, his cat pins, his ties. . McCoy's scarf,
umbrella, and jacket, etc.)
"Self-advertising-sensationalist signature tune." Ahem. That's what theme
tunes are supposed to be, although the terms usually used are "attention-
grabbing, and anticipatorial signature tune."
As for incidental music. . you would prefer Dudley Simpson's random use
of oboes and basoons for a science fiction score?
> It would have been nice if JNT could have been really original.
No such person has existed since the Greeks, and they probably nicked stuff
from other cultures too, except we don't know who they were.
> Instead he merely introduced gloss and shine. The show became evem more
> formulaic. The clown uniforms, the stock Earth girl companions,
oh, you mean Melanie, of course. You're right there.
But then again, there's Tegan and Ace and Nyssa, going in the opposite
direction. Peri is closer to your argument, I suppose, but she was
tremendously better than "classic" companions like Jo Grant or Polly.
a
> required snidely whiplash nemesis and on and on. A
What is that supposed to mean?
producer like this
> can't create shows like 'Genesis of the Daleks' or 'Deadly Assassin' or
> 'Hand of Fear' or 'Sun Makers'(this last one without being terribly
> preachy and awkward about it) or even have episodes with risque dialogue
> like 'praise be the company' and 'destroy...free!' ... Look, can you
> imagine something like 'Genisis' done with be-bop music? That's the way
> this guy would do it.
Oh really? Would you call the score to "The Curse of Fenric" "be-pop music?"
That certainly seems to be in line with "Genesis of the Daleks"
seeing as they share lots of WWII imagery, yet the music fits the mood.
> I can forgive so called rip offs in a scrunched for time medium like
> television. Star Trek did it a lot (I mean the 60's show, not the big
> 90's yawn).
> Occasionally it seemed as if he was trying to be a little too
> abstruse. Those 'Kinda' stories and the like seemed to claim to be based
> on Buddhist ideas etc.
Kinda like those Barry Letts Pertwee stories, right?
Even the music for that episode was done by
> Howell. It was rather haunting. Did JNT sit in his office squirming
> uncomfortably because of an episode like that? Was it too erie or weird?
> Did he give young writers lofty instructions and then produce shoddy
> amateurish episodes? Just what was going on anyway?!
Why do you think he didn't like those episodes? The only reasons why
Howell and the other Radiophonic Workshop musicians faded out of use in
the Colin Baker years was because the Workshop was getting overworked
by the rest of the BBC without an increase in person-power. Brian Hodgson
judged that they couldn't keep up, and JNT agreed, hence the shift back
to freelancers.
> If he wanted to be original, oh, I can think of so many possibilities.
> They are infinite. And you don't have to change the shape of the TARDIS
> (duh, 'cause it's different and new it's original) or anything dumb like
> that. May he could travel alone for awhile. Maybe he could have an alien
> companion like that shape shifter, Frobisher.
The first idea was already tried once, remember? ("The Deadly Assassin")
Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe didn't like it as the Doctor wound
up talking to himself on several occasions, and looking silly in the
process. (TARDIS scenes in Part One come to mind)
As for Frobisher. . . he's a PENGUIN!
And as I recall, they did try a shapeshifter during the JNT years.
Kamelion, wasn't it? (Too bad the bloke who built the prop died and didn't
leave notes on how to work the thing. Still, that's JNT's fault too,
I suppose.)
(you ever notice that some
> o' those comics were better than any JNT show.
Uh, no, actually. Sometimes they beat "Gunfighters," but that's only on
rare occasions.
Maybe he hired the wrong
> writers)
Hiring the writers is the immediate responsibility of the Script Editor.
True, the Producer is the next person who says something about it, but
if recruitment is the trouble, talk to the recruiter.
If he wanted to do a series he could have the Doctor park his
> TARDIS for awhile and get involved in some kind of scientific research
> (and kiddies, without realising, would discover that in science you
> collect a bunch of data and then classify it etc etc)
Didn't this happen for about three years on Earth in the Pertwee years?
True, we didn't get an in-depth examination of his scientific method
(which seems to be completely emperical, in any case), but we did see him
labor over time to solve a problem and only partially succeed in the end.
Sounds like true science to me.
As for researching something else. . he could only ever do the research
for himself. If he started helping someone else for an extended period
of time, I'd want to know how the Time Lords are letting him get away
with breaking the First Law.
and maybe
> Sontarrans would factor into it politcally instead of doing some boring,
> dry, stiff, lame assed been done a gazillion times court room drama. How
> television!
Kinda sounds like "boring" Trek of the 90's now.
> Original? What did he do that was original?!?
Nothing. No one ever has.
Steven.K...@uwrf.edu
>
> -frank
>
>
ph999...@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu
> Davison it seems, as the others did indeed switch through their eras.
> (Colin's vests during the Trial, his cat pins, his ties. . McCoy's scarf,
> umbrella, and jacket, etc.)
>
but not as often as the others.
After that somewhat foolish Lofficier-flame of mine, I'm being ultra-cautious
in what I post now. :)
Aden Steinke
In article <367j22$8...@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au>, kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au
(Kate Orman) wrote:
{snip}
> Alas, social commentary has been a part of Doctor Who from as early as
> "Planet of the Giants", with its environmentalist message. That doesn't
> mean you can't enjoy the series as "escapism", or prefer the "escapist"
> stories to the ones which "confront" the viewer. But Doctor Who has
> *often* done just that - as well as often just being a fun run-around.
>
>
> --
> Kate Orman
> "You are endlessly agitating, unceasingly mischievous. Will you never
> stop?" - Light, in Marc Platt's "Ghost Light", 1989
The thing about Giants is that it is an excellent mad scientist/evil vilain
show, and any environmentalist message is only there if you are trying to
see it - so it doesn't detract from the enjoyment of the program on a
purely run around basis. I am sure you could be a chemical engineer
working for a pesticide company and still enjoy Giants.
Andrew E Switala
> > It would have been nice if JNT could have been really original.
> No such person has existed since the Greeks, and they probably nicked stuff
> from other cultures too, except we don't know who they were.
> Hiring the writers is the immediate responsibility of the Script Editor.
> True, the Producer is the next person who says something about it, but
> if recruitment is the trouble, talk to the recruiter.
David Whitaker is God!!! (Sorry, complerely unrelated statement).
> > Original? What did he do that was original?!?
> Nothing. No one ever has.
Back to the Greeks again, eh? Do you, like Plato, accept that myth is
a valid form of argument? You should, because there's no other way to
prove Pythagorean beliefs like those.
If Doctor Who was remembered, not invented, what kind of a sick,
twisted place must the afterlife be, I wonder. :)
--
* Andrew Switala * ``This is no time for morality!'' *
* aswi...@gas.uug.arizona.edu * -Doctor Who *
Work Shoes
>The question marks and the costume of each Doctor were intended as trademarks
>of the series in the same way the TARDIS and the Daleks were, and I think
>he succeeded.
Unfortunetly. The TARDIS, the POLICE BOX, has an aesthetic quality; in
the same way a chinese puzzle box does. The Daleks were a smash hit in
the sixties. The TARDIS is an integral part of the Whoniverse.
Bloody question marks are tantamount to some infuriatingly
condescending adult in a grey suit saying, 'hey, you kids, it's that
wacky mysterious Dr. Who you like so much'. Insipid, insipid! It's just
more 'in on it with the audience' inanity. In on it with the audience
stunts like that put a show on the level of a cartoon. Jesus Christ how
does this slip by so many people.
Please don't be put off my my frustration. Just think about it for a
second. Would the Doctor sit back in his TARDIS and think, 'hey, I'm a
mysterious kind of guy, I think I'll stitch question marks into my
collar'?
The TARDIS can actually happen in the Whoniverse. It's fucking
plausible in the story. It is sodding consistent. A machine that is
bigger on the inside than the out is a science fiction idea. Question
marks are for bleeding cartoons! Is this getting through?!?!?
>As for having the "uniform" fixed in every story, that would only apply to
>Davison it seems, as the others did indeed switch through their eras.
>(Colin's vests during the Trial, his cat pins, his ties. . McCoy's scarf,
>umbrella, and jacket, etc.)
I'm going to let you think about this one.
>"Self-advertising-sensationalist signature tune." Ahem. That's what theme
>tunes are supposed to be
Then why wern't they? And don't just gainsay me and say ,'they were'.
The vortex concept was just wonky. It identified what the show was. It
called your attention to it. It was not sensationalistic.
>As for incidental music. . you would prefer Dudley Simpson's random use
>of oboes and basoons for a science fiction score?
Beats that disco tempo for McCoy.
>> It would have been nice if JNT could have been really original.
>
>No such person has existed since the Greeks, and they probably nicked stuff
>from other cultures too, except we don't know who they were.
Find comparisons for the following: Blakes 7; Red Dwarf; Dr. Who c.
1963-1975; the Red Green show (you might not know that one, I like it);
the motion picture 'Bladerunner'; the motion picuture 'Clockwork Orange';
Monty Pythons flying Circus; The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy; Issac
Asimov; Clifford Simak; Barry Longyear; Orson Scott Card; Phillip K.
Dick;
What I'm saying is there were a lot of neat things JNT could have done
and instead he poured more money into in on it with the audience cliches
and gloss. To my mind, all of this points to trying to be attractive to
Americans.
>> Instead he merely introduced gloss and shine. The show became evem more
>> formulaic. The clown uniforms, the stock Earth girl companions,
>
>oh, you mean Melanie, of course. You're right there.
>But then again, there's Tegan and Ace and Nyssa, going in the opposite
>direction. Peri is closer to your argument, I suppose, but she was
>tremendously better than "classic" companions like Jo Grant or Polly.
>
> a
>> required snidely whiplash nemesis and on and on. A
>
>What is that supposed to mean?
You don't know who Snidely Whiplash is. Well, hurm, there was this
cartoon where the good guy was called 'Dudley Dooright'. You get the
picture already. He was handsome and chivelrous and blonde and square
jawed and this being an irreverent cartoon (irreverence has gone out of
style since the population went up and the number of stupid people
increased) he was always bungleing. Well his nemisis was this obvious bad
guy who talked in a kind of sinister oily way and fiddled with his handle
bar mustache wen planning some scheme to tie Doorights girlfreind to a
rail road. You get the picture. Can you think of another villain who has
a black mustache and goatee and affects an oily sinister aire (you know,
the kind actors put on for childrens plays) and laughs a lot in that evil
way? Think, think...
>Why do you think he didn't like those episodes? The only reasons why
>Howell and the other Radiophonic Workshop musicians faded out of use in
>the Colin Baker years was because the Workshop was getting overworked
>by the rest of the BBC without an increase in person-power. Brian Hodgson
>judged that they couldn't keep up, and JNT agreed, hence the shift back
>to freelancers.
You mean all those free lancers were Lawrence Welk fans? Come on.
>> If he wanted to be original, oh, I can think of so many possibilities.
>> They are infinite. And you don't have to change the shape of the TARDIS
>> (duh, 'cause it's different and new it's original) or anything dumb like
>> that. May he could travel alone for awhile. Maybe he could have an alien
>> companion like that shape shifter, Frobisher.
>
>The first idea was already tried once, remember? ("The Deadly Assassin")
>Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe didn't like it as the Doctor wound
>up talking to himself on several occasions, and looking silly in the
>process. (TARDIS scenes in Part One come to mind)
He didn't look silly. There weren't evough episodes like that for him
to seem like he was delivering an awful lot of dialogue to himself.
Anyway, what 's wrong with talking to your self.
>As for Frobisher. . . he's a PENGUIN!
Interesting Penguin.
>And as I recall, they did try a shapeshifter during the JNT years.
>Kamelion, wasn't it? (Too bad the bloke who built the prop died and didn't
>leave notes on how to work the thing. Still, that's JNT's fault too,
>I suppose.)
Without Morphing software, which is relatively cheap these days, you
couldn't do Frobisher on tv. Kamelion (clever name) was awkward and
uninspirational.
> (you ever notice that some
>> o' those comics were better than any JNT show.
>
>Uh, no, actually.
Not my fault.
>If he wanted to do a series he could have the Doctor park his
>> TARDIS for awhile and get involved in some kind of scientific research
>> (and kiddies, without realising, would discover that in science you
>> collect a bunch of data and then classify it etc etc)
>
>Didn't this happen for about three years on Earth in the Pertwee years?
>True, we didn't get an in-depth examination of his scientific method
>(which seems to be completely emperical, in any case), but we did see him
>labor over time to solve a problem and only partially succeed in the end.
>Sounds like true science to me.
Um yeah. Exactly. My contention exactly. One of us is misunderstanding
the other. I'm only attacking that phase of DW towards the end when it
became sugar coated mindless garbage.
>As for researching something else. . he could only ever do the research
>for himself. If he started helping someone else for an extended period
>of time, I'd want to know how the Time Lords are letting him get away
>with breaking the First Law.
He was always helping people with something. Also, I tend not to
pretend to understand Timelord laws. It's the same thing with trying to
write about a genious like Sherlock Holmes. You would have to be as smart
as Sherlock to do it. So you use the clever device of telling the story
through Watson. You see? This is why I think you can't do a profile on
the Timelords. The whole idea is we can't.
Also I think this is why DW has to be a children programme. It's much
easier to tell a story about Earth military adventures a few hundred
years in the future on an equitable level than it is to talk about a
being who travels through time and space in a machine that would seem
like unutterable magic to Spock. To be credible it has to be presented
from that angle so your not obliged to know as much about the Doctor as a
TimeLord can.
> and maybe
>> Sontarrans would factor into it politcally instead of doing some boring,
>> dry, stiff, lame assed been done a gazillion times court room drama. How
>> television!
>
>Kinda sounds like "boring" Trek of the 90's now.
Yeah, pictures of people talking. Hitchcock criticised that kind of
film making. He called it 'pictures of people talking'. Very witty. The
thing which made the 60's version intrigueing, and which everyone seems
to have overlooked, is that they were way out in space where they had
never been before always going down to planets they've never been to
before. They were always getting to some mysterious place and beaming
down to it and there was this kind of noise in the back ground that was
supposed to be the wind only it had a higher (alien) pitch made even
spookier for the total silence otherwise.
>> Original? What did he do that was original?!?
>
>Nothing. No one ever has.
You need to get out more.:) -frank
Jack Beven
[much deleted]
> Please don't be put off my my frustration. Just think about it for a
>second. Would the Doctor sit back in his TARDIS and think, 'hey, I'm a
>mysterious kind of guy, I think I'll stitch question marks into my
>collar'?
>Question marks are for bleeding cartoons! Is this getting through?!?!?
Obviously either your perceptions or mine are a bit warped. Since my ideas
seem to match most of the other people here, the statistics are on my side.
The Doctor is an alien. He doesn't think like human beings, and there is
nothing in his character that rules out stitching question marks into his
collar. Indeed, to me that's a part of his dress sense (or lack thereof) that
has been a part of the show since the Troughton days.
Remeber Jon Pertwee's line in "The Time Warrior": "I'm very serious about
what I do. I'm not very serious about how I do it." (Or something to that
effect.) The question marks are not cartoonish to me. They are a reflection of
the Doctor's quirky character embodied in that statement, and this character
long preceeds JNT's time on the show.
Jack Beven (a. k. a. The Supreme Dalek)
National Hurricane Center
be...@hrd-tardis.nhc.noaa.gov
jbe...@delphi.com
Jonathan Blum
Work Shoes <fcha...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
[stale arguments about the infinite superiority of Doctor Who to Frank's
caricatured view of everything else in the world tossed down the plughole]
So, you think the following were "original"?
> Find comparisons for the following: Blakes 7;
1984, Brave New World, a dash of Survivors, more than a hint of Star Trek
(ever see the episode "Arena", whoops "Duel"?), the movie "Viva Zapata",
and Butch and Sundance for the ending.
>Red Dwarf;
The American TV series "Quark", and a series of radio sketches done by
Grant and Naylor which were parodies of 2001 (see alt.tv.red-dwarf for
more information about the pre-history of RD).
>Dr. Who c. 1963-1975;
Quatermass, Pathfinders in Space, The Time Machine (for both format,
imagination, and social commentary), The Avengers, the works of Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle, BBC costume dramas, and umpteen horror and sci-fi B-movies.
>the Red Green show (you might not know that one, I like it);
Never heard of it.
>the motion picture 'Bladerunner';
Seen any film noir?
>the motion picuture 'Clockwork Orange';
The book was inspired by Dostoyevski, I believe, with a touch of "Brave
New World" thrown in, and the filmmaking style was ripped from everything
from "Bonnie and Clyde" to old peep-shows.
>Monty Pythons flying Circus;
The Goon Show. (Peter Sellers, Spike Milligan, and Harry Secombe. Check
it out!)
>The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy;
The Goons again, plus Python, Vonnegut, and P.G. Wodehouse. (And those are
just Adams' admitted inspirations. He also said he intended Ford Prefect as
a parody of the Doctor.)
>Issac
>Asimov;
John Campbell (at least at first; later Isaac became his own biggest
influence).
>Clifford Simak; Barry Longyear; Orson Scott Card; Phillip K.
>Dick;
Robert Sheckley. Probably Ellison as well.
The point is, everyone has influences, and the only way you can claim
"Doctor Who" is "original" is in the way it re-combined the elements and
ideas which were out there already. The differences are all in the mix.
And, if you choose to argue that way, then late-period "Doctor Who" was
just as original as the earlier stuff -- after all, who else would ever
think of putting a Monty Python spin on J.G. Ballard? ("Paradise Towers",
if you care.)
>>> Original? What did he do that was original?!?
>>Nothing. No one ever has.
> You need to get out more.:) -frank
You need to look beyond your own preconceptions, and your slavish adherence
to your theory that ideas spring full-blown from the brow of Zeus. Behind
every "Great Man" are many other great men, as a fortune cookie once said.
Regards,
Jon Blum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"All this time you two thought you were playing some twisted game of
chess... when it was just me playing solitaire!"
D O C T O R W H O : T I M E R I F T
Andrew E Switala
[specific instances of supposed lack or originality deleted]
> The point is, everyone has influences, and the only way you can claim
> "Doctor Who" is "original" is in the way it re-combined the elements and
> ideas which were out there already. The differences are all in the mix.
discussed no other way. I'll just cut the crap and get to the point:
Many people like to believe that there is a way to unify all physical
theory so that everything is just a variation on one general principle.
Then, what holds true in the macroscopic world is an approximation of
this fundamental Theory of Everything, and ultimately there is no
originality. Fine.
Now, the problem is that we _are_ talking about art here, not about
metaphysics or any other science, and originality is a useful concept
irrespective of its correctness. Even without a Theory of Everything (at
least no experimentally-supported one), our world has apparent
variation. The laws of chemistry are the same for us as for the average
rock. We have souls; rocks don't. The same laws that give us life
do not give rocks life. Chemistry shows that the apparent variation is
just that: apparent, illusion, non-being, etc. The metaphysics you
espouse does the same to art--dismisses it as illusion. Excuse me for
being blunt, but what the Hell is art if not illusion?! You can't use
scientific argument like that to dismiss an artistic concept, be it
originality or anything else. You're just spouting meaningless
nonsense.
> > You need to get out more.:) -frank
> You need to look beyond your own preconceptions, and your slavish adherence
> to your theory that ideas spring full-blown from the brow of Zeus. Behind
> every "Great Man" are many other great men, as a fortune cookie once said.
Zeus now, is it? You need to get off this Greek motif. :)
BTW, Parmenides kicks Sartre's butt.
Philip James Fairweather
(Andrew E Switala) wrote:
> ph999...@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu wrote:
> > > It would have been nice if JNT could have been really original.
> > No such person has existed since the Greeks, and they probably nicked stuff
> > from other cultures too, except we don't know who they were.
> The Greeks did not invent SF. Poe, Verne, and Wells did.
>
Say you so? Lucian was a Greek and his "Vera Historia" definitely has
science fiction elements in it. At one point, Lucian's ship is swept into
the sky in a storm, causing it to land on the moon. He finds the moon
people at war with the sun people and has a long stream of crazy adventures
there. It's a great read, but unfortunately there's no decent modern
translation around. Maybe that's something I'll have to do one day!
Philip Fairweather
(pjf...@hermes.cam.ac.uk)
R.P. AUGOOD
>From: pjf...@hermes.cam.ac.uk (Philip James Fairweather)
>Subject: Re: Doc's 5,6 & 7 were reflection of JNT's attitude
>Date: Mon, 03 Oct 1994 11:19:00 +0000
The Greeks didn't invent breakdancing.
Rich.
Christopher D. Heer
>In article <Cwr2z...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, fcha...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Work Shoes) writes:
>> In article <365e3r$8...@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au> kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) writes:
>>>In article <1994Sep23.2...@ucl.ac.uk> j.h...@ucl.ac.uk writes:
>>>>kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) writes:
>>>Oh, I enjoy the rip-offs in those eras immensely, and they do sometimes
>>>use the stolen elements in clever ways, such as the android double in
>>>"Tara". But the point still stands - they were no more original than JNT,
>>>and in some cases, a lot *less* original.
>>>Kate Orman
>> Well, no one else would be stupid enough to interpret 'Dr.Who' in that
>> derisive way that JNT seemed to. I assert that because of the embarrasing
>> cliches he introduced. For example, the question marks, the fixed
>> 'Dr.Who' clown uniform, the self advertising-sensationalist sig. tune (I
>> know; but Howell is a genius and anyway his style didn't become an
>> integral part of the show, instead the music became more and more insipid
>> almost becoming organ/soap operaish and then that McCoy era be-bop
>> stuff...)
>The question marks and the costume of each Doctor were intended as trademarks
>of the series in the same way the TARDIS and the Daleks were, and I think
>he succeeded. I like them.
I have to side with frank on this issue. I cannot see how the question marks
could possibly be a trademark "in the same way the TARDIS and the Daleks" are.
IMHO they were way too superhero-ish. Too comic-booky. It clashes with the
atmosphere of the show.
>As for having the "uniform" fixed in every story, that would only apply to
>Davison it seems, as the others did indeed switch through their eras.
>(Colin's vests during the Trial, his cat pins, his ties. . McCoy's scarf,
>umbrella, and jacket, etc.)
Well, ok, if we're being pedantic. The fact remains that the outfits became
considerably more "costumey" during JNT's era. . . Tom changed coats, shirts,
slacks, etc., all the time, and Pertwee changed jackets, ties, cloaks, etc.
often as well. Davison's big change was the lines on his sweater, and Colin
got new cats. It's not quite the same thing, really.
On the other hand, I have no idea why frank is so obsessed with all of this
trivial crap. I've tried and tried to drag frank, kicking and screaming, into
a discussion of more important issues like plot, etc., but he just won't do
it. The closest I got was when I asked him what he thought of the *story* in
Logopolis, and his response was "Well, it was written by the guy who didn't
like the question marks, so it has to be good," or words to that effect. He
then launched into a diatribe about Logopolis' production values.
Personally, I'd rather have stupid idiotic question marks and great stories
than no question marks and crap stories (can anyone say, "Season 17?").
>"Self-advertising-sensationalist signature tune." Ahem. That's what theme
>tunes are supposed to be, although the terms usually used are "attention-
>grabbing, and anticipatorial signature tune."
>As for incidental music. . you would prefer Dudley Simpson's random use
>of oboes and basoons for a science fiction score?
No. I have no idea what upsets people about the more recent incidental music.
I like most of it, and I've always loved Paddy Kingsland's stuff from
Logopolis, Mawdryn, etc.
>> Instead he merely introduced gloss and shine. The show became evem more
>> formulaic. The clown uniforms, the stock Earth girl companions,
>oh, you mean Melanie, of course. You're right there.
>But then again, there's Tegan and Ace and Nyssa, going in the opposite
>direction. Peri is closer to your argument, I suppose, but she was
>tremendously better than "classic" companions like Jo Grant or Polly.
I'll take issue with you here, Steve. Peri was horrid. She couldn't act (or
at least, she was never given an opportunity to), she was annoying, and she
was so obviously hired for her looks that it wasn't even funny.
I'd take Jo Grant over Peri any day of the week, and twice on Saturdays.
>> a
>> required snidely whiplash nemesis and on and on. A
>What is that supposed to mean?
I think he's referring to the decline and fall of the Master. . . whilst I
have not gotten to see Survival yet, I'll agree that the Master has
deteriorated as a serious threat, and become much more cartoonish. Ainley
seems to go OTT more and more too, which isn't helping any.
I was feeling OK about the Ainley Master until I recently rewatched some
Pertwees. . . <sigh>
>> Even the music for that episode was done by
>> Howell. It was rather haunting. Did JNT sit in his office squirming
>> uncomfortably because of an episode like that? Was it too erie or weird?
>> Did he give young writers lofty instructions and then produce shoddy
>> amateurish episodes? Just what was going on anyway?!
>Why do you think he didn't like those episodes?
I wonder that as well. There's no evidence for it; I think frank says it just
to make JNT fit his (frank's) image of him (JNT).
>> If he wanted to be original, oh, I can think of so many possibilities.
>> They are infinite. And you don't have to change the shape of the TARDIS
>> (duh, 'cause it's different and new it's original) or anything dumb like
>> that. May he could travel alone for awhile. Maybe he could have an alien
>> companion like that shape shifter, Frobisher.
>The first idea was already tried once, remember? ("The Deadly Assassin")
>Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe didn't like it as the Doctor wound
>up talking to himself on several occasions, and looking silly in the
>process. (TARDIS scenes in Part One come to mind)
I think the format of the show will always require companions. Not only does
it act as an easy method to draw out expository stuff, but it lets the Doctor
be a bit quieter and remain more mysterious.
>As for Frobisher. . . he's a PENGUIN!
I can't believe frank suggested him. I know a lot of folks here enjoyed those
comics, but IMHO they were laughable.
>> (you ever notice that some
>> o' those comics were better than any JNT show.
>Uh, no, actually. Sometimes they beat "Gunfighters," but that's only on
>rare occasions.
Never such that I noticed. Those comics were lame with a capital LAY.
>> Maybe he hired the wrong
>> writers)
>Hiring the writers is the immediate responsibility of the Script Editor.
>True, the Producer is the next person who says something about it, but
>if recruitment is the trouble, talk to the recruiter.
Besides, Saward deserves the grief. :)
>>If he wanted to do a series he could have the Doctor park his
>> TARDIS for awhile and get involved in some kind of scientific research
>> (and kiddies, without realising, would discover that in science you
>> collect a bunch of data and then classify it etc etc)
>Didn't this happen for about three years on Earth in the Pertwee years?
>True, we didn't get an in-depth examination of his scientific method
>(which seems to be completely emperical, in any case), but we did see him
>labor over time to solve a problem and only partially succeed in the end.
>Sounds like true science to me.
>As for researching something else. . he could only ever do the research
>for himself. If he started helping someone else for an extended period
>of time, I'd want to know how the Time Lords are letting him get away
>with breaking the First Law.
It would also be mind-bogglingly dull, probably. The Doctor may be a
scientist, but the show's never been specifically about science.
Andrew E Switala
Shannon Sullivan
> >> Well, no one else would be stupid enough to interpret 'Dr.Who' in that
> >> derisive way that JNT seemed to. I assert that because of the embarrasing
> >> cliches he introduced. For example, the question marks, the fixed
> >> 'Dr.Who' clown uniform, the self advertising-sensationalist sig. tune (I
> >> know; but Howell is a genius and anyway his style didn't become an
> >> integral part of the show, instead the music became more and more insipid
> >> almost becoming organ/soap operaish and then that McCoy era be-bop
> >> stuff...)
> >The question marks and the costume of each Doctor were intended as trademarks
> >of the series in the same way the TARDIS and the Daleks were, and I think
> >he succeeded. I like them.
> I have to side with frank on this issue. I cannot see how the question marks
> could possibly be a trademark "in the same way the TARDIS and the Daleks" are.
> IMHO they were way too superhero-ish. Too comic-booky. It clashes with the
> atmosphere of the show.
> >As for having the "uniform" fixed in every story, that would only apply to
> >Davison it seems, as the others did indeed switch through their eras.
> >(Colin's vests during the Trial, his cat pins, his ties. . McCoy's scarf,
> >umbrella, and jacket, etc.)
> Well, ok, if we're being pedantic. The fact remains that the outfits became
> considerably more "costumey" during JNT's era. . . Tom changed coats, shirts,
> slacks, etc., all the time, and Pertwee changed jackets, ties, cloaks, etc.
> often as well. Davison's big change was the lines on his sweater, and Colin
> got new cats. It's not quite the same thing, really.
I disagree. Even, yes, Pertwee and Tom both changed specific parts of
their outfits, the costumes themselves were still generally the same
(this applies to Tom more than Jon). Pertwee usually wore frilly,
evening-wear type suits, while Baker almost always wore a dark overcoat,
battered hat and of course the ubiquitous scarf.
Besides, just look at Hartnell and especially Troughton. Troughton's
outfit in particular was constant throughout his tenure (excepting the
short-lived stovepipe hat and the trimmings that were made to his pants).
Hartnell, too, was pretty much the same, although I'll admit he did
change more than Patrick.
This just goes to show that the "costume" idea is not JNT's alone, so if
frank wants to lambast '80s WHO for doing this, he's going have to
include most of the rest of the series, too.
--
* "If every man says all he can, if every man is true
* /// hannon Do I believe the sky above is Caribbean Blue."
* \\\ Patrick -- Enya, "Caribbean Blue"
* /// ullivan "Come on Ace, we've got work to do!"
* -- The Doctor, "Survival"
Work Shoes
>In article <1994Sep29.215017.5581@rivers> ph999...@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu writes:
>
>>In article <Cwr2z...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, fcha...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Work Shoes) writes:
>>> In article <365e3r$8...@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au> kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) writes:
>>>>In article <1994Sep23.2...@ucl.ac.uk> j.h...@ucl.ac.uk writes:
>>>>>kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) writes:
>
>I have to side with frank on this issue. I cannot see how the question marks
>could possibly be a trademark "in the same way the TARDIS and the Daleks" are.
>IMHO they were way too superhero-ish. Too comic-booky. It clashes with the
>atmosphere of the show.
>
>>As for having the "uniform" fixed in every story, that would only apply to
>>Davison it seems, as the others did indeed switch through their eras.
>>(Colin's vests during the Trial, his cat pins, his ties. . McCoy's scarf,
>>umbrella, and jacket, etc.)
>
>Well, ok, if we're being pedantic. The fact remains that the outfits became
>considerably more "costumey" during JNT's era. . . Tom changed coats, shirts,
>slacks, etc., all the time, and Pertwee changed jackets, ties, cloaks, etc.
>often as well. Davison's big change was the lines on his sweater, and Colin
>got new cats. It's not quite the same thing, really.
>
>On the other hand, I have no idea why frank is so obsessed with all of this
>trivial crap.
It's not trivial crap. The whole tone, the style and feel and virtual
indentity of the show was twisted and warped into a ritzy critzy fiasco.
I would call dragging out the good things about this era of DW trivial!
I've tried and tried to drag frank, kicking and screaming, into
>a discussion of more important issues like plot, etc., but he just won't do
>it. The closest I got was when I asked him what he thought of the *story* in
>Logopolis, and his response was "Well, it was written by the guy who didn't
>like the question marks, so it has to be good," or words to that effect. He
>then launched into a diatribe about Logopolis' production values.
I thought I went over some plot points which came to mind. Logopolis
was about how a group of math wizard were using some kind of science to
bring energy into the Universe so it wouldn't die a heat death (I don't
know why thye call it that when it's actually a loss of heat death, I
thought).
This is a grand idea. It's also a bit unbeleivable. I guess what I'm
trying to say is that the idea is large and unweildy. It's a bit too
grand, I guess. It also seems cliche to have the Doctor saving the WHOLE
ENTIRE UNIVERSE.
Something else which I'm sure few people over looked was that bit with
sending the TARDIS under water to flood it out. I thought that sort of
silliness was supposed to end when JNT took over! At least I could tongue
in cheek enjoy the antics of the season that went before (was it season
17 or 23 or something like that?). Tomfoolery like flooding the TARDIS
and question mark umbrellas and Cybermen with the elastic outline of
their underwear visible 'neath theri silver over alls is just stupid, not
funny.
All this makes it hard for me to beleive that JNT held anything other
than a cartoon vision of 'Doctor Who'. It may not have been malicious,
but it was there none the less.
The idea of the Watcher was neat, at least to me, to be sure. The
Watcher was an open ended concept. You couldn't really explain it. I mean
who exactly was the Watcher?
Actually the Watcher worked for me because they didn't make him a
prominent part of the story. He was just this mysterious entity which
only the Doctor knew and could understood and that entity stayed in the
background, sort of playing the role of that which exists but no one else
except the Doctor really know it's there or what it means that it is
there. Did that make sense? :)
The central theme of the plot though was too naive. I mean you would
expect the X-Men or GI Joe or Superman to save THE WHOLE ENTIRE UNIVERSE.
Even the idea of saving THE WHOLE ENTIRE GALAXY is a bit comic bookish.
I know I alway return to this episode but take 'Genesis' for example.
At the end of that story Sarah wonders if they really did any good. There
is this feeling that their actions amount to one variable in a universe
of infinite variables. For me there is intrigue and sophistication with
this kind of angle on a story. That story took place in a different
universe than the more trivial universe of 'Logopolis' in which the
hereos rescue THE WHOLE ENTIRE UNIVERSE.
>Personally, I'd rather have stupid idiotic question marks and great stories
>than no question marks and crap stories (can anyone say, "Season 17?").
What if Darth Vader had a tendency to rub his hands together and say
things like 'damn thos meddlers'. It would be one factor which would ruin
utterly the rest of the movie. It's too incongruous. For me, things like
those question marks is just another example of how most adults enjoy the
ego trip of condescending to children.
>>As for incidental music. . you would prefer Dudley Simpson's random use
>>of oboes and basoons for a science fiction score?
>
>No. I have no idea what upsets people about the more recent incidental music.
>I like most of it, and I've always loved Paddy Kingsland's stuff from
>Logopolis, Mawdryn, etc.
Paddy Kingsland stuff was alright. What is objectionable is that disco
tempo stuff used in recent years, most notably McCoy shows.
>I'll take issue with you here, Steve. Peri was horrid. She couldn't act (or
>at least, she was never given an opportunity to), she was annoying, and she
>was so obviously hired for her looks that it wasn't even funny.
In her first scene she's almost wearing a bikini! It's not nudity per
se, it's just that JNT (or whoever) was so transparent (at least I
thought so). Don't tell me about Leela. She was supposed to be dressed in
skins. True she might have killed bigger animals for those clothes...
>>As for Frobisher. . . he's a PENGUIN!
>
>I can't believe frank suggested him. I know a lot of folks here enjoyed those
>comics, but IMHO they were laughable.
>
>Never such that I noticed. Those comics were lame with a capital LAY.
I remember one where the TimeLords prevent the Doctor from erasing
Cybermen from history because they know the Cybermen will evolve into
this fantastically benign super race.
I remember one where the Doctor is persued by an assassin. The
assassin shoots his companion instead and the we see the Doctor taking
his companions weapon and with the faintest of tears streaming his face
(Doc #5) and a look that would intimidate Sasquatch, we see the Doctor
aim and shoot the weapon.
We think that he shot the assassin but the next scene we see is the
assassin in the hospital on some space station somewhere (he had been
previously wounded when he finally found the Doctor) explaining how he
had passed out and discovered that the Doctor had brought him to this
hospital instead of shooting like he had thought (so so so vintage Who).
The Doctor had just shot his combat helmut which had been playing this
gaudy toon.
However as it turns out the guy the assassin was working for has sent
the assassins hospital visitor to pull the plug on his life support
machine and so the assassin dies anyway. Is it possible the Doctor knew
this would happen? Who knows?
I remember more than a few comics that weren't laughable. Some of them
were done by the same guy who went on to do the graphic novel 'The Watchmen'.
-frank
Work Shoes
>Work Shoes <fcha...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>
>[much deleted]
>
>
> NO!
>
> Obviously either your perceptions or mine are a bit warped.
Yours.
Since my ideas
>seem to match most of the other people here, the statistics are on my side.
Point?
> The Doctor is an alien. He doesn't think like human beings,
He supposed to be better at thinking.
and there is
>nothing in his character that rules out stitching question marks into his
>collar.
Except his character itself.
Indeed, to me that's a part of his dress sense (or lack thereof) that
>has been a part of the show since the Troughton days.
They never ever did anything that could be compared to putting
question marks on all of the Doctors accoutrements. I suppose you would
be happy of they put a big yellow diamond "WHO" on his chest! Maybe a red
cape or a badge the says 'Have TARDIS will travel'!
> Remeber Jon Pertwee's line in "The Time Warrior": "I'm very serious about
>what I do. I'm not very serious about how I do it."
His exact words are '...not necessarily the way I do it'. Look...oh
Jesus...the Doctor's character didn't make the decision about the
question marks. The Doctor's character was involved in the frilly shirt
and the car and all that.
