From: prisoner@infopls.chi.il.us (Pat Mondi)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: Jnt, john peel, pip a
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 18:15:25 CST
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r

	<You Said:>

 Ra> I have a few questions that require strong opinionated criticism(and
 Ra> probably some more debate).  The three groups of questions refer to
 Ra> John Nathan-Turner, John Peel, and Pip and Jane Baker.

 Ra> I have noticed, that although JNT HAS produced a number of VERY
 Ra> good Dr. Who episodes, it seems to me that he kind of wrecked the
 Ra> series, also.  Tom Baker episodes were usually fantastic(in my
 Ra> opinion), but we have to remember that in Tom Baker's era, the only
 Ra> acting we saw was basically theatrical/stage.  This is because of the
 Ra> lack of special effects technology at the BEEB and lack of funding for
 Ra> them.  Tom and Co. were forced to lay the acting on thick to make
 Ra> everything convincing. Peter davison era, on the other hand, was
 Ra> less concerned with stage performances, and more concerned with just
 Ra> plain good stories.  I give JNT an ENORMOUS amount of credit for his
 Ra> participation during this era. If you look at the Colin Baker era,
 Ra> though, one tends to see Dr. Who in a different light.  It seems
 Ra> "cheaper" as the on-location stories begin to peter out more and most
 Ra> of it is done on-set.  The music, also, had a LOT to do with the fact
			   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
			   YES! The music SUCKED!			

	Take a look at Attack of The Cybermen: Great idea, poor acking, GOOFY 
MUSIC! Look at Terror Of The Vervoids (Trial part 3.): Fairly good story, 
GOOFY MUSIC! The scene that got me was when Mel was climbing a ladder or 
something, and some high pitched zylaphone was playing. The Director, I suppose, could be at fault and not JNT,
could be at fault, but JNT should've said SOMETHING! Frankly, that music belonged
ed in a cartoon!
		<Some Stuff Deleted>

 Ra> This brings me to my next area: Pip and Jane Baker.  Now it
 Ra> seems to me, that every show I've seen of theirs produced is TERRIBLE! 
 Ra> I can't think of ONE show that I liked.  The books are not SO bad, but
 Ra> seeing them on cheap sets and actually hearing the jokes spoken instead
 Ra> of reading them and letting the imagination run drops the level from
 Ra> amusement to pity.  It also seems k\like they got one small idea(like
 Ra> "Hey!  Let's make a planet with vandals running around trying not to
 Ra> get caught and since they should be a little primitive, let's make them
 Ra> say silly things!") and based a story around it.  No REAL plot, no
 Ra> underlying sub-plots that The Doctor might not even know about, just a
 Ra> beat-em-up, kill some time kind of thing.  Even the Valiard ending was
 Ra> pretty far out on a limb.  I'm wondering if ANYONE out there liked Pip
 Ra> and Jane, or even thought that they were even CLOSE to being "good
 Ra> enough" to write for Dr. Who.  My opinion is flexible and I can be
 Ra> peruaded.  I also wonder if anyone agrees that the shows are even WORSE
 Ra> than the books.(?)   
			Right On!  P&J Baker were terrible. I'm sorry to say,
 but their crap was horrible! Stuff like theirs may have contributated to 
the shows temparary demise.


 Ra> And finally, my last area: John Peel.  Now I know a LOT of people
 Ra> like John Peel, so I'll try to be as gentle as I can.  Personally, I
 Ra> think he sucks.  All of his books are alike, and he writes, speaks, and
 Ra> treats us like he is the sole "CANON" or "official" source to rely on. 
 Ra> I don't think that his books have any substance, and Genesys I thought
 Ra> could have been left out of the series altogether.  Revelation was
 Ra> good, but he didn't write that.  The whole idea about the Doctor
 Ra> erasing Ace's memory, the bad lines and concepts, the added personality
 Ra> because he can't remember how to redirect the TARDIS controls and all
 Ra> of that was plain silly.  It also seems like he has some sort of
 Ra> serious sexual problem.  He is always stripping down the female
 Ra> compainions, always making people swear, and a million other Dr. Who
 Ra> additions that JUST AREN'T DR. WHO!  His book, The Baker Years, was a
 Ra> great source of information, but it was also a great source of
 Ra> unwarranted gossip.  It made Tom Baker sound like a drunken junkie who
 Ra> didn't know sh*t from shampoo.  He says that Tom is his favorite
 Ra> Doctor, but also says that ALL of the stories sucked, that Tom can't
 Ra> act, and that all of the shows were held together, or I guess
 Ra> "carried", by some guest actor who did a FABULOUS job.  Gimme a break. 
 Ra> Sounds like he jumped on the bandwagon and said that Tom was his
 Ra> favorite Doctor because that's what he believes is the majority of the
 Ra> population's opinion  and wanted to sell a book.  I'm afraid to read
 Ra> his other "Season" books.... 

	Boy, you've got it every time! Peel was really horny when he wrote 
Timewyrm: Genisis. He's got a great story, but then has Ace become a little
nudist, Gilgamesh putting his mouth where it's not supposed to be, etc. that 
you allready mentioned. I wonder how his wife feels! He is a brilliant writer,
but if he'd stick to the story, his writing would be much better. But, for those
of you who LIKE his writing, ask yourself one question: Does the extra scenes
help the show as a whole? I don't think so. Anyone not familiar with Doctor Who
and buys Timewyrm: Genisis is not going to be impressed with Doctor Who. 
Doctor Who is supposed to be and always shall be an exciting, entertaining
programme, not the way John Peel writes.

				-Timelord Pat

... The NEw adventures series: Ya, now their being a Educational Drama!
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10