From: ph9991_manfr@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: Doctor Who Script...
Date: 5 Jan 93 04:35:27 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - River Falls

> I personally have no objection to this particular script being
> reviewed.  It would certainly make a change from the biased and
> illiterate judgements tossed off on here, not one backed up by
> anything resembling an arguement.  Without exception, they displayed
> a critical ability that ranged from zero to zilch.  No one has to
> like what I do with a particular script, but is it too much to expect 
> that those intent on rubbishing a work at least give reasons why they 
> do so?

OK, I'll do so.  I didn't do much of this when you first saw me initially
deride it, and this was because the subject came up (discussions only)
some months ago and I went into more detail then.

There were two major faults.  One, it wasn't faithful to the "spirit" of
the original series, and two, I felt much of it was retreaded material seen
before in the series past or in other series past.

Here are some examples of what I mean:
To Point One:  the introductory scene.  Whilst the Doctor dressed as a 
prostitute is an amusing idea, it is only amusing to those of us who know
the Doctor well and see how out of place this is for his character.  To any
members of the audience new to him (like the majority of Americans), this
will be their first look at the great Doctor, and I don't think it would
really impress them.  This also brings up a bit for Point Two, i.e. having
an alien on Earth in Victorian London being Jack the Ripper.  This was an
idea used in a somewhat poor episode of the original "Star Trek" series.
Back to Point One:  Gallifrey seemed to be used as Galactic Police Precinct
Twenty-Six, in total variance with their non-interference directives and
laws seen in the show.  If my memory serves, they actually call the Doctor
in and send him on a mission like a detective gets a murder case to deal
with. 
A problem that somewhat crosses the two is the villains obsession with finding
a TARDIS Time Rotor, and in fact the entire Universe's familiarity with
the existence of the Time Lords (something Eric Saward did in a few TV serials
as Script Editor that I didn't really care for either).  Past continuity
in the series tells us that the Rotor (which is also a rather silly name for
it if you ask me, I prefer Christopher Bidmead's name, i.e. "time column")
isn't that essential.  Far more essential would be your own invention of
the time/space element in the base of the console from "Arc of Infinity."
Perhaps that's a nit-picky point, but I do have some better ones.
Two things about it actually disturbed me.  One was the companions gunning
down villains left and right and the Doctor not saying a word about it,
like "put that gun down."  Guns are not the Doctor's style at all.  The only
time he's ever used them is against either inanimate objects or a couple
Daleks, and I seriously doubt the Doctor would allow such behavior in his
companions.  
The other disturbing thing is the scene where the villainess asks the Doctor
to think about what they could have had together, and he seems to indicate
he actually gave it some thought.  
Another problem the script had was the constant location-hopping.  Two stories
in Who's past do a lot of this, and both really suffer for it in their
stories, those being Terry Nation's "The Keys of Marinus" and "The Chase."
The problem is we don't get a chance to get to know the inhabitants.
One of the *major* strengths of "The Keeper of Traken" is the quite wonderful
characters and how they fit into their setting.  If a story changes location
every third or fourth scene, how can we possibly get to know and like or hate
the people the Doctor meets?  
Whilst the endless possibilities of travel in the TARDIS are no doubt very
tempting when you have a large budget at your disposal, but I think it can
easily be abused.  One or two changes in the story can be good, as in
Eric Saward's "Earthshock" or in your own "Arc of Infinity," but do it too
often and tension, suspense, and above all character detail suffer.
I'll mention Point Two a little again, namely the scene where the primitive
people in the temple see the Doctor and immediately want to sacrifice him
to their god.  Let me think of the TV stories that have used this device...
"Death to the Daleks," "Meglos," "The Masque of Mandragora," "The Curse
of Peladon," "Planet of Fire," and probably many more.

I was very shocked and appalled when I read this script, or rather when I 
read the first third of it (I didn't finish it, sorry), because it seemed
to do everything I was always glad "Who" didn't do.  One problem I haven't
mentioned is I thought the dialog was cliched but I can't give examples
since I don't have a copy to quote from.  And what really amazed me was that
your name was on it.  I couldn't believe that one of my favorite of recent
writers for the television series could be associated with something I 
considered to be so bad.  For a very long time when this came up I would
say I doubted it was the real script, that my cousin who had bought it had
been conned at the convention ($15 for a xerox is a ripoff any day of the
week I suppose), and thus you know why I said the script "didn't read like
a professional script" when this whole problem on the Net started.  It was
because I didn't fully believe it was the real thing. 

Having said all this, I will point out again to the Net at large that I now
accept that this was an early draft, and therefore not in the final form
for the movie, nor will it ever be since it has been long abandoned.  
I also suspect that a lot of the "spirit" I complained about would have
been readded in later stages once an American financier that thought it was
getting a Sylvester Stallone movie would have been worked out (but again,
that Sly thing is probably another unsubstantiated rumor).
Therefore, all this criticism is, as you said, a moot point since it will
never come to fruition.

But I would like to know one thing....what do *you* think of that script?

Now having said all that, and being sick of tearing you down, what would
you say to my doing something positive with regards to your work for a 
change?  
I'm on break for the next two weeks and I have time to write up for the
Net another one of my "plot synopses" that describes in fairly good detail
the events that occurred in a story, for the benefit of anyone on the net
who hasn't seen that particular story.  The most recent one I did was in
November for the incomplete Hartnell story, "The Tenth Planet." Before that
I did many of the Seventh Doctor's stories, as many stations in the US
have not purchased his stories due to the high cost BBC Lionheart is 
charging.  
I'd kind of like to make all this nastiness up a little by possibly doing
a synopsis of "The Keeper of Traken," but I won't if you say "don't do it."
I can email you a copy of one of my older ones if you want to see if I'm
any good at it or not (or if you have a genuine interest in one of those
stories).  
> 
> As for the appearance of another one who doubts my identity; it seems
> that a pattern is emerging with these perennial doubting Thomas's. 
> It could be that the degree of doubt is directly proportionate to
> their degree of credulity.  In other words, they fatally believe too
> much - or too little, which makes them painful in the extreme to
> endure.
> 
> Happy New Year.
> 
> Johnny Byrne

With a hat tipped in farewell,
Steven.K.Manfred

"Don't you ever get tired with always being right," asked Dayna.
"Just with the rest of you being wrong," answered Avon.