Look, are you familiar with the phrase 'directorial touch'? That's
what things like those question marks are only in this case it was the
producer (as it will be with television). The characters themselves don't
acknowledge the existence of these touches. They are an expression
straight from the producer or the director to you. Am I explaining this
in a way that you can understand?
This touches upon what was very wrong with JNT. MOst of what he did
were jsut directorial touches. He revamped the look of the Whoniverse.
The characters themselves, the very stuff of that universe doesn't
acknowledge these changes because they are not changes for them. Does
that make sense to you.
This is why I say that JNT's so called changes were all shallow. They
were all just directorial touches. The changes weren't the result of the
characters making this or that decision or relating to each other
differently. The changes he made were the kind that assumed that the
Whoniverse has always been a place where the Doctor is the kind of
character who should have a "Who" on his chest or question marks on his
collar and a TARDIS console that looks like it was made from left overs
of ST;tng and stock Dr. Who fancy pants uniforms. They make it less real
and more a cartoon. Do cartoon characters look to each other suddenly and
say, 'hey, we're made out of ink!!'?
Do you think that Rod Serling should have had a question mark tatooed
on his forehead. After all the Twilight Zone universe is a mysterious
one. Ofcourse! It's just not that kind of universe.
-frank
Work Shoes
>In article <Cx0u9...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
>Work Shoes <fcha...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>[stale arguments about the infinite superiority of Doctor Who to Frank's
>caricatured view of everything else in the world tossed down the plughole]
>
>So, you think the following were "original"?
>
>> Find comparisons for the following: Blakes 7;
>
>1984, Brave New World, a dash of Survivors, more than a hint of Star Trek
>(ever see the episode "Arena", whoops "Duel"?), the movie "Viva Zapata",
>and Butch and Sundance for the ending.
I read 1984. I don't remember anything about escaped prisoners in
outer space on the run from an oppressive power block.
>>Red Dwarf;
>
>The American TV series "Quark", and a series of radio sketches done by
>Grant and Naylor which were parodies of 2001 (see alt.tv.red-dwarf for
>more information about the pre-history of RD).
>
>>Dr. Who c. 1963-1975;
>
>Quatermass, Pathfinders in Space, The Time Machine (for both format,
>imagination, and social commentary), The Avengers, the works of Sir Arthur
>Conan Doyle, BBC costume dramas, and umpteen horror and sci-fi B-movies.
Your being silly.
>>the Red Green show (you might not know that one, I like it);
>
>Never heard of it.
>
>>the motion picture 'Bladerunner';
>
>Seen any film noir?
>
>>the motion picuture 'Clockwork Orange';
>
>The book was inspired by Dostoyevski, I believe, with a touch of "Brave
>New World" thrown in, and the filmmaking style was ripped from everything
>from "Bonnie and Clyde" to old peep-shows.
Right!
>>Monty Pythons flying Circus;
>
>The Goon Show. (Peter Sellers, Spike Milligan, and Harry Secombe. Check
>it out!)
>
>>The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy;
>
>The Goons again, plus Python, Vonnegut, and P.G. Wodehouse. (And those are
>just Adams' admitted inspirations. He also said he intended Ford Prefect as
>a parody of the Doctor.)
He was a reaction to the Doctor. If he had a choice between saving a
planet and going to a party, Ford went to the party.
>>Issac
>>Asimov;
>
>John Campbell (at least at first; later Isaac became his own biggest
>influence).
>
>>Clifford Simak; Barry Longyear; Orson Scott Card; Phillip K.
>>Dick;
>
>Robert Sheckley. Probably Ellison as well.
>
>The point is, everyone has influences, and the only way you can claim
>"Doctor Who" is "original" is in the way it re-combined the elements and
>ideas which were out there already. The differences are all in the mix.
Well, yea.
>And, if you choose to argue that way, then late-period "Doctor Who" was
>just as original as the earlier stuff -- after all, who else would ever
>think of putting a Monty Python spin on J.G. Ballard? ("Paradise Towers",
>if you care.)
>
>>>> Original? What did he do that was original?!?
>
>>>Nothing. No one ever has.
>
>> You need to get out more.:) -frank
>
>You need to look beyond your own preconceptions, and your slavish adherence
>to your theory that ideas spring full-blown from the brow of Zeus. Behind
>every "Great Man" are many other great men, as a fortune cookie once said.
(laugh) Are you taking that tactic on purpous or do you really not
understand me. Ofcourse creativity is taking two things and putting them
together in a way that hasn't been done! You can't just gain say my
assertions by claiming that Blakes 7 isn't original 'cause it has a male
character in it and lot's of other shows have male characters.
You would have to beleive that ideas spring forth from the
brow of Zeus in order to assert that nothing is original. YOur arguements
are supported by this kind of truth, not mine. You just managed to read
all that into stuff I've said. I'm impressed!:)
Everything JNT did (close enough to 100%) amounted to directorial
touches. The question marks, the kind of make up and characterisations,
the, see we're spending more money just like you Amercans, sets, the
stock DW uniforms, everything. And all those touches were clicheish,
cartoonish, in a word, typical; not original!
This kind of thing had never happened before on that kind of scale to
DW. All the changes were involved things that fit into the Whoniverse. In
other words, the characters of the Whoniverse were in on it. This is not
true of directorial touches which are just little messages or expressions
or aesthetic suggestions from the director (or whom ever) straight to
you.
If this wasn't understandable I'll be happy to expand on it. -frank
p.s. Your hooked! Bwa ha ha ha...