Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2022 21:10:18 GMT
I think 87-89 is much better than the Davison/Baker stuff personally. The show felt so modern in the later years and I think JNT, Cartmel and most people behind the scenes really had a vision for the show. JNT gave new, talented people their chance during that period. The script editor and arguably the best writer of that era now write their own successful book series which tells you something. John also brought in ambitious composers like Mark Ayres and you'll notice the music during Season 26 is far better sounding than anything heard before.
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Jul 27, 2022 22:39:02 GMT
I must confess I'm less of a JNT defender these days, as much as I love the McCoy era. While much of season 18's humourlessness is down to Boring Bidmead, he played up to the worst aspects of fandom by putting the boot into the Williams era (very unprofessional) which is far superior to his own, and ditching Romana in favour of the Terrible Trio was a true WTF decision (though, to give him credit, it's down to him overruling Bidmead that we got the Decay we did instead of a no doubt boring shite version) and once Romana goes, I'm sorry but the companions largely suck until Ace and I do find the Davison era very colourless and dull with a few exceptions like Earthshock, Five Doctors and Androzani. And yes, that coat was a massive misjudgment. 80s Who is still better than most New Who but I do far prefer 60s and 70s Who these days. Pretty much sums up my opinions. 80s Who is still Who, unlike the revival, but it's certainly a lot more ropey than the 60s or 70s. Whilst those decades have got shit stories the same way every show does, the 80s has two crappy seasons, 23 and 24. Again I think that in terms of quality Classic Who is kind of like Buffy and Angel in that. Buffy season 1 = 60s Who, both great beginnings, set up so much lore, monsters, but are maybe a bit more of their time than what comes after. IE both make references to 60s and 90s culture, try and get down with the kids LOL, but not in a way that ever completely dates them. Both are quite charming in a way because of them. Buffy seasons 2 and 3 = Pertwee and early Tom Baker era. The best era and the most popular with everyone, fans, critics, audiences. When the shows were riding high in every way. Buffy season 4, Angel season 1 = Williams era. Popular, but controversial for similar reasons in that some fans feel this period was too light hearted compared to the angsty, edgy previous eras, and are sometimes looked down on. Though at the same time, lots of people LOVE them for the fact that they are light hearted. Both also contain two of the most popular individual stories. City of Death, and Hush. Buffy season 5, Angel season 2 = Peter Davison. Both seen as a return to form at the time for taking things more seriously and both were quite shocking and brutal, like Adric and Buffy's mothers death. However both were also controversial in some ways, as many see this as when the cracks started to show. JNT getting self indulgent, soap opera taking over Buffy, the beginnings of Connor with Darla etc. Buffy season 6, Angel season 3 = Season 22. Both represent a controversial period for the same reasons. Both try and be dark and edgy, by having the main characters do awful, out of character, hideous things that make it hard to get over. The Doctor chokes his companions, Angel tries to kill Wesley (who also kidnaps his son.) Willow flays a guy and Buffy and Spike have a sado masochistic relationship and he tries to rape her! Lots of fans hate them for that reason, but there are lots of people who appreciate the darker tone and some stories and episodes like Holtz, the musical and Revelation from this time are praised. Buffy season 7, Angel season 4 = Trial of a Time Lord. Both the low points of their respective seasons, and for the same reasons. All three seasons try to do this big epic story that lasts a season, which is never a good idea as if you don't like that story, the whole season is a write off. Also in all three cases the story arc is crap. It's one that can't last a whole season. Buffy's is basically just "it's a big fight." The trial is just the same every episode. The valeyard says "the doctor did this he is an arsehole let's hang him!" Angels is made up as it goes long and in all three cases, behind the scenes shit further f*cks them over. Joss fires Cordelia, Sarah Michelle Gellar quit, and Saward threw a tantrum and stopped them from using his ending, thus all endings are rush jobs after having the arse dragged out of them for ages. (Also the way two of the stars Colin Baker and Charisma Carpenter were treated, was so cowardly, unprofessional, and vindictive and in both cases f*cked them over for years afterwards it leaves a really unpleasant taste in your mouth going forward.) Angel season 5 = Sylvester McCoy era. Both of the producers, Joss and JNT have been humbled by their shows being cancelled, almost cancelled, and both just sit down and do a good series again. There is a bit of a ropey beginning as they try and figure out the new setting, Doctor, but once they get their groove both of these eras are a real return to form and contain some of the absolute best work either franchise did and end both series/franchises on a high. A large part of True Who and Buffy/Angel's reputations rest on how good their endings are in the coming decades. You'd be amazed at how important an ending is for a tv show. Compare Blake's 7 and Game of Thrones. One is still respected 40 years on, even with all the bad effects whilst the other is sneered at, largely because of how they ended. Sadly however I can't see DW going out on a high this time, with the number 1 Amy Winehouse hater and the legendary Beep the Meep followed by the radical, new fresh, Fitzroy Crowd' exciting new take on the show. |
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Jul 28, 2022 3:07:57 GMT
I have very mixed feelings on JNT. I don't think he was a very good producer. Most of his seasons come off as tacky and unapproachable (if you compare the direction and cinematography of the average Davison story to earlier Who, it's night and day), and the overemphasis on continuity in seasons 21-23 didn't help matters. I'm also a bit disappointed over his decision to fire Dudley Simpson. Why fire him in the first place? They could've just had him score a lesser number of stories per season. But on the other hand, seasons 18, 25 and 26 prove that with the right script editor, JNT could produce good work. And of course, he did end up sacrificing his career to keep the show on air. Oh don't get me wrong I'm not saying you can't dislike JNT lol. Sorry if we sometimes come over as too cliquey that way. I just think that fandom on average tend to single him out for his bad decisions more than other producers. For instance, RTD doesn't get any flak for stunt casting, when his was worse than JNT's. Similarly people go on about his continuity references when Moffat did that to a far worse extent than JNT ever did. (not singling you out here Rushy LOL, don't worry as I know you can't stand Moffat, though if you did that you would be fine, again just talking about fandom in general.) Even when compared with other producers of the classic era he sometimes gets it worse. Barry Letts for instance overused the Master, and brought back returning enemies yet never gets the flak for it that JNT does. Also other than the strangling bit I also don't see Colin being more violent in season 22 than Tom Baker was in say seasons 12 and 13. How is the acid bath (which was an accident) worse than tossing Greel into a machine that slowly eats him away to nothing? Or tossing a guy into a shredding machine? Or poisoning Solon? Stunt casting has honestly never bothered me, with one solitary exception being Beryl Reid in Earthshock, who is just comically out of place. It doesn't matter who's in the show so long as they play their part well. A good example of JNT stunt casting was Ken Dodd as the Tollmaster. It's just a kooky character, and he was a kooky actor to play him as far as anyone outside the UK would be concerned. Yeah, Moffat has been almost completely ruined to me. I can still watch his early episodes, but there's no escaping the sheer egotism that pervades every aspect of his writing after the 2000s. At some point, he went from being a praised heartfelt writer to a jester who'll do anything to justify a cheap gag. Barry was much better at reintegrating the old villains in a natural way, I think. They'd have some new unique role (Ice Warriors), or the storyline would be good enough that the villains almost get overshadowed (Day of the Daleks). In any case, it was a lot better than JNT's tactic of "here's Omega, still doing his old Omega stuff". It also happened only once or twice per season, not practically all the time like seasons 20-23. The Master's extended presence can be justified by him still being a new villain at that time, and the electric dynamic between Pertwee and Delgado. Six's reputation for violence is probably related to Six's unsympathetic personality, and the way Saward tended to revel in the cruelty of his villains. Saward seemed to keep confusing Doctor Who with Blake's 7 (ironically, Bob Holmes probably made the most Blake's 7-esque Doctor Who story with Caves of Androzani). |
|
|
|
Post by cyberhat on Jul 28, 2022 15:52:53 GMT
RTD has no right to complain about JNT. Stunt casting he does all the time. Panto? Farting aliens would be too lowbrow for most panto's. Someone in charge who's out of control? Ha! He doesn't even have much room to complain about Gary Downie's shenanigans considering the behind the scenes stories that have come out about New Who.
