Jan
2
This isn’t the official SciFiNow review of The End Of Time. That has been assigned to our resident Who genius, Andrew Rilstone, and you will all be able to read his thoughts on it in the next issue of the magazine. I don’t doubt that he will have enjoyed the seasonal specials more than myself.
As a rule, I don’t like the voice of our magazine to contradict itself. On team, we share very similar tastes but when we don’t agree we endeavour to maintain a front that is at least consistent; you might notice that we don’t, for example, alter our original review scores for a film once it has been released on DVD. So please forgive this column as an exception to our rule; again, this is merely my own opinion and not that of the magazine’s. It exists merely because I feel compelled to express my thoughts on the end of Russell T Davies’ successful Who run, and I feel so compelled because, well, I thought it was bloody awful.
Firstly, context: my personal expertise lies in sci-fi cinema and American comics. I don’t protest to have a firm grip on the intricacies of Who’s past as I’m sure Mr Davies does and as I know Mr Rilstone does. I have tried on several occasions to better relate to Who but I simply feel that it isn’t for me. But then I suppose that the genre jewel in the BBC’s crown wasn’t ever supposed to be for anyone who can recite every line from Verhoeven’s RoboCop. When I have watched the programme I found it to be overly silly, horribly cheap, strangely derivative and, despite a terrific cast, full of irritating performances. Indeed, it comes as no surprise to me (in fact, quite a relief) to hear Russell T Davies frequently refer to the show as something children will enjoy. Of course, he has never explicitly stated, at least to my knowledge, that it is only for children but certainly for me they have always seemed to be the target audience. I genuinely feel as though Doctor Who wouldn’t be out of place on CBBC. And while it might be no bad thing to make a show for a younger audience, I hope my implied criticism is understood as intended.
To summarise: I don’t like New Who, so please bear that in mind if you choose to read on.
The End Of Time was a poorly written, poorly acted, poorly directed television special. It would be unfair to the countless other TV programmes we, as an audience, regularly review to label it as anything else. I could not, in good conscience, sit here and write that it comes anywhere close to the likes of Caprica, Supernatural or V – all flawed shows – in terms of quality. It is not enough to say that it is Who and therefore incomparable to anything else or by any other standard: it is science fiction television that, if we are to accept it as not just a children’s show, must be judged in relation to other mainstream science fiction TV shows. It is our duty as critics, and as members of a wider SF community, to recommend that which we feel deserves to be. I recommend you watch and debate Caprica, I recommend you watch the first five seasons of The X Files, I recommend you see Firefly (instantly if you haven’t already, and again if you have), I recommend you watch Red Dwarf I-VI. I recommend that you don’t see The End Of Time.
The End Of Time begins with very serious characters warning other serious characters that something very serious is about to happen. It’s all very serious. More experienced/cynical/hardened sci-fi viewers will instantly recognise what’s actually going on: nothing. If a story’s characters spend most of their time hyping up the story they’re in and the rest of the time explaining what’s going on in the story to each other, then there isn’t a story. The Master, The Ood, The Narrator (who is later revealed to be Double-0 Time Lord) and even The Doctor get in on the act, discussing events past and warning each other about things that will definitely happen, even though they might not. It’s a load of utter nonsense and absolutely not what a good story should be.
The rest of the first half plays out in similar fashion with a great deal of posturing, Zoolander-esque staring and not much else. The story we’re told so much about finally threatens to get going when The Doctor chases The Master, who seems to have turned into Emperor Palpatine (more on that in a bit), but then there’s just more talking about what’s going to happen only with more, even less interesting characters who are determined to add yet more plot. It was at this point that I contemplated making notes, complete with annotated diagram, to make sense of it all but then I realised that I had understood it all perfectly: it really was just that bad.
In truth, my interest did pique a little when The Master turned into everyone but as a result of Davies’ ambition to make his Who swansong The Most Epic Thing Ever this feeling was almost immediately crushed by the introduction of the Time Lords. There is simply no way, I thought, that after an hour’s worth of set-up and forced surprises, Davies can resolve this well. And I was right.
It was always going to be difficult to follow such a big cliffhanger but even I didn’t think Part Two would fail as miserably as this. ‘The Master as everyone’ amounted to bugger all very quickly, not unless you count John Simm talking to himself instead of regular henchmen as thrilling anyway. Clearly Davies had no idea where he was really going with this, just a good idea of where he wanted to be by the end of Part One. The eventual arrival of the Time Lords (with planet in tow) promised a little more but as with so much in The End Of Time, this was soon revealed to be a problem far more easily solved than anyone could have reasonably expected (a bullet to an admirably poorly hidden contraption should do it)… but only after much more talking, naturally.
