Doctor Who : John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
His promotion was an example of the Peter Principle. Graham Williams wanted him promoted as an associate producer to help him handle all the ancillary activities but was turned down. But it meant his name was now in the frame so when Williams left, he was promoted - although the lack of any other willing candidates as the show's stock was low undeniably helped. Once he was promoted, his limitations in regard to scripts - a major handicap for a serious drama producer - became obvious to the likes of Barry Letts and the BBc kept him on in the post as a means of damage limitation.
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
Dude - you might be interested in reading "Man of Steel: Stalin's Impossible Choice" and "Pol Pot Was OK Really It Was Everyone Else That Sucked"
OK joking aside JNT definitely had a hard time making Who in the late 80's, but to be fair he was offered Bergerac but insisted that he should keep doing Who, which again might have been bearable if he weren't so insistent that no one who ever wrote for Who before he came along should ever write for Who again, and wasn't such a prima donna control freak that anyone able to avoid writing/directing Who almost invariably did so.
JNT is the reason Who tool 16 years to come back. After all, who was it that made sure that when a Doctor Who revival was ever mooted, the BBC higher ups would chuckle condescendingly as vague recollections of rapping clowns and desperate 50's nostalgia danced in their minds?
*beep* that smug git of a control freak to hell and back.
Take them to the security kitchen!
OK joking aside JNT definitely had a hard time making Who in the late 80's, but to be fair he was offered Bergerac but insisted that he should keep doing Who, which again might have been bearable if he weren't so insistent that no one who ever wrote for Who before he came along should ever write for Who again, and wasn't such a prima donna control freak that anyone able to avoid writing/directing Who almost invariably did so.
JNT is the reason Who tool 16 years to come back. After all, who was it that made sure that when a Doctor Who revival was ever mooted, the BBC higher ups would chuckle condescendingly as vague recollections of rapping clowns and desperate 50's nostalgia danced in their minds?
*beep* that smug git of a control freak to hell and back.
Take them to the security kitchen!
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
From the Endgame doc on the Survival DVD, Andrew Cartmel says that JNT made a series of demands that included sacking John Nettles and setting the show some where other than Jersey,the BBC top brass took this as a refusal. Though Cartmel says JNT later regrets over his response. Though on the subject of Bergerac, it's last series was somewhat close to what JNT had suggested.
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
Plus there's the oft mentioned "the beeb threatened to cancel the show if JNT left."
https://soundcloud.com/coin-sides
New song "Breathless Love"
https://soundcloud.com/coin-sides
New song "Breathless Love"
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
JNT is the reason Who tool 16 years to come back. After all, who was it that made sure that when a Doctor Who revival was ever mooted, the BBC higher ups would chuckle condescendingly as vague recollections of rapping clowns and desperate 50's nostalgia danced in their minds?
I think if the show had ended sooner, it would've almost certainly returned sooner.
I think it was both the embarrassment, and also the fact that the show had become so internalized in its own continuity by his lack of quality control, that it was difficult to imagine how it could be brought back, how to make it representative (given JNT's anorakish version seemed insistent that it had to involve all the past monsters and Doctors), how to even begin to establish a clean slate for the series?
If the show had ended in 1978 or 1980, it would've seemed very simple to revive and keep running. It was an accessible show back then and could've remained so. Not so after a few years down the JNT continuity rabbit-hole.
Paul McGann IS the War Doctor in my fic
http://dalekwars.blogspot.co.uk/
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
JNT didn't do one good thing. Crap Doctors (5-7) who were NOT leading man ability, giving them all over the top pantomime type superhero outfits that would work on stage but not on the subtle medium of television, crap companions, stunt casting, and most of all getting rid of the likes of Terrence Dicks and other experienced writers who understood the show far better than he did.
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
I wouldn't say crap. I love the chemistry between 7 and ace and it worked well. Sadly a lot of the problems came from the writing
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
I think it's more a case of him being granted too much power and good will at the start, and various BBC parties (whether we're talking Grade or Saward) understandably losing patience with him and the show, as both began exhibiting an increasingly ugly and invidious side.
I do think to a degree fans who defend him have bought into the cultish side of fandom, bought into a sense of diminished expectations with the show, and have probably been privileged to never having had to work under someone as autocratic, volatile and petty as him.
Paul McGann IS the War Doctor in my fic
http://dalekwars.blogspot.co.uk/
I do think to a degree fans who defend him have bought into the cultish side of fandom, bought into a sense of diminished expectations with the show, and have probably been privileged to never having had to work under someone as autocratic, volatile and petty as him.
Paul McGann IS the War Doctor in my fic
http://dalekwars.blogspot.co.uk/
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
That is what sycophants do. I personally find people who are overly agreeable suspicious in real life. I have seen enough sycophants in my years to not let them too close.
And Ian Levine seemed to be the very definition of sycophantic when it suited him and treacherous when it eventually did not.
Eric Saward went through five years of being talked down to and not being allowed to do his job as script editor without random interference whenever John Nathan Turner got another crazy idea in his head. Completely overhauling stories because he wants to insert a new element into it "because." Needing unnecessary plot lines because he wants to appease a fan, guest star, or thinks it is in vogue. Insisting on revisions because of reasons only he knows, only to change his mind, then change it again, and again. How many times was The Five Doctors rewritten because John Nathan Turner had a brilliant idea or wanted someone else in the story? Even Robert Holmes quit the story because he had had it. Eric Saward lost his temper in the interview, but he had just lost a very dear friend and been told to just get on with it and do a different script then the one the dear friend wrote that ended in a way John Nathan Turner was fine with months ago when they pitched it. Wouldn't you be mad after all that?
But Saward, I think, should still be ashamed of himself for the Starburst and subsequent DWB interviews.
And for his inept script editing.
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
I get the impression that JNT was GENUINELY stunned by Saward's betrayal.
Reading the JNT biography on the breakdown of the relationship of trust between Saward and him is actually quite heartbreaking. Various memos were exchanged between them where Saward was becoming more and more paranoid and accusing, and JNT was trying his best to be diplomatic and assure him he'd not done the dirty on him, to no avail.
And Ian Levine seemed to be the very definition of sycophantic when it suited him and treacherous when it eventually did not.
His was always the kind of volatile zealotry that could shift on a dime.
His initial sycophancy was definitely a problem, because it humourlessly called on the audience to place monumental, unquestionable importance on past elements that it was really quite hard to care about. I mean granted, his compiling of past clips from the show in Logopolis and Earthshock was a nice touch. I can delight in the continuity references in Remembrance of the Daleks and The Five Doctors, but it's a bit much when Warriors of the Deep is trying to arm-twist me into thinking its returning foes so noble and worth respecting and protecting, and their deaths so tragic.
At one point I'd have considered Levine something of a hero for saving some of the otherwise potentially missing episodes, and frankly he's a bit easy to pick on in a way that's always felt tacky to me.
But increasingly he's shown too many of his true ugly colours for me to remotely like or trust him, and his behind the scenes involvement in the show from 1980 onwards leaves such a nasty aftertaste because he should never have been let near its creative or production side.
I won't pretend I don't share some of his more bitter sentiments about how the show went in 1986, with Bonnie Langford's casting, and I sympathise with, far more than condemn his reasons for finally walking (the problem is he seemed to feel betrayed far more by his own wishful thinking of what JNT meant for the show, than the truth or anything he was actually owed). Also whilst Doctor in Distress is an embarrassment, I can't be too hard on the sentiment behind it.
JNT's increasing control freakery and fundamental mistakes, made it excusable for the powers that be to end the show.
I think it was always that dilemma for the beeb that JNT had stayed so long with the show, and was instrumental in ensuring its small budget stretched as far as it did(*), that he'd become the show and the show had become him. You couldn't seem to get rid of one without getting rid of the other. No-one else wanted the job and JNT now looked like a liability if given any other show.
That the BBC actually defended JNT against Saward's abuse, suggests that they still considered JNT under their protection and entitled to their employment, and didn't feel right getting rid of him, which might be the only reason the show survived five more years.
The budget is something Graham Williams clearly struggled with, especially after Hinchcliffe did a scorched earth with the budget on his Talons of Weng Chiang swansong, which Williams had to inherit the runt of the litter from. JNT was better at getting more results out of the kitty fund (and if he blagged the use of Concorde or a robot prototype for free, he'd usually try to contrive a story around that too).
But unlike his predecessors I just don't think he understood or cared for the show's theatrical aesthetic and bite which is really where the show did more with less, and where its heart lay, and of course why The Ribos Operation is rewarding in a way say Arc of Infinity isn't.
JNT thought more in terms of nuance-free soap and unsubtle pantomime, and Saward more action overkill and childish overstatement, and would butcher moral themes as casually as he butchered characters. Where an Enlightenment or Vengeance on Varos worked as televised theatre, it was usually because the writer and director.
As much as people try to redeem JNT's early period as a return to form and proper drama, it largely just resembles a display of nervous energy rather than genuine heart or creativity. But if I was to nominate the point JNT should've left, it's probably Time-Flight, or at the very latest, The Five Doctors (although having said that, a lot of damage had already been done, ratings-wise by Season 20). I'd say it was initially worth it to get State of Decay and Earthshock in the can and establish a new Doctor.
Beyond that I'd say a good number of JNT's staff of directors, like Fiona Cumming, Peter Grimwade, Peter Moffat, Graeme Harper would've probably been the ideal successor who really got the importance of writing, budgeting, casting, rather than too much of one and too little of the others. Also I think Big Finish's Lost Stories range has demonstrated how a lot of good scripts were never used that were far more TV worthy than the usual suspects.
I think JNT relaxed his grip on trying to control every aspect of the show after Saward had trumpeted JNT's faults and probably embarrassed him too much for JNT to ever turn into the "Godfather" again.
I think he kind of learned from the betrayal, and once he'd lost an ally in Saward, I think he realized that Cartmel's input and loyalty was that bit more invaluable. He certainly let Cartmel turn the show into a far more political animal than he'd have ever done so beforehand.
It might indeed be that he was just more defeated and thus willing to step back, or that he had to double up in promoting the show against the odds, and thus had no time to micromanage anymore.
It should be borne in mind that Cartmel probably had an easier time in that he had far less scripts to prepare per season, and far less instances where JNT was obstinately refusing writers that the show needed.
And also that Levine was gone.
But Saward, I think, should still be ashamed of himself for the Starburst and subsequent DWB interviews.
As bad as this may sound, I think this was something Saward simply had to do. He had to vent somehow. I think as far as he was concerned, he'd been intoxicated by how domineering, temperamental and unhelpful JNT was.
I really get the sense that JNT was being so inconsistent with him that he probably felt like he was a victim of gaslighting, and had to set the record straight for reasons of personal catharsis (hence why I think he went after Colin too, because Colin was very much on JNT's side, and he had every right and entitlement to be, but I think for Saward, hearing Colin defend how JNT ran the show was like secondary abuse).
It's strange me having this kind of empathy with Saward, when unfortunately his writing and dealings with people, give the impression he had none and was a complete misanthropic (except of course when it came to Holmes).
This is of course the problem with the confined production set-up itself. It rather exposed JNT and Saward to one another's personalities in a very unhealthy way. And given that JNT was almost the sole sales promoter of the series, it also left him exposed to very dodgy fans.
Saward might have done better under an easy-going producer who knew how to harness his initial enthusiasm, whilst JNT really needed someone like Bidmead who had a lot more strength of personality, and was able to stand up to him and establish his boundaries, and pick things up when JNT decided on a whim to swan off to a convention at a crucial moment.
But when put together for that long, JNT and Saward were an absolute disaster.
Paul McGann IS the War Doctor in my fic
http://dalekwars.blogspot.co.uk/
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
Saward might have done better with a regime of strong antidepressants.
stfu about fking avatars already.
stfu about fking avatars already.
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
He was an imperfect figure. No one is totally good, or totally bad. Even history's monsters did some remarkably decent and morally upstanding things. John Nathan Turner was responsible for some things I applaud him for, like acknowledging the fan base and working hard to save the show from cancellation in 1985 to list a few. The former also had the downside of appeasing the fans TOO much. My main issues with him come from his unwillingness to hear out other viewpoints, blind determination, micro managerial style, and his erratic often random decision making. A good producer is flexible and delegates, rather than dictates. As a consequence of this, he brought the worst out of the show more often than the best.
This is part of why I like McCoy's tenure more than Davison or Colin Baker. By the time Sylvester McCoy came in, John Nathan Turner had given up interest in the show for the most part. That is why he gave Andrew Cartmel far more leeway than any other script editor who worked under him when he produced Doctor Who. Like Cartmel's era or not, you can see the difference in the scripts, and the last two and 1/2 seasons hold together more than the previous two Doctors did.
This is part of why I like McCoy's tenure more than Davison or Colin Baker. By the time Sylvester McCoy came in, John Nathan Turner had given up interest in the show for the most part. That is why he gave Andrew Cartmel far more leeway than any other script editor who worked under him when he produced Doctor Who. Like Cartmel's era or not, you can see the difference in the scripts, and the last two and 1/2 seasons hold together more than the previous two Doctors did.
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
JNT believed in searching for new talent and why not, it worked.
might have been bearable if he weren't so insistent that no one who ever wrote for Who before he came along should ever write for Who again,
Personally we would have missed out on so many great stories during the 80s, my favourite era for storytelling in Doctor Who. Anyway if you really want to stop DW before it gets bad it would need to be 1977 just before Graham Williams took over.
If the show had ended in 1978 or 1980, it would've seemed very simple to revive and keep running. It was an accessible show back then and could've remained so. Not so after a few years down the JNT continuity rabbit-hole.
Are you kidding?! No one at the beginning thought he could do the job. No one had faith in him, that's why the BBC got Barry Letts to oversee him for the first year. No way did the BBC give him power, he had to work for it.
I think it's more a case of him being granted too much power and good will at the start,
But it worked especially the increase in continuity. It treated the show's fans with intelligence, it showed that the people behind the show cared about the fans. Not sure why people see the increase in continuity a bad thing. It made up most of the 5th Doctor era as well as Season 18 and gave it a serialised feel not seen before. Kudos to them.
Needing unnecessary plot lines because he wants to appease a fan, guest star, or thinks it is in vogue.
Robert Holmes did not pen anything of that story. He got the story idea and left straight away because he hadn't been given enough time to write it. Terrence Dicks did the script and proved it could be done in that short time. The Five Doctors was great so not sure what the issue was?
How many times was The Five Doctors rewritten because John Nathan Turner had a brilliant idea or wanted someone else in the story? Even Robert Holmes quit the story because he had had it.
In my opinion it isn't. I'd take Arc of Infinity over The Ribos Operation because in that latter it's slows to a crawl and the performances are worse than the former.
and of course why The Ribos Operation is rewarding in a way say Arc of Infinity isn't.
As JNT said back in 1994 if Saward didn't like he should have quit. Why stay? It sounds like BS on Saward's part. Nah I'm sorry but there was nothing 'intoxicating' about JNT apart from you could argue his fickle nature regarding scripts and production. Also as much as I'm not a fan of Saward or his tone for scripts I would say claims of 'character assassination' is an exaggeration.
I think as far as he was concerned, he'd been intoxicated by how domineering, temperamental and unhelpful JNT was.
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
You can find on Youtube of what may be the only footage of JNT at a convention panel from about 2001. He is asked auidence members questions by John Leeson. On Eric Saward, he says that the end of their working relationship was quite amenable despite what has been said by many parties.
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
John Nathan Turner was always quite oblivious to how much he irritated many people. His rude behavior to directors, writers, and other behind the scene people never seemed to phase him as being just that, RUDE. Of course he didn't notice Eric Saward was upset, he never did with Christopher Bidmead or Antony Root, so why would he there? All three of them left out of frustration with John Nathan Turner, Eric Saward was different in that he went public about it. Bidmead was upset that he was doing a difficult job that didn't pay much made all the harder by Turner, Root was handed ALL of the work while Turner went to have fun at conventions and then chewed out for getting help from someone else, and Saward, well he went through every variety of nasty behavior Turner could dish out(hence his blowup at the end.) The reason he thought they parted on good terms is because in many ways John Nathan Turner was very obtuse along with being incredibly difficult to work with for anyone not in front of the camera.
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
He had the soul and sensibility of a pantomime dame.
stfu about fking avatars already.
stfu about fking avatars already.
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
Again, that's partly why I'd say any positive elements of the early JNT era were ultimately quickly undone by him.
The argument among fans tends to go that JNT's predecessor, Graham Williams was too much of a 'nice guy' behind the scenes and struggled to keep control and take charge, and therefore JNT being more of an abrasive, demanding tyrant was the change the show needed. That the show felt refreshed in his first season, and no longer felt like routine frivolity but had a grittier toughness.
Earthshock particularly was directed with that philosophy by Peter Grimwade of having to work people hard and that you have to demand the best from them to get the best, and arguably he did get the best.
I still maintain much of the early Davison period was largely just insubstantial nervous energy, but I can understand why viewers were beginning to think the show was exciting and compelling again in ways it hadn't been since Hinchcliffe left.
The problem is, there was pretty much zero forward planning. Just a lot of unmanageabe elements set in stone that were obliged to be continued or reused (lead cast swelling, the Master's frequent returns), leading to a rapid creative inertia.
And I agree you're very right that JNT himself couldn't be more obtuse to this problem.
He seemed to have a sharp understanding of the show in interviews but little or none of it translated properly to screen. Even when he talked of the show being 'light entertainment' that existed to soothe, one has to double-take at something like Terminus which is about as grim and joyless as Who ever got.
I also very much get the sense that there was a hedonistic, cliquey, superficial atmosphere with the production team, where JNT saw it as a party gathering where everyone was happy and he was Queen Bee, and well, not only was Saward the embittered outsider to that, but JNT barely seemed to notice his evident dissatisfaction or that they were coming from separate worlds.
Paul McGann IS the War Doctor in my fic
http://dalekwars.blogspot.co.uk/
The argument among fans tends to go that JNT's predecessor, Graham Williams was too much of a 'nice guy' behind the scenes and struggled to keep control and take charge, and therefore JNT being more of an abrasive, demanding tyrant was the change the show needed. That the show felt refreshed in his first season, and no longer felt like routine frivolity but had a grittier toughness.
Earthshock particularly was directed with that philosophy by Peter Grimwade of having to work people hard and that you have to demand the best from them to get the best, and arguably he did get the best.
I still maintain much of the early Davison period was largely just insubstantial nervous energy, but I can understand why viewers were beginning to think the show was exciting and compelling again in ways it hadn't been since Hinchcliffe left.
The problem is, there was pretty much zero forward planning. Just a lot of unmanageabe elements set in stone that were obliged to be continued or reused (lead cast swelling, the Master's frequent returns), leading to a rapid creative inertia.
And I agree you're very right that JNT himself couldn't be more obtuse to this problem.
He seemed to have a sharp understanding of the show in interviews but little or none of it translated properly to screen. Even when he talked of the show being 'light entertainment' that existed to soothe, one has to double-take at something like Terminus which is about as grim and joyless as Who ever got.
I also very much get the sense that there was a hedonistic, cliquey, superficial atmosphere with the production team, where JNT saw it as a party gathering where everyone was happy and he was Queen Bee, and well, not only was Saward the embittered outsider to that, but JNT barely seemed to notice his evident dissatisfaction or that they were coming from separate worlds.
Paul McGann IS the War Doctor in my fic
http://dalekwars.blogspot.co.uk/
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
Many good points, I thought you summed up John Nathan Turner's supervision in the last paragraph very well.
One point in particular you mentioned earlier is the fan demand for change. I always despise this in government, business, and entertainment, the idea that change will simply fix everything(overlooking the reality of the process.) When I look at entertainment, I don't necessarily want something I haven't seen before or something unexpected, I want good execution of the movie/show. Graham Williams always struck me as a solid administrator who just couldn't say "no" when he desperately needed to. His reticence to let Tom Baker leave was the big one for him. Among the many good decisions Williams made, trusting Anthony Read and working closely with him on each season led to some great handling for the show. It is just a shame that when Douglas Adams became script editor, Adams divided his time between the show and several other writing jobs. That has to be one of the bigger reasons season 17 was so underwhelming.
One point in particular you mentioned earlier is the fan demand for change. I always despise this in government, business, and entertainment, the idea that change will simply fix everything(overlooking the reality of the process.) When I look at entertainment, I don't necessarily want something I haven't seen before or something unexpected, I want good execution of the movie/show. Graham Williams always struck me as a solid administrator who just couldn't say "no" when he desperately needed to. His reticence to let Tom Baker leave was the big one for him. Among the many good decisions Williams made, trusting Anthony Read and working closely with him on each season led to some great handling for the show. It is just a shame that when Douglas Adams became script editor, Adams divided his time between the show and several other writing jobs. That has to be one of the bigger reasons season 17 was so underwhelming.
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
Many good points, I thought you summed up John Nathan Turner's supervision in the last paragraph very well.
Thanks :).
One point in particular you mentioned earlier is the fan demand for change. I always despise this in government, business, and entertainment, the idea that change will simply fix everything(overlooking the reality of the process.) When I look at entertainment, I don't necessarily want something I haven't seen before or something unexpected, I want good execution of the movie/show.
Indeed. With JNT's 'changes' it was very much like government policy. Swinging the pendulum and being different and reactionary for the sake of it. It was a lot of change but hardly any progress. Being so 'against' the emphases of the guy beforehand that there's no affirming sense of what the show was now 'for'.
In many ways I'd liken JNT to Jeremy Corbyn. A man who represents the kind of socialist, anti-austerity values I'd normally vote for in a trice. That is, if it wasn't for the fact that ISIS exists and he seems under the bizarre and potentially harmful delusion that the police and military shouldn't deal with that threat with violence, and that we should have open borders. It's like he doesn't have any interest in national security, which is political suicide, because that's not just going to alienate patriots, but anyone who's concerned about the safety of their fellow man and family.
I think Corbyn and JNT share similar attributes. Corbyn seems to have a better temperament and he's far less of a diva than JNT, but he does seem to be a bit of control freak and more about cultivating a cult of personality than engaging with the wider public, or for that matter accommodating people who disagree with him. You also get the sense that in the ideal situation of things he'd be just a difficult, fussy back-bencher who'd occasionally make noise, and it'd be a leader in charge who just represented the centre-left rather than the loony left.
But because he's the leader you do get the sense it'd be having someone in charge who's so difficult, and such an obstinate stick in the mud and always making a needless fuss about every decision, that you get the sense they'd never get anything productive done. and that is definitely how things went under JNT, and you can very much see echoes of that in the characterisation of the Fifth Doctor, (especially when he was bringing in people like Ian Levine who were more difficult than him).
But yes, the changes JNT brought about weren't about much that improved the show, and infact made things worse. I suppose it's a bit like when Scream supposedly 'reinvented' the slasher genre, by drawing attention to all the usual cliches in its smart-arsed meta way. Like Mitch Pillegi exposing all the old magician's tricks as a way of closing the door on doing the same old shtick and forcing magicians to evolve new ways of performing magic. So it seemed future slasher films would now do something new. Instead all they did was copy Scream. I suppose you could liken it to how Warriors of the Deep and Resurrection of the Daleks more or less copied Earthshock, far less well.
Indeed fans always bang on about how getting rid of the sonic screwdriver was a good and bold move because it made things less easy for the Doctor. What they seem to overlook is that very quickly the stories started recompensing the Doctor with even crasser, easy plot devices in abundance to save the day with, such as the Hexacromite gas and Movellan plague. So the gesture was pointless.
I still often hear that it was a bold move to make the Fifth Doctor more vulnerable and fallible, but this just seems a case of rewriting history. If you look back on Tom Baker's early stories like Genesis of the Daleks, Planet of Evil and Horror of Fang Rock, he actually was fallible and not always guaranteed to save everyone. So it's not really a new approach with Davison, other than that they took the fallibility so far that the Doctor no longer seemed like he had any capacity as a hero.
So it became less a bold new era and more a tedious wait for things to get back to normal and the Doctor to become fit for purpose again.
It's a shame, because initially there were moments in Season 18, in State of Decay and Keeper of Traken, where it felt like we were getting the Hinchcliffe era back. The Season 15 we were denied by Mary Whitehouse's interference. That it would indeed be like the show was, only with more gravitas and Tom taking it a lot more seriously. And then it just became clear the show wasn't evolving so much as just mutating and in a very out of control way.
Graham Williams always struck me as a solid administrator who just couldn't say "no" when he desperately needed to. His reticence to let Tom Baker leave was the big one for him. Among the many good decisions Williams made, trusting Anthony Read and working closely with him on each season led to some great handling for the show.
I think with Williams' era, there was always the nagging sense of 'if only Hinchcliffe hadn't left' and 'if only Mary Whitehouse hadn't gotten her way'. Stories that might've been genuinely scary and hard-hitting under Hinchcliffe, like The Invasion of Time, Destiny of the Daleks, Nightmare of Eden, The Armageddon Factor, just felt far more flimsy under the circumstances Williams was damned with.
There is a point in the first four Key to Time stories where it does feel like the show has found its new direction and that this new era really is shaping to be something beautiful. But then the season finale just drops the ball completely, and the season overall becomes all that bit more regrettable. It's like the show can no longer quite stay afloat.
It is just a shame that when Douglas Adams became script editor, Adams divided his time between the show and several other writing jobs. That has to be one of the bigger reasons season 17 was so underwhelming.
Season 17 is an odd one. For me it never quite hits the low-points of Season 15 and 16, like Underworld or The Armageddon Factor. But both those prior seasons seemed to provide a lot more variety of story and adventure. With Season 17, the latter half of it just feels terribly samey to the point it all just blurs together indistinctly. Come City of Death, it really was like the Williams era had achieved all it was ever going to. It wasn't just the era's finest moment, it was the ne plus ultra. They had to follow it up well, and they couldn't. And from thenon it just felt like we were going through the era's tired leftovers.
I think it partly was that Douglas Adams was drawn to other commitments. I think it's also that for some reason the budget was especially capped that season. So you'd probably find some brilliant scripts were sent in that had to be rejected because they just weren't affordable to produce. So the emphasis became on what was actually affordable to make, and so we got the lackluster stuff.
The irony is that as disliked as the season is, in many ways it's the most Hartnellian run of stories in the colour era.
The real problem though is that whilst Tom Baker and Douglas Adams were individually very talented men, when paired together they were the worst bad influences on each other. Tom was being very difficult at the time but I think he found a friend in Adams and so they used to pair together amusing themselves by adding jokes to the scripts.
It made sense for Tom Baker to stay on during Season 15 with Leela. Even during the Key to Time season there was the feeling that it was Tom's Doctor specifically that had proved himself worthy of, and had 'earned' this quest, and there are moments during it that really see him revitalized in his performance.
But Season 17, or more specifically Nightmare of Eden, is the point where Tom Baker loses something of his mystique, and begins to feel like a complete has-been. That it was probably time for him to go the previous year, or more specifically, right after City of Death.
The problem is I think the longer he stayed, the more it created the perception that his successor had to be something completely different, which I think led to all the character problems with Davison.
Paul McGann IS the War Doctor in my fic
http://dalekwars.blogspot.co.uk/
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
My Big issue with the Sonic Screwdriver before then(and in the new series) is the heavy reliance on it. It is a good tool, but it should be used sparingly, and in the correct way. When it becomes THE tool that can do anything and is used whenever they are in a tight spot you have a problem. The psychic paper has been used sparingly and for almost always only the purpose it was designed for, and thus well handled. But the Sonic Screwdriver was increasingly the easy way out for writers in the late 1970's. I just think it was poor thinking to get rid of the sonic screwdriver entirely. It works, just stop overdoing it. It was somewhat like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are regularly going to make more baths, so why get rid of a perfectly fine child just because the water got dirty. Any later replacement babies might not be as good as the first(like various other easy way outs they came up with when the Sonic Screwdriver was removed from the show.) It just demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding for narrative on his part when he didn't know that dialing back the overly used good thing had always been an option.
Indeed fans always bang on about how getting rid of the sonic screwdriver was a good and bold move because it made things less easy for the Doctor. What they seem to overlook is that very quickly the stories started recompensing the Doctor with even crasser, easy plot devices in abundance to save the day with, such as the Hexacromite gas and Movellan plague. So the gesture was pointless.
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
JNT believed in searching for new talent and why not, it worked.
I disagree there. Many of the writers he employed were just people he already knew from All Creatures, like Terence Dudley, Peter Grimwade, Johnny Byrne, Anthony Stevens. In that I'd say he was cultivating nepotism more than anything. The difference is the writing circle was no longer composed of people experienced with how to write the show, or indeed, that genre.
Bidmead and Saward searched for new talent and they found it in writers like Christopher Bailey and Barbara Clegg, but it's easy to explain why even this didn't work beyond a band aid.
If experienced old hands like Terrance Dicks and Robert Holmes were still consistently there, then there'd be support pillars in place for the new blood of writers. It would free up time for Saward to work with the ones who struggled, and provide something reassuring for writers to aspire towards (Revelation of the Daleks being Saward aspiring to do a Holmesian story).
Instead we ended up in a scenario where it took years for Saward to get a feel for the Holmesian style, understanding of dialogue, structure and characters, and in the meantime writers like Bailey and Clegg who submitted plenty of drafts were neglected to the point where they ended up giving up and disappearing from the show.
Anyway if you really want to stop DW before it gets bad it would need to be 1977 just before Graham Williams took over.
I have thought of how ending it on Talons of Weng Chiang might've worked, but it would've been perhaps too open ended. We'd only just met Leela and hadn't really finished her story. Genesis of the Daleks left a lot of questions unresolved of what would become of the wider universe, under the Dalek threat.
Now you might say that the Williams era didn't exactly provide the most satisfying answers to those questions in The Invasion of Time or Destiny of the Daleks, but there was still a closure of sorts, and a very nice sense of finality to the series in City of Death.
Are you kidding?! No one at the beginning thought he could do the job. No one had faith in him, that's why the BBC got Barry Letts to oversee him for the first year. No way did the BBC give him power, he had to work for it.
For the first year maybe they had doubts, but after that trial period they felt he was free to go it alone, and even that suggests they valued and cared about the show too much to not put in initial placeholders to make sure the show was a continued success.
They also eased off considerably on the restrictions on violent/adult content when he took charge. Williams would never have been able to get away with some of the stuff we see in State of Decay, Warrior's Gate, Keeper of Traken or Earthshock (although that one did get complaints for the scenes involving Cybermen having plastic bags covering their heads which some feared children might imitate and risk suffocation). So there was no external micromanagement that compromised show vision there.
Now Richard Marson might suggest that the BBC higher-ups still had an apathy to the show and only wanted the show around so long as it spared them the effort of having to create and budget something in its place.
But JNT was also the first to get out of season specials and even the pilot for a Doctor Who spin-off approved by the BBC. Again this doesn't suggest the BBC wanted to bury the show, but rather wanted to see it thrive and had enough faith to think it would be a success and that JNT had a good idea here.
But it worked especially the increase in continuity. It treated the show's fans with intelligence, it showed that the people behind the show cared about the fans. Not sure why people see the increase in continuity a bad thing.
I understand and 'get' the appeal of continuity references. As a fan I can't not, you know. I like the fact that there's a lot of old adventures referred to in Remembrance of the Daleks, but I also understand that it can get too much. I also feel that this focus on the past details meant that the show became fixated on the letter of the show and not the spirit.
There can come a point where the show becomes so much about its past that it seeks to be going anywhere anymore, and I'd say that point came quickly in Season 20. The problem with commemorating the show's years is it leads to a case of actively putting years on the show and the series no longer feeling fresh anymore.
The show was satisfying when it was a series of standalone adventures because the ending felt rewarding. If the show keeps drawing on past elements, it begins to feel like it's never ending and as such there are no rewards. Why is the Master back again? Why should I care if the Doctor beats him when he'll be back again undefeated all over again next time?
I hate to bring up Warriors of the Deep again (nah tell a lie, I love to), but I think it's a classic case of how the continuity approach can not only lead to unenjoyable stories, but can actually diminish the enjoyment factor of stories past that used to be entertaining and rewarding.
If I think abut it hypothetically, maybe I would hate that story equally if it were about a never before seen race that came to wage war on us, but the Doctor decided to praise and appease them and ended up getting everyone killed.
But because Warriors is so wrapped up in the past, I'm also forced to accept that not only was this an of-day for the Doctor, but somehow throughout the entirety of the Pertwee and Tom Baker era, every time the Doctor saved the Earth from invasion by any ruthless means necessary, there was at the back of his mind, a spiteful desire to let them kill us all instead (as he outright does in Warriors) in revenge for the actions of our side in The Silurians.
And that's the other problem. I can't envision a circumstance in which someone would write or commission a story like that in which the hero takes that warped position unless it was about the Silurians. So continuity has become a permission slip for the kind of awful writing that wouldn't, and shouldn't make it to screen otherwise.
One of the biggest problems for me with it is that the story of the Silurians and Sea Devils was done in 1972. It was ended, but then Warriors completely undid that ending for the sake of nothing worthwhile. It made it so that the story of the Earth reptiles now no longer ended where it should've, and instead has been dragged out over a decade of the show's existence past any possible way of reinvesting emotional capital in it.
It also no longer ended with them as the wronged ones, but as the ones who proved themselves irredeemable after having been given all the chances in the world. Even in the end the Doctor revives them once again, only for them to immediately start killing again, shooting the commander in the back. At that point there's no tragedy at all because we know there was no lost potential here. But because the Doctor here insists otherwise, it renders him an untrustworthy liability, and I just don't think it's possible to entirely enjoy a show with a hero like that anymore. It's daring the audience to find a better hero who wouldn't do that, which they'd find anywhere else, which again leads back to the thought that 'no wonder the BBC cancelled it'.
It's like doing a sequel to Hamlet where you revive all the main players just to have them learn nothing and just kill each other again. What's the point?
So I certainly reject the idea that this approach treated the fans with intelligence, when that particular continuity-heavy story was among the most moronic and philistine, and the most downright *inimical* to rational thought, moral distinction or nuance, and depended utterly on the viewer *not* thinking about it, and instead letting themselves be blinded by toxic sentimentality and sycophancy toward this past element. And sycophancy typically means having no real understanding of what actually was good or worked about the show previously, but simply taking it for granted as great without doing anything to ensure it.
It made up most of the 5th Doctor era as well as Season 18 and gave it a serialised feel not seen before. Kudos to them.
Even here I'd argue they dropped the ball when it came to the absence of any continuity of emotional repercussions of Adric's death or Traken's destruction. If you're going to commit to that serialization, you can't let something that monumental fall by the wayside.
Ditto when it comes to the Fifth Doctor and Brigadier being perfectly chummy together in The Five Doctors, and the story after somehow depending on the Doctor, out of the blue, holding a grudge again over what the Brig did in The Silurians and against the rest of humanity too.
As JNT said back in 1994 if Saward didn't like he should have quit. Why stay? It sounds like BS on Saward's part.
I think because he still cared about the show (if not as it was, then about what he felt it potentially could be) and still hoped it could get better, and invested a lot in trying to enact his vision (even if arguably his vision was a problem). You can't say there wasn't some initial high enthusiasm for writing the show behind his early submissions of The Visitation and Earthshock.
Nah I'm sorry but there was nothing 'intoxicating' about JNT apart from you could argue his fickle nature regarding scripts and production.
I'd argue excessively fickle, though. Especially if you're working in close quarters with him.
Well even that would be enormously frustrating to have to work with long-term, if you've worked long and hard on preparing scripts, and on a whim your boss might change his mind and decide to change and abandon everything you've worked on.
I mean how helpless would someone feel if they knew they had that kind of creative control constantly swept under their feet by someone who hasn't put the same thought into it, or made the effort to be on the same page with them, and clearly doesn't respect their autonomy but despite which is the one who gets to decide?
Paul McGann IS the War Doctor in my fic
http://dalekwars.blogspot.co.uk/
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
You could argue that but I don't think that's true. Of course he would be crazy not to bring people in that he's worked with before, every producer does that but the show needed writers who already written tons of scripts for the show to keep Doctor Who fresh. Dicks did good jobs the few times he was called back but I wouldn't call The Mysterious Planet Robert Holmes finest hour. I think by that point he along with the other writers were running out of fresh ideas. Even Caves of Androzani while a classic can't be not seen as derivative of Holmes previous work. Bringing in people JNT knew I feel was the right thing to do, at least what appeared on screen couldn't be called boring. The upside to JNT wanting fresh talent gave us the writers of the McCoy era who were 95% new writers to Doctor Who and they did in some ways probably better than the writers that came before.
In that I'd say he was cultivating nepotism more than anything. The difference is the writing circle was no longer composed of people experienced with how to write the show, or indeed, that genre.
I guess what I'm saying is that if you had the power to delete the JNT eras of Doctor Who that's a lot of Doctor Who, some of which is excellent. With the Graham Williams era there were still more in my opinion anyway duds than in the JNT eras.
I have thought of how ending it on Talons of Weng Chiang might've worked, but it would've been perhaps too open ended. We'd only just met Leela and hadn't really finished her story.
I guess the BBC after Season 18 were impressed enough with him. It's only when the ratings go down a network starts to meddle.
Again this doesn't suggest the BBC wanted to bury the show, but rather wanted to see it thrive and had enough faith to think it would be a success and that JNT had a good idea here.
My take on it is that before JNT took on Doctor Who the series had been going on for 17 years but without any ambition to tie the universe and the show's 17 years worth of adventures together. Bar some episodes it was rare for writers to bring back the same planet or villains who weren't the Daleks or Cybermen, the latter the writers had forgot about almost entirely. When JNT took control of the series he instilled a strong sense of continuity which for the fans I guess showed he was paying attention.
It's like doing a sequel to Hamlet where you revive all the main players just to have them learn nothing and just kill each other again. What's the point?
The first thing he did was set the Tardis down on Brighton Beach and have the characters make reference to the Black Guardian as well as the Randomiser. Every episode after The Leisure Hive was linked all the way through to The Twin Dilemma. I thought and still find that great! My only problem with this is that with the Peter Davison era it makes that era quite anticlimactic due to all that continuity and returning references to the past. More so than Season 18. It's not like every episode was a sequel to a previous story anyway,there was a lot of new planets and characters. Besides these criticisms are a mute point since not only New Who but modern TV is heavily serialised compared to the JNT eras of the series and that gets praise from viewers compared to episodic stuff.
I put this down to them not wanting to dwell on those incidents. TV today would soak every last drop of drama out of those incidents which might be worse if you want to do some actual storytelling. It's like ten episodes after Adric is dead "So Tegan where do you want to go?" "Sorry Doctor, still can't get over Adric's death".
Even here I'd argue they dropped the ball when it came to the absence of any continuity of emotional repercussions of Adric's death or Traken's destruction.
Yeah but first of all it's a different Doctor, more chummy, secondly the Third Doctor managed to work with the Brig those five years and he never mentioned the Silurians after what the Brig did.
Ditto when it comes to the Fifth Doctor and Brigadier being perfectly chummy together in The Five Doctors, and the story after somehow depending on the Doctor, out of the blue, holding a grudge again over what the Brig did in The Silurians and against the rest of humanity too.
Nah, I don't buy it. He probably stayed because he was worried he'd have trouble getting another job but it's one of those things where if you don't like your job why get up in the morning?
I think because he still cared about the show
I get that but that kind of thing wasn't uncommon in Doctor Who, people just talk about it less. The writers of 70s Who and 60s Who weren't happy with how the producers treated them as well. From what I remember JNT never did what happened to Henry Lincoln and Mervyn Haisman by the producers of 60s Who. That's one example of the top of my head. I do remember Dicks getting annoyed with Barry Letts over scripts as well.
I mean how helpless would someone feel if they knew they had that kind of creative control constantly swept under their feet by someone who hasn't put the same thought into it, or made the effort to be on the same page with them, and clearly doesn't respect their autonomy but despite which is the one who gets to decide?
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
You could argue that but I don't think that's true. Of course he would be crazy not to bring people in that he's worked with before, every producer does that
Again though, the fact that these writers and directors largely weren't from a sci-fi field, made their inclusion a counter-productive one. It meant more work on the part of Saward or Bidmead to help struggling writers and fix scripting problems, and Saward ended up spread too thin, which arguably he might not have if Holmes and Dicks were employed more often to lighten the load.
Even Johnny Byrne who'd done some Space 1999 wasn't really suited to the longer four-part format, hence why his Who stories feel so leaden. There might be a workable 45 minute story somewhere in Arc of Infinity, and maybe even in Warriors (well, in the version Byrne first submitted, before Saward's rewrites).
Dicks did good jobs the few times he was called back but I wouldn't call The Mysterious Planet Robert Holmes finest hour.
I think that was because of the BBC interference. Johnathan Powell requested a *lot* of rewrites, and the demands were for something more santitized than we usually get from Holmes. So in the end we ended up with something rather over-written, overly flowery, jokey and not really possessing much grit or substance.
Holmes' work is at its best when he's allowed to push the envelope and go for the jugular, and also when he can really invoke dramatic peaks and valleys and binary oppositions. For example, in Caves of Androzani we have the scene of Krepler refusing Stotz' final offer of all the Spectrox he could want if he braves the climactic mud bursts, and he refuses any price. Meanwhile the Doctor, by contrast braves them for something far more valuable to him. The saving of Peri's life.
I don't think there's a scene you can point to in Mysterious Planet which nails that quite as well, because it can't go to the same dramatic, polarizing extremes.
I think by that point he along with the other writers were running out of fresh ideas. Even Caves of Androzani while a classic can't be not seen as derivative of Holmes previous work.
Derivative, perhaps, certainly of Power of Kroll (and to a lesser extent, The Sunmakers). But the effect was as if to make Kroll in hindsight resemble an experimental first draft for what would become the far more accomplished Androzani masterwork.
The upside to JNT wanting fresh talent gave us the writers of the McCoy era who were 95% new writers to Doctor Who and they did in some ways probably better than the writers that came before.
If we're talking the writers that came immediately before under Saward, I'd agree. But then again, there were far less scripts to prepare per season, and considerably more time to do it in, and that's ultimately why we got better results than under Saward who had twice the workload on top of restrictions on which writers he could use.
Seasons 25 and 26 were of a better quality than the show had enjoyed in a long while but for me there was always some way it faltered and disappointed from its aspirations.
I really don't think the McCoy era ever really gave us the next Robert Holmes, David Whitaker or Malcolm Hulke, or even Don Houghton (infact the closest JNT's era as a whole came to giving us the next Robert Holmes was Barbara Clegg). And I don't think it ever could because sometimes the three to four-part format just isn't long enough to get the best out of a writer or a story.
Personally, beyond Remembrance of the Daleks, it's always been an era I could take or leave. I will at least say in its favour that it felt more like Doctor Who than anything since The Five Doctors, and there was actually a sense of getting from A to B to C again, rather than how the show had lost its way under Saward.
I guess what I'm saying is that if you had the power to delete the JNT eras of Doctor Who that's a lot of Doctor Who, some of which is excellent. With the Graham Williams era there were still more in my opinion anyway duds than in the JNT eras.
I do think however that the duds of the Williams era (for my money Underworld, Invasion of Time, Armageddon Factor and Creature from the Pit) were far more survivable than those of JNT's run. They didn't undermine and reduce the show's hero to a state of demystified, bland dysfunction. They didn't confuse the issue of the purpose of the Doctor or companion without satisfactory answers, and for the most part they were at least coherent, as were its characters and their motivations. And again that's important if the audience is still to be able to connect with the story. I don't think you could say the same for Time-Flight or Terminus.
I guess the BBC after Season 18 were impressed enough with him. It's only when the ratings go down a network starts to meddle.
I think they were impressed with Season 18 as a production (when previewed before the Head of Serials) but were concerned it wasn't getting the ratings it should, hence the move to weekdays.
My take on it is that before JNT took on Doctor Who the series had been going on for 17 years but without any ambition to tie the universe and the show's 17 years worth of adventures together. Bar some episodes it was rare for writers to bring back the same planet or villains who weren't the Daleks or Cybermen, the latter the writers had forgot about almost entirely.
I don't think that's entirely true. The Thals from the first Daleks serial could've gone entirely forgotten about, but Planet and Genesis of the Daleks make the effort a decade later to acknowledge them again. Genesis even goes some distance to acknowledge the origins of the lake of mutations in the cave of Davros' failed experiments.
Planet also acknowledges the Daleks' pattern of attack from The Dalek Invasion of Earth, where it starts with plague bombs and then enslavement of the survivors.
Likewise Terror of the Autons acknowledges that the Tardis has a chameleon circuit, and Deadly Assassin brings back the Master's TCE weapon and makes it a trademark, even though it had only been used once before in his debut appearance and not since.
I'd also argue that the show's narrative did tie together and have an ongoing narrative thematically, in terms of how the Doctor's rebellion against his people has repercussions throughout the series. It's very possible to see the inevitable way that Genesis of the Daleks picks up where The War Games left off, with the Doctor urging his people to take some responsibility for the universe they oversee, and to act for the greater good. You could even say the same of Romana's journey that takes the narrative one further by having the Doctor convert one of his own people into being a rogue like him.
You might say infact that all these developments from The War Games were ones waiting to be discovered. However I don't feel that way at all about the JNT stories, save maybe for State of Decay. There is a feeling that where the show naturally was going and developing towards has been completely hijacked and forced to take several steps back.
The first thing he did was set the Tardis down on Brighton Beach and have the characters make reference to the Black Guardian as well as the Randomiser.
I tend to think that particular continuity strand would've been emphasised just as much by Williams had he stayed on.
As an aside, I would've actually liked the vengeance of the Black Guardian to play some greater part in the season, i.e. as a direct incentive for the Doctor and Romana to flee into E-space to escape him.
When JNT took control of the series he instilled a strong sense of continuity which for the fans I guess showed he was paying attention.
Yes but that was because he was employing Ian Levine as a continuity advisor, and that's a problem.
The Five Doctors is a pleasing continuity exercise that revels in the past, because Terrance Dicks lived and breathed a long portion of the show's existence. When he wasn't script-editing show he was novelizing it. But he's also a professional enough writer to hone his skill enough to tell a satisfying narrative.
Ian Levine did not have that. He was difficult, petty, stubborn and would make a fuss over minutiae. He was the complainer. Not a force for creativity. I'd argue JNT had similar traits but he also granted too much authority to Levine when it came to how to ensure an approach to please the fanbase. In terms of the politics of power, or fan politics, they were utterly uncompromising.
So when you've got two men being difficult with the scripts, and Saward feeling compelled to be difficult and stubborn in return, we got a complete alienating mess like Warriors of the Deep, Resurrection or Attack of the Cybermen, in which the accessibility is non-existent, and the ending is more fussed over than genuinely crafted or cathartic, and where warped sympathies are all over the place whilst the Doctor behaves in a counter-productive way that borders on being sectionable.
Every episode after The Leisure Hive was linked all the way through to The Twin Dilemma. I thought and still find that great!
I understand. It appeals to me a bit as well, but the problem is for all that I don't think the show's narrative was ever really advanced an inch, at least not after Logopolis.
Omega and the Sea Devils return only to end up in the same state and fate we last saw them in. Nothing seemed to change or develop. Resurrection of the Daleks I think is the only one that moves Dalek continuity in any way forward.
My only problem with this is that with the Peter Davison era it makes that era quite anticlimactic due to all that continuity and returning references to the past. More so than Season 18. It's not like every episode was a sequel to a previous story anyway,there was a lot of new planets and characters.
Not every episode, no. But arguably from Earthshock to Warriors of the Deep there's an unbroken chain of stories about recurring elements. It was before that, in Season 19 that the Davison era seemed at its most fruitful and fresh, and it's everything after which makes that seem a false dawn.
Besides these criticisms are a mute point since not only New Who but modern TV is heavily serialised compared to the JNT eras of the series and that gets praise from viewers compared to episodic stuff.
Again though I'd argue that it's because an overall narrative is being furthered and developed, not being dragged back to square one as in the aforementioned Omega and Sea Devils examples.
I put this down to them not wanting to dwell on those incidents. TV today would soak every last drop of drama out of those incidents which might be worse if you want to do some actual storytelling. It's like ten episodes after Adric is dead "So Tegan where do you want to go?" "Sorry Doctor, still can't get over Adric's death".
I have often wondered how it would've been handled if they'd gone with the idea of Sarah Jane being properly killed off in Hand of Fear, or if Leela had died in The Sunmakers. I don't think subsequent episodes would dwell on it, but I do think there'd be something in the performance of Tom Baker that'd convey that he was still emotionally wounded and haunted by their death by the look in his eyes, and that everything he was doing as the Doctor was his way of distracting himself from the grief.
I think that with the Davison era set-up there's the unfortunate disadvantage that all three remaining leads have to be shown to be affected, probably in terms of each of their unique relationship with Adric (but even here the writing can't seem to be brutally honest enough to acknowledge that beyond the car crash shock of Adric's death, Tegan just doesn't have a reason to mourn him at all, let alone so hysterically given they never liked each other), and that Davison was probably the only actor of the bunch gifted and seasoned enough to pull it off. It just doesn't feel genuine at all. Not when they're grieving him, and not when they change the subject and act like nothing's happened in the most blatant exhibition of compassion fatigue in the show.
The problem is this pattern of Tegan going from melodrama to apathy just continues throughout, and never does it really feel she's reacting emotionally to anything the audience might tangibly understand, like the shock of Adric's death. The show made us experience that but then can't seem to fulfill on it. It can't seem to feign even caring that Adric's gone for more than a minute, which makes it difficult for the audience to feel motivated to do so.
Yeah but first of all it's a different Doctor, more chummy,
I'll say. In the case of The Five Doctors and the Davison stories after, he's a completely different character from one story to next.
secondly the Third Doctor managed to work with the Brig those five years and he never mentioned the Silurians after what the Brig did.
But the point I'm getting at is, if the Pertwee era as a whole tells us that the Doctor and Brigadier had moved past that incident and were still friends, and Mawdryn Undead and The Five Doctors is consistent with this, then how can the Doctor's sudden vindictiveness to humanity in Warriors of the Deep because of those past events the Brigadier committed, make any sense now at this stage? Either he's forgiven the Brigadier or he hasn't. The show can't pick and choose whether that long cooling off period between them happened or not.
Nah, I don't buy it. He probably stayed because he was worried he'd have trouble getting another job but it's one of those things where if you don't like your job why get up in the morning?
Well all I can say is I feel I understand what a fraught, frustrating exercise being a writer can be, but also how rewarding and cathartic, and how that creative world you've dabbled in nearly always tempts you back. I think Saward persevered with the unpleasantness because he believed the rewards would be worth it, but as his era and canon of work demonstrates, there was more of unfocused rage and frustrated defeatism than catharsis in his writing. I think it just became an uphill struggle under that particular production team.
Paul McGann IS the War Doctor in my fic
http://dalekwars.blogspot.co.uk/
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
Andrew Cartmel had pretty much nothing but new writers and he managed absolutely fine. If they're outlook on getting new writers is pessimistic they're not going to enjoy they're job are they? Like any attitude towards work what you put in is what you get out.
It meant more work on the part of Saward or Bidmead to help struggling writers and fix scripting problems,
I really don't think the McCoy era ever really gave us the next Robert Holmes, David Whitaker or Malcolm Hulke, or even Don Houghton (infact the closest JNT's era as a whole came to giving us the next Robert Holmes was Barbara Clegg).
To be fair those writers got to write across different Doctors. I think however a lot of writers from the McCoy era were very good plus even the most celebrated writers came out with duff stories. As for Clegg I think she only did one story so I wouldn't count her. I think the problem is you're comparing writers who worked the maximum two years on DW compared to writers who wrote over at least ten years of the show when it was held by the BBC in such high regard. I don't see why Aaronovitch, Briggs, Munro or Wyatt would not be held in the same regard had they worked on the series more than two years each.
The Armageddon Factor I have no problem with and think it's pretty good if a bit padded. The others are terrible compared to stuff in the JNT era and do more damage to the reputation of the show not only through production design but scripts, characterisation and acting. Time Flight at least has an interesting premise and good couple of episodes. Terminus is absolutely fine as well.
I do think however that the duds of the Williams era (for my money Underworld, Invasion of Time, Armageddon Factor and Creature from the Pit) were far more survivable than those of JNT's run.
It was up against Buck Rogers which had production values but the reason they ended up moving it to weekdays was to test the slots to see how a soap would handle that slot, which eventually led to Eastenders. Really the BBC was using the series to test for Eastenders. Dodgy to say the least.
but were concerned it wasn't getting the ratings it should, hence the move to weekdays.
Nah. The show made more of an effort to take the history it had already made and tie it together. The examples of continuity you provide are from their originators Terry Nation and Robert Holmes so of course if they were bringing back returning villains they'd know what they were doing. But I don't see any writers from the 70s for instance making an effort to bring the stories of Doctor Who together. In fact with Planet of the Daleks Terry Nation makes no reference to Evil of the Daleks or Day of the Daleks because he didn't write them. So there was no ambition really beyond if it was the same writer. 80s Doctor Who brought everything together and continued the mythology.
There is a feeling that where the show naturally was going and developing towards has been completely hijacked and forced to take several steps back.
I don't think so. Williams again wasn't about continuity which is why Destiny of the Daleks looks visually nothing like Genesis of the Daleks. I don't think Williams cared enough. He may have forgot the whole Randomiser plot if he did another season or if we were lucky referenced it in the Season 18 finale.
I tend to think that particular continuity strand would've been emphasised just as much by Williams had he stayed on.
Oh yeah Levine was and is needy but I never felt the end result was destructive in any way. Yeah depending who you talk to there were some bad stories but considering all the behind the scenes troubles what they put out was surprisingly good. For me the only slump in creativity was around the Colin Baker era and thankfully that was only two seasons. Could have been much worse had Eric Saward stayed on.
Ian Levine did not have that. He was difficult, petty, stubborn and would make a fuss over minutiae. He was the complainer. Not a force for creativity.
Well the show also created it's own characters as well like the Mara. But I'm happy with what they did as well with the Cybermen, the Black Guardian etc. You could say The Master is the only character who didn't really advance but his stories were still entertaining and the character wasn't treated any differently to how he was in Seasons 8 and 9. He still popped up, did something evil and then escaped. Everything was sort of wrapped up very neatly pre-JNT.
but the problem is for all that I don't think the show's narrative was ever really advanced an inch, at least not after Logopolis.
Ok I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
It was before that, in Season 19 that the Davison era seemed at its most fruitful and fresh, and it's everything after which makes that seem a false dawn.
No way! If you look at New Who Series 8 totally dragged out the Missy storyline and likewise with Rose in Series 4. Nothing was advanced till the last episode of that season. In terms of modern TV again it's far inferior to stuff from the 80s because at least that was mainly episodic while now they have a series only worthy of one episode stretched to a whole season. Let's be honest, modern TV has no advancement, only hesitation and procrastinates.
Again though I'd argue that it's because an overall narrative is being furthered and developed, not being dragged back to square one as in the aforementioned Omega and Sea Devils examples.
Ha, ha! I think that's wishful thinking. Sure they'd have the Doctor reference it at some point but I don't think Tom Baker would change his performance after all, by Season 16 he was clearly doing it for the kids and they don't want to be reminded of loss every episode.
but I do think there'd be something in the performance of Tom Baker that'd convey that he was still emotionally wounded and haunted by their death by the look in his eyes, and that everything he was doing as the Doctor was his way of distracting himself from the grief.
I think you missed how Tegan is represented in Arc of Infinity. She's totally different to the previous season. Everything that happened to her (Adric's death, the Mara, etc) took it's toll on her, she's visibly more weary and cautious than she was before. She's been shaped by the events of the previous season so I would say Adric's death did have a lasting impact on her.
The problem is this pattern of Tegan going from melodrama to apathy just continues throughout, and never does it really feel she's reacting emotionally to anything the audience might tangibly understand, like the shock of Adric's death.
I didn't notice much of a change although that occurs with different writers. Not all episodes can be written by one writer like Patrick Ness.
he's a completely different character from one story to next.
Taking into account it's a different Doctor he might have got past it but it doesn't mean he doesn't feel he owes them one, that the same mistake should not happen again.
then how can the Doctor's sudden vindictiveness to humanity in Warriors of the Deep because of those past events the Brigadier committed, make any sense now at this stage?
Or maybe he just wasn't the right guy for the job.
there was more of unfocused rage and frustrated defeatism than catharsis in his writing.
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
If they're outlook on getting new writers is pessimistic they're not going to enjoy they're job are they? Like any attitude towards work what you put in is what you get out.
I agree that's true, but I still think the act of denying Saward access to the writers he desired (and without any good reason) was only going to sour his view on the comparative deficiencies he felt lay with the writers he had.
As for Clegg I think she only did one story so I wouldn't count her.
Well I think of Enlightenment as the most Holmesian story of the 80's, not to be penned by Holmes.
Actually two of her unused submissions, Point of Entry and The Elite have been adapted for Big Finish's Lost Stories range, and I would certainly recommend them. I certainly think its a shame they never made it to screen.
I think the problem is you're comparing writers who worked the maximum two years on DW compared to writers who wrote over at least ten years of the show when it was held by the BBC in such high regard. I don't see why Aaronovitch, Briggs, Munro or Wyatt would not be held in the same regard had they worked on the series more than two years each.
It is true I feel perhaps the McCoy era didn't get the chance to fully win me over and make a fan of me, and that perhaps had Season 27 aired it would have succeeded at that.
The Armageddon Factor I have no problem with and think it's pretty good if a bit padded.