I'm not a huge JNT fan either, but that's only in comparison to previous producers. In comparison to what followed he was like a living God of telly.
|
|
|
|
Post by cyberhat on Jul 28, 2022 15:57:00 GMT
Yeah, Moffat has been almost completely ruined to me. I can still watch his early episodes, but there's no escaping the sheer egotism that pervades every aspect of his writing after the 2000s. At some point, he went from being a praised heartfelt writer to a jester who'll do anything to justify a cheap gag. Moffat is a case of there being nothing more dislikeable than someone desperate to be liked. It seems to inform everything he does. Which is why he's so terrified of anything he considers unfashionable, like old telly, that might affect his social standing. |
|
|
|
Post by Spark Doll King on Jul 30, 2022 14:28:25 GMT
RTD has no right to complain about JNT. Stunt casting he does all the time. Panto? Farting aliens would be too lowbrow for most panto's. Someone in charge who's out of control? Ha! He doesn't even have much room to complain about Gary Downie's shenanigans considering the behind the scenes stories that have come out about New Who. I'm not a huge JNT fan either, but that's only in comparison to previous producers. In comparison to what followed he was like a living God of telly. For all his flaws I feel JNT did understand Doctor Who better then any modern show runner. While not all of his risk taking paid off, you can’t deny that he oversaw three very distinct era of the show, rather then the cavalcade of “same shit, different wrapper” Nuwho keeps devolving into. |
|
|
|
Post by cyberhat on Jul 31, 2022 1:03:29 GMT
Good point Johnny, JNT got that DW is an evolving show. New Who has been stuck in the same ever decaying rut for almost 20 years. "If it aint broke, don't fix it. Oh it's broke? Still don't fix it."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2024 9:12:05 GMT
Just saw this. I'll admit his contribution to the show is over-egged, but he was right about JNT. He needed to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Jul 17, 2024 9:40:19 GMT
“I don’t know what hold John-Nathan Turner has on Michael Grade.”
With all due respect, what the f uck is he on about? Is he high? Shouldn’t the situation be reversed? In what scenario did JNT have more power than Grade?
JNT initially fought back against Grade after the initial hiatus period, but later capitulated to his claims about “violence” in the press. He had no power over him, and certainly not financially given that Grade ostensibly cut the budget in half after Season 22.
The amount of absolute rubbish regularly espoused about this period of the programme is positively baffling. Does no one do any research…?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Jul 17, 2024 10:03:39 GMT
Re- violence and Season 22. How is it any different to The Brain of Morbius or The Seeds of Doom?
Tom’s Doctor murders Solon with cyanide despite being in an altogether different room (contrary to Shockeye, merely metres away and planning on stabbing him whilst wounded), kicks the living shit out of several of Chase’s henchmen whilst touting a gun (all whilst quipping in the process- “I win!”), makes macabre jokes about “heads, or their absence”, borders on snapping Scorby’s neck…
And Solon blows Condo’s guts out on screen, which is markedly more graphic than anything in The Two Doctors- not least because it’s less of an overt black comedy. And don’t get me started on the “acid bath” myths proliferated over the years about Varos…
As far as I can ascertain, the main reasons Colin Baker’s Doctor is singled out for being “violent” are:
1. His character arc beginning with The Twin Dilemma- in which he gradually mellows- never came to full fruition. Thanks to a certain someone who Newman ironically commends in the linked video…
2. The programme’s prior association with violence and horror- regularly brought up in News Bulletins and documentaries up to 1977 (typified by Whose Doctor Who, a fascinating watch)- dissipated after Whitehouse’s demands were meekly accepted in 1977. Although not necessarily a bad thing, the programme became more humorous and/or (as happened later) conceptual as opposed to visceral, and the transition back to violence and horror clearly jarred with some. If broadcast in 1976 (and with the same confidence from the BBC as then), it may have been a different story.
3. Colin Baker happened to be the Doctor during the hiatus period. Ergo, justifications were sporadically paraded in the press for the cancellation after Grade was heavily (and rightly) scrutinised. Latching onto “violence” was something Grade realised would give him moral cover, and given JNT’s subsequent capitulation, few voices challenged this within the contemporary orthodoxy, and certainly not the critical orthodoxy since. As such, it became largely accepted, despite very few batting an eye in Season 21 a year earlier…
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2024 11:41:54 GMT
I love the violence in season 22 tbh, and generally how nasty and austere the stories are. But Davison's run is a complete miss for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Jul 17, 2024 11:50:44 GMT
Guy was an idiot who used John as a scapegoat. He didn't he like the Daleks until they were successful. I have no interest in anything he said.
|
|
|
|
Post by iank on Jul 17, 2024 21:16:12 GMT
“I don’t know what hold John-Nathan Turner has on Michael Grade.” With all due respect, what the f uck is he on about? Is he high? Shouldn’t the situation be reversed? In what scenario did JNT have more power than Grade? JNT initially fought back against Grade after the initial hiatus period, but later capitulated to his claims about “violence” in the press. He had no power over him, and certainly not financially given that Grade ostensibly cut the budget in half after Season 22. The amount of absolute rubbish regularly espoused about this period of the programme is positively baffling. Does no one do any research…? I had some complete gibbering moron on YT the other week insisting that JNT prevented the show from coming back till after he was dead. Some people are f*****g insane. |
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Jul 17, 2024 21:33:45 GMT
I had some complete gibbering moron on YT the other week insisting that JNT prevented the show from coming back till after he was dead. Some people are f*****g insane. Completely. “JNT deliberately and knowingly made Season 24 crap”. “Season 22 saw an unprecedented ratings decline and the worst audience share ever.” (We’ll ignore the decline between The Massacre Episodes 1 and 2, or the one during Frontios, or in Seasons 6 and 7 as they progressed, or elsewhere…) “Season 22 was too grisly and horrible. The Doctor would never kill anyone with Cyanide or shoot a Cyberman up close!”. (The Brain of Morbius and Earthshock aren’t canon, don’t you know!) “JNT had a hold over Michael Grade and stopped him from doing his rightful duty.” One doesn’t need to personally like JNT or his era- or wholeheartedly embrace every creative decision made from 1980-1989- to avoid constantly proliferating shaky statements with little foundation in fact. I don’t understand it. Speculation as to what may have happened behind the scenes based on inference backed up by evidence or indication is one thing. Distorting the programme’s track record and making dubious claims about viewing figures and data- which are freely available to the public- is another. |
|
|
|
Post by RobFilth on Jul 22, 2024 5:11:06 GMT
Six's reputation for violence is probably related to Six's unsympathetic personality, and the way Saward tended to revel in the cruelty of his villains. Saward seemed to keep confusing Doctor Who with Blake's 7 (ironically, Bob Holmes probably made the most Blake's 7-esque Doctor Who story with Caves of Androzani). There's a good reason for that, by the late 70's Blakes 7 had firmly stolen Doctor Whos thunder. What had once been an essential watch became shunned by school kids for Blakes 7 purely for the reason that they considered it "more adult", whereas Doctor Who had given up it's mantle of "teatime terror telly" to become a parade of ever more absurd looking monsters and the Tom Baker and K9 comedy show. It was for the first time considered purely "a kiddies show". When Blakes 7 bit the dust, it looked like there was a market back open for Doctor Who again, but only IF taken seriously once more. Saward recognised this and attempted to make the show "more adult" again with lots of mercenaries, violence etc. How successful he was in this endeavour is debatable, but he was merely attempting to win the original audience which had drifted off to Blakes 7 back again. Season 22 and the Doctors character really isn't any more violent or ruthless than Tom Bakers Season 13 which is often seen as one of the highest peaks of the Classic Series. JNT's biggest mistake was repeatedly announcing his intention to retire from Season 20 onwards, it turned fandom against him by creating a far more critical eye to his output than would otherwise have existed. He should have also really left and resigned in protest when Grade first put the boot into the programme and put it on hiatus. Had he done so, the resulting fan outrage at the hiatus would've pressured Grade to bring him back again(after finding that no one else was prepared to produce it), and JNT might have found himself in a position to call the shots rather than rollover to Grades demands of neutering and sucking all life from the programme. It was a mistake and his inability to resign which allowed others to invent this damaging mythology about JNT and the hiatus afterwards. If JNT had left, when originally announced, at the end of Season 20 or even 21, I think he would be looked upon and regarded more like Barry Letts. |
|
