From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (andrew david simchik)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: Seventh Doc Quality
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:33:48 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Nov5.123123.262@rivers> ph9991_manfr@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu writes:


>Perhaps if I explain a little something, it might serve to help explain
>why the McCoy stories took the direction they did, and explain why Ace
>seems to be so popular.

>in the late Eighties, or perhaps even before that, the economic and
>social situations in the UK deteriorated to a great extent, and they are
>still pretty bad.  The McCoy stories reflect the pessimism the entire
>country had/has about life in general.  
>the reason Ace is doing so well amongst the fans, particularly those in
>the UK it seems, is that she's real.  Her cynicism and "attitude" is I'm
>sad to say all too common in Great Britain today, and because Sophie 
>Aldred played this part so well, Ace became for many the most identifiable
>companion to date, i.e. the people watching the show could empathize with
>her background and the tough times she had as a kid, that have formed
>her attitudes towards the world.  
>"the Happiness Patrol" is the most directly satirical of all the McCoys about
>the Conservative government itself, and in a way so is "Paradise Towers."
>"Silver Nemesis" features a guest appearance by two Skinheads, 
>in "Ghost Light" we learn of the racism inflicted against one of Ace's
>friends when both Ace and she were still quite young, and "Survival" is
>a philosophical argument about not just the deteriorating civilisation
>in Great Britain, but also that of the world in general.

It's all very nice to be socially relevant, and indeed that does help my
opinion of the stories a bit, but it fails to increase my enjoyment of them. 
So whether or not they are a reflection of the times, they are still
entertainment, and failed to entertain me like the early stories did.  There
is something to be said for creating a separate world, a self-contained
mythos, which was what I liked about Dr. Who.

>> 
>> FX: whatever you say.  The key word there was "significantly."
>> 
>> Sets: of course they've always been on video.  But they worked better on
>> video before.  I thought I was watching Blake's 7 at times, for schnopia's
>> sake; Blake's was terrific but embarrassingly low-budget.


>OK, whatever you say here too, but what did you think of all the location
>work?  McCoy has no less than four all-location stories under his belt,
>and a bunch of others with good hunks out on location.

The location work was nice, I must admit.  What hunks?  Did I miss them?  ;)

>> 
>> See, original style is OK but one of the nice things about Dr. Who always
>> was that although lots of different writers and producers worked on it, they
>> maintained a baseline upon which they improved in their own ways.  But what
>> I really meant by style was writing style.  See below.


>Yes, and they had one, and if perhaps you haven't been following recent
>events in the UK you missed it, and that was a cynicism towards the England
>of today that pretends to be the England of the past.
>Sinead O'connor once put it like this: "England's not the mythical land
>of Madame Georgian Roses, it's the home of police who kill black boys on
>mopeds..."  (or something like that)

I said "improved."  Again, I don't equate sociopolitical relevance with
quality of writing.  I've read some really awful stories that were just
bursting with relevance.

>That theme of anti-racism and anti-establishmentism was all over the place
>in the McCoy era and had a modern twist to it all with an almost scarily
>dark stripe of cynicism under it all.

Scary was right...McCoy's stories were nothing if not creepy.  Perhaps the
major problem I had with them was that I *couldn't* relate, as I live in
America and we have a different (but no less scary) atmosphere here.  Dr.Who
was accessible to everyone in the past; the danger of becoming too relevant
is that you lose some of your audience...in this case, me.

>> 
>> 
>> "Curse of Fenric" was just too busy.  An ancient evil, WWII, Viking myths,
>> even vampires--the focus was not tight enough to hold these elements in
>> check.  In fact, most of the Seventh D's episodes were "too busy."  One
>> aspect of writing involves simplification and specific plotting; once you
>> put too much in or overgeneralize your story suffers.  And so does the
>> audience.  As a writer I speak from experience.  Also, again, the acting and
>> the moments (like the two vampire girls attacking their guardian) were
>> really cheesy.  Ugh.  This episode should have been three or four different
>> stories.

>Well, I've written a fair bit too, and I know what you mean.  
>"Fenric" was right on the edge of having too much in it, and in a way
>this was hampered by the time constraints.
>The extended video release, where about six or seven minutes of cut footage
>was added, does I think help this problem quite a bit, and also provides
>more background detail about the Haemovores than the transmitted version.

I'm not sure a mere six or seven minutes could help, but then you've seen it
and I haven't.  Apart from that, I just didn't like any of it.  Personal
preference, of course.  But if you're into that sort of thing, I suppose it
was fairly likeable.

>> 
>> "Survival" wasn't too bad, all things considered.  But the Earth didn't seem
>> real, as it always has in Dr. Who.  Even the extras were better in the
>> Pertwee days.  The Master's menace was diminished (Mark of the Rani started
>> this downward trend in his ability to scare us--he was better in Trial of a
>> Time Lord, fortunately).  A bit more coherent than the others, but still not
>> well directed or written.


>Again, this is a Britain quite a lot different and more depressing to live
>in in the late Eighties/early Nineties than it was in the Pertwee or
>Tom Baker eras.

Too right.

>> THOSE BOOSTER ROCKETS MISFIRED.  THE QUALITY DID NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO
>> PRECEDENTED HEIGHTS.  I'm sorry, but I laugh at the notion that any of the
>> goofy stories McCoy was stuck with even came *close* to, say, "The Talons of
>> Weng-Chiang," or "The Time Monster," or any of Davison's first few episodes. 
>> There's just no comparison.  I mean, yeah, Sly is a goofy guy, but if he
>> needs stories that stupid to be the Doctor then maybe it's time for a new
>> regeneration.
>> 

>"Talons of Weng-Chiang" drags and is guilty of racism against the Chinese.
>"The Time Monster" is quite good until the end of episode four.  As soon
>as we got to Atlantis, the show's quality level dropped like a lost
>continent, with hideous acting, atrocious dialog, and badly designed and
>badly lit sets.

I did consider the racist element in "Talons," which is (relevance!) a
result of the non-pc times.  It's also a fantasy situation.  As a bisexual,
I was not offended by Basic Instinct merely because it was just a fantasy,
and not presented as reality by any stretch of the imagination.  "Talons" is
not my favorite story, but I would hardly say it "drags."  It's typical
Robert Holmes stuff and is quite rich.  I suppose compared to fluff like the
atrocious "Delta and the Bannermen" it drags.
As for "Time Monster," which is (again) not my favorite episode either,
well, nobody's perfect.  I liked the way characters played off the Master in
it, however.
Suppose I throw some of my preferred episodes at you: "City of Death,"
"Keeper of Traken" right through to "Earthshock" (noting particularly the
sublime "Black Orchid"), "Enlightenment," "Curse of Peladon," etc.?


>>>> 
>>>> Andrew D. Simchik
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>Steven.K.Manfred  (no longer going to put used to be Iain after these things)
>> 
>> 
>> It seems that you and I shall never agree.  Isn't this fun?  :)

Drewcifer (ADS)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho