I note your smugness and inform you that Bonnie Langford is not in "Death Comes to Time". So your witticism has FAILED, fool!

It's not half bad actually. Trouble is, it's only the pilot of a radio series that will now never be made, so what you get is all setup for story that will never be finished. The Actor Kevin Eldon features, briefly, as does Stephen Fry for all of two minutes. I have a hard time accepting John Sessions as head bad guy, however, cos he seems to be doing a variation on his Joe Pesci voice from Stella Street. Story is not bad, some nice philosophical interludes, but like I said, it's all setup. Lots of space-opera shenanigans leading who-knows-where.

PS. Our own Nev Fountain is script editor, so I expect he'll turn up to defend his work shortly. Good for him.

PPS. Cos it's online, you get an "Enhanced" version, with accompanying bad Lee Sullivan artwork. Yay!

>Go on then, you sad bastards - you know who you are. Is it worth downloading that Dr. Who thing off of the Global Intranet Highway?

Oh, you're such a wag.

Well, I suppose someone off the ageing 'Who For Doctor Who?' thread should pop by and say that they couldn't give a flying fuck about the new radio version. 'Doctor Who' ended in 1989. The track record for well-intentioned revivals has not been good, and I'm sick of giving them the time of day. Let it die.

>I note your smugness and inform you that Bonnie Langford is not in "Death Comes to Time". So your witticism has FAILED, fool!
>

Tragically, that wasn't a smug, ironic attempt to sneer at the "for the dads" nature of the assistants; I genuinely would like to give Bonnie Langford a good working over (maybe not nowadays, I haven't seen what she looks like recently, but that lisp, eh? lekke DING).
Thanks for the info though. I'm not sure I'll bother but on the other hand, Stephen Fry *and* Kevin Eldon (together at last) sounds interesting.
Maybe if enough people download it they'll make the rest of the series. Or maybe not.
People I'd like to see as Dr. Who (sorry to revive this old chestnut):
Stephen Fry
Kevin Eldon (bit too sinister?)
Richard Herring
Alan Davies
Caroline Quentin (Timelords switch sex every 10 regenerations - didn't you know?)
John Cleese

> I genuinely would like to give Bonnie Langford a good working over

You disgust me.

And me, I'm afraid.

Yup. I'm in too. Feeling a bit queasy.

Perhaps he meant punching her in the face until she agrees never to dance again.

>>Go on then, you sad bastards - you know who you are. Is it worth downloading that Dr. Who thing off of the Global Intranet Highway?
>
>Oh, you're such a wag.
>

People asked me "If you don't believe in Dr. Who, why do you spend so much time writing and talking about him?". And that set me thinking ...
I'm not saying I'm the new Dr. Who - that's for others to say.

The "sad bastards" comment was only to wind up 2 specific people - don't be such a big silly, I'm not knocking Dr Who. I quite like it really.

What were the well intentioned revivals? Apart from that awful Paul McGann thing which was reduced to ripping off stunts from Die Hard... has there been anything else since then?
I really think that with yer modern special effects and all, and a well known comedian (I'm really taken with the idea of Stephen Fry), it could still be revived.

>> I genuinely would like to give Bonnie Langford a good working over
>
>You disgust me.

Well **OB**viously I'd let you watch.

>>Go on then, you sad bastards - you know
>>who you are. Is it worth downloading that
>>Dr. Who thing off of the Global Intranet
>>Highway?
>
>Oh, you're such a wag.
>
>Well, I suppose someone off the ageing 'Who
>For Doctor Who?' thread should pop by and
>say that they couldn't give a flying fuck
>about the new radio version.

I couldn't give a flying fuck about the radio version. But only because it's "radio" - and DW doesn't work on audio. Audio drama only really works if it's two people in a room trying to talk each other to death, adventure just doesn't sit comfortably with the format.

>'Doctor Who' ended in 1989.

No, it ended it 1997. When Virgin, who were publishing good, decent, respectable DW books, didn't get the licence renewed because the Beeb realised they could make more money by publishing the books themselves - and proceeded to publish crap, backwards-looking, joyless, unreadable bollocks.

>The track record for well-intentioned
>revivals has not been good, and I'm sick of
>giving them the time of day.

I'm not convincved. The TVM was naff, but no more so than a lot of the series. And that's the only proper attempt at a revival - the books were a continuation, the other two things (for 'Children in Need' and 'Comic Relief') were just piss-takes.

But all it needs is someone who can produce good DW and good TV simultaneously. I could do it. Or Russell T. Davies.

>Yup. I'm in too. Feeling a bit queasy.

Not sickened, but it does rather disturb me. I mean, Bonnie Langford? In what way?

> Well **OB**viously I'd let you watch.

If you must molest Bonnie Langford, then I want to have nothing to do with it, you sick monkey.

'Paradise of Death' and 'The Ghosts of N-Space' were serials made for BBC Radio in the early Nineties. Both starred the Pertwee/UNIT line-up and were thus retro bollocks. The charity piss-takes were acceptable as such, but I saw 'Dimensions In Time' again the other day and felt physically ill throughout.

And forgive me Gregg, but didn't the TV series end in 1989? That's the only version I'm concerned with.

Special effects are not the answer, Dr H. 'Star Wars' and 'Star Trek' killed science fiction on British TV, and so long as programme commissioners look to them as competition, they're certainly not going to save it either. 'Four Weddings and a Funeral' in space is always my nightmare vision of a US-funded Who series.

>>Yup. I'm in too. Feeling a bit queasy.
>
>Not sickened, but it does rather disturb me. I mean, Bonnie Langford? In what way?

I think this says it all:
http://www.bonnielangford.co.uk/imgs/tele-hotshoe.jpg

I take it you're the one in the green?

You'd have to get past that funny looking fellow, first.

>'Paradise of Death' and 'The Ghosts of N-
>Space' were serials made for BBC Radio in
>the early Nineties.

Oh yes, I'd forgotten them. After long periods of trying. But they weren't really revivals.

>Both starred the Pertwee/UNIT line-up and
>were thus retro bollocks.

Yes.

>The charity piss-takes were acceptable as
>such, but I saw 'Dimensions In Time' again
>the other day and felt physically ill
>throughout.

Yes and yes.

>And forgive me Gregg, but didn't the TV
>series end in 1989?

The TV series, yes. But not 'Doctor Who' per se. That kept going until '97.

>That's the only version I'm concerned
>with.

That's your choice.

>Special effects are not the answer, Dr
>H. 'Star Wars' and 'Star Trek' killed
>science fiction on British TV, and so long
>as programme commissioners look to them as
>competition, they're certainly not going to
>save it either.

What killed science ficiton on British TV is the fact that so many people in the upper echelons of British TV don't approve it. They see it as weak, silly, childish, cult nonsense (these are the same people who brought us daytime TV and schedules filled by fly-on-the-wall, docu-drama shit - yes, that's right, I mean Michael Grade). Above all, they don't think it can possibly be popular. Wankers.

Amongst those who are open to sci-fi, the general attitude is that you can't do sci-fi without doing great sfx. Thing is, it is just about possible, now, to do great sfx without making the story crap. Potter's 'Cold Fusion' leaps to mind - and though it wasn't great sci-fi (in that it's quite obvious Potter hadn't exposed himself to much sci-fi, and it doesn't work as well as 'Karaoke') it's still very good, and looks great.

Thus, the problem is again money. But that's not too much of a problem.

Of course, there are people at the Beeb who'd like to do new DW - as a good, decent TV show, with a prime-time slot (not opposite 'Corrie'). They tried to do it in '99. They were blocked by the Beeb's neo-natal film studio peeps.

>'Four Weddings and a Funeral' in space is
>always my nightmare vision of a US-funded
>Who series.

Of course, one of the very best TV DW stories - 'City of Death' - is, effectively, this. And Hugh Grant was very good in the CR piss-take.

>'Paradise of Death' and 'The Ghosts of N-Space' were serials made for BBC Radio in the early Nineties. Both starred the Pertwee/UNIT line-up and were thus retro bollocks. The

BUT HE TRAVELS IN TIME - don't you see the irony here? What's your opinion of The 5 Doctors? Quintuply retro bollocks?

>
>Special effects are not the answer, Dr H. 'Star Wars' and 'Star Trek' killed science fiction on British TV, and so long as programme commissioners look to them as competition, they're certainly not going to save it either. 'Four Weddings and a Funeral' in space is always my nightmare vision of a >US-funded Who series.

I only meant that you could achieve an acceptable quality of visual monkery-pokery (especially with computer-generated sets and crowds) fairly cheaply, not that it would need the million-dollar-a-pop production values of Star Trek. The Paul McGann thing was expensive-looking but it was wank. Of course a decent script and story are the main thing. But for the price of, say, one episode of Walking With Dinosaurs, you could probably get a whole series of Dr. Who. I have no evidence that this is true, however.

>Well, I suppose someone off the ageing 'Who For Doctor Who?' thread should pop by and say that they couldn't give a flying fuck about the new radio version. 'Doctor Who' ended in 1989. The track record for well-intentioned revivals has not been good, and I'm sick of giving them the time of day. Let it die.

Couldn't agree more. Few enough people were happy with the series itself in its later years (not me, I hasten to add), and subsequent attempts at reviving it have fallen way short of the mark.

> BUT HE TRAVELS IN TIME - don't you see the irony here? What's your opinion of The 5 Doctors? Quintuply retro bollocks?

Good story, but from a run of episodes which completely pandered to the fans with a monster revival every week. Eighties DW set the wrong targets again and again, although the intentions were always good.

It has now been off the air for half the length of its original run, where it built an audience over 26 years. It has too many hurdles to overcome and if anything it had the perfect ending. I wouldn't have cancelled it when the McCoy serials were clearly starting to become great, but there is some sense of completion when the final story returns the series to contemporary London.

>>BUT HE TRAVELS IN TIME - don't you see the
>>irony here? What's your opinion of The 5
>>Doctors? Quintuply retro bollocks?
>
>Good story, but from a run of episodes
>which completely pandered to the fans with
>a monster revival every week.

Oh, come on, that's not right. 'The Five Doctors' is the most fan-pandering thing in that season, and the weakest script. The revivals amount to - Omega, in a crap story; a monster from last seasons, in a really good story; the Black Guardian. That's hardly one-a-week.

OTOH, the following seasons almost manage that.

>Eighties DW set the wrong targets again and
>again, although the intentions were always
>good.

It's a hit-and-miss thing. The monster-revival thing was useless fan-pandering, but at the start (with Davison, a Saward who still enjoyed his job and a JNT who wasn't an ego-maniac yet) it worked. When the series went down-hil, with Colin Baker in the role and no real quality control, it was a culmination of so many things - not least the Beeb desire to be rid of the series one way or another, regardless of quality (thus it finally gets canned after one of the best seasons in the show's history).

>It has now been off the air for half the
>length of its original run, where it built
>an audience over 26 years.

Not really sure there - the audience was built up very quickly in the early years, dwindled in the late 60s, came back with thw swtich to colour, dwindled in the late 70s, dwindled even more with Colin Baker, and was lost completely when the series was scheduled opposite 'Corrie'. It wouldn't need 26 years to build up an audience - most of the people watching at any one time were casual viewers, the core audience only ever amounted to a couple of hundred-thousand. To have audiences of 12-16 million again, it would need a couple of years and an almost year-long run (like it pretty much had in the 60s). But to get an audience of 7-9 million, all it needs is good writing, a professional appearance, a cushy prime-time slot, and to go out in the format of the Beeb's crime-doubles (weekly serials don't work these days, but the consecutive nightly serials format would be very nice, preserving the cliffhanger strength [a season of 14 hour-long episodes, divided into 7 stories]).

>It has too many
>hurdles to overcome and if anything it had
>the perfect ending.

It does have a lot of hurdles to overcome - but they could be overcome. In terms of endings, it did have a very good one - but, as I said, for many of the core fans that wasn't the end (and for the casual viewers, that wasn't... anything, because they were watching 'Corrie').

>I wouldn't have
>cancelled it when the McCoy serials were
>clearly starting to become great, but there
>is some sense of completion when the final
>story returns the series to contemporary
>London.

True.

>Oh yes, I'd forgotten them. After long periods of trying. But they weren't really revivals.

Well, they were intended to keep the flame going. Engender some interest in a new series. All rather pointless, especially when N-Space struggled to get transmitted.

>The TV series, yes. But not 'Doctor Who' per se. That kept going until '97.

What does this mean, ducky? I know you explained it earlier, but a thousand Cornell novels wouldn't persuade me that these spin-offs were (shudder) "canonical".

>What killed science ficiton on British TV is the fact that so many people in the upper echelons of British TV don't approve it. They see it as weak, silly, childish, cult nonsense (these are the same people who brought us daytime TV and schedules filled by fly-on-the-wall, docu-drama shit - yes, that's right, I mean Michael Grade).

I was going to use the word "telefantasy" but i thought it too obscure. It's certainly the term I would include and would allow into its ranks stuff like 'Jonathan Creek'. Actual attempts to do mainstream SF on the BBC in the 90s have been poor (Bugs, Crime Traveller), and a cursory glance at an actual listing of BBC fantasy product shows that they are either cross-genre harmless comedies (My Hero, Mulberry, So Haunt Me), actually quite good kids serials (Dark Season, Century Falls, Earthfasts, early Demon Headmaster) and little else. British telefantasy, I would argue, has been killed off by a mixture of both our reasonings.

Oh, and Michael Grade commissioned 'The Singing Detective' without seeing a script. I have little against the man.

>Thing is, it is just about possible, now, to do great sfx without making the story crap. Potter's 'Cold Fusion' leaps to mind -

'Cold Lazarus', 1996.

>and though it wasn't great sci-fi (in that it's quite obvious Potter hadn't exposed himself to much sci-fi, and it doesn't work as well as 'Karaoke') it's still very good, and looks great.

I'm a huge Potter fan, but I know full well that he based that serial on one solitary article in 'New Scientist', delivered it (unavoidably) as a poorly conceived first draft, and stipulated that not one word was to be changed (his estate demanded this). My abiding problem with this serial fits in with my fears for a new Who series. The budget would be spunked on effects, with little regard for emotive connection with the audience or the script.

>Of course, there are people at the Beeb who'd like to do new DW - as a good, decent TV show, with a prime-time slot (not opposite 'Corrie'). They tried to do it in '99.

And last year.

>>'Four Weddings and a Funeral' in space is
>>always my nightmare vision of a US-funded
>>Who series.
>
>Of course, one of the very best TV DW stories - 'City of Death' - is, effectively, this.

No it isn't. 'City Of Death' doesn't give a fuck. It glides along effortlessly. The point behind the Four Weddings analogy is that Who would be created with the US's idea of Englishness in mind, as it is a guaranteed way of selling the show abroad.

LOOK! Doctor Who is a stupid, cheap children's programme, its worldwide popularity is as bewildering as American fools who think Are You Being Served is highbrow and sophisticated, and until Dennis Potter described Hussey and Birt as two croak-voiced Daleks, most people would have assumed it died out sometime in the mid-70's. Which is where it belonged.

P.S. Tom Baker is NOT a splendidly larger-than-life-character, he's a hammy old dipsomaniac.

>>Good story, but from a run of episodes
>>which completely pandered to the fans with
>>a monster revival every week.
>
>Oh, come on, that's not right.

Exaggerated for effect, Gregg. Calm down.

JNT always pandered to fans. His fight to keep the show alive was a based on a frightening set of compromises, not all of which are his fault. Besides, the DWB-bashing was a decade ago so I'm not going to start it up again now.

>OTOH, the following seasons almost manage that.

Around the anniversary there were a great number, setting a trend for the Eighties. That was my point, trying to abbreviate it so that non-fans around these parts could still contribute if they wished.

>When the series went down-hil, with Colin Baker in the role and no real quality control, it was a culmination of so many things - not least the Beeb desire to be rid of the series one way or another, regardless of quality (thus it finally gets canned after one of the best seasons in the show's history).

And here we agree. I don't really dismiss anything from the show. All part of the history now.

>Not really sure there - the audience was built up very quickly in the early years

Yes yes yes, but the point is that it is part of the nation's conciousness as a show which ended quite a while back and is known as a cheap-and-cheerful series in (largely) 25-minute chunks, and highly Anglocentric. The TVM offered some of the appeal, but had heavy-handed religious imagery, tedious film references and even if it did get around 10m there is no reason why a series would make a pattern out of this. I suspect people would get bored. Revivals never work anyway. They only serve to remind people that there are no good new shows.

>but, as I said, for many of the core fans that wasn't the end (and for the casual viewers, that wasn't... anything, because they were watching 'Corrie').

OK, but *why* do you want it back?

TV SF fan politics is scary.

No proper science fiction would ever get put on TV nowadays because that would involve assuming that the audience had some sort of rudimentary scientific knowledge or ability to reason.

Although apparently this story:
http://eidolon.net/?section=old_site&visiting_section=old_site&page=/old_site/issue_02/02_extra.htm

was 'screened in the series “Welcome to Paradox” on The Sci-Fi Channel, 21 September 1998', so maybe there's some hope.

But as far as I can tell, Jonathan Creek is closer to the spirit of Dr. Who than anything made since. Bring back Quatermass, I say.

The girl baddy from Demon Headmaster though - let's face it, you would.

>I was going to use the word "telefantasy" but i thought it too obscure. It's certainly the term I would include and would allow into its ranks stuff like 'Jonathan Creek'. Actual attempts to do mainstream SF on the BBC in the 90s have been poor (Bugs, Crime Traveller), and a cursory glance at an actual listing of BBC fantasy product shows that they are either cross-genre harmless comedies (My Hero, Mulberry, So Haunt Me), actually quite good kids serials (Dark Season, Century Falls, Earthfasts, early Demon Headmaster) and little else. British telefantasy, I would argue, has been killed off by a mixture of both our reasonings.
>

>>The TV series, yes. But not 'Doctor Who'
>>per se. That kept going until '97.
>
>What does this mean, ducky? I know you
>explained it earlier, but a thousand
>Cornell novels wouldn't persuade me that
>these spin-offs were
>(shudder) "canonical".

a) Please don't use that word, you don't know where it's been. It's rarely used properly in this context, and implies things that shouldn't be implied.
b) I'm being equally judgmental, of course, by putting it at '97 - the books are still going (under Worldwide), and Gary Russell and his mates are churning out officially licensed audio wank. It's just that the NAs (and I do tend to limit it to the NAs) are, on average, very good DW. High quality. A golden age. A worthy continuation. I didn't discover them till '96 - when I was at Uni. Over the course of two years, I read all 60, and, basically, they made me a fan as an adult. While I had a couple of videos and some wonderful memories, I largely considered DW to be a thing from my childhood, a thing that held little or no value or worth in my adult tastes and sensibilities. The books changed that, seemed to be DW for adults. Then, through them, I started buying videos, discovered some of the stories I'd watched as a kid (and some of the ones made in the 60s and 70s) had plenty of adult appeal. Both as nostalgic entities, but also as works of imagination, wit, style, entertainment. So, for me, the NAs kept DW alive, made it grow and evolve in wonderous new ways, and lead me to (re)discover the old stuff. And so on.
c) Cornell's 'Human Nature' is the best DW story ever. Most of his other books are very good, too. (You know he's working on Casualty now. Not sure how I feel about that.)

>I was going to use the word "telefantasy"
>but i thought it too obscure. It's
>certainly the term I would include and
>would allow into its ranks stuff
>like 'Jonathan Creek'.

Seems like a fine term to me. Certainly, there's little in DW that works as hard sci-fi, or sci-fi in the commonly used sense (it's closer to 'Jonathan Creek' than it is to 'Star Trek').

>Actual attempts to
>do mainstream SF on the BBC in the 90s have
>been poor (Bugs, Crime Traveller),

Not to mention the excrutiating 'Invasion: Earth'. Which was a shame, because there were the bare bones of an interesting series in that. If only Horowitz hadn't got suckered into mimicking 'Independance Day' (like that was ever going to work) and slagging off classic telefantasy.

> and a
>cursory glance at an actual listing of BBC
>fantasy product shows that they are either
>cross-genre harmless comedies (My Hero,
>Mulberry, So Haunt Me), actually quite good
>kids serials (Dark Season, Century Falls,

RTD again.

>Earthfasts, early Demon Headmaster)

Can't remember 'Earthfasts'. Unless... was that the one with moving stones? It's possible I've contracted that with 'Century Falls'. Or was the stones one called 'Elidor' (there was something called 'Elidor', I'm sure, though I can't remember ever actually seeing it).

'Demon Headmaster' wasn't as good as the books. (And I've just realised how young I must have been when I read those. How heartbreaking.)

>and little else. British telefantasy, I
>would argue, has been killed off by a
>mixture of both our reasonings.

Oh yes - I was just trying to extend things a bit. Certainly, perceived competition from Stateside products put a number of people off trying, and gave a number of other misconceptions about what they needed to do. It made sfx central rather than a mere feature.

But telefantasy has always been looked-down upon, and has had a very hard time of it since 1981.

>Oh, and Michael Grade commissioned 'The
>Singing Detective' without seeing a script.
>I have little against the man.

It's difficult. He was responsible for good things - but, equally, for bad things. Some very bad things. He was very good for C4, but I think C4 was very good for him too, changed him a lot. When he was at the Beeb he, despite some good achievments, was responsible for some terrible televisual sins, and it's his work there during the mid-80s that is, as far as I'm concerned, resposnsible for much of the malaise over the past decade (daytime TV, reality TV, the dominance of home imporvement and cookery shows and assorted weak rubbish). He matured well, and recent interviews show him to be a fairly decent bloke (he's even now said he'd like to see DW back, I think - quite a change considering he was largely responsible for getting rid of it [along with 'Juliet Bravo', and various other quality stalwarts]).

Thinking about it, as much as I love Potter's work, I don't think comissioning 'Singing Detective' without reading it is a good thing. Like I said elsewhere, comissioning a script because it's got a famous name on the front is not good. Even if it is the name of a very talented writer, a script should be judged on its merits - even the best of us cock up once in a while.

>>Thing is, it is just about possible, now,
>>to do great sfx without making the story
>>crap

>>>Good story, but from a run of
>>>episodes which completely pandered to the
>>>fans with a monster revival every
>>>week.
>>
>>Oh, come on, that's not right.
>
>Exaggerated for effect, Gregg. Calm down.
>
>JNT always pandered to fans.

Of course, the biggest problem was employing a fat, freakish, millionaire fanboy as some sort of adviser during the early amd mid-80s. But JNT did have a habit of compelling the use of old monsters and characters when they really didn't belong -'Silver Nemesis' is the best example.

>>I don't really dismiss anything from the
>>show.

I'm perfectly happy to dismiss most of the Pertwee era. Right-wing, paternalistic bollocks rip-off of 'Department S' and 'The Avengers' as it is. (And it's not even as if they pick a good era of 'The Avengers' to rip-off.)

>All part of the history now.

Yes. But still...

>>Not really sure there - the audience was
>>built up very quickly in the early years
>
>Yes yes yes, but the point is that it is
>part of the nation's conciousness as a show
>which ended quite a while back and is known
>as a cheap-and-cheerful series in (largely)
>25-minute chunks, and highly Anglocentric.

Yes. But you can reduce that to it simply being part of the nation's consciousness. And it is - as an icon on its own. And though they may remember it as cheap and cheerful (quite rightly, it was most of the time), they equally remember most TV of that era as cheap and cheerful.

Of all the shows that could be revived (and, indeed, of all the new shows could, conceivably, be comissioned), DW's format and its place in the collective conscious makes it the most obvious and able. It's practically screaming to be brought back - although it would have been easier to do it in '96 or '99 than it is now, I feel (it's possible the perfect moment has just passed, and won't circle round again for a couple of years - 2003, the 40th anniversary might be a better option).

>The TVM offered some of the appeal, but had
>heavy-handed religious imagery, tedious
>film references and even if it did get
>around 10m there is no reason why a series
>would make a pattern out of this. I suspect >people would get bored.

A series based on the TVM, yes, I can imagine that they would. It'd be no more of an audience-puller here than the various importa that BBC2 ('X-Files', 'Buffy').

But a show with good, dramatic and witty scripts, solid performances and regular injections of imagination, could.

>Revivals never work anyway.

'Star Trek' did. 'Bond' did. 'Corrie' *seems* to be doing OK. 'DW' could - if done properly.

>They only serve to remind people that there
>are no good new shows.
>
>>but, as I said, for many of the core fans
>>that wasn't the end (and for the casual
>>viewers, that wasn't... anything, because
>>they were watching 'Corrie').
>
>OK, but *why* do you want it back?

Because there are no good shows? Certainly because there are no shows with the sort of imagination, shows that so defy being pigeon-holed, shows that really fulfill the BBC's proper remit of trying to surprise people and shock them out of their conventional pants. And DW was one of those sorts of shows, and could be again (in the right hands). It was also the sort of show that served as a breeding ground, developing new talent, comuning individuals with one another leading to new things - it's largely through DW we got 'Blake's 7', 'The Survivors', 'Doomwatch', 'Hitch Hiker's Guide', 'Bergerac', etc.

Because it's a good, decent, clever, funny, entertaining, adventurous, inventive, defiant little show. There are lots of changes I'd like to see to BBC drama at the moment - some of which have sort of happened in the last 6 months (that sort-of return of the one-act play, for instance). And I think a revival of DW could be a catalyst for these. And even if it wasn't, it could still be great in its own right.

Of course, my desire to see it return is temepered by my feeling that nobody could bring it back as well as I could (and I certainly won't be in a position to do that for... many, many years). And my alchol-fuelled spleen ventings.

Christ, I wish I'd never started this now.

Dr Who is wrong.

>a) Please don't use that word, you don't know where it's been. It's rarely used properly in this context, and implies things that shouldn't be implied.

"Continuity" should be banned to. Utterly redundant in a show which started before the VCR came into domestic action.

Re the audio wank, did you hear the free CD with DWM300. Frightening that there is no progression with fan produced documentaries. Still, not as bad as that 'Fury From The Deep' documentary I saw the other week.

>c) Cornell's 'Human Nature' is the best DW story ever. Most of his other books are very good, too. (You know he's working on Casualty now. Not sure how I feel about that.)

I have a lot of time for Cornell actually, particularly for his knack of irritating people through the pages of DWB and Skaro. Not too keen on his fiction though, and I hear that he was sacked from Eastenders (or was it Corrie?) after one episode. Casualty went to the dogs after moving to 24eps a year, and lost its political nouse around that time too. I wish him well, but I won't be watching.

>Seems like a fine term to me.

Oh, I love the word "telefantasy". I say it to myself when trying to go to sleep. Telefantasy, telefantasy, telefantasy...

>Certainly, there's little in DW that works as hard sci-fi, or sci-fi in the commonly used sense (it's closer to 'Jonathan Creek' than it is to 'Star Trek').

I know. Warriors Gate and Terminus fight a lonely corner.

>Not to mention the excrutiating 'Invasion: Earth'.

Can people for once move on from the Quatermass influence? Great as it was, there are other options open. Personally I always wanted to see 'Blue Fields', but that died in pre-production during 1994.

>RTD again.

And 'Neverwhere' come to think of it.

>Can't remember 'Earthfasts'. Unless... was that the one with moving stones?

Yes. Early 95 with a young Paul Nicholls in the lead.

>Or was the stones one called 'Elidor' (there was something called 'Elidor', I'm sure, though I can't remember ever actually seeing it).

No that was nonsense with Arthurian knights horsing around a castle with video effect red sky all over the shop. Starred that blonde woman from Hear'say.

>'Demon Headmaster' wasn't as good as the books.

First two series were good, if remeniscent of the infinitely superior 'Dark Season'.

>But telefantasy has always been looked-down upon, and has had a very hard time of it since 1981.

True, but the mid-Eighties included a vast number of shows at the BBC alone. The disastrous Tripods, the fab Invisible Man production, plays like Threads and Z For Zachariah, Star Cops... the difference is that whereas you still had all the kids fantasy (Rentaghost, Galloping Galaxies et al) it wasn't as deathly as Watt On Earth or Space Vets, and there was an evil balance of family and adult fair too. Plenty left an impression.

The Grade malaise was part of a general degredation, I always thought. Certainly the beginning of something terrible. Despite all the cancellations he did introduce vital brand leaders (Casualty, Eastenders) and maintained the importance of the single play.

>Thinking about it, as much as I love Potter's work, I don't think comissioning 'Singing Detective' without reading it is a good thing.

He took after his father by shooting from the hip. And, frankly, no focus groups were included. Potter was a trusted friend and at that time had not made an original serial for the BBC since 1978's Pennies From Heaven. Potter and Trodd (producer) had also helped Grade out at LWT in 1980.

>Even if it is the name of a very talented writer, a script should be judged on its merits - even the best of us cock up once in a while.

As Grade and Yentob learnt with Karaoke and Cold Lazarus, but there we are talking of very different circumstances.

>>Revivals never work anyway.

To clarify, TV revivals. Reginald Perrin stands as one of the worst, for example. Great things which should have just been left as they were. A Who revival would be marketed completely wrong anyway. I can guarantee it.

>'Star Trek' did.

It scarcely went away in America. Don't you think 11 years of solid BBC screening has bred an indifference to Who outside of the hardcore fanbase? Clock the amount of US SF imports and tell me that generations have not been brought up on a certain type of US storytelling.

>'Bond' did.

Hmm?

>'Corrie' *seems* to be doing OK.

Pardon? Did I miss a cancellation? I know it dropped very badly in ratings a few years back, but it was never really under threat...unlike The Bill.

>'DW' could - if done properly.

Not convinced. And to be honest too many BBC managers stand in its way. and fan protests have done a great deal of damage. Remember when they tried to sue the BBC?

>It was also the sort of show that served as a breeding ground, developing new talent, comuning individuals with one another leading to new things

Whilst I agree with your basic point, Casualty (Renny Rye) has done this, so has Eastenders, The Bill, Coronation Street (Bleasdale) and Brookside (McGovern). There are always shows like this. Why not bring back Z Cars by this token?

Actually, the single play is a more important breeding ground than any other and what has that been reduced to in the last 7 years? Attempted revivals like 'Black Cab' and 'Table 12' are a good place to start but (a) last little more than ten minutes apiece, (b) attempt a strand formula and (c) have so far shown little indication as to the revival of 90min dramas which do not attempt to compete with the cinema.

>Because it's a good, decent, clever, funny, entertaining, adventurous, inventive, defiant little show.

Was.

>Re the audio wank, did you hear the free CD
>with DWM300. Frightening that there is no
>progression with fan produced
>documentaries.

I only really got the monthly from late '96 (when I started the NAs) to late '98 (when i realised I wasn't actually that interested in it, and had only been buying it because it seemed like I was supposed to). I picked up some back issues, and it seemed to be better under Russell. Kept meaning to start again once Gillat was gone, but never got round to it.

But it's the stories that I have a problem with - like the BBC books, more backwards-looking pap. Immitation rather than innovation. Trying to be good by echoing former glories instead of creating new ones. Lack of vision.

>Still, not as bad as that 'Fury From The
>Deep' documentary I saw the other week.

'Fraid that one passed me by, too.

>>c) Cornell's 'Human Nature' is the best DW
>>story ever. Most of his other books are
>>very good, too. (You know he's working on
>>Casualty now. Not sure how I feel about
>>that.)
>
>I have a lot of time for Cornell actually,
>particularly for his knack of irritating
>people through the pages of DWB and Skaro.
>Not too keen on his fiction though,

Really?

>and I hear that he was sacked from
>Eastenders (or was it Corrie?) after one
>episode.

I was under the impression he was with 'Corrie' for a good while.

