From: sarah@micom.com (Sarah Menolly)
Subject: Re: What happened?
Keywords: Underpinnings, cultural, opinions...
Organization: Micom Communications Corp., Simi Valley, Ca.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:03:21 GMT

In article <15116@umd5.umd.edu> jblum@hamlet.umd.edu  writes:
>In article <1992Aug23.202359.19420@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>>a) "Bad" Dr. Who would certainly be worse than none at all; b) I think
>>you fail to realise that Dr. Who is a quintessentially *English*

I agree. One of the strengths of Dr. Who is that is gives U.K.
cultural exposure. Many of our various beloved actors have not been
British, but the writing and production that controlled gave the show
a sense of reality. A sort of "hey, British humour isn't quite as
awful as I've been lead to believe" intimation.

>>Letting anyone else do Dr. Who
>>would be to produce an entirely different show.

Maybe. Depends on whether or not they showed enough insight to
do research and/or get a cultural/technical advisor. I would hate
to see The Doctor show up as a local wannabe yuppie, (perhaps that's
why Colin Baker's Doctor grates!), and Greatest Show In The Galaxy
had quite enough of the American hippies. So did Paradise Towers.
No, thank you. I much prefer seeing The Doctor (in any incarnation)
battling with the Brigadier (in whatever incarnation :). Unless they
went back to UNIT and set up its American counter-part (along the
lines of the Andromedra Strain outfit and the Wildfire team), I really
don't think that it could work. American "lack" of culture would
work against us, and the show. And yes, I *am* American, born and
bred for many a generation. Just a bit older in viewpoint...

>Lest we forget, one of Doctor Who's strengths has always been that every
>few years, it is "an entirely different show".

Not quite. The underpinnings of the show remain stable. The actors may
come and go, but the form of humour and writing we've all come to
adore remain steadfast.

>Also, "bad" Doctor Who is a definition which changes with time.  Remember, 
>"The Deadly Assassin" was widely panned by fans when it first appeared.

This is not "bad", this is a change in ethos. "Bad", as far as I'm
concerned, is epitomized by ST:TNG as opposed to ST:TOS. Sure, Kirk et al
had cheesy episodes, but the humour and writing were there. Today's
series has, for the past five years, left me with an absence and a
feeling of "when are they going to move?". TNG is a committee, and
as such is going nowhere very slowly. Many say this represents the
"emotional maturing process". I disagree. TNG, for me, shows decline
rather than growth. Dr. Who has consistently grown, from one actor
to the next, with some backslides, but "what's the use of growing up
if you can't act childish, now and again?" <chuckle...>

>What are the limits on this special time period?

Not a time _period_, but a nation, its pride and its culture.

>If so, that's a criteria broad enough to be
>meaningless, considering the huge differences in social class, background,
>and surrounding world of those people.

Why? The Doctor deals with all, being the penultimate embodiment of
a hope for the future -- being non-judgemental of any one/being, respecting
all forms and stages of life in its miraculous multiplicity with acceptance and forebearance. I don't think Americans are yet ready to show that underlying
current. We just aren't old enough.

Well, I've said my say, and by the way, Hello! I'm new to this group.
:-)!
Sarah
sarah@micom.com   or   sarah@menolly.sr.com
"Civilization. The death of dreams."  Dr. McCoy, "The Prime Directive"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho