The success of New Who: Debunking a myth

Not a fan of Resurrection at all (barring maybe one or two individual scenes).

Misanthropic, incoherent, nasty, pointless. It's pretty much the worst of Saward.

Saward himself called it the ‘worst Doctor Who story ever written’, so you’re not alone there. I’m not really a fan either- the script doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense, the acting is generally shite, and as you say, there is a certain pointlessness to it all. I like Terry Molloy as Davros, but he was frankly much better utilised in Revelation.

Agreed, I loathe it.

Well, you're all wrong.

Don’t get me wrong- it’s still better than Journey’s End.

The turd I had trouble flushing down the bog this morning is better than Journey's Bellend.

Which is amusing, given that I reckon that Journey’s End isn’t even the worst Dalek story ever. That would have to go to The Magician’s Apprentice, I’d say- even if Journey’s End’s script doesn’t remotely function at all, it wasn’t quite as offensive or dull as that.

That episode was insultingly smug. “Of course the real question is where did I get the cup of tea? Answer? I’m the Doctor. Just accept it.”

That was basically Moffat breaking the fourth wall and telling the audience how they don’t deserve to be treated with any respect.

Commander Maxil Gale wrote:That episode was insultingly smug. “Of course the real question is where did I get the cup of tea? Answer? I’m the Doctor. Just accept it.”

Ugh.

Bernard Marx wrote:That was basically Moffat breaking the fourth wall and telling the audience how they don’t deserve to be treated with any respect.

Quite. Moffat's level of respect for the show, the people who made it and the audience is made quite clear by the fact that he unashamedly turned the entire series into the Curse of Fatal Death. Which he wrote as a SPOOF.

Tanmann wrote:Not a fan of Resurrection at all (barring maybe one or two individual scenes).

Misanthropic, incoherent, nasty, pointless. It's pretty much the worst of Saward.

"Nasty, brutish and short"? Perhaps that was Saward's point.

UncleDeadly wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:That was basically Moffat breaking the fourth wall and telling the audience how they don’t deserve to be treated with any respect.

Quite. Moffat's level of respect for the show, the people who made it and the audience is made quite clear by the fact that he unashamedly turned the entire series into the Curse of Fatal Death. Which he wrote as a SPOOF.

Absolutely spot on. It's been a budgeted version of said spoof since 2005, albeit with an added pomposity (though I still admit to liking series 5).

Tanmann wrote:Not a fan of Resurrection at all (barring maybe one or two individual scenes).

Misanthropic, incoherent, nasty, pointless. It's pretty much the worst of Saward.

I always found Resurrection to be a wasted opportunity as had it been written better, it could have been a classic return to form for the Daleks. Yet sadly we ended up with another 'Earthshock' clone.

Sorry if this post was off topic, I just wanted to throw my two cents in.

You’re not wrong there. Nothing in Resurrection’s plot seems to come together, and it does seem desperate to emulate Earthshock’s success, albeit with Daleks instead of Cybermen. There’s some dreadful dialogue as well, “I can’t stand the confusion in my mind!”.

Mercury wrote:

Tanmann wrote:Not a fan of Resurrection at all (barring maybe one or two individual scenes).

Misanthropic, incoherent, nasty, pointless. It's pretty much the worst of Saward.

I always found Resurrection to be a wasted opportunity as had it been written better, it could have been a classic return to form for the Daleks. Yet sadly we ended up with another 'Earthshock' clone.

Sorry if this post was off topic, I just wanted to throw my two cents in.

I liked Earthshock, but it was very much a one-trick formula and mostly owed its success to Grimwade's direction and energy.

Resurrection's problem however was I think it was more that Saward was trying to top it than copy it, trying too hard to up the bodycount in backlash against how he thought Season 20 had been too bloodless and talky, and ended up with too much going on for its runtime. And it's such a ferocious backlash against both Season 20 and the Williams era, that it's a bit of a murky task figuring out what the story is meant to actually be for.

UncleDeadly wrote:

Tanmann wrote:Not a fan of Resurrection at all (barring maybe one or two individual scenes).

Misanthropic, incoherent, nasty, pointless. It's pretty much the worst of Saward.

"Nasty, brutish and short"? Perhaps that was Saward's point.

Tbh, I've seen darker content in the show handled better.

The only bit that got to me was the zoom into the guy's disfigured face during the prison ship battle in part one. It just felt like something that shouldn't really be there.

Bernard Marx wrote:Nothing in Resurrection’s plot seems to come together,

There is a part in John Tulloch's "Science Fiction Audience" where several interviewed Australian fans lament JNT's decision to do away with anything longer than a four-parter. Saying that it was too restrictive and limiting when stories aren't allowed to be their natural length anymore.

They pointed out that Talons would never have worked as anything but a six parter, that a longer version of Logopolis could've done a lot more with Nyssa being manipulated by the Master impersonating her father, and likewise a longer Kinda could've explored more of the story's anthropological themes.

I don't know if Resurrection would've benefited from an extra episode or two, but it certainly feels crammed with too much incident for its length, with much of it resolved either in frustrated overkill or Attack of the Cybermen having to inherit its leftovers.

and it does seem desperate to emulate Earthshock’s success, albeit with Daleks instead of Cybermen.

Thinking about it, I think it's very much a case of Resurrection copying Warriors of the Deep copying Earthshock and then trying to chuck in a huge bunch of extra story ideas.

The problem I have is that if the Daleks (and their human mercenary grunts) are just here to follow the same model as the Cybermen and Sea Devils in those prior stories, whilst the Doctor's being out of his depth *again*.... well frankly it ends up in a way making the Daleks no longer anything special if they're just interchangeable with any other monster against a weak Doctor with the same foregone downbeat conclusion.

There’s some dreadful dialogue as well, “I can’t stand the confusion in my mind!”.

The nadir for me is Styles belly-aching over having to wear her protective mask after we've seen what horrors the Daleks' nerve gas can unleash.

And yet she says "So what? I'd rather die quickly than slowly of dehydration."

It's often the apathetic delivery that kills the lines too.

Tanmann wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:Nothing in Resurrection’s plot seems to come together,

There is a part in John Tulloch's "Science Fiction Audience" where several interviewed Australian fans lament JNT's decision to do away with anything longer than a four-parter. Saying that it was too restrictive and limiting when stories aren't allowed to be their natural length anymore.

When did these Australian fans acknowledge as such? Was it prior to or after season 21? And what was JNT's reason for disposing of six parters, exactly? Was it to enable space for an additional story within a season story slot, or did he simply assume that they were typically padded out? I'd argue that every seven parter in Who history has been brilliant, and that a significant number of six parters were great (The Power of the Daleks, The Faceless Ones, The Web of Fear, Fury from the Deep, The Mind of Evil, The Sea Devils, The Seeds of Doom, The Talons of Weng-Chiang etc.), though there seems to be a notion within certain subsections of fandom that longer stories were merely full of padding. And I assume JNT listened to said complaints, given that The Two Doctors was the approximate equivalent of a six parter- or would it have been that length regardless?

Tanmann wrote:They pointed out that Talons would never have worked as anything but a six parter, that a longer version of Logopolis could've done a lot more with Nyssa being manipulated by the Master impersonating her father, and likewise a longer Kinda could've explored more of the story's anthropological themes.

I don't know if Resurrection would've benefited from an extra episode or two, but it certainly feels crammed with too much incident for its length, with much of it resolved either in frustrated overkill or Attack of the Cybermen having to inherit its leftovers.

What I found distinctly poorly written was how the story concluded with the Dalek Supreme declaring that duplicates were installed all over Earth, only for the Doctor to immediately dismiss the plot point with a throwaway line. So why introduce it in the first place? I wonder if an extended version would explore that further...

and it does seem desperate to emulate Earthshock’s success, albeit with Daleks instead of Cybermen.

Tanmann wrote:Thinking about it, I think it's very much a case of Resurrection copying Warriors of the Deep copying Earthshock and then trying to chuck in a huge bunch of extra story ideas.

The problem I have is that if the Daleks (and their human mercenary grunts) are just here to follow the same model as the Cybermen and Sea Devils in those prior stories, whilst the Doctor's being out of his depth *again*.... well frankly it ends up in a way making the Daleks no longer anything special if they're just interchangeable with any other monster against a weak Doctor with the same foregone downbeat conclusion.

I can't deny that- Resurrection does come across as a better produced and directed version of Warriors, upon further consideration. I think it worked for fandom at the time (indicated by it surpassing The Caves of Androzani as the best story in the season 21 poll), though mainly due to the Daleks being presented as a newfound threat after said threat was watered down in Destiny of the Daleks (a story I personally enjoy more than Resurrection anyway). I think that when one strips away the kill-count, largely good direction and the presentation of the Daleks, there isn't really anything to the story at all.

There’s some dreadful dialogue as well, “I can’t stand the confusion in my mind!”.

Tanmann wrote:The nadir for me is Styles belly-aching over having to wear her protective mask after we've seen what horrors the Daleks' nerve gas can unleash.

And yet she says "So what? I'd rather die quickly than slowly of dehydration."

It's often the apathetic delivery that kills the lines too.

That's an awful moment as well. As is the unintentionally hilarious "We are defenceless!". I think she says "painfully of dehydration" instead of "slowly", which makes it even more absurd (being killed by nerve gas is bound to be an insufferable, agonising and "painful" experience, surely?).

Bernard Marx wrote:When did these Australian fans acknowledge as such? Was it prior to or after season 21?

I think it was before then, and certainly they were speaking against the grain at the time when JNT was seen as a saviour by a largely anti-Williams fandom. It was DWAS president David Saunders and ADWFC president Tony Howe and his secretary Kerry Dougherty who said a lot of this.

And what was JNT's reason for disposing of six parters, exactly? Was it to enable space for an additional story within a season story slot, or did he simply assume that they were typically padded out?

I think it was a mixture of both. In-fact I think he had the idea back in Season 18 that a story should play out over a particular month, and so four episodes was the ideal length. This was of course before the show got moved to its twice-weekly slots in the Davison era, meaning that four-part stories were over twice as quickly, and I think at some point between Season 18 and 19, he got reduced by two episodes a season and so had to include a two-parter.

I'd argue that every seven parter in Who history has been brilliant, and that a significant number of six parters were great (The Power of the Daleks, The Faceless Ones, The Web of Fear, Fury from the Deep, The Mind of Evil, The Sea Devils, The Seeds of Doom, The Talons of Weng-Chiang etc.), though there seems to be a notion within certain subsections of fandom that longer stories were merely full of padding.

I agree. However, when JNT took over, the most recent six-parters, The Invasion of Time and Armageddon Factor I don't think had entirely worked and were a bit difficult to get through. So I can somewhat sympathize with JNT thinking six-parters were giving the show over to too much slack and it was worth trimming that fat.

But as you say, it ended up rather throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

And I assume JNT listened to said complaints, given that The Two Doctors was the approximate equivalent of a six parter- or would it have been that length regardless?

It could've been, but I sense it was more that because of the 45 minute format they were trying that season, and because there was an extra episode to use, it was seen as simpler and better to make The Two Doctors a three parter, than do a single standalone 45 minute story with no cliffhanger moment.

What I found distinctly poorly written was how the story concluded with the Dalek Supreme declaring that duplicates were installed all over Earth, only for the Doctor to immediately dismiss the plot point with a throwaway line. So why introduce it in the first place? I wonder if an extended version would explore that further...

Hmm, that didn't bother me too much. I got the sense the duplicates were only really as dangerous as their Dalek controllers instructed them to be, and that with the Dalek Supreme destroyed, and the time corridor link severed, the duplicates would get no orders and do no damage.

But thinking about it, you're right that it does feel like something the story should've threaded as a threat and part of the Daleks' masterplan far earlier on rather than just pull it out of its arse at the last minute.

I can't deny that- Resurrection does come across as a better produced and directed version of Warriors, upon further consideration. I think it worked for fandom at the time (indicated by it surpassing The Caves of Androzani as the best story in the season 21 poll), though mainly due to the Daleks being presented as a newfound threat after said threat was watered down in Destiny of the Daleks (a story I personally enjoy more than Resurrection anyway).

Well I'd agree with you there. Destiny definitely has a lot more charm and sense of fun and coherence than Resurrection.

To be honest, the first time I saw Resurrection aged 15 (when it was a rare find on video), I was left losing heart in it quite quickly, and in considering myself a fan anymore really.

I think that when one strips away the kill-count, largely good direction and the presentation of the Daleks, there isn't really anything to the story at all.

Sums up the 1980's era really. For all its going to extremes and excesses, it still somehow managed to often feel hollow and bland.

The one thing I will say is that it was originally meant to close out Season 20 but got postponed due to strike action, and in hindsight, Season 20 does feel somehow oddly incomplete without it.

I think she says "painfully of dehydration" instead of "slowly", which makes it even more absurd (being killed by nerve gas is bound to be an insufferable, agonising and "painful" experience, surely?).

It certainly doesn't inspire you to care much when she is killed off.

Tanmann wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:What I found distinctly poorly written was how the story concluded with the Dalek Supreme declaring that duplicates were installed all over Earth, only for the Doctor to immediately dismiss the plot point with a throwaway line. So why introduce it in the first place? I wonder if an extended version would explore that further...

Hmm, that didn't bother me too much. I got the sense the duplicates were only really as dangerous as their Dalek controllers instructed them to be, and that with the Dalek Supreme destroyed, and the time corridor link severed, the duplicates would get no orders and do no damage.

But thinking about it, you're right that it does feel like something the story should've threaded as a threat and part of the Daleks' masterplan far earlier on rather than just pull it out of its arse at the last minute.

My main issue with this plot thread is that it amounts to absolutely fuck all by the end, yet should have been integral to the narrative. This isn't the only plot point which is established and then casually dismissed, but it's one that personally stuck out on my last viewing.

I think that when one strips away the kill-count, largely good direction and the presentation of the Daleks, there isn't really anything to the story at all.

Tanmann wrote:Sums up the 1980's era really. For all its going to extremes and excesses, it still somehow managed to often feel hollow and bland.

The one thing I will say is that it was originally meant to close out Season 20 but got postponed due to strike action, and in hindsight, Season 20 does feel somehow oddly incomplete without it.

I disagree that it sums up the entirety of the 1980s, though. Season 18 is quite conceptual, especially in the case of Warriors' Gate, and more can be discussed about the story's structure and motifs with its key influences in mind. I think that seasons 25 and 26 have quite a few interesting and thought-provoking features to them too (Greatest Show serving as a rather brilliant meta-commentary on the state of Who at the time, etc). Though I'll agree that particular subsections of the 1980s, specifically the Davison era and Trial season, do come across as meandering and directionless for much of it.

Are you aware if there were any major edits to the story at hand when it was transferred to season 21?

Bernard Marx wrote:A modernised version of the Hinchcliffe era would probably be very successful today, considering the examples you mentioned. Although I wouldn’t hold said examples to such a high standard, given that Game of Thrones completely sullied its reputation during its appalling eight and final season (the series had been in decline since season 5, in fairness, though 6 was a brief improvement), and The Walking Dead has been shit since about halfway through season 4 (though I’ll admit to not really rating the programme very highly during season 1 anyway).

If Doctor Who was removed from the influence of the BBC, and had competant writers behind it who weren’t burdened by either blatant ignorance or self-loathing fanboyism, it could probably thrive. Perhaps it shouldn’t be run by fans at all, given the negative impact such influences have had on the programme since 2005- it should theoretically be run by clever and experienced writers with no particular bias towards the brand akin to the original series (Levine’s influence during the early-mid 80s aside).

