Why Doctor Who should have never been cancelled in 1989

[The Doctor]

From ChatGPT

Introduction:

In 1989, after 26 years of thrilling audiences with its time-traveling
adventures and captivating storytelling, Doctor Who faced an untimely
cancellation. The decision to end the series left fans devastated and marked
the end of an era in television history. This article explores the reasons why
Doctor Who should have never been cancelled in 1989, delving into its cultural
significance, its enduring legacy, and the missed opportunities
that arose from its premature demise.

Cultural Phenomenon:

Doctor Who transcended the confines of television to become a cultural
phenomenon beloved by fans around the world. Since its inception in 1963, the
series captured the imagination of viewers with its imaginative narratives,
iconic characters, and groundbreaking special effects. Doctor Who became more
than just a TV show; it was a shared experience that brought people together
across generations and continents.

The cancellation of Doctor Who in 1989 deprived fans of a beloved institution
and left a void in popular culture. The absence of new episodes meant the end
of an era for millions of viewers who had grown up with the Doctor's
adventures. Furthermore, the cancellation prevented the series from reaching
new audiences and engaging with a new generation of fans.

Enduring Legacy:

Despite its cancellation, Doctor Who's legacy endured long after its final
episode aired. The series continued to inspire countless spin-offs, novels,
audio dramas, and comic books, keeping the spirit of the show alive for years
to come. The dedicated fanbase, known affectionately as Whovians, remained
devoted to the series, organizing conventions, fan clubs, and online
communities to celebrate their love for the Doctor and their companions.

The cancellation of Doctor Who in 1989 only served to strengthen the dedication
of its fanbase and cement its status as a cultural icon. The show's influence
extended beyond television to influence other works of science fiction and
fantasy, inspiring countless creators and artists to explore the boundless
possibilities of time and space.

Missed Opportunities:

The cancellation of Doctor Who in 1989 represented a missed opportunity for the
series to evolve and grow in new directions. With advances in technology and
storytelling techniques, Doctor Who had the potential to reach new heights of
creativity and innovation. The cancellation prevented the series from exploring
new story arcs, introducing new characters,
and pushing the boundaries of the sci-fi genre.

Furthermore, the cancellation deprived fans of closure for ongoing storylines
and character arcs. The Seventh Doctor, portrayed by Sylvester McCoy, was left
without a proper send-off, and many questions remained unanswered. The
cancellation left fans with a sense of unfinished business and a longing for
resolution that would not be realised for many years.

Revival and Renewal:

Despite its cancellation in 1989, Doctor Who would eventually be revived in
2005, much to the delight of fans worldwide. The revival of the series breathed
new life into the franchise, introducing a new generation of fans to the
wonders of time and space. The success of the revival series proved that there
was still a hunger for Doctor Who's unique brand of storytelling
and that the Doctor's adventures were far from over.

In hindsight, the cancellation of Doctor Who in 1989 was a missed opportunity
to keep the series alive and thriving for future generations. While the revival
series has brought renewed interest and enthusiasm for the Doctor's adventures,
one can't help but wonder what could have been
if the series had been allowed to continue uninterrupted.

Conclusion:

The cancellation of Doctor Who in 1989 remains a source of disappointment for
fans who mourn the loss of one of television's most beloved series. The
decision to end the show prematurely deprived audiences of new adventures,
compelling characters, and imaginative storytelling. However, while the
cancellation may have been a setback,
it was not the end of the Doctor's journey.

Doctor Who's enduring legacy lives on in the hearts and minds of fans
who continue to celebrate the series' rich history and enduring appeal.
The cancellation in 1989 may have been a missed opportunity,
but it ultimately paved the way for the series' triumphant return
and ensured that the Doctor's adventures would continue to inspire
and captivate audiences for generations to come.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nk.ca Ici doc...@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
The ignorant won't rest until everyone is as dumb as they are. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

[Arthur Lipscomb]

This. The show came back strong so in the end the cancellation didn't
hurt. Sure, it deprived hard core fans such as myself with the ability
to enjoy the show. But it's back now and going strong.

> Missed Opportunities:
>
> The cancellation of Doctor Who in 1989 represented a missed opportunity for the
> series to evolve and grow in new directions. With advances in technology and
> storytelling techniques, Doctor Who had the potential to reach new heights of
> creativity and innovation. The cancellation prevented the series from exploring
> new story arcs, introducing new characters,
> and pushing the boundaries of the sci-fi genre.
>
> Furthermore, the cancellation deprived fans of closure for ongoing storylines
> and character arcs. The Seventh Doctor, portrayed by Sylvester McCoy, was left
> without a proper send-off, and many questions remained unanswered. The
> cancellation left fans with a sense of unfinished business and a longing for
> resolution that would not be realised for many years.
>
> Revival and Renewal:
>

Yes, until the revival which allowed the show to wrap up many
storylines. Unfortunately some of those wrap ups have been off screen,
but they are being wrapped up. And the ones that aren't I probably
don't remember anyway! LOL ;-)

[The Last Doctor]

[SNIP machine generated text]

Dave, if you can’t articulate your own feelings then I’m sorry. But I’m no
more interested in computers generating I’ll-considered opinions for you
than I am in computers generating substandard artwork for you.

Speak for yourself. Don’t treat a computer like it’s your “thinking brain”
support animal. It’s not fair on you.

[Blueshirt]

The Doctor wrote:

> From ChatGPT
>
> Introduction:
>
> In 1989, after 26 years of thrilling audiences with its
> time-traveling adventures and captivating storytelling,
> Doctor Who faced an untimely cancellation.

BlueshirtGPT says: Timely cancellation!

Like an injured horse it was put out of its misery.

> This article explores the reasons why Doctor Who should
> have never been cancelled in 1989,

It's Chat-GPT... it didn't have to sit through that era of the show.

Doctor Who HAD to die in 1989, so that it could live again and start
afresh when the time came.

If Doctor Who hadn't been cancelled in 1989 it would have been
cancelled in 1990, or 1991 (etc.)... People were not watching it.
Out of that, the Expanded Universe arose and allowed Doctor Who to
live.

[Blueshirt]

Arthur Lipscomb wrote:

> On 2/17/2024 6:45 AM, The Doctor wrote:
> >
> > The cancellation of Doctor Who in 1989 only served to strengthen
> > the dedication of its fanbase and cement its status as a
> > cultural icon. The show's influence extended beyond television
> > to influence other works of science fiction and fantasy,
> > inspiring countless creators and artists to explore the
> > boundless possibilities of time and space.
> >
>
> This. The show came back strong so in the end the cancellation
> didn't hurt. Sure, it deprived hard core fans such as myself with
> the ability to enjoy the show. But it's back now and going strong.

I genuinely think Doctor Who was better off for being cancelled. It
allowed the VNA's to exist, followed by the BBC EDA's and then the
Big Finish audio adventures... Doctor Who fandom thrived and "Doctor
Who" was rebuilt as a cult icon leading eventually to its
resurrection in 2005.

It had to die to live.

[Your Name]

It's not fair on the computer! :-p

[Blueshirt]

The Last Doctor wrote:

> [SNIP machine generated text]
>
> Dave, if you can’t articulate your own feelings then I’m sorry.
> But I’m no more interested in computers generating I’ll-considered
> opinions for you than I am in computers generating substandard
> artwork for you.

I'm gonna play devil's advocate and say at least he is posting
something on-topic that is generating some discussion...

I'm seeing it as his way of defending his favourite era of the show,
plus all of the words are spelt properly... so it's a start!

[The Doctor]

In article <uqqtlu$hhbr$2...@dont-email.me>,

There should have never been a cancellation to start with!

>> Missed Opportunities:
>>
>> The cancellation of Doctor Who in 1989 represented a missed
>opportunity for the
>> series to evolve and grow in new directions. With advances in technology and
>> storytelling techniques, Doctor Who had the potential to reach new heights of
>> creativity and innovation. The cancellation prevented the series from
>exploring
>> new story arcs, introducing new characters,
>> and pushing the boundaries of the sci-fi genre.
>>
>> Furthermore, the cancellation deprived fans of closure for ongoing storylines
>> and character arcs. The Seventh Doctor, portrayed by Sylvester McCoy, was left
>> without a proper send-off, and many questions remained unanswered. The
>> cancellation left fans with a sense of unfinished business and a longing for
>> resolution that would not be realised for many years.
>>
>> Revival and Renewal:
>>
>
>Yes, until the revival which allowed the show to wrap up many
>storylines. Unfortunately some of those wrap ups have been off screen,
>but they are being wrapped up. And the ones that aren't I probably
>don't remember anyway! LOL ;-)
>
>
>

Why is that?

[The Doctor]

In article <uqr4vu$j69n$1...@dont-email.me>,

I would if I disagree with it!

Looks like MM is going as nuts as chibnall.

[The Doctor]

In article <xn0oi6yxx...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
>
>> From ChatGPT
>>
>> Introduction:
>>
>> In 1989, after 26 years of thrilling audiences with its
>> time-traveling adventures and captivating storytelling,
>> Doctor Who faced an untimely cancellation.
>
>BlueshirtGPT says: Timely cancellation!
>
>Like an injured horse it was put out of its misery.
>

IYIO

>> This article explores the reasons why Doctor Who should
>> have never been cancelled in 1989,
>
>It's Chat-GPT... it didn't have to sit through that era of the show.
>
>Doctor Who HAD to die in 1989, so that it could live again and start
>afresh when the time came.
>
>If Doctor Who hadn't been cancelled in 1989 it would have been
>cancelled in 1990, or 1991 (etc.)... People were not watching it.
>Out of that, the Expanded Universe arose and allowed Doctor Who to
>live.

But you are in the wrong Captain BlueBeard!

[The Doctor]

In article <xn0oi6zfu...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Then you are NOT a Doctor Who fan!!

[The Doctor]

In article <uqr8al$jr2l$1...@dont-email.me>,

Good for a laugh!

Of Course you now have to flame Captain Blueshirt Blueshirt for this.

He cannot generate a proper counter argument!

[The Doctor]

In article <xn0oi6zoz...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Thank you! But you encouraged the events!

[Blueshirt]

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <xn0oi6zfu...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
> >
> > I genuinely think Doctor Who was better off for being cancelled.
> > It allowed the VNA's to exist, followed by the BBC EDA's and
> > then the Big Finish audio adventures... Doctor Who fandom
> > thrived and "Doctor Who" was rebuilt as a cult icon leading
> > eventually to its resurrection in 2005.
> >
> > It had to die to live.
>
> Then you are NOT a Doctor Who fan!!

Why would a fan want to watch a once great show wither away to
nothing in front of their eyes? Which is where the Sylvester McCoy
era of Doctor Who was going... the storylines were poor, it looked
crap and the ratings were rock bottom. If it was your pet would let
it suffer like that or would you be off to the vet?

[Blueshirt]

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <xn0oi6zoz...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
> > The Last Doctor wrote:
> >
> >> [SNIP machine generated text]
> >>
> >> Dave, if you can't articulate your own feelings then I'm
> >> sorry. But I'm no more interested in computers generating
> >> I'll-considered opinions for you than I am in computers
> >> generating substandard artwork for you.
> >
> > I'm gonna play devil's advocate and say at least he is posting
> > something on-topic that is generating some discussion...
> >
> > I'm seeing it as his way of defending his favourite era of the
> > show, plus all of the words are spelt properly... so it's a
> > start!
>
> Thank you! But you encouraged the events!

I will never change my opinion on that dire era of the show. I sat
through most of it! I grew up with the excitement of the Jon Pertwee
and Tom Baker eras of Doctor Who, watching McCoy in action was about
as exciting as watching paint dry compared to those engaging
Doctors. I wasn't surprised the BBC cancelled Doctor Who. I'd have
cancelled it too!

You can use AI to put your support of that era more coherently than
you could yourself, but it won't change the facts. It might have
been for a variety of reasons but it is indisputable that the
Sylvester McCoy era of Doctor Who got the show cancelled.

[The Doctor]

In article <xn0oi72zy...@news.eternal-september.org>,

I would rate Season 24 8/10

Season 25 8/10

Season 26 8/10 !

[The Doctor]

In article <xn0oi736o...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Your arguments hold not water!

[John Hall]

In message <xn0oi736o...@news.eternal-september.org>, Blueshirt
<blue...@indigo.news> writes
<snip>

>I will never change my opinion on that dire era of the show. I sat
>through most of it! I grew up with the excitement of the Jon Pertwee
>and Tom Baker eras of Doctor Who, watching McCoy in action was about as
>exciting as watching paint dry compared to those engaging Doctors. I
>wasn't surprised the BBC cancelled Doctor Who. I'd have cancelled it too!

