We've been running a couple of months now, and I thought it about time that my views on Doctor Who were heard. (I know I speak for the others too on almost every point made - though we do disagree on Keff McCulloch's music!)
I should point out now that if you're the sort of person who'd be offended if I said the Fox movie was crap, then I'd advise you to press the back button now! Having said that, if anyone wants to reply intelligently to any of the points, we'll happily print them here!
Click at the bottom for the responses.
I'll start by saying this: the current state of Who is abysmal. I've been a lifetime fan of the show (as are most of us) , (almost) never missing an episode since the late Tom Baker era, but in the last decade changes have been occurring that I find worrying. For too long now Who is being spoiled by two groups of fools - the don't cares and the care-too-muchs.
The first category are the ones who are basically out to make a quick buck - BBC Worldwide, Fox, all those band-wagon jumpers who have written books on every conceivable aspect of Who, from what the script editor's daughter has for tea to how many times the word 'pants' is used in the Hartnell era (not nearly enough, some would argue!)
This is of course understandable, but
lamentable. Who couldn't exist without funding and
merchandise, I wouldn't suggest otherwise, but an unfortunate
logical progression of the money-making scheming is that the
people in charge know more about business than Who.
The second category are that new generation of sad fans who cling so tightly to the programme that they cannot see its faults - the tragic, self-proclaimed aficionados of all things who-ish, who get up-in-arms the moment anyone suggests that the Fox movie was crap, that the quality of McCoy's acting is very inconsitant, that perhaps Weng Chiang wasn't all it's cracked up to be or that Keff McCulloch's version of the theme wasn't very good (things that seem only too obvious to me!) They're only my opinions, but I can back them up - I don't instantly assume that because it's Who, it must be good. They defend Who to the hilt with the most convoluted logic, and insist that it must change to become successful in the future... and anyone who doesn't agree with them can't be a "true" Doctor Who fan!
Unfortunately now Who has become largely property of this sad fanatical minority. Whereas once the whole of Britain would share in the enjoyment of the programme, tuning in regularly to see those golden moments of genius with Tom Baker, Who seems to be sole-property now of a few fanatics, who want to take it off in "new" directions and most likely see it turned into some abominable Star Trek-style adult soap-opera (for let's not pretend that most American Sci-Fi series are anything more than soap operas set in space, however entertaining one may find them.. - but that's quite another issue!)
There was a format. Who never needed
spectacular effects, sex-interest, bizzarre camera-angles,
horror-film shock tactics or big-name stars. It survived on
ingenuity, humour, subtle gesture and suggestion, dedication and
that essential air of mystery. It was all worthwhile for those
magic moments when doors slid back to reveal hidden control
rooms, evil villains unmasked themselves for the first time or
that monster unexpectedly emerged from a warehouse or quarry
somewhere obviously just outside of Croydon. It worked. For more
than twenty years, it worked. Why does it need to be altered or
"updated" by bringing in new history and canon, making
the Dr "dark" or highlighting minority or 'PC'
issues concerning gays (link to article on Kate Orman's page), racial minorities, feminist issues, drug
abuse etc.?
Let me just answer those obvious retorts so
we can get them behind us -
NO: I'm not homophobic/racist/misogynist (I
have never discriminated against anyone on such grounds. Live and
let live, I say.)
NO: I'm not opposed to sex in Who
because I'm a sad anorak who's never even kissed a girl, let
alone slept with one! (Not guilty on both counts!)
NO: I'm not a sad Young-Conservative-type who
opposes change per se. (I'm actually rather
liberal-minded! Peace, man!)
I just believe Dr Who should be kept the way
it is. If you want to make it a vehicle for gay-rights or equal
oppotunities for women, then fine - these causes deserve
attention. Just don't call it Doctor Who - and why?...
The argument for such elements runs something along these lines: since feminism/race issues/homosexuality/drugs/sex/abuse etc. are part of everyday normal life, why not reflect this realistically in Who?
It would be a fair point, were there not a tradition of 30 years of setting aside reality instead of highlighting it. I mean, if we're seriously to consider realistic inclusion of so-called 'PC' issues, should we not also consider that the Dr is himself highly suspect, seeing as he travels alone with a variety of very attractive young women and occasionally young boys. Should not every right-minded thinker be calling out "pervert" and insisting that he be put on lists of suspected paedophiles?
Seeing as the Doctor is now half human apparently (which seemed pretty obvious to me anyway from his conduct, whether or not the point offends your sense of canon) he doesn't even have the defence that he is "alien" and therefore our normal sexual rules wouldn't apply to him. In fact, were he not to make a move on any one of those assistants thoughout his many hundred years of life, we might also conclude that the Doctor was gay himself. What red-blooded half-human hetrosexual could really resist making a pass at Leela dressed in leathers or Peri in one of her clingy leotards?! Certainly not me (and I'm only quarter-human)!
Of course such speculation is spurious,
because the issue was never raised. And WHY? Because our everyday
reality has always been kept at a safe distance in Who, and
should continue to be, IMHO!
There'll always be a market for original-style Doctor Who. Sure, changes occurred with every new actor or producer, but the ethos remained constant, and that's what mattered. With the right backing behind it, I'm certain it could rise to the fame it enjoyed in the Seventies. Why try to go that bit further and make it appeal to a mainstream sci-fi audience by compromising a tried and tested formula?
Who was ever about wobbly sets, cliched lines, quirky humour and a shoe-string budget. That was was set it apart from the rest - the stories simply had to be good or it would have just gone under like any other second-rate sci-fi programme. But to class it as "sci-fi" is to limit it (and this is the main mistake my care-too-muchs make)! To take it off on an agenda of "adult" sci-fi is to deny all other aspects of the programme. Who wasn't just a sci-fi series, it was theatre, a childrens' programme, a detective series, mystery, horror, period drama... so much more. Let's not justify liking Doctor Who in terms some allogorical, philosophical or moral fable, or try and pretend it is ground-breaking science fiction - moments are, but the vast majority isn't. Just enjoy it for what it was - damn good TV for kids of all ages!!
So now you see where our audio plays are coming from. Yes - they're written totally to a cliched format, but one I know us old-school fans will like. If you don't like them, then fine - pop off and visit Kate Orman's site or something - I know she has plenty of alternative ideas! But for those of you who like their Who unadulterated, we hope we are providing some enjoyment for you! (Why, even the acting is of such low standard as to be authenic!!) Howard, January 1998.