First time round I thought it was okay, and certainly seemed to have more going on than the previous Power of Kroll. In subsequent viewings however I just find it too much on the drawn out and gloomy side. I could imagine watching it at the time, knowing that the Hinchcliffe golden years were only two years ago, and yet feel like an eternity ago.
The others are terrible compared to stuff in the JNT era and do more damage to the reputation of the show not only through production design but scripts, characterisation and acting.
The only one I feel the Doctor's characterisation is off in, would be Invasion of Time (and actually his standing by and letting Adrasta be killed in Creature from the Pit too). But even then not necessarily show-killing. We see the Doctor make a cavalier gamble, and win by being smart and pragmatic. It's not until Remembrance of the Daleks that the Doctor is even back in that high league again.
Time Flight at least has an interesting premise and good couple of episodes. Terminus is absolutely fine as well.
Each to their own I suppose. I can see a creativity and imagination to both stories, but for me the execution is lacking.
It was up against Buck Rogers which had production values
Ironically however, Season 18 has dated far better of the two.
but the reason they ended up moving it to weekdays was to test the slots to see how a soap would handle that slot, which eventually led to Eastenders. Really the BBC was using the series to test for Eastenders. Dodgy to say the least.
Now you mention it, that might be why the Head of Serials felt concerned that Snakedance might be too cerebral and challenging for that viewership.
Nah. The show made more of an effort to take the history it had already made and tie it together. The examples of continuity you provide are from their originators Terry Nation and Robert Holmes so of course if they were bringing back returning villains they'd know what they were doing.
What concerns me about the 80's though is the absence of those older established writers when mishandling their creations.
Granted Terry Nation wasn't really willing to write for the show again, so Saward got the Daleks (since he was the on-call script-editor, it was convenient should Nation request changes be implemented), but I'd probably be more fine with the return of Omega and the Sea Devils if Terrance Dicks was tasked with writing them, rather than Johnny Byrne.
But I don't see any writers from the 70s for instance making an effort to bring the stories of Doctor Who together. In fact with Planet of the Daleks Terry Nation makes no reference to Evil of the Daleks or Day of the Daleks because he didn't write them. So there was no ambition really beyond if it was the same writer.
Personally I was okay with that because it suggested the Dalek Empire was so vast and centuries spanning that those previous defeats were distant minor pinpricks, barely worth mentioning in light of what they'd achieved since.
80s Doctor Who brought everything together and continued the mythology.
Again quite often I don't feel it continued the mythology, so much as revisited the succinct and resolved and needlessly drew it out. Case in point Trial of a Time Lord taking what was resolved neatly in The War Games' final episode, and overcomplicating it.
I don't think so. Williams again wasn't about continuity which is why Destiny of the Daleks looks visually nothing like Genesis of the Daleks.
I tend to think of old Doctor Who as like televised theatre, and in that light I have to accept that plays change location and scenery with nearly each subsequent performance. That Destiny of the Daleks is set on the same Skaro as Genesis. Just performed at a different venue.
I don't think Williams cared enough. He may have forgot the whole Randomiser plot if he did another season or if we were lucky referenced it in the Season 18 finale.
From behind the scenes accounts, his main concern amidst the troubles and chaos was usually "Oh God, let's just get this made!"
Oh yeah Levine was and is needy but I never felt the end result was destructive in any way.
I absolutely do. Admittedly only concerning two particular instances (Warriors and Attack) but twice too many. He had his own standards that had nothing to do with the standards the show's writing should be meeting, because he was put in a creative position he wasn't qualified for.
Yeah depending who you talk to there were some bad stories but considering all the behind the scenes troubles what they put out was surprisingly good. For me the only slump in creativity was around the Colin Baker era and thankfully that was only two seasons. Could have been much worse had Eric Saward stayed on.
I just struggle to see the difference between Season 21 and 22, beyond the face of the actor in them. They're both IMO just as guilty of sadistic violence and continuity excesses. I don't see how fans can penalize one but not the other.
Well the show also created it's own characters as well like the Mara. But I'm happy with what they did as well with the Cybermen, the Black Guardian etc.
Problem for me is the interesting new mythologies, like with the Mara, tended to get buried and swallowed up by emphasis on the older, more stale ones.
I think the Cybermen had a great comeback in Earthshock, but it was pretty much diminishing returns for them after.
You could say The Master is the only character who didn't really advance but his stories were still entertaining and the character wasn't treated any differently to how he was in Seasons 8 and 9. He still popped up, did something evil and then escaped.
I'd say the difference is back in the Pertwee era, the Master was a fresh inclusion to the show and an intriguing challenge to the Doctor. It kept viewers hooked on wondering how Pertwee's Doctor would go about beating this new, unknowable foe, and vice versa.
By the 80's however (or at the very least in the portion Saward script-edited), I just don't feel the Master had the same intrigue anymore and neither seemed like a legitimate challenge to the other, so their duel just seemed a lot limper and neither seemed enriched as hero or villain by facing off with the other.
Everything was sort of wrapped up very neatly pre-JNT.
I'd argue that's a good thing. It's nice to have some imponderables and loose ends, but not a whole slew of dirty laundry left out unsorted.
No way! If you look at New Who Series 8 totally dragged out the Missy storyline and likewise with Rose in Series 4. Nothing was advanced till the last episode of that season. In terms of modern TV again it's far inferior to stuff from the 80s because at least that was mainly episodic while now they have a series only worthy of one episode stretched to a whole season. Let's be honest, modern TV has no advancement, only hesitation and procrastinates.
I'd venture again, a lot of Saward's era shows that same procrastinating problem, on the part of Davison's Doctor and the Trial arc.
I wasn't think specifically of New Who in that regard, but shows like Buffy, Dawson's Creek, Battlestar Galactica in which there is an overstory just as much as there are individual episodes.
But admittedly I did stop myself short before going into how, well there usually comes a point during the third or fourth season of such a show where this focus on arc fodder feels far less sharp and a lot more out of control, and more like they're just padding out the season by stalling and pointless angsting, and making things up as they go along. Even DS9 seemed to succumb to this in its final season.
I liked to think the beauty of New Who is that it has the potential fluidity to finally decide that having overdone the arc stuff, it can go back to standalone adventures again and no-one would think poorly of it for doing so. Unlike BSG, it doesn't have to be arc driven.
The problem is this never seems to happen.
Ha, ha! I think that's wishful thinking. Sure they'd have the Doctor reference it at some point but I don't think Tom Baker would change his performance after all, by Season 16 he was clearly doing it for the kids and they don't want to be reminded of loss every episode.
Well in fairness, it sometimes took a director who was willing to step on his toes, like Peter Grimwade, to get the best from Tom, and something akin to his moody, sombre performance in Logopolis.
I think you missed how Tegan is represented in Arc of Infinity. She's totally different to the previous season. Everything that happened to her (Adric's death, the Mara, etc) took it's toll on her, she's visibly more weary and cautious than she was before. She's been shaped by the events of the previous season so I would say Adric's death did have a lasting impact on her.
I'll buy that Arc of Infinity did allow her an off-screen period of recovery from the shock of Adric's death, but it's the serial before that I have the problem with. Also all the above rather begs the question of why she'd decide to travel with the Doctor again at all, considering the caution and risks?
But the apathy/melodrama point I think still stands and persists right till her final story. She seems awfully blaze about picking out a Movellan cannister for the Doctor, yet becomes horrified to the point of leaving him when it's actually used.
Taking into account it's a different Doctor he might have got past it but it doesn't mean he doesn't feel he owes them one, that the same mistake should not happen again.
Even then, there's nothing in the Silurians and Sea Devils' behavior in this instance that should continue to earn his good will or his perception that they're a misjudged underdog. All they seem to be doing in this story is reminding him and us why the Brigadier blew them up in the first place.
Also if he's keen to avoid the same bloodshed happening again, there's more drastic ways he could go about it, such as using the threat of flooding the Hexacromite early on to force the invading reptiles to lay down their arms and come in peaceably.
But again, the story isn't interested in him doing anything else but fail.
Or maybe he just wasn't the right guy for the job.
I'll give you that.
Paul McGann IS the War Doctor in my fic
http://dalekwars.blogspot.co.uk/
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
Then either JNT should have communicated from the start he was going to use mainly new writers or Saward should have asked. Could have saved him four years of misery in the role of script editor.
was only going to sour his view on the comparative deficiencies he felt lay with the writers he had.
I personally think it could have been a four parter. Leave Episode 1 and 2 as they are but merge 3 and 4 together as well as 5 and 6. Had they done that it would have been more successful but I still think it's fairly solid.
I could imagine watching it at the time, knowing that the Hinchcliffe golden years were only two years ago, and yet feel like an eternity ago.
With Time-Flight the airplane related stuff was great, the middle part of the story was where they ran out of money.
I can see a creativity and imagination to both stories, but for me the execution is lacking.
Yeah I don't remember any disco in Season 18 but Buck Rogers was cool. I hope it's gets a UK blu-ray release.
Ironically however, Season 18 has dated far better of the two.
Ha, ha! That's true but it's also why the ratings went down. The BBC kept moving it from day to day each year to test how a BBC soap would fare, a shame Doctor Who was the guinea pig as that's where the popularity went downhill. People can't follow a show if it's moved around every year.
Now you mention it, that might be why the Head of Serials felt concerned that Snakedance might be too cerebral and challenging for that viewership.
You might be right with this example.
but I'd probably be more fine with the return of Omega and the Sea Devils if Terrance Dicks was tasked with writing them, rather than Johnny Byrne.
I never saw it as ripping off The War Games until you mentioned it.
Case in point Trial of a Time Lord taking what was resolved neatly in The War Games' final episode, and overcomplicating it.
Nah I don't buy it. Someone got the job and that person didn't do their homework because they couldn't be bothered.
Just performed at a different venue.
Simples, Season 21 has more good stories.
I just struggle to see the difference between Season 21 and 22, beyond the face of the actor in them.
You are forgetting though that when Anthony Ainley became the Master the character hadn't been seen by the current generation so he was almost a new character to some.
I'd say the difference is back in the Pertwee era, the Master was a fresh inclusion to the show and an intriguing challenge to the Doctor.
No loose plot threads to follow up on?
It's nice to have some imponderables and loose ends, but not a whole slew of dirty laundry left out unsorted.
There's a reason I don't like those shows and you it's all to do with overlong plot arcs and threads, feels like lazy writing. Typical of today's TV.
I wasn't think specifically of New Who in that regard, but shows like Buffy, Dawson's Creek, Battlestar Galactica in which there is an overstory just as much as there are individual episodes.
It never will because modern TV demands that type of plotting. Episodic TV almost doesn't exist any more. This is why I'm more inclined to go back to the 80s Who which wasn't as bad than the stuff today.
I liked to think the beauty of New Who is that it has the potential fluidity to finally decide that having overdone the arc stuff, it can go back to standalone adventures again and no-one would think poorly of it for doing so. Unlike BSG, it doesn't have to be arc driven.
The problem is this never seems to happen.
That was his last story. It called for it.
and something akin to his moody, sombre performance in Logopolis.
I can answer that. Tegan couldn't get back into her job as air stewardess after what she witnessed with the Doctor. She didn't totally blame him for Adric's death. It seems the Tardis for the time being was the best place for her. It was only till Resurrection of the Daleks she got a wake up call.
Also all the above rather begs the question of why she'd decide to travel with the Doctor again at all, considering the caution and risks?
It's one of those things where a peace maker becomes so obsessed with peace they don't think clearly.
Even then, there's nothing in the Silurians and Sea Devils' behavior in this instance that should continue to earn his good will or his perception that they're a misjudged underdog. All they seem to be doing in this story is reminding him and us why the Brigadier blew them up in the first place.
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
I personally think it could have been a four parter. Leave Episode 1 and 2 as they are but merge 3 and 4 together as well as 5 and 6. Had they done that it would have been more successful but I still think it's fairly solid.
I'd agree with that. It certainly could've been leaner and tighter.
With Time-Flight the airplane related stuff was great, the middle part of the story was where they ran out of money.
From reading the novelization, I get the sense the airplane flight stuff was more where Grimwade's passion and sense of romance lay. Once it gets into the nuts and bolts of the plot the writing begins to become a bit unenthusiastic and leaden.
Yeah I don't remember any disco in Season 18 but Buck Rogers was cool. I hope it's gets a UK blu-ray release.
I have the DVD set. It's entertaining enough but its *very* of its time. I must admit though the pilot episode is a bit of a slog, and if you were to marathon it, then boy does Twiki become super-annoying fast. But yes there are some gem episodes in there.
Ha, ha! That's true but it's also why the ratings went down. The BBC kept moving it from day to day each year to test how a BBC soap would fare, a shame Doctor Who was the guinea pig as that's where the popularity went downhill. People can't follow a show if it's moved around every year.
I'll grant that. I think it's largely why I ended up losing interest in Buffy and Angel, as it was shifted about in the schedules too. But I think that problem was also compounded by how soap-like Buffy had become. So the more episodes I missed, the more it felt like I was behind, the more it felt like I was supposed to care about ongoing developments that I didn't. And so the end result was that I eventually gave up, because it was more of a chore than entertainment.
I would venture that was part of the problem with Season 20 onwards though. With the Pertwee and Tom Baker era, the safeguard was usually that the episodes were written in such a way that would be coherent to any latecomer. I don't think the same can be said for the post-Leisure Hive stories. The show doesn't just become harder to find in the schedules, but because of its content, when it's found, the casual viewer is more likely to feel they're missing the backstory, whether that be of the companions' soap opera shenanigans, or the continuity lore being mined this week. So casual viewers finding the show again in its new timeslot weren't just behind on earlier events that season, but events from serials decades ago.
At a time when the show needed to be broadening its appeal beyond the fan niche, it seemed determined to do the opposite instead.
Nah I don't buy it. Someone got the job and that person didn't do their homework because they couldn't be bothered.
I think it was more complicated than that, namely in terms of how the set designers translated Williams' vision, whether there was miscommunication from writer, to producer, to designer. I know for instance that JNT clashed a bit with some of the designers on Season 20, hence why it lacks in the kind of colour you'd more often expect from his seasons.
Infact I believe Terry Nation just submitted a first draft effort, emigrated to America and left Adams to salvage the script, so I don't think NAtion was even consulted about whether the design was in line with his vision.
In any case, Doctor Who was never the kind of show where you could afford to do perfect replica sets for fan-pleasing, like the original Enterprise bridge in the TNG episode, Relics. Sometimes the old sets get scrapped and it's not cost-effective to recreate them to painstaking detail, and I think blame for that can be put on Hinchcliffe who decided on an embargo on further Dalek stories immediately after Genesis, and so the bunker set was never preserved.
You are forgetting though that when Anthony Ainley became the Master the character hadn't been seen by the current generation so he was almost a new character to some.
That's true. His comeback in Keeper of Traken and Logopolis was a powerful one that saw him at his most threatening and evil. But I do think the excessiveness of his overuse meant that this wasn't sustained and led to a rapid burnout and decline in him as a villain.
My feeling is also that a lot of the new mythology that the Master's rebirth brought with it which could've made for more sustainable tension was never taken advantage of and fell by the wayside. For instance in the guidebook on the companions there is the suggestion that Nyssa believed that some essence of her father might still be there in the Master and she hoped to one day save him.
Now that never made it to screen, but if it had it would've presented a far more interesting scenario for the rivalry between the Doctor and villain, and why the Doctor couldn't bring himself to destroy his foe.
There's a reason I don't like those shows and you it's all to do with overlong plot arcs and threads, feels like lazy writing. Typical of today's TV.
I must admit that feeling does tend to set in with me, the longer I followed those shows down their rabbit hole. I think the only modern show that kept its arc going in a way that remained interesting to the end was probably Ashes to Ashes, and tellingly that was only three seasons, of only eight episodes each. Anything beyond that and the stalling filler begins to show.
It never will because modern TV demands that type of plotting. Episodic TV almost doesn't exist any more. This is why I'm more inclined to go back to the 80s Who which wasn't as bad than the stuff today.
I must say I always preferred the Big Finish audios to New Who because they stuck to that old format and it gave each episode the right amount of substance and incident. New Who nearly always felt comparatively hollow.
I can answer that. Tegan couldn't get back into her job as air stewardess after what she witnessed with the Doctor. She didn't totally blame him for Adric's death. It seems the Tardis for the time being was the best place for her. It was only till Resurrection of the Daleks she got a wake up call.
Again though there is rarely the sense that it was ever fun or fulfilling for Tegan. Aside from possibly Black Orchid and Enlightenment where we see her having moments of fun, much of her grumpy personality tells a completely different story, and as I keep getting back to, I think a huge part of that is down to the show losing its theatrical roots and emphasis on the clear spirit of the characters.
In regards Adric's death, it's not so much that I think she would or should blame the Doctor that Adric died, but that it would bring into question whether he could always make sure the same never happened to her. And that I think is why there's a danger of going too far in making the Doctor fallible, because it brings the dynamic between him and the companion who's chosen to put their life in his hands, into serious question.
It's one of those things where a peace maker becomes so obsessed with peace they don't think clearly.
Well unfortunately that just seems more endemic of the fact that creatively no-one behind the scenes was thinking clearly whether or not creating and commissioning this story was a good idea either, or what the hell the story was supposed to say, beyond protesting the total annihilation prospect so hollowly and moronically that it ends up tacitly endorsing it.
I also think it's a bit of a cop-out because the story was so lazily plotted that it gave away its easiest solution in episode one, and thus had to forcefully complicate that, not by having the set plan go wrong, bit by bit, before coming finally right (as in the climax of Back to the Future), but by having the Doctor be a obstinate fusspot about an easy solution and complicate things himself for the most artificial motives to force a downbeat ending. He's not fighting for something positive the audience can get behind, but simply fighting for the negative ending.
And if that is the moral conclusion, then it's so asinine and moronic that it means there's just nothing that could possibly be cathartic about the story. It's not about how someone of peaceful outlook reckons with a war-ridden violent world, but how they simply, blinkeredly enable the violence just to have an excuse to have a body-count. The Doctor decides on a suicidally stupid course of action. Stupid outcome follows. It's meaningless.
Paul McGann IS the War Doctor in my fic
http://dalekwars.blogspot.co.uk/
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
You are forgetting though that when Anthony Ainley became the Master the character hadn't been seen by the current generation so he was almost a new character to some.
That's true. His comeback in Keeper of Traken and Logopolis was a powerful one that saw him at his most threatening and evil. But I do think the excessiveness of his overuse meant that this wasn't sustained and led to a rapid burnout and decline in him as a villain.
My feeling is also that a lot of the new mythology that the Master's rebirth brought with it which could've made for more sustainable tension was never taken advantage of and fell by the wayside. For instance in the guidebook on the companions there is the suggestion that Nyssa believed that some essence of her father might still be there in the Master and she hoped to one day save him.
Now that never made it to screen, but if it had it would've presented a far more interesting scenario for the rivalry between the Doctor and villain, and why the Doctor couldn't bring himself to destroy his foe.
Strawberry what source did you find out about this???
http://media.ifunny.com/results/2015/11/10/4cj4ciw3up.jpg
Re: John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?
Reply |
I think it was the hardback Doctor Who: The Companions by John Nathan Turner.
Paul McGann IS the War Doctor in my fic
http://dalekwars.blogspot.co.uk/
Paul McGann IS the War Doctor in my fic
http://dalekwars.blogspot.co.uk/
John Nathan-Turner: more sinned against than sinner?