Could Saward have departed on a better note than Trial?

Even Eric himself has lamented that the Trial season was probably a bad note for him to leave on. That it wasn’t a creative high-point for him, nor a pleasant experience that yielded any worthwhile rewards. And of course it culminated in an emotional implosion with JNT in which Saward ended up pretty much torching his own career with his emotive Starburst expose, which marked him out as too untrustworthy to employ anymore in the BBC.

It is, in its own way, quite sad. He has said in hindsight that he wished he’d left on Revelation of the Daleks, and infact he’d considered leaving at the time, between the hiatus, only to fear that given the suspension crisis, it would look cowardly of him to abandon the show in a lurch. I guess he’d say he stayed for the wrong reason there.

Some might even wonder though, based on that Starburst interview, why he even stayed half as long as he did.

So what do you say would’ve been better for him or the show, out of the listed options?

Androzani. I think he should have departed with Davison.

Pepsi Maxil Foley wrote:Androzani. I think he should have departed with Davison.

You gone a bit off Season 22 lately, Maxil?

Tanmann wrote:

Pepsi Maxil Foley wrote:Androzani. I think he should have departed with Davison.

You gone a bit off Season 22 lately, Maxil?

I really like Attack and Revelation, but The Two Doctors bored me a bit when I watched again and Timelash has lost a lot of its magic for me. Varos is just shite. Season 21 is the superior of the two for me now.

I voted 'should've left on The Five Doctors'.

For the most part my position is a mixture of 'he should've only been a guest writer', and 'he could've done better under a different producer'.

I think The Visitation and Earthshock were a cut above for Season 19, and demonstrated he could be a decent action-thriller writer.

The problem is when he became full time script-editor, he started to get lost in the show's lore and ethical pretensions (perhaps from spending too much time around Ian Levine) which he was never equipped to properly handle. He also probably was a bad fit for JNT's more limiting, fannish vision and petty dictations, and he seemed to get a macho complex about proving the show could be more adult, by turning it into an adolescent, mean-spirited Blakes 7 wannabe.

Season 20 was a depressing shambles, but that we got Enlightenment and The Five Doctors was down to Saward discovering Barbara Clegg and fighting for bringing back Terrance Dicks against JNT's reluctance, so I'd like to have kept him on to that point.

Aside from Caves of Androzani, I don't think there was a story in Season 21 that wasn't made worse by his nihilistic rewrites. At the same time there were submissions by Christopher Bailey and Barbara Clegg that season which were probably more deserving of being televised but never saw light of day thanks to his neglect.

And whilst I do like Revelation of the Daleks, as I discussed in a recent thread, I think it was a story where the kids were very much left behind.

Season 24 *does* feel missing something without him, but with Remembrance of the Daleks it becomes clear the show could've outgrown the need for Saward long ago.

As for New Who, for all the rubbish it's given us, the early Eccleston era was, in my opinion, a necessary reformation of the show from the depressing suicide cult it had degenerated into on Saward's watch. So I'd say no to bringing him back. Plus his recent Resurrection novelization was crap.

Tanmann wrote:Plus his recent Resurrection novelization was crap.

I would go as far as to say it's probably the worst target novel I've ever read.

Pepsi Maxil Foley wrote:

Tanmann wrote:Plus his recent Resurrection novelization was crap.

I would go as far as to say it's probably the worst target novel I've ever read.

It's certainly grossly uneven.

For the first few chapters it seems like it's going to take shape into being one of the best. And then it all just goes wrong like he gradually stopped caring.

Tanmann wrote:And whilst I do like Revelation of the Daleks, as I discussed in a recent thread, I think it was a story where the kids were very much left behind.

I’m not sure if I can necessarily get behind that notion, given that I really liked it even as a kid, although I suppose it has grown on me to an even greater extent as I’ve got older.

Bernard Marx wrote:

Tanmann wrote:And whilst I do like Revelation of the Daleks, as I discussed in a recent thread, I think it was a story where the kids were very much left behind.

I’m not sure if I can necessarily get behind that notion, given that I really liked it even as a kid, although I suppose it has grown on me to an even greater extent as I’ve got older.

I think I might've *gotten* it more as a kid, if the Doctor had been more proactively involved and was able to shed more light on the disparate events by acting as a linking device I could latch onto.

Tanmann wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:

Tanmann wrote:And whilst I do like Revelation of the Daleks, as I discussed in a recent thread, I think it was a story where the kids were very much left behind.

I’m not sure if I can necessarily get behind that notion, given that I really liked it even as a kid, although I suppose it has grown on me to an even greater extent as I’ve got older.

I think I might've *gotten* it more as a kid, if the Doctor had been more proactively involved and was able to shed more light on the disparate events by acting as a linking device I could latch onto.

I don’t think I ever really saw the Doctor’s lack of involvement as a major issue. I wouldn’t say it compromises the strength of the overall narrative or script as a whole from what I can decipher. I tend to view that as a rather trivial issue as a whole, although I suppose I can understand an audience desiring the perspective of an outsider as to shed light on proceedings earlier on as you say. There is some rather good world building in episode 1, though, regardless of the Doctor’s lack of involvement.

That being said, the Doctor and Peri are indeed completely oblivious to the events at hand throughout the entirety of that first episode, so I see your point somewhat. It just never really occurred to me as being a significant flaw per se.

Saward shouldn't have left, he should've been made producer and had Terminator-esque high body counts every single story.

Grade is the one who should've been fired for talking a load of Mary Shitehouse bollocks in the first place.

I voted for Revelation. He had an uneven in places, but mostly good run at that point.

Despite his dislike for Colin, his style suited Colin quite well in his first year, but as the 6th Doctor became a more positive character, we would have needed some levity to the show again. Not to Williams era humour, but I'd say more like the Hartnell era, IE it can be gritty and violent if need be, but there is more of a sense of wonder to the adventures as opposed to Colin's first year where it is just bleak.

To be honest though I was tempted to say he should only have been a guest writer.

I do like all of his stories for tv, but I don't think Saward really had a good understanding of the character of the Doctor or the series. He was the most ill fitting person involved in the classic era. The proof of that is how much he shunted both of his Doctors to the side.

burrunjor wrote:I voted for Revelation. He had an uneven in places, but mostly good run at that point.

Despite his dislike for Colin, his style suited Colin quite well in his first year, but as the 6th Doctor became a more positive character, we would have needed some levity to the show again. Not to Williams era humour, but I'd say more like the Hartnell era, IE it can be gritty and violent if need be, but there is more of a sense of wonder to the adventures as opposed to Colin's first year where it is just bleak.

To be honest though I was tempted to say he should only have been a guest writer.

I do like all of his stories for tv, but I don't think Saward really had a good understanding of the character of the Doctor or the series. He was the most ill fitting person involved in the classic era. The proof of that is how much he shunted both of his Doctors to the side.  

Yeah- I think I agree with this assessment overall. I too voted for Revelation- had he left at that time, the absolute chaos that occurred behind the scenes of Trial would have been softened somewhat (and I can see that Starbust interview being considerably less scathing without the crisis of Trial foremost in Saward’s mind), and the story itself was a good one for him to go out on.

I voted for Caves. Simply because he had no faith in Colin's Doctor and had no interest in writing for his new leading man. Also by this time he knew how frustrating working under JNT was, his dreadful ideas for costume and stories were getting worse.

Personally I would have written my resignation letter the moment he knew Colin Baker was cast, and handed it in when I saw the costume.

I think-

hang on a second.







Sorry, I was just serving a customer. As I was saying, I think Trial is probably the worst thing ever made next to Resurrection of the Daleks. You can't blame me, though. The blame must fall upon Donald Cotton, John Nathan-Turner, Ian Levine, Barbara Clegg, Glen McCoy, Walt Disney, Michael Jackson and Steve McClaren. They all ruined my vision.

Eric Saywhaaat? wrote:I think-

hang on a second.







Sorry, I was just serving a customer. As I was saying, I think Trial is probably the worst thing ever made next to Resurrection of the Daleks. You can't blame me for their shittiness, though. The blame must fall upon Donald Cotton, John Nathan-Turner, Ian Levine, Barbara Clegg, Glen McCoy, Walt Disney, Michael Jackson and Steve McClaren. They all ruined my vision.

Hello Eric!, I was just watching you on that there youtube talking to Matthew Sweet about your novelization of Rev and I have to ask, what's it like being the campiest straight man in history?

Yeah, Revelation. It's clear his heart wasn't in Trial.