>Casualty went to the dogs after moving to
>24eps a year, and lost its political nouse
>around that time too.

Yes. Became soapish. Still, they are apparently trying to do things differently - broaden the scope beyond the regulars in the hospital (his episodes concentrates on paramedics, or something).

'London's Burning', which has also become very soapish in the past couple of years, seems to be doing the same - trying to go back to the idea of drama through life-threatening situation and engrossing characters, rather than dull people personal problems (at least from the interview I had in May - didn't get the job, but it was a good chat).

>>Certainly, there's little in DW that works
>>as hard sci-fi, or sci-fi in the commonly
>>used sense (it's closer to 'Jonathan
>>Creek' than it is to 'Star Trek').
>
>I know. Warriors Gate and Terminus fight a
>lonely corner.

Even those two lack really solid science - there's this idea that Bidmead did hard sci-fi, when what he really did (and 'Warrior's Gate', 'Logopolis' and 'Castro' are the best examples) is theoretical physics. All the stuff that can't really be proved or tested, and probably isn't true, but would explain anomalies and is damn-right fascinating. It's strange the things that have found their way into reality - you mentioned 'Fury from the Deep', did you see that documentary a few months back about killer mutant seaweed in the Med?

>>Not to mention the excrutiating 'Invasion:
>>Earth'.
>
>Can people for once move on from the
>Quatermass influence?

I know. And it's not even as if they pick the more interesting 'Quatermass' stuff.

(That being said, the thing I'm trying to seel at the moment is, essentially, a rip-off of one of Kneale's later works. I take what he did and extend it.)

>Great as it was,
>there are other options open. Personally I
>always wanted to see 'Blue Fields', but
>that died in pre-production during 1994.

Not heard about that one.

>>RTD again.
>
>And 'Neverwhere' come to think of it.

RTD did 'Neverwhere'? I thought it was Gaiman.

>>Can't remember 'Earthfasts'. Unless... was
>>that the one with moving stones?
>
>Yes. Early 95 with a young Paul Nicholls in the lead.
>
>>Or was the stones one called 'Elidor'
>>(there was something called 'Elidor', I'm
>>sure, though I can't remember ever
>>actually seeing it).
>
>No that was nonsense with Arthurian knights
>horsing around a castle with video effect
>red sky all over the shop. Starred that
>blonde woman from Hear'say.
>
>>'Demon Headmaster' wasn't as good as the
>>books.
>
>First two series were good, if remeniscent
>of the infinitely superior 'Dark Season'.
>
>>But telefantasy has always been looked-
>>down upon, and has had a very hard time of
>>it since 1981.
>
>True, but the mid-Eighties included a vast
>number of shows at the BBC alone. The
>disastrous Tripods,

Disastrous? Hugely memorable - and contained some excellent stuff. At the time, I thought the Tv version was much better than the books - though I was *very* young, and haven't read or seen either since (keep meaning to get the tripods DVD... as soon as I get a DVD player).

>the fab Invisible Man production,

Passed me by completely. Nothing like the Morrisey one, I presume - good pilot, nice sense of drama with some attractive comedic elements, but the series that eventually followed was worthless (a pallid attempt at comedy drama that was neither dramatic nor funny).

>plays like Threads and Z For Zachariah,

Threads rings a bell, but I can't place it. Something nuclear?

'Z for Z

>>>Revivals never work anyway.
>
>To clarify, TV revivals. Reginald Perrin
>stands as one of the worst, for example.

Granted.

>Great things which should have just been
>left as they were. A Who revival would be
>marketed completely wrong anyway. I can
>guarantee it.

I'm almost convinced - but it does depend who is involved. The right sort of people, with the right sort of clout, could do it... right.

>>'Star Trek' did.
>
>It scarcely went away in America.

It was almost twenty years between the end of the original series and the start of TNG. But I guess the movie kept it prominent. Still, TNG was a massive risk, that could have failed.

>Don't you
>think 11 years of solid BBC screening has
>bred an indifference to Who outside of the
>hardcore fanbase?

No more of an indifference than was there in the late 80s. But indifference isn't a big problem in TV terms, I feel - active apathy, or actual dislike would be, but that indifference contains a casual interest that could be exploited. Market it correctly, and all those people who say "it's a shame that was cancelled, that was really fun" would give it a try. If it's good enough - and if it isn't, it deserves to fail - than when they give it that try, you win them over. And I think you've got more of ahcne of getting those casuals to tune in to 'DW', something they know about and used to watch, than a brand new telefantasy.

>Clock the amount of US SF imports and tell
>me that generations have not been brought
>up on a certain type of US storytelling.

There again I'm not convinced. I'm 23, effectively I'm part of the generation brouhgt up on US imports. As I said, my memoires of DW were dim and patronising until I read the NAs. I don't think I'm that much better educated or open than most people in my generation. Not that DW could be patterned like it was - that weekly serial format is dead. But patterned like, as I said, the Crime Doubles, or 'Messiah', it would stand a good chance. Add in the sort of mix that used to give it wide appeal - different layers sitting comfortably - and it could really work.

Difficult, but not impossible. And, in terms of prime-time BBC1 telefantasy (and I'd desperately like to see telefantasy back in prime-time on BBC1) it's got more chance than anything else.

>>'Bond' did.
>
>Hmm?

Bond films. With Pierce Brosnan in them. EVeryone said Bond died in '89. Was revived as a commercial success, and as good quality as they ever were.

>>'Corrie' *seems* to be doing OK.
>
>Pardon? Did I miss a cancellation?

No, no, I meant... that other one. 'Crossroads'

>>'DW' could - if done properly.
>
>Not convinced. And to be honest too many
>BBC managers stand in its way.

That much is true. As I say, it would need someone with the clout (and the willingess to risk killing his career) to forge on through them.

>and fan
>protests have done a great deal of damage.

Only to an extent - nobody has ever really taken the organised fans seriously, they just left themselves open to a portion of the blame through their wittering and embarrassing foolishness.

The BBC has certainly never been afraid of getting in touch with them and wheeling them in front of a camera when it's a new video release or repeat run to promote - which comes back to that "comedy audience" thread, and showing your audience people you think they're like.

>Remember when they tried to sue the BBC?

No. Probably before my time. Were they trying to sue it for the cancellation (which is sheer stupidity), or burning all those old episodes (which, given that the Beeb's charter does say they can't do this, might have actually been possible - except I'm not sure how long that line has been in the charter, and I don't particularly want to see the BBC wound-up over such a thing - though I reckon it's going to be sold off in 2006 anyway).

>>It was also the sort of show that served
>>as a breeding ground, developing new
>>talent, comuning individuals with one
>>another leading to new things
>
>Whilst I agree with your basic point,
>Casualty (Renny Rye) has done this, so has
>Eastenders, The Bill, Coronation Street
>(Bleasdale) and Brookside (McGovern).

Yes, yes, yes. But still, you can't have enough (or enough of a variety) of such brreding grounds.

>There are always shows like this. Why not
>bring back Z Cars by this token?

I thought they had. Several times. Only with different names.

>Actually, the single play is a more
>important breeding ground than any other
>and what has that been reduced to in the
>last 7 years?

Yes - and I'd like to see that back (though I thought it had been gone rather longer than seven years). And I agree with what you said - though the best example of the return of the single play this year was that series I can't remember the name of (and I've just realised I'm now having the ame conversation in two different threads - it was the one from Red set in a textiles factory up north, the one that worked very well despit

>I only meant that you could achieve an acceptable quality of visual monkery-pokery (especially with computer-generated sets and crowds) fairly cheaply, not that it would need the million-dollar-a-pop production values of Star Trek.

Again, I think people get too caught up in the idea that CGI and SFX make good science fiction tv / movies. And yet we know from experience (Dr Who, et al) that 'state of the art' graphics date a programme instantly.

What is really needed is quality scripting, and too often now we are presented with substantial window dressing alongside substandard dialogue.

Case in point - that Space 'documentary' with Sam Neill. Brilliant graphics, but almost no factual information. Sources weren't credited, and there were huge gaps in the science ("Over time, an atmosphere and water appeared").

But I'm getting off the point. In the case of Drama, Star Trek very rarely focuses on the effects. Instead it concentrates on the conundrums of space travel, of the problems of playing with science, of encountering new species.

Overall, the idea that "Well, it looks like a sitcom / science fiction / hospital drama so it must be one" is the biggest problem with TV comissioning at the moment. There is rarely any engagement with fictional characters on the box, and in my opinion that explains the rise of 'reality TV'. For all their sins, Jeremy Airport, Jane McCruiseShip and Brian BigBrother are real people and the audience empathises with them.

Now, where was I going with this argument?

>>Not too keen on his fiction though,
>
>Really?

Yup. Read the first dozen NAs and gave up around the time of 'Love & War'. Too much of a commitment when there are a million other books to read.

>>and I hear that he was sacked from
>>Eastenders (or was it Corrie?) after one
>>episode.
>
>I was under the impression he was with 'Corrie' for a good while.

It must be Eastenders then. They weren't happy with his first script IIRC.

>Yes. Became soapish. Still, they are apparently trying to do things differently - broaden the scope beyond the regulars in the hospital (his episodes concentrates on paramedics, or something).

The idea of an episode with no patients whatsoever was offered up in 1996, perhaps working as a two-hander (I don't know) but that got rejected. Which is a shame because they are frequently the most memorable episodes of other series. Eastenders and One Foot always did them well.

Yentob wanted Casualty to become a bi-weekly soap in favour over Eldorado but the idea was rejected. It would've killed the show's spirit, but that happened anyway.

>>>RTD again.
>>
>>And 'Neverwhere' come to think of it.
>
>RTD did 'Neverwhere'? I thought it was Gaiman.

Sorry, didn't mean to leave RTD in there. I was referring to 90s fantasy again. Add 'Moon and Son' this time. Jaysus...

>(keep meaning to get the tripods DVD... as soon as I get a DVD player).

A classic case of memory cheats. The best solution is to look again and refresh your memory. It always works, and The Tripods I can assure you will reveal itself as a deathly show with only visual effects going for it. The acting is atrocious, had no atmosphere and it's unlikely to impress anyone over the age of 12 these days. I've seen them all in recent years and was hugely let down by it.

>>the fab Invisible Man production,
>
>Passed me by completely.

1984, produced by Barry Letts. Big at the time. A strict adaptation.

>Threads rings a bell, but I can't place it. Something nuclear?

Nuclear bombing of Sheffield, written by Barry Hines ('Kes'). Available on dvd and
utterly essential. Buy this before Tripods.

>'Z for Z

Robert C.Obrien adaptation, starring Anthony Andrews. A Play For Today from 1984.

>It was almost twenty years between the end of the original series and the start of TNG. But I guess the movie kept it prominent. Still, TNG was a massive risk, that could have failed.

It remained a huge franchise as you know, and you're forgetting the animated series besides the regular films. I think that by the fourth film they had a strong enough case to continue the franchise anew. Quite glad that the latest wheeze was scrapped before transmission. A rest is the best thing for it.

>Market it correctly, and all those people who say "it's a shame that was cancelled, that was really fun" would give it a try. If it's good enough - and if it isn't, it deserves to fail - than when they give it that try, you win them over.

I was told by people to watch DW because it's really good again in 1988 and after a few years of disinterest did indeed start watching it again for the last couple of series. Such word of mouth should have been happening back then, surely? In fact, it was, and it made no difference.

>And I think you've got more of ahcne of getting those casuals to tune in to 'DW', something they know about and used to watch, than a brand new telefantasy.

I dunno. Jonathan Creek does very well. Good writers and directors are the key, as much as a winning formula. The problem is that programme makers tend to stumble into one too many focus groups and the end result stinks. I can see it happening again if DW was to return.

>There again I'm not convinced. I'm 23, effectively I'm part of the generation brouhgt up on US imports.

I'm 23 and effectively of the same generation.

>As I said, my memoires of DW were dim and patronising until I read the NAs.

Well I had UK Gold from 1992 so it never concerned me, and quickly found people with tapes in the 89-92 interim.

>Add in the sort of mix that used to give it wide appeal - different layers sitting comfortably - and it could really work.

Perhaps, but everyone has their own expectations, with yours as quite reasonable ones. In either case it would be torn apart by fans like they were a pack of wolves. I'd rather sit out because I remember how ugly that is.

>EVeryone said Bond died in '89. Was revived as a commercial success, and as good quality as they ever were.

We're talking about TV.

>>>'Corrie' *seems* to be doing OK.
>>
>>Pardon? Did I miss a cancellation?
>
>No, no, I meant... that other one. 'Crossroads'

Facing cancellation, I heard. Was struggling desperately, I also heard.

I remember the Guardian piece on candidate shows for that slot, from some time last year. There were a couple of good formats there by new people, but ITV opted for 'Crossroads'. Wouldn't you prefer a new show entirely? See some risk-taking for a change?

>The BBC has certainly never been afraid of getting in touch with them and wheeling them in front of a camera when it's a new video release or repeat run to promote - which comes back to that "comedy audience" thread, and showing your audience people you think they're like.

I know. Revolting, isn't it. This was covered recently in the Dr Who thread on NOTBBC's TV Forum, if you want to continue this point.

>>Remember when they tried to sue the BBC?
>
>No. Probably before my time.

1991.

>Were they trying to sue it for the cancellation (which is sheer stupidity), or burning all those old episodes

Neither. Sueing for not providing the public service of broadcasting new 'Doctor Who'. Audience demands not being met. J. Jeremy Bentham led the campaign. Terrifying, I know.

>Yes - and I'd like to see that back (though I thought it had been gone rather longer than seven years).

1994 was the last run of 'Screen Two'. Strands like 'Performance' died out in the next couple of years, when the BBC Films schedule came into being.

>it was the one from Red set in a textiles factory up north, the one that worked very well despit

Lost you there.

>>it was the one from Red set in a textiles factory up north, the one that worked very well despit
>
>Lost you there.

'Clocking Off'? 'Making Out'?

Cheerio

I don't want to see Doctor Who brought back. I loathed and still loathe the final series, and from a safe distance I can now see that the series really *had* run its course. At the same time as it was - and still is - unable to shake off the stigma applied to it by lazy fact-shunning retro-headed proto-Theakstonists who dismissed any new episodes not because any notion of lack of quality but because they remembered that they liked it better when it was Tom Troughtnell and the maggots or something, and that anything 'new' was therefore childish and embarrassing and had cardboard monsters etc etc, it was also tainted by the demands of the 'fans', who felt that the only way for the series to move forward was for it to be reshaped according to their specifications, resulting in a programme that more often than not pandered to a small minority of hardcore obsessives without ever giving an inch to the casual viewer. And those are problems that have persisted in all subsequent attempts at 'reviving' the concept.

One of the main problems with all of the 'revivals' that have taken place since the cancellation of the television version is that the fans get to have far too much influence over the end product. A ludicrously unrealistic amount of consideration is given to what they think might be a 'good idea' to feature, and this approach is a disaster waiting to happen as the vast majority of fans (and I *am* speaking with justified knowledge and good authority here) are not creative or imaginative in any way, and their 'good ideas' are usually both not good and nothing more than an idea. Thus a lot of the content is based on flawed visions that have not been correctly thought through, and end up weak, insubstantial, and badly adrift of the point as a result. The fans *think* they know what is best for the series, but seldom ever do. For example, the most frequently quoted criticism of the show during the 1980s was that it wasn't 'adult' enough. What did they want!??!?!?! Sadistic porn? Well, they in a relative sense they got that in one series (22), which is a disgusting, repulsive mess and was partially responsible for the original cancellation of the show. The fans want to remake the show in their own image, and this never works. This is true of many of the novels (most of which are written by fans), the telemovie, the risible Big Finish audios, the Pertwee radio plays (which were based on the idiot rose-tinted fan belief that the Pertwee era is 'best') and just about everything else (but not necessarily Nev's thing - I've not heard it, so I can't judge).

At the same time, Doctor Who is also swamped beyond salvage by the demands of 'nostalgia'. The viewing public, whose opinion and reaction is what really matters in terms of getting a successful series off the ground (remember that the US revival did not make it past pilot stage because of unfavourable audience responses), expect it to be exactly as they remember it, which apparently has something to do with Daleks and a very long scarf. If it differs from their view, they don't like it and it gets nowhere. If it adheres to it, then it's a flawed attempt to recreate the past and just ends up looking like a gigantic mess.

And I agree that Doctor Who ended in 1989. I never accepted that the Virgin novels were the "legitimate continuation of the series" that they were supposed to be, because I have a big problem with being told what to think. And as they proceeded to break taboo after taboo and experiment with 'new formats', any sense of legitimacy went out of the window. It's the fans remaking it in their own image again, and their remaking just means that what we end up with isn't legitimate Doctor Who in any way. It's like saying Elastica are a legitimate continuation of Wire.

And for those who consider me a 'sycophant' for having roughly similar opinions to other contributors to this thread - I've been saying this stuff for over a decade now, and can back it up with fanzine evidence.

>I don't want to see Doctor Who brought back. I loathed and still loathe the final
>series, and from a safe distance I can now see that the series really *had* run its
>course.

It's impossible for something like DW to run its course. Or, to put it another way, it ran its course at least half a dozen times during its TV run.

>At the same time as it was - and still is - unable to shake off the stigma
>applied to it by lazy fact-shunning retro-headed proto-Theakstonists who dismissed any
>new episodes not because any notion of lack of quality but because they remembered that
>they liked it better when it was Tom Troughtnell and the maggots or something,

Yes. Obviously. Bastards.

>and that anything 'new' was therefore childish and embarrassing and had cardboard
>monsters etc etc,

Which was true, of course. But everything old was also childish, embarrassing and had cardboard monsters. The trick is to see beyond that. And a new series, with a decent budget, would probably make it easier to look beyond those things - because they wouldn;t be so firmly in the way.

> it was also tainted by the demands of the 'fans', who felt that the only way for
>the series to move forward was for it to be reshaped according to their specifications,

Fans? One fan, surely: Ian fucking Levine.

>resulting in a programme that more often than not pandered to a small minority of
>hardcore obsessives without ever giving an inch to the casual viewer. And those are
>problems that have persisted in all subsequent attempts at 'reviving' the
>concept.

To an extent.

>One of the main problems with all of the 'revivals' that have taken place since
>the cancellation of the television version is that the fans get to have far too much
>influence over the end product. A ludicrously unrealistic amount of
>consideration is given to what they think might be a 'good idea' to feature, and this
>approach is a disaster waiting to happen as the vast majority of fans (and I *am*
>speaking with justified knowledge and good authority here)

Most of the revivals have been tailored towards a section of fandom because most of the revivals are money-making schemes. And as much as the EDBs or the audios, with their unimaginative, retro, "wasn't it good before 1980" attitude, put me off. And the NAs, with their desire and ability to make DW as something modern and engaging and good and intelligent, put off a lot of old traddies. You can't please all the fans all of the time. But a professional production by BBC drama wouldn't have the same fan-pleasing goals, wouldn't be designed purely to exploit sections of fandom for cash.

>are not creative or
>imaginative in any way, and their 'good ideas' are usually both not good and nothing
>more than an idea.

Apart from the NAs - where the good ideas are, indeed, good ideas - you're right.

>Thus a lot of the content is based on flawed visions that have not been correctly
>thought through, and end up weak, insubstantial, and badly adrift of the point
>as a result. The fans *think* they know what is best for the series, but seldom ever
>do. For example, the most frequently quoted criticism of the show during the 1980s was
>that it wasn't 'adult' enough.

Which is sheer nonsense. The idea that the show was any less adult adult in the 80s than it was in the 60s and 70s is rose-tinted fantasy.

>This is true of many of the novels (most of which are written by fans),

Thing is, the ones written by fans tend to be better than the ones written by pros - Terrance Dicks is the best example, he can't write a book for.. anything. He just can't write. Whereas a lot of the fan (subsequently turned pro) who wrote NAs, wrote better DW (and better literature) than such fogeys as Terrance.

>At the same time, Doctor Who is also swamped beyond salvage by the demands
>of 'nostalgia'. The viewing public, whose opinion and reaction is what really matters
>in terms of getting a successful series off the ground (remember that the US revival did
>not make it past pilot stage because of unfavourable audience responses),

Only in America. And why the hell a BBC show should be aimed at Americans I don't know. Where the hell did this idea that the BBC needs to make a profit come from?

> expect it
>to be exactly as they remember it, which apparently has something to do with Daleks
>and a very long scarf.

But that's not the case. Not in my experience. The casual viewers one would want to attract mainly remember a work of imagination that dealt with adventure, battles and really wild things.

> If it differs from their view, they don't like it and it gets nowhere. If it adheres
>to it, then it's a flawed attempt to recreate the past and just ends up looking
>like a gigantic mess.

Right, so no matter what it can't work. I have to say, from the tone of some of the things you post, I wonder why you don't just work to getting TV switched off altogether. The web has pretty much killed it as a medium anyway, I guess. That's it, no more TV. And those of yo

I agree with a lot of what TJ says, but just in case he doesn't like Death Comes To Time, I reserve the right to rescind that approval.

>>>Not too keen on his fiction though,
>>
>>Really?
>
>Yup. Read the first dozen NAs and gave up
>around the time of 'Love & War'. Too much
>of a commitment when there are a million
>other books to read.

It is possibly to read them too. The NAs are roughly 80,000 words each, which about a weekend's reading. I squeezed most of the 60 in during an English degree - of course, I cheated by actually doing a final year module on them, but the point still stands. They're not very long, most are highly readable, it's not a huge commitment.

>The idea of an episode with no patients
>whatsoever was offered up in 1996, perhaps
>working as a two-hander (I don't know) but
>that got rejected.

It's more of an episode with none of the regulars (or with much less of the regulars than usual), rather than no patients. I think. Mainly, I think it's geared to getting away from one of the most distasteful qualities of this sort of drama in the past few years.

>>Which is a shame because they are
>>frequently the most memorable episodes of
>>other series. Eastenders and One Foot
>>always did them well.

Two-handers? Yes.

>>Threads rings a bell, but I can't place
>>it. Something nuclear?
>
>Nuclear bombing of Sheffield, written by
>Barry Hines ('Kes'). Available on dvd and
>utterly essential. Buy this before
>Tripods.

Wait... is that in black and white? Done in a sort of documentary style, explaining what would happen in the event of a nuclear bombing. Because there's a famous one like that, which was locked away and remained un-broadcast for many years - I saw it in a nuclear bunker in Scotland when I was 14, IIRC.

>>It was almost twenty years between the end
>>of the original series and the start of
>>TNG. But I guess the movie kept it
>>prominent. Still, TNG was a massive risk,
>>that could have failed.
>
>It remained a huge franchise as you know,

I'm not particularly aware of it remaining a "huge" franchise - I've never been a very big fan. I can imagine that it was - mostly thanks to the films - but surely that franchised centred on Kirk and Spock (and the original Enterpirse) rather than the "Star Trek" label itself. After all, there was an attempt to do a new series with a new crew in the 70s, wasn't there? And that was canned in the early stages.

>>Market it correctly, and all those people
>>who say "it's a shame that was cancelled,
>>that was really fun" would give it a try.
>>If it's good enough - and if it isn't, it
>>deserves to fail - than when they give it
>>that try, you win them over.
>
>I was told by people to watch DW because
>it's really good again in 1988 and after a
>few years of disinterest did indeed start
>watching it again for the last couple of
>series. Such word of mouth should have been
>happening back then, surely? In fact, it
>was, and it made no difference.

Because the show was up against 'Corrie'. And that's been a death slot since about '85. And as much as there was a bit of word of mouth - and there wasn't that much, and actual marketing was almost non-existent - that's not going to win over the casual viewers who watch 'Corrie'. The bulk of any prime-time show is the casual audience. The casual viewers of DW went for somehting that was on all year round, that they had a basic, low-level commitment to as viewers, over something with a run of one episode a week fourteen weeks a year, which had been missing from the schedules for all of '85 and most of '86 and was now opposite their favourite regular program.