I'm no great fan of the Walking Dead. Its very unoriginal and bland, but my point was that younger audiences seem to prefer darker, more violent and gritty genre series.

Things like Xena and even to a lesser extent Buffy that are quite camp are looked down on. I'm not saying that's right, I love both shows, and I'm sure the pendulum will swing in their direction again. (It tends to swing both ways.) However right now dark and scary is the preferred style. This is probably why Classic Who smashes New Who on DVD every year (among young people most of all.)

With this in mind a modern day Hinchcliff style would work really well IMO, more so than trying to emulate Buffy and Xena.

TBH though I don't think camp ever worked for DW. Classic DW is not actually camp. Yes by modern standards some of its villains look silly, and some of the acting is over the top, but the show always took itself seriously.

Even in the Williams era, the likes of City of Death are still serious stories, with the odd witty line or joke.

Camp IMO is like Lost in Space, or Xena or yes even Buffy at times, where you do intentionally funny stories like a musical, or vegetable people, or a loan shark who is an actual shark!

Classic DW however was never like that. A cheap looking monster isn't the same thing. Even a hammy villain like Morgaine from Battlefield isn't the same thing either. The Chase I suppose is the only time pre New Who it went for that and it didn't work then either.

Bernard Marx wrote:I disagree that it sums up the entirety of the 1980s, though. Season 18 is quite conceptual, especially in the case of Warriors' Gate, and more can be discussed about the story's structure and motifs with its key influences in mind. I think that seasons 25 and 26 have quite a few interesting and thought-provoking features to them too (Greatest Show serving as a rather brilliant meta-commentary on the state of Who at the time, etc). Though I'll agree that particular subsections of the 1980s, specifically the Davison era and Trial season, do come across as meandering and directionless for much of it.

That's true enough. Bidmead did seem to have a deeper vision for the series for his one season.

Cartmel likewise.

Saward I'm not sure he really did, and so his era seemed to be more decided and dominated by Ian Levine's vision of the show than anything. So basically it just became hollow fanservice with a dose of misanthropy (which certainly seemed to be something Cartmel was keen to get the show away from and back on track).

To my mind it's a damn shame Saward didn't leave on The Five Doctors and Cartmel didn't replace him sooner.

Are you aware if there were any major edits to the story at hand when it was transferred to season 21?

The only ones I'm aware of are that Tegan's departure wasn't in the original version, and apparently the Dalek Supreme was meant to be gold.

I also believe Terry Nation wanted Saward to make Davros's fate more ambiguous to leave open the option for his return, hence the line about the escape hatch before he unleashes the virus.

I want to add some support for Resurrection.

To admit its flaws, yes it often misfires when attempting to copy the success of the Earthshock style and action. There's a very clumsy flashback sequence featuring old companions when Davison's Doc is strapped to the table for a quick mind probe - just why do the sixties companions have to appear so jarringly in black and white? Earthshock handled its flashback clips much more effectively. And ok it's all a bit confused and rushed so perhaps some of the more effective moments are undermined - for instance the glib resolution of concepts like Dalek duplicates being strategically placed on Earth - surely a thread that could and should have been picked up in a future Dalek story?

Nevertheless I think the Daleks here at least behave much more in character than in their previous story, Destiny, when they'd been for the most part reduced to a rather feeble shadow of their former menace - 'If you're supposed to be the superior race of the universe, why don't you try climbing after us. Bye bye!' By contrast, the plot of Resurrection may indeed be cluttered but the sheer insanity of the Daleks' hatred is always manifest - 'Everything in the warehouse must be exterminated – including Lytton and his troops!' They certainly seem to be attempting too much at once in this story including even a plot to assassinate the Time Lords' High Council no less. But compared with any 'New Who' Dalek stories this is a masterpiece!