He was an unfaithful crybaby. I hope he had fun stacking shelves in Tesco while John and Andrew were kicking some major arse in 1988. He could have been apart of something magical if he hadn't thrown all of his toys out of the pram.

The Brigade Leader wrote:I voted for Caves. Simply because he had no faith in Colin's Doctor and had no interest in writing for his new leading man. Also by this time he knew how frustrating working under JNT was, his dreadful ideas for costume and stories were getting worse.

Personally I would have written my resignation letter the moment he knew Colin Baker was cast, and handed it in when I saw the costume.

That's certainly a valid point, but a part of me has wondered if he really thought Colin was crap, and wasn't maybe just venting at Colin Baker who in his mind was part of JNT's clique (as far as he was concerned) in that infamous Starburst interview.

He never had any problems working with Colin, and whilst he did sideline him, I think a part of that was just his misunderstanding of the Doctor in general. (For instance he sidelined Peter.)

Added to that he did praise Colin's performance on the Trial DVD. He talks about how Colin's performance as the brainwashed Doctor was very good.

Added to that his reasons for not liking Colin are very vague and don't make sense. He lacks the eccentricity for the part? Seriously? He's too much of a character actor? What like Pat Troughton, William Hartnell, Jon Pertwee, Tom Baker?

To me Saward just lashed out at Colin and is too proud to admit it, like he's too proud to take any fault for 80s Who.

He thought Davison was miscast as well!

Why was he working on this show again?

Pepsi Maxil Foley wrote:He was an unfaithful crybaby. I hope he had fun stacking shelves in Tesco while John and Andrew were kicking some major arse in 1988. He could have been apart of something magical if he hadn't thrown all of his toys out of the pram.

He could only really have been part of something magical if JNT had sodded off in 1982, and been replaced by someone far less petty or stifling, who actually allowed him to bring back older writers that the show badly needed.

burrunjor wrote:I do like all of his stories for tv, but I don't think Saward really had a good understanding of the character of the Doctor or the series. He was the most ill fitting person involved in the classic era. The proof of that is how much he shunted both of his Doctors to the side.

I would offer the caveat that I think he was only ill-fitting in as much as that he didn't fit that particular production team, but then that production team itself was particularly anomalous to the classic show. I don't think Saward would've presented near the same problems under Letts, Hinchcliffe or Williams.

But because JNT could be especially difficult and petty, Saward's writing could often take more of a turn for the worst in frustration, as though determined to double-down on his violent excesses in rebellion or desperation.

(it might indeed be that both men were in their own ways promoted too soon and brought a lot of insecurities with them from that)

Like I've often said, good creative teams help filter out each other's worst ideas and creative instincts. JNT and Saward frustrated and embittered each other into doubling down on them instead.

Saward was someone who clearly needed inspiring by older writers like Robert Holmes, but that was something JNT was absurdly opposed to allowing back. You can see by Revelation of the Daleks that Saward's writing was much improved by taking pointers from Holmes, and he feels a more confident writer for it, whereas say back in Warriors of the Deep, Saward was producing his worst writing because he wasn't confident, and only had Ian Levine to take pointers off, and the results spoke for themselves in their slavish desperation.

I like to think maybe, had JNT left at the end of Season 19, and Saward had been able to bring writers like Holmes and Dicks back sooner, then I think we would've seen more magic and growth from Saward quicker. Furthermore, Holmes was a writer who could make the Doctor interesting. So I think Saward would've liked the Doctor a lot more if Holmes was more instrumental in shaping his character in a way Saward could understand, latch onto and find merit and potential in.

Tanmann wrote:Saward was someone who clearly needed inspiring by older writers like Robert Holmes, but that was something JNT was absurdly opposed to allowing back. You can see by Revelation of the Daleks that Saward's writing was much improved by taking pointers from Holmes, and he feels a more confident writer for it, whereas say back in Warriors of the Deep, Saward was producing his worst writing because he wasn't confident, and only had Ian Levine to take pointers off, and the results spoke for themselves in their slavish desperation.

He DOES realise Johnny Byrne wrote "Warriors" doesn't he?

Personally I think Saward fucked up badly with that utter shite "City Of Death" which he wrote myself.

He should've been sacked on the spot, frog marched out the BBC and tarred and feathered for that one.

What a cunt.

Let me just agonise about that one for decades on end boring everyone shitless on public forums.

It works for some.

Is Rob still trying to get my attention?