The lesson is: Don't schedule DW opposite 'Corrie'. Unless you're trying to get the audience so low you can cancell it quietly.

You get the audience to watch through clever marketing and playing on the nostalgia. You keep them watching by giving them something that's worth watching, high-quality entertainment, intelligent and exciting. That's my theory.

>>And I think you've got more of ahcne of
>>getting those casuals to tune in to 'DW',
>>something they know about and used to
>>watch, than a brand new telefantasy.
>
>I dunno. Jonathan Creek does very well.

Ah, now, this is going to make me seem like some awful rose-tinted individual - because, though it used to be great, the most recent one or two seasons of 'JC' have been quite pants. Certainly the last one - where the mysteries were about things like "he's the bastard son of a secret royal" - reached so far it fell flat on its face.

>Good writers and directors are the key, as
>much as a winning formula.

That's my point exactly.

>The problem is
>that programme makers tend to stumble into
>one too many focus groups and the end
>result stinks.

Yes. And I'd recommend dismissing focus groups completely, and relying on creative talents.

>I can see it happening again if DW was to
>return.

Oh, yes, I can see it happening. But I also think it could be done well, without those things happening. It depends on who is involved - and if it's people like RTD or Cornell, and they were able to fight the managers and accountants, I tend to think a new series would avoid those pit-falls.

>>There again I'm not convinced. I'm 23,
>>effectively I'm part of the generation
>>brouhgt up on US imports.
>
>I'm 23 and effectively of the same
>generation.

There, see - that's at least two of us who don't expect or require the tropes of US imports.

>>As I said, my memoires of DW were dim and
>>patronising until I read the NAs.
>
>Well I had UK Gold from 1992 so it never
>concerned me, and quickly found people with
>tapes in the 89-92 interim.

Gracious, I didn't. I had my memories, the repeats from '93 - few of which managed to capture my imagination at the time.

>>Add in the sort of mix that used to give
>>it wide appeal - different layers sitting
>>comfortably - and it could really work.
>
>Perhaps, but everyone has their own
>expectations, with yours as quite
>reasonable ones. In either case it would be
>torn apart by fans like they were a pack of
>wolves.

Yes, of course. But there's no reason that should matter unless you're specifically trying to please fans. By all means, listen to their criticisms - but if their criticism amounts to "it's crap because it didn't have Jon Pertwee in it", tell them to fuck off and grow up.

>I'd rather sit out because I remember how
>ugly that is.

But one doesn't have to be involved in that sort of thing - though I love arguing with other fanboys.

>>EVeryone said Bond died in '89. Was
>>revived as a commercial success, and as
>>good quality as they ever were.
>
>We're talking about TV.

Yes, but still.

>>>>'Corrie' *seems* t

>They're not very long, most are highly readable, it's not a huge commitment.

They are however works of fiction based on a TV series, which interests me little.

>Wait... is that in black and white? Done in a sort of documentary style, explaining what would happen in the event of a nuclear bombing.

No, that was 'The War Game', banned by the BBC in 1968 IIRC. It was eventually transmitted during the same 'After The Bomb' season on BBC2 which gave us 'Threads'. Very similar plays (and equally good), but 'Threads' was a direct response to 'The Day After', as if it were a big fuck you to American TV.

>Because the show was up against 'Corrie'.

Although the ratings were poor for DW, fluctuating wildly around the 4m mark, they were actually outstanding for that slot. Also, what is there to suggest that there would be even greater competition in 2001? Significantly more channels and lifestyle alternatives, etc.

>You get the audience to watch through clever marketing and playing on the nostalgia.

We're returning to the high risk again.

>You keep them watching by giving them something that's worth watching, high-quality entertainment, intelligent and exciting. That's my theory.

You could say that of a hundred single plays or series, but they would all have got zilch viewers. As much as I like your reasoning, I don't agree.

>That's my point exactly.

I think we've reached a conclusion in this respect. We both want the same approach to programme making, at least.

>Yes. And I'd recommend dismissing focus groups completely, and relying on creative talents.

So when do you want to start this revolution? I'll bring the ammo.

You're a romantic. And I like you.

>There, see - that's at least two of us who don't expect or require the tropes of US imports.

But there are millions who don't remember a pre-ST:TNG age. They are the future audience.

We keep losing the end of your messages, Gregg. Could you check after the cut'n'paste'n'post is up? It's a shame to lose it all in the ether.

>>Because the show was up
>>against 'Corrie'.
>
>Although the ratings were poor for DW,
>fluctuating wildly around the 4m mark, they
>were actually outstanding for that slot.

Oh yes. Which is why I think, had it had a better slot, it would have done much better.

>Also, what is there to suggest that there
>would be even greater competition in 2001?
>Significantly more channels and lifestyle
>alternatives, etc.

To an extent, yes, you're right. But there are good slots - and I think the thing I suggested (building on the crime doubles schedule, Mondays and Tuesdays at 8pm) would work well.
>>Yes. And I'd recommend dismissing focus
>>groups completely, and relying on creative
>>talents.
>
>So when do you want to start this
>revolution?

As soon as someone starts buying my scripts. Which would require me to actually sit down and right them - I fluctuate wildly between ambitions romanticism ("This is how it should be done!") and jaded apathy ("Bastards will never buy anything I do, so why bother?").

>I'll bring the ammo.

Now, we just need the blueprints for White City.

>>There, see - that's at least two of us who
>>don't expect or require the tropes of US
>>imports.
>
>But there are millions who don't remember a
>pre-ST:TNG age. They are the future
>audience.

But TNG's audience is only a few million. I want an audience made up of casual viewers who'll go excitement, adventure and really wild thing, and intellectuals who'll go for works of imagination and ingenuity. Basically, the mix I believe DW had during much of Tom Baker's run.

>We keep losing the end of your messages,
>Gregg.

Bugger. I'm sure I made some of my best observations at the end of my messages - and a quick check shows several have lost their tails. The reply to TJ is only about half there - and it cuts out at a point that makes it look like I was having a dig. Unfortunately, I didn't copy any my text, and can't quite remember what I wrote.

>Could you check after the
>cut'n'paste'n'post is up? It's a shame to
>lose it all in the ether.

I will. I'm not sure where it's going.

Can I just apologise for that rude and rather childish message I put on here last night.I was pissed and tired and bitter.

Any chance of replying to my mails, Jake, inbetween glasses?

>But TNG's audience is only a few million.

By that I'm lumping B5, ST, Xena, Hercules, Lexx, Stargate et al into the same protruding mass. And distancing myself from all of them at the same time.

>>But TNG's audience is only a few million.
>
>By that I'm lumping B5, ST, Xena, Hercules,
>Lexx, Stargate et al into the same
>protruding mass. And distancing myself from
>all of them at the same time.

Each of which only get viewing figures lower than late-80s DW. And the bulk of each show's audience is shared with the other shows - of that list, I only watch(ed) B5 and Lexx (both decent shows), but I know people who watch(ed) all of them.

New DW would need much broader appeal - and thus need not (and should not) confine itself, or be desired to confine itself, to standard telefantasy tropes.

Right, despite my reservations, I have now listened to Death Comes To Time...

I stand by my views on why I am tired of endless attempts to revive the series, and listened to it out of curiosity rather than a desperate desire for new Who, but I have to say well done to all concerned. As I suspected, given the fact that it didn't make it past pilot stage, this was an attempt at resurrecting the series that doesn't pander to either lazy retronostalgia or the desire to 'do something new with it'. It's very much in the spirit of the original series, but without resorting to the tedious 'trademarks' by which Doctor Who can be recognised, which is presumably why the powers that be didn't like it. I may not care too much for the idea of the series coming back, but in a way it's heartwarming to know that somebody cared enough to try and to get it right. And hats off to Nev for his dogged perserverance in allowing people to hear it too. That really is admirable.

Yes, that's right, I was nice about Nev! :)