The final McCoy season was IMO a huge improvement and was better than
anything since at least the Peter Davison era. "Battlefield" is quite
possibly my favourite DW story of all time (and I've been watching the
show ever since the very first season back in 1963), and "The Curse of
Fenric" and "Survival" were also very good. I do wonder if many people
who pan the Sylvester McCoy era never actually watched that final season
because (understandably) they had given up on the show before then.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

[The Last Doctor]

John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <xn0oi736o...@news.eternal-september.org>, Blueshirt
> <blue...@indigo.news> writes
> <snip>
>> I will never change my opinion on that dire era of the show. I sat
>> through most of it! I grew up with the excitement of the Jon Pertwee
>> and Tom Baker eras of Doctor Who, watching McCoy in action was about as
>> exciting as watching paint dry compared to those engaging Doctors. I
>> wasn't surprised the BBC cancelled Doctor Who. I'd have cancelled it too!
>
> The final McCoy season was IMO a huge improvement and was better than
> anything since at least the Peter Davison era. "Battlefield" is quite
> possibly my favourite DW story of all time (and I've been watching the
> show ever since the very first season back in 1963), and "The Curse of
> Fenric" and "Survival" were also very good. I do wonder if many people
> who pan the Sylvester McCoy era never actually watched that final season
> because (understandably) they had given up on the show before then.

Season 26 was a vast improvement on the previous few seasons (with the
possible exception of “Remembrance of the Daleks” from the previous year)
but still suffered from over intrusive and often incongruous background
music, choppy editing leaving important plot exposition on the cutting room
floor and events seemingly out of sequence, and from suddenly being
overambitious when it had seemed to utterly lack ambition for years.

McCoy was starting to learn to act and in the subsequent 35 years has
become competent, even accomplished - and turned in some fine work on Big
Finish that has definitely redeemed him in my eyes at least.

But at the time the quality uptick in season 26 was too little, too late,
and the decision to schedule it opposite Coronation Street at a time when
recording shows for later viewing was still a comparative rarity, was the
final nail in the show’s coffin, in my view.

--
“The timelines and … canon … are rupturing” - the Doctor

[The Doctor]

In article <AWROZTBBYc0lFwPI@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>,

John Hall <jo...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <xn0oi736o...@news.eternal-september.org>, Blueshirt
><blue...@indigo.news> writes
><snip>
>>I will never change my opinion on that dire era of the show. I sat
>>through most of it! I grew up with the excitement of the Jon Pertwee
>>and Tom Baker eras of Doctor Who, watching McCoy in action was about as
>>exciting as watching paint dry compared to those engaging Doctors. I
>>wasn't surprised the BBC cancelled Doctor Who. I'd have cancelled it too!
>
>The final McCoy season was IMO a huge improvement and was better than
>anything since at least the Peter Davison era. "Battlefield" is quite
>possibly my favourite DW story of all time (and I've been watching the
>show ever since the very first season back in 1963), and "The Curse of
>Fenric" and "Survival" were also very good. I do wonder if many people
>who pan the Sylvester McCoy era never actually watched that final season
>because (understandably) they had given up on the show before then.

Like Blueshirt?

>--
>John Hall
> "Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
> from coughing."
> Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

[The Doctor]

In article <uqsj6f$vtak$1...@dont-email.me>,

The Last Doctor <mi...@xenocyte.com> wrote:

>John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <xn0oi736o...@news.eternal-september.org>, Blueshirt
>> <blue...@indigo.news> writes
>> <snip>
>>> I will never change my opinion on that dire era of the show. I sat
>>> through most of it! I grew up with the excitement of the Jon Pertwee
>>> and Tom Baker eras of Doctor Who, watching McCoy in action was about as
>>> exciting as watching paint dry compared to those engaging Doctors. I
>>> wasn't surprised the BBC cancelled Doctor Who. I'd have cancelled it too!
>>
>> The final McCoy season was IMO a huge improvement and was better than
>> anything since at least the Peter Davison era. "Battlefield" is quite
>> possibly my favourite DW story of all time (and I've been watching the
>> show ever since the very first season back in 1963), and "The Curse of
>> Fenric" and "Survival" were also very good. I do wonder if many people
>> who pan the Sylvester McCoy era never actually watched that final season
>> because (understandably) they had given up on the show before then.
>
>Season 26 was a vast improvement on the previous few seasons (with the
>possible exception of “Remembrance of the Daleks” from the previous year)
>but still suffered from over intrusive and often incongruous background
>music, choppy editing leaving important plot exposition on the cutting room
>floor and events seemingly out of sequence, and from suddenly being
>overambitious when it had seemed to utterly lack ambition for years.
>

WEll shortened series by the brass was of no help!

>McCoy was starting to learn to act and in the subsequent 35 years has
>become competent, even accomplished - and turned in some fine work on Big
>Finish that has definitely redeemed him in my eyes at least.
>
>But at the time the quality uptick in season 26 was too little, too late,
>and the decision to schedule it opposite Coronation Street at a time when
>recording shows for later viewing was still a comparative rarity, was the
>final nail in the show’s coffin, in my view.
>

Too litte!

You underrate the whole season!

>--
>“The timelines and … canon … are rupturing” - the Doctor

[The Last Doctor]

No Yads got ChatGPT to think for him:
>”

>
> In 1989, after 26 years of thrilling audiences with its time-traveling
> adventures and captivating storytelling,

Hyperbole. Wherever ChatGPT picked up its Doctor Who knowledge it was
clearly from extreme fanbois: I loved the show and it was usually
entertaining, but rarely thrilling and only occasionally captivating, even
at the best of times. Which were over by 1980 …

>Doctor Who faced an untimely
> cancellation.

Assuming a conclusion. At this point the computer has not established a
case that the cancellation was “untimely”. (It was, but in the sense that
it was LATE.)

> The decision to end the series left fans devastated and marked
> the end of an era in television history.

There weren’t many fans left to BE devastated. That was rather the point.
It did mark the end of an era. Mainly with an huge sigh of relief that the
poor, overworked, ailing, ageing pet had been mercifully put to sleep.

> This article explores the reasons why
> Doctor Who should have never been cancelled in 1989, delving into its cultural
> significance, its enduring legacy,

Lots of things that come to an end had cultural significance and an
enduring legacy. That doesn’t mean that they remained current and relevant.

> and the missed opportunities
> that arose from its premature demise.

Premature assumed again - essay needs to present evidence and it doesn’t.

> Cultural Phenomenon:
>
> Doctor Who transcended the confines of television to become a cultural
> phenomenon beloved by fans around the world. Since its inception in 1963, the
> series captured the imagination of viewers with its imaginative narratives,
> iconic characters, and groundbreaking special effects. Doctor Who became more
> than just a TV show; it was a shared experience that brought people together
> across generations and continents.

Yes it was a lovely thing. But the pitiful remains of that thing were
largely regarded with sadness or disdain in 1989.

>
> The cancellation of Doctor Who in 1989 deprived fans of a beloved institution
> and left a void in popular culture.

Hardly. Fan made continuations in various media began almost immediately
and carry on to this day. Cancelling the show didn’t cancel fandom,
imagination or continuation by other means - from the New Adventures novels
to the BBV Stranger, PROBE and Downtime videos, the third Doctor audios
Paradise of Death and Ghosts of N- Space, the regrettable EastEnders
charity crossover - this “void” must be the least voidy void ever imagined.

> The absence of new episodes meant the end
> of an era for millions of viewers who had grown up with the Doctor's
> adventures. Furthermore, the cancellation prevented the series from reaching
> new audiences and engaging with a new generation of fans.

Self evident, but the show as it was was leaking fans. Not gaining new
ones.

>
> Enduring Legacy:
>
> Despite its cancellation, Doctor Who's legacy endured long after its final
> episode aired. The series continued to inspire countless spin-offs, novels,
> audio dramas, and comic books, keeping the spirit of the show alive for years
> to come. The dedicated fanbase, known affectionately as Whovians, remained
> devoted to the series, organizing conventions, fan clubs, and online
> communities to celebrate their love for the Doctor and their companions.
>
> The cancellation of Doctor Who in 1989 only served to strengthen the dedication
> of its fanbase and cement its status as a cultural icon. The show's influence
> extended beyond television to influence other works of science fiction and
> fantasy, inspiring countless creators and artists to explore the boundless
> possibilities of time and space.

These paragraphs indicate how strong the Whoniverse became after
cancellation of the show - so certainly don’t show that the cancellation
was a bad thing! Who was livelier and fresher in the 90s than it had been
in the 80s.

>
> Missed Opportunities:
>
> The cancellation of Doctor Who in 1989 represented a missed opportunity for the
> series to evolve and grow in new directions.

The text is now contradicting itself, as it has just shown (as I had
earlier) that the series continued to
“evolve and grow in new directions” BECAUSE of the cancellation. Sounds
like opportunities seized, not missed.

> With advances in technology and
> storytelling techniques, Doctor Who had the potential to reach new heights of
> creativity and innovation.

It only had to improve to “poor” (as it did in season 26) to reach new
heights of creativity and innovation compared with previous seasons. It
wasn’t enough.

>The cancellation prevented the series from exploring
> new story arcs, introducing new characters,
> and pushing the boundaries of the sci-fi genre.

No, it did all those things. Just not on TV for a while.

>
> Furthermore, the cancellation deprived fans of closure for ongoing storylines
> and character arcs. The Seventh Doctor, portrayed by Sylvester McCoy, was left
> without a proper send-off, and many questions remained unanswered. The
> cancellation left fans with a sense of unfinished business and a longing for
> resolution that would not be realised for many years.

The rest of the text just repeats the same points over and over, after
digressing into the revival which, given that it was 15 years after the
cancellation, is hardly relevant to the cancellation itself.

> … it ultimately paved the way for the series' triumphant return

> and ensured that the Doctor's adventures would continue to inspire
> and captivate audiences for generations to come.

So no harm, no foul. In the long run. And that breathing space was
necessary - it’s exceedingly unlikely that the modern show would have
arisen out of more McCoy and whatever horrors John Nathan-Turner might have
inflicted on us next.

[John Hall]

In message <uqsj6f$vtak$1...@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
<mi...@xenocyte.com> writes
<snip>

>But at the time the quality uptick in season 26 was too little, too
>late, and the decision to schedule it opposite Coronation Street at a
>time when recording shows for later viewing was still a comparative
>rarity, was the final nail in the show’s coffin, in my view.

Yes, one has to think that was done with malice aforethought.

[Blueshirt]

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <AWROZTBBYc0lFwPI@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>,
> John Hall <jo...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> > In message <xn0oi736o...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> writes
> > >

> > > I will never change my opinion on that dire era of the show. I
> > > sat through most of it! I grew up with the excitement of the
> > > Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker eras of Doctor Who, watching McCoy
> > > in action was about as exciting as watching paint dry compared
> > > to those engaging Doctors. I wasn't surprised the BBC
> > > cancelled Doctor Who. I'd have cancelled it too!
> >
> > The final McCoy season was IMO a huge improvement and was better
> > than anything since at least the Peter Davison era.
> > "Battlefield" is quite possibly my favourite DW story of all
> > time (and I've been watching the show ever since the very first
> > season back in 1963), and "The Curse of Fenric" and "Survival"
> > were also very good. I do wonder if many people who pan the
> > Sylvester McCoy era never actually watched that final season
> > because (understandably) they had given up on the show before
> > then.
>
> Like Blueshirt?

No Dave, unfortunately I watched it... it was the BBC putting Doctor
Who out of its misery that forced me to give up on that confusing
mess of a show.

Why don't you tell us what you liked about S26 Dave... and why you
thought it was so great?!

[Blueshirt]

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <uqsj6f$vtak$1...@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mi...@xenocyte.com> wrote:

> > McCoy was starting to learn to act and in the subsequent 35
> > years has become competent, even accomplished - and turned in
> > some fine work on Big Finish that has definitely redeemed him in
> > my eyes at least.
> >
> > But at the time the quality uptick in season 26 was too little,
> > too late, and the decision to schedule it opposite Coronation
> > Street at a time when recording shows for later viewing was
> > still a comparative rarity, was the final nail in the show's
> > coffin, in my view.
>
> Too litte!
>
> You underrate the whole season!

People have different opinions to you on the McCoy era Dave, but if
he "underrated the whole season" millions of UK viewers did too...
and they can't ALL be wrong!!!

[The Doctor]

In article <uqt9el$19int$1...@dont-email.me>,

The Last Doctor <mi...@xenocyte.com> wrote:

>No Yads got ChatGPT to think for him:

IYIO!

>>”
>>
>> In 1989, after 26 years of thrilling audiences with its time-traveling
>> adventures and captivating storytelling,
>
>Hyperbole. Wherever ChatGPT picked up its Doctor Who knowledge it was
>clearly from extreme fanbois: I loved the show and it was usually
>entertaining, but rarely thrilling and only occasionally captivating, even
>at the best of times. Which were over by 1980 …
>

I guess CHATGPT does not view MM as intellignet!

>>Doctor Who faced an untimely
>> cancellation.
>
>Assuming a conclusion. At this point the computer has not established a
>case that the cancellation was “untimely”. (It was, but in the sense that
>it was LATE.)
>

Wrongo, bongo!

>> The decision to end the series left fans devastated and marked
>> the end of an era in television history.
>
>There weren’t many fans left to BE devastated. That was rather the point.
>It did mark the end of an era. Mainly with an huge sigh of relief that the
>poor, overworked, ailing, ageing pet had been mercifully put to sleep.
>

Excuse us, but what abou those writing letters to the BBC to bring DW back!

>> This article explores the reasons why
>> Doctor Who should have never been cancelled in 1989, delving into its cultural
>> significance, its enduring legacy,
>
>Lots of things that come to an end had cultural significance and an
>enduring legacy. That doesn’t mean that they remained current and relevant.
>

So where do you hide?

>> and the missed opportunities
>> that arose from its premature demise.
>
>Premature assumed again - essay needs to present evidence and it doesn’t.
>

Wrongo yet again!

>> Cultural Phenomenon:
>>
>> Doctor Who transcended the confines of television to become a cultural
>> phenomenon beloved by fans around the world. Since its inception in 1963, the
>> series captured the imagination of viewers with its imaginative narratives,
>> iconic characters, and groundbreaking special effects. Doctor Who became more
>> than just a TV show; it was a shared experience that brought people together
>> across generations and continents.
>
>Yes it was a lovely thing. But the pitiful remains of that thing were
>largely regarded with sadness or disdain in 1989.

Only by those who have no appreciation.

>
>>
>> The cancellation of Doctor Who in 1989 deprived fans of a beloved institution
>> and left a void in popular culture.
>
>Hardly. Fan made continuations in various media began almost immediately
>and carry on to this day. Cancelling the show didn’t cancel fandom,
>imagination or continuation by other means - from the New Adventures novels
>to the BBV Stranger, PROBE and Downtime videos, the third Doctor audios
>Paradise of Death and Ghosts of N- Space, the regrettable EastEnders
>charity crossover - this “void” must be the least voidy void ever imagined.

You forget 1996 as well.

>
>> The absence of new episodes meant the end
>> of an era for millions of viewers who had grown up with the Doctor's
>> adventures. Furthermore, the cancellation prevented the series from reaching
>> new audiences and engaging with a new generation of fans.
>
>Self evident, but the show as it was was leaking fans. Not gaining new
>ones.
>

In North America , it was gaining not leakng!

>>
>> Enduring Legacy:
>>
>> Despite its cancellation, Doctor Who's legacy endured long after its final
>> episode aired. The series continued to inspire countless spin-offs, novels,
>> audio dramas, and comic books, keeping the spirit of the show alive for years
>> to come. The dedicated fanbase, known affectionately as Whovians, remained
>> devoted to the series, organizing conventions, fan clubs, and online
>> communities to celebrate their love for the Doctor and their companions.
>>
>> The cancellation of Doctor Who in 1989 only served to strengthen the
>dedication
>> of its fanbase and cement its status as a cultural icon. The show's influence
>> extended beyond television to influence other works of science fiction and
>> fantasy, inspiring countless creators and artists to explore the boundless
>> possibilities of time and space.
>
>These paragraphs indicate how strong the Whoniverse became after
>cancellation of the show - so certainly don’t show that the cancellation
>was a bad thing! Who was livelier and fresher in the 90s than it had been
>in the 80s.

After That had left, the inept Mjor could have been a fun target for satire!

>
>
>>
>> Missed Opportunities:
>>
>> The cancellation of Doctor Who in 1989 represented a missed
>opportunity for the
>> series to evolve and grow in new directions.
>
>The text is now contradicting itself, as it has just shown (as I had
>earlier) that the series continued to
>“evolve and grow in new directions” BECAUSE of the cancellation. Sounds
>like opportunities seized, not missed.
>

Same difference.

>> With advances in technology and
>> storytelling techniques, Doctor Who had the potential to reach new heights of
>> creativity and innovation.
>
>It only had to improve to “poor” (as it did in season 26) to reach new
>heights of creativity and innovation compared with previous seasons. It
>wasn’t enough.
>

Yet Grade Powell did say scifi had not palce in the BBC. Major Clue!

>
>>The cancellation prevented the series from exploring
>> new story arcs, introducing new characters,
>> and pushing the boundaries of the sci-fi genre.
>
>No, it did all those things. Just not on TV for a while.
>

And in the 1990s?

>>
>> Furthermore, the cancellation deprived fans of closure for ongoing storylines
>> and character arcs. The Seventh Doctor, portrayed by Sylvester McCoy,
>was left
>> without a proper send-off, and many questions remained unanswered. The
>> cancellation left fans with a sense of unfinished business and a longing for
>> resolution that would not be realised for many years.
>
>The rest of the text just repeats the same points over and over, after
>digressing into the revival which, given that it was 15 years after the
>cancellation, is hardly relevant to the cancellation itself.
>
>> … it ultimately paved the way for the series' triumphant return
>> and ensured that the Doctor's adventures would continue to inspire
>> and captivate audiences for generations to come.
>
>So no harm, no foul. In the long run. And that breathing space was
>necessary - it’s exceedingly unlikely that the modern show would have
>arisen out of more McCoy and whatever horrors John Nathan-Turner might have
>inflicted on us next.
>

I rather that than the alternative.

>--
>“The timelines and … canon … are rupturing” - the Doctor

[The Doctor]

In article <xn0oi8bj...@news.eternal-september.org>,

It was great beause McCoy and Aldred were getting into rhythm.

Let us start there!

[The Doctor]

In article <xn0oi8bm...@news.eternal-september.org>,

And in North America ...

[Blueshirt]

The Last Doctor wrote:

> ChatGPT said:
> >
> > In 1989, after 26 years of thrilling audiences with its
> > time-traveling adventures and captivating storytelling,
>
> Hyperbole. Wherever ChatGPT picked up its Doctor Who knowledge it
> was clearly from extreme fanbois: I loved the show and it was
> usually entertaining, but rarely thrilling and only occasionally
> captivating, even at the best of times. Which were over by 1980 …

"26 years of thrilling audiences"? David Irving would be proud of
that that revisionism...

The general public were switching off Doctor Who in droves towards
the end.

> > Doctor Who faced an untimely cancellation.
>
> Assuming a conclusion. At this point the computer has not
> established a case that the cancellation was “untimely”. (It was,
> but in the sense that it was LATE.)

Doctor Who should never have returned after the hiatus during Colin
Baker's era... the writing was on the wall then. The BBC were not
really interested in the show and audiences were moving on.

> > The decision to end the series left fans devastated and marked
> > the end of an era in television history.
>
> There weren’t many fans left to BE devastated. That was rather the
> point. It did mark the end of an era. Mainly with an huge sigh of
> relief that the poor, overworked, ailing, ageing pet had been
> mercifully put to sleep.

Yes!

[Blueshirt]

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <xn0oi8bj...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
> > The Doctor wrote:
> >>
> >> Like Blueshirt?
> >
> > No Dave, unfortunately I watched it... it was the BBC putting
> > Doctor Who out of its misery that forced me to give up on that
> > confusing mess of a show.
> >
> > Why don't you tell us what you liked about S26 Dave... and why
> > you thought it was so great?!
>
> It was great beause McCoy and Aldred were getting into rhythm.

The thing is, if S27 had got the go ahead from the BBC Ace was going
to be replaced with an Andrew Cartmel character called Raine... so
there wouldn't have been much McCoy - Aldred rhythm then!

> Let us start there!

McCoy was growing in to the role, that much is true. But the
audiences were growing out of the show as they were growing up!
Doctor Who wasn't attracting more viewers to the show than were
leaving, hence the rock bottom ratings.

[Blueshirt]

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <xn0oi8bm...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
> > The Doctor wrote:
> >>
> >> You underrate the whole season!
> >
> > People have different opinions to you on the McCoy era Dave, but
> > if he "underrated the whole season" millions of UK viewers did
> > too... and they can't ALL be wrong!!!
>
> And in North America ...

Believe it or not Dave they don't count, and they are not part of
the BARB ratings or audience appreciation figures. The BBC make
programmes for the UK population, as that is their remit... they are
the British Broadcasting Corporation. It does what it says on the
tin!

[John Hall]

In message <xn0oi8bm...@news.eternal-september.org>, Blueshirt
<blue...@indigo.news> writes

I never thought I'd be coming to Dave's defence, but the Wikipedia
article on that season shows that the first episode of the first story
was down at 3.1 million viewers but by the last episode of the final
story it was up to 5.0, suggesting that some of the viewers who had
deserted the show because of the poor quality of recent seasons had been
lured back. In fairness, I ought to add that by then the decision to axe
the show had probably been made public, and some of those viewers may
have returned out of nostalgia for something that would soon be gone.
Still, 5 million is a pretty respectable audience figure, though of
course back then there were only 4 channels and no streaming, so live
audiences tended to be considerably bigger than thy are now.

[Blueshirt]

John Hall wrote:
>
> I never thought I'd be coming to Dave's defence, but the Wikipedia
> article on that season shows that the first episode of the first
> story was down at 3.1 million viewers but by the last episode of
> the final story it was up to 5.0, suggesting that some of the
> viewers who had deserted the show because of the poor quality of
> recent seasons had been lured back. In fairness, I ought to add
> that by then the decision to axe the show had probably been made
> public, and some of those viewers may have returned out of
> nostalgia for something that would soon be gone. Still, 5 million
> is a pretty respectable audience figure, though of course back
> then there were only 4 channels and no streaming, so live
> audiences tended to be considerably bigger than thy are now.

IIRC it was not known that "Survival" was going to be the last
Doctor Who story (for a while at least)... JNT had added that
Seventh Doctor monologue to the end of part three post production.
(As "Survival" wasn't the last story to be produced.) But there was
no publicity about the show ending pre-broadcast.

I don't know whether the BBC deemed 5m to be great ratings at the
time, but there was only four television channels back in 1989. The
decision to put the show on hold was taken pre S26 being broadcast,
with S27 at the planning stage, so the ratings for that last season
didn't make much of a difference either way. The BBC had had enough,
and that was it.

FWIW though, "Battlefield" Part One is the lowest rated Doctor Who
episode ever... old and new series!

[Blueshirt]

Blueshirt wrote:
>
> FWIW though, "Battlefield" Part One is the lowest rated Doctor Who
> episode ever... old and new series!

Link to a list of the lowest rated Doctor Who episodes added for
reference...

https://guide.doctorwhonews.net/info.php?detail=ratings&start=800&type=rating&order=

[The Doctor]

In article <xn0oi8cz...@news.eternal-september.org>,

how were the audience growing out! And more interesting in North America
was present.

and the numbers were skewed at that time.

[The Doctor]

In article <xn0oi8d3...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Hence why they lost revenue on the botoom line.

[The Doctor]

In article <0vf1P1Dncn0lFw6+@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>,

5 million plus a new NA Audience coming on.

>--
>John Hall
> "Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
> from coughing."
> Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

[The Doctor]

In article <xn0oi8fa...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Battlefield was better than anything from the Timeless Child Era.

[The Doctor]

In article <xn0oi8fm...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Yet ...

[Blueshirt]

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <0vf1P1Dncn0lFw6+@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>,
> John Hall <jo...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > I never thought I'd be coming to Dave's defence, but the
> > Wikipedia article on that season shows that the first episode of
> > the first story was down at 3.1 million viewers but by the last
> > episode of the final story it was up to 5.0, suggesting that
> > some of the viewers who had deserted the show because of the
> > poor quality of recent seasons had been lured back. In fairness,
> > I ought to add that by then the decision to axe the show had
> > probably been made public, and some of those viewers may have
> > returned out of nostalgia for something that would soon be gone.
> > Still, 5 million is a pretty respectable audience figure, though
> > of course back then there were only 4 channels and no streaming,
> > so live audiences tended to be considerably bigger than thy are
> > now.
>
> 5 million plus a new NA Audience coming on.

If you mean the books, then there was no NA audience coming in!

The Virgin NA's existed 'because' Doctor Who had been cancelled...
to continue the story of the Seventh Doctor and Ace post "Survival".
They were written by Doctor Who fans to keep the show alive.

[Blueshirt]

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <xn0oi8fa...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
> >
> > FWIW though, "Battlefield" Part One is the lowest rated Doctor
> > Who episode ever... old and new series!
>
> Battlefield was better than anything from the Timeless Child Era.

You are entitled to that opinion. I'm sure many other people enjoyed
it too. However, the stats say that it was less popular among the
general public. And you're the one here that usually likes stats!

It's not my fault that most of Sylvester McCoys forty-four episodes
as the Seventh Doctor are in the bottom part of the Doctor Who
ratings list. You might like those episodes, that's fine, but the UK
television viewing public can't all be wrong!!!

[Blueshirt]

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <xn0oi8fm...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
> > Blueshirt wrote:
> >>
> >> FWIW though, "Battlefield" Part One is the lowest rated Doctor
> >> Who episode ever... old and new series!
> >
> > Link to a list of the lowest rated Doctor Who episodes added for
> > reference...
> >
> >
https://guide.doctorwhonews.net/info.php?detail=ratings&start=800&type=rating&order=
> >
> Yet ...

Yet what?

Mr constant poster of stats lists to RADW doesn't like a list of
stats that goes against his one-world opinion is it?

Sylvester McCoy took Doctor Who to the bottom and ultimately his era
got the show cancelled. Like it or not, the Seventh Doctor era of
Doctor Who was not the most popular era of the show.

Don't shoot the messenger...

[The Doctor]

In article <xn0oi8zlm...@news.eternal-september.org>,

chibnall was even worst quality! and the ultimate insult from Chibnall
was involving past doctors like McCoy and McGann in the Tiemless Child fiasco.

[The Doctor]

In article <xn0oi8zqb...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Shoot Powell the Satan of Doctor Who !

[Daniel65]

The Doctor wrote on 19/2/24 4:31 pm:

> In article <xn0oi8zqb...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:

<Snip>

>> Mr constant poster of stats lists to RADW doesn't like a list of
>> stats that goes against his one-world opinion is it?
>>
>> Sylvester McCoy took Doctor Who to the bottom and ultimately his era
>> got the show cancelled. Like it or not, the Seventh Doctor era of
>> Doctor Who was not the most popular era of the show.
>>
>> Don't shoot the messenger...
>
> Shoot Powell the Satan of Doctor Who !
>

I thought that was JNT!!
--
Daniel

[Daniel65]

The Doctor wrote on 19/2/24 4:31 pm:

> In article <xn0oi8zlm...@news.eternal-september.org>, Blueshirt
> <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote:
>>> In article <xn0oi8fa...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> FWIW though, "Battlefield" Part One is the lowest rated Doctor
>>>> Who episode ever... old and new series!
>>>
>>> Battlefield was better than anything from the Timeless Child
>>> Era.
>>
>> You are entitled to that opinion. I'm sure many other people
>> enjoyed it too. However, the stats say that it was less popular
>> among the general public. And you're the one here that usually
>> likes stats!
>>
>> It's not my fault that most of Sylvester McCoys forty-four
>> episodes as the Seventh Doctor are in the bottom part of the Doctor
>> Who ratings list. You might like those episodes, that's fine, but
>> the UK television viewing public can't all be wrong!!!
>
> chibnall was even worst quality! and the ultimate insult from
> Chibnall was involving past doctors like McCoy and McGann in the
> Tiemless Child fiasco.
>
"involving past doctors like McCoy and McGann in the Tiemless Child

fiasco."?? WHAT??
--
Daniel

[John Hall]

In message <xn0oi8fa...@news.eternal-september.org>, Blueshirt
<blue...@indigo.news> writes
<snip>

>FWIW though, "Battlefield" Part One is the lowest rated Doctor Who
>episode ever... old and new series!

Which is a pity, as I rate it as an excellent story, and having a
phenomenal performance from Jean Marsh. whom I'd previously had no idea
had such a wide range as an actress. But I suppose that when Episode 1
was aired people couldn't know that it would be so good.

[Blueshirt]

John Hall wrote:

> In message <xn0oi8fa...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> writes <snip>
> > FWIW though, "Battlefield" Part One is the lowest rated Doctor
> > Who episode ever... old and new series!
>
> Which is a pity, as I rate it as an excellent story, and having a
> phenomenal performance from Jean Marsh. whom I'd previously had no
> idea had such a wide range as an actress. But I suppose that when
> Episode 1 was aired people couldn't know that it would be so good.

Being the first episode of a new season might have meant some apathy
left over from S25 plus there was the Coronation Street thing...

At the time "Battlefield" was mildly enjoyable and had a charm to it
with the [real] Brigadier returning, but Doctor Who didn't really
have the budget for that type of 'fantasy' story. Like a lot of
Doctor Who of that time, there was some good ideas, but the
production never matched the potential.

[Blueshirt]

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <xn0oi8zqb...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
> >
> > Sylvester McCoy took Doctor Who to the bottom and ultimately his
> > era got the show cancelled. Like it or not, the Seventh Doctor
> > era of Doctor Who was not the most popular era of the show.
> >
> > Don't shoot the messenger...
>
> Shoot Powell the Satan of Doctor Who !

The guy that actually cancelled Doctor Who was called Creegan...

[The Doctor]

In article <uqv910$1qh3r$1...@dont-email.me>,

Nope! Powell,like Grade,saw no vlue in scifi on BBC!

>--
>Daniel

[The Doctor]

In article <uqv98c$1qi6f$1...@dont-email.me>,

You must have seen The Timeless Child, the Power ofthe Flop!

It was the swan song for chibnall and Whittaker.

>--
>Daniel

[The Doctor]

In article <0qele1Aisy0lFwqI@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>,

John Hall <jo...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <xn0oi8fa...@news.eternal-september.org>, Blueshirt
><blue...@indigo.news> writes
><snip>
>>FWIW though, "Battlefield" Part One is the lowest rated Doctor Who
>>episode ever... old and new series!
>
>Which is a pity, as I rate it as an excellent story, and having a
>phenomenal performance from Jean Marsh. whom I'd previously had no idea
>had such a wide range as an actress. But I suppose that when Episode 1
>was aired people couldn't know that it would be so good.

These Laugh Shack amti-McCoyers are typial of the pro-chibnall crowd.

>--
>John Hall
> "Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
> from coughing."
> Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

[The Doctor]

In article <xn0oi9huf...@news.eternal-september.org>,

due to budget restrictions.

[The Doctor]

In article <xn0oi9i0c...@news.eternal-september.org>,

The stooge of Powell you mean!

[Blueshirt]

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <0qele1Aisy0lFwqI@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>,
> John Hall <jo...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> > In message <xn0oi8fa...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Blueshirt
> ><blue...@indigo.news> writes
> >

> > > FWIW though, "Battlefield" Part One is the lowest rated Doctor
> > > Who episode ever... old and new series!
> >
> > Which is a pity, as I rate it as an excellent story, and having
> > a phenomenal performance from Jean Marsh. whom I'd previously
> > had no idea had such a wide range as an actress. But I suppose
> > that when Episode 1 was aired people couldn't know that it would
> > be so good.
>
> These Laugh Shack amti-McCoyers are typial of the pro-chibnall
> crowd.

Wrong Dave... as usual.

Please reference a post where myself, or anyone here actually, has
been pro-Chibnall... You can't, as it's just another one of your
delusions.

Just because we don't agree with your misogynist nonsense and one
line gobbledygook I don't recall anyone here saying that the Chris
Chibnall era of Doctor Who was brilliant!

I would prefer Jodie Whittaker's Doctor above Sylvester McCoy's
though...

[Blueshirt]

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <xn0oi9huf...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
> >
> > At the time "Battlefield" was mildly enjoyable and had a charm
> > to it with the [real] Brigadier returning, but Doctor Who didn't
> > really have the budget for that type of 'fantasy' story. Like a
> > lot of Doctor Who of that time, there was some good ideas, but
> > the production never matched the potential.
>
> due to budget restrictions.

Yes Dave, well done... but we all know there was budget
restrictions. Nobody is saying there wasn't. Every era of Doctor Who
has had budget constraints of some sort. Even now with Disney money
I'm sure RTD can't do everything that he would like to do.

So yes, the reduced budget was a contributory factor, one of many,
but it wasn't the sole reason the Sylvester McCoy era of Doctor Who
was not well received by the British public.

[The Doctor]

In article <xn0oi9me1...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Are you Dave Burns in disguise?

[The Doctor]

In article <xn0oi9mk2...@news.eternal-september.org>,

sabotage by management!

[Daniel65]

The Doctor wrote on 20/2/24 2:57 am:

Yes, "Yellow Beard Yadallee", but I don't recall McCoy and/or McCann
appearing in 'The Timeless Child', "Yellow Beard Yadallee"!! Well, not
in staring rolls, anyway!!
--
Daniel

[Daniel65]

Blueshirt wrote on 20/2/24 4:28 am:
> The Doctor wrote:

<Snip>

>> These Laugh Shack amti-McCoyers are typial of the pro-chibnall
>> crowd.
>
> Wrong Dave... as usual.
>
> Please reference a post where myself, or anyone here actually, has
> been pro-Chibnall... You can't, as it's just another one of your
> delusions.
>
> Just because we don't agree with your misogynist nonsense and one
> line gobbledygook I don't recall anyone here saying that the Chris
> Chibnall era of Doctor Who was brilliant!

Beats the HELL out if having NO 'Doctor Who'!!--
Daniel

[The Doctor]

In article <ur1qb2$2e3go$1...@dont-email.me>,

Cameos!

>--
>Daniel


--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nk.ca Ici doc...@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen

In summary, we are too much in love with power and not enough in love with truth. -unknown

[The Doctor]

In article <ur1qom$2e5v2$1...@dont-email.me>,

We had no Doctor from 2018 - 2023!

--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nk.ca Ici doc...@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen

[Blueshirt]

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <xn0oi9me1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
> >
> > Just because we don't agree with your misogynist nonsense and one
> > line gobbledygook I don't recall anyone here saying that the
> > Chris Chibnall era of Doctor Who was brilliant!
> >
> > I would prefer Jodie Whittaker's Doctor above Sylvester McCoy's
> > though...
>
> Are you Dave Burns in disguise?

DBurns? Nope. But if he ever returns I'm sure he'd agree with me!

[Blueshirt]

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <xn0oi9mk2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
> > The Doctor wrote:
> >>
> >> due to budget restrictions.
> >
> > Yes Dave, well done... but we all know there was budget
> > restrictions. Nobody is saying there wasn't. Every era of Doctor
> > Who has had budget constraints of some sort. Even now with
> > Disney money I'm sure RTD can't do everything that he would like
> > to do.
> >
> > So yes, the reduced budget was a contributory factor, one of
> > many, but it wasn't the sole reason the Sylvester McCoy era of
> > Doctor Who was not well received by the British public.
>
> sabotage by management!

I'll go with semi-sabotaged... but Doctor Who had been in decline
for a few years before McCoy came in. Some would say since Tom Baker
left even. So the writing was on the wall.

[Ubiquitous]

In article <uqqgqc$vo4$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca wrote:

>Introduction:
>
>In 1989, after 26 years of thrilling audiences with its time-traveling
>adventures and captivating storytelling, Doctor Who faced an untimely
>cancellation. The decision to end the series left fans devastated and marked
>the end of an era in television history. This article explores the reasons
>why Doctor Who should have never been cancelled in 1989, delving into its
>cultural significance, its enduring legacy, and the missed opportunities
>that arose from its premature demise.

The cancellation of “Doctor Who” in 1989 was due to a combination of factors:

1) Declining Popularity: The show was trapped in a vicious circle of declining
popularity amongst viewers and neglect from the powers-that-be at the
BBC.

2) Budget Constraints: Despite sustained periods of great success, interviews
with cast and crew in more recent years have revealed that the fate of
the series was often uncertain, with deadlines and budget restrictions
causing constant issues.

3) Poor Reception: According to an internal BBC document that has since
surfaced, McCoy’s Doctor, his assistant Mel and Doctor Who’s stories
were also all scoring abysmally with test audiences.

4) Disdain from BBC Executives: Three senior BBC executives generally share
the blame for Doctor Who’s cancellation - Peter Cregeen, the BBC’s Head
of Series in 1989, who ultimately made the decision to drop the show;
Jonathan Powell, then Controller of BBC One; and Michael Grade, who had
preceded Powell in BBC One’s top job. Both Powell’s and Grade’s disdain
for Doctor Who was well documented.

It’s important to note that despite these challenges, the show made a
triumphant return in 2005 and has since transformed into a global sensation.


--
Let's go Brandon!

[The Doctor]

In article <xn0oiayud...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Or As SP calls him DFlames of as I call him DFLames!

--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nk.ca Ici doc...@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen

What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

[The Doctor]

In article <xn0oiaywe...@news.eternal-september.org>,

I would say full sabotage.

--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nk.ca Ici doc...@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen

[The Doctor]

In article <ur2kvq$2j0hm$9...@dont-email.me>,

Blame Powell and Co is correct!!

>
>--
>Let's go Brandon!
>

[%]

The Doctor wrote:
> In article <xn0oiayud...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote:
>>
>>> In article <xn0oi9me1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Just because we don't agree with your misogynist nonsense and one
>>>> line gobbledygook I don't recall anyone here saying that the
>>>> Chris Chibnall era of Doctor Who was brilliant!
>>>>
>>>> I would prefer Jodie Whittaker's Doctor above Sylvester McCoy's
>>>> though...
>>>
>>> Are you Dave Burns in disguise?
>>
>> DBurns? Nope. But if he ever returns I'm sure he'd agree with me!
>
> Or As SP calls him DFlames of as I call him DFLames!
>

did you see where i won

[The Doctor]

In article <kjqdncKC6IxjvEj4...@giganews.com>,

% <purse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <xn0oiayud...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <xn0oi9me1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Just because we don't agree with your misogynist nonsense and one
>>>>> line gobbledygook I don't recall anyone here saying that the
>>>>> Chris Chibnall era of Doctor Who was brilliant!
>>>>>
>>>>> I would prefer Jodie Whittaker's Doctor above Sylvester McCoy's
>>>>> though...
>>>>
>>>> Are you Dave Burns in disguise?
>>>
>>> DBurns? Nope. But if he ever returns I'm sure he'd agree with me!
>>
>> Or As SP calls him DFlames of as I call him DFLames!
>>
>did you see where i won

:-)

[%]

[%]

[%]