In the midst of all this plot and disappointment was a moderately ambitious action sequence involving The Doctor, his mates, Starbug and a load of missiles. And I probably would have enjoyed it too were it not for the distracting nods to Star Wars. It wasn’t just here that Lucas’ series is referenced either, but in about four or five other areas. For the life of me I have absolutely no idea why Davies seemed so intent on including these references. If I was more cynical I might suggest that they were only included to imply a depth that really isn’t there at all. It’s a similar thing with the story as a whole too: The End Of Time pretends there’s a lot going on, it tells us there’s a lot going on, but really there isn’t much going on at all, only one or two incidents that are quickly rectified once the buggers have stopped chatting.
Before I get on to the ending of The End, though, I would like to address a defence of Doctor Who that frequently rears its head and will inevitably do so again soon. The defence in question is the one that goes something like this: “But you can’t judge it too harshly as it just doesn’t have the production values of other shows.” My rebuttal: Star Trek. If they could consistently make excellent, exciting sci-fi TV on a shoestring budget back in the Sixties with little more than a cardboard set, fine actors and quality scripts then they should damn sure be able to achieve similar results now. With Who, Davies and his team haven’t, and much of the blame lies at the feet of the woefully loose scripts.
As for The Ending… much will depend on how you felt about the 45 minute final reel of The Return Of The King. I hated it. And it’s not because seeing characters wave to each other while looking a bit weepy is overly sentimental either – it’s because it’s self-indulgent twaddle. Seeing David Tennant’s Who mope about for what seemed to be an eternity is not good drama; it doesn’t matter how talented the actor may be (and, for the record, I think Tennant is a very talented one), characters are best served by story not farewells. I’m sure Davies was aiming for something more than he delivered with this but nevertheless it seemed a strange decision to have such a famously outrageous hero go out on such a pathetic whimper. Sill, at least in this respect The End Of Time was consistent.
Oh, and as for Matt Smith… we shall see. Or maybe, like me, you won’t be bothered.
This isn’t the official SciFiNow review of The End Of Time. That has been assigned to our resident Who genius, Andrew Rilstone, and you will all be able to read his thoughts on it in the next issue of the magazine. I don’t doubt that he will have enjoyed the seasonal specials more than myself.
As a rule, I don’t like the voice of our magazine to contradict itself. On team, we share very similar tastes but when we don’t agree we endeavour to maintain a front that is at least consistent; you might notice that we don’t, for example, alter our original review scores for a film once it has been released on DVD. So please forgive this column as an exception to our rule; again, this is merely my own opinion and not that of the magazine’s. It exists merely because I feel compelled to express my thoughts on the end of Russell T Davies’ successful Who run, and I feel so compelled because, well, I thought it was bloody awful.
Firstly, context: my personal expertise lies in sci-fi cinema and American comics. I don’t protest to have a firm grip on the intricacies of Who’s past as I’m sure Mr Davies does and as I know Mr Rilstone does. I have tried on several occasions to better relate to Who but I simply feel that it isn’t for me. But then I suppose that the genre jewel in the BBC’s crown wasn’t ever supposed to be for anyone who can recite every line from Verhoeven’s RoboCop. When I have watched the programme I found it to be overly silly, horribly cheap, strangely derivative and, despite a terrific cast, full of irritating performances. Indeed, it comes as no surprise to me (in fact, quite a relief) to hear Russell T Davies frequently refer to the show as something children will enjoy. Of course, he has never explicitly stated, at least to my knowledge, that it is only for children but certainly for me they have always seemed to be the target audience. I genuinely feel as though Doctor Who wouldn’t be out of place on CBBC. And while it might be no bad thing to make a show for a younger audience, I hope my implied criticism is understood as intended.
To summarise: I don’t like New Who, so please bear that in mind if you choose to read on.
The End Of Time was a poorly written, poorly acted, poorly directed television special. It would be unfair to the countless other TV programmes we, as an audience, regularly review to label it as anything else. I could not, in good conscience, sit here and write that it comes anywhere close to the likes of Caprica, Supernatural or V – all flawed shows – in terms of quality. It is not enough to say that it is Who and therefore incomparable to anything else or by any other standard: it is science fiction television that, if we are to accept it as not just a children’s show, must be judged in relation to other mainstream science fiction TV shows. It is our duty as critics, and as members of a wider SF community, to recommend that which we feel deserves to be. I recommend you watch and debate Caprica, I recommend you watch the first five seasons of The X Files, I recommend you see Firefly (instantly if you haven’t already, and again if you have), I recommend you watch Red Dwarf I-VI. I recommend that you don’t see The End Of Time.
The End Of Time begins with very serious characters warning other serious characters that something very serious is about to happen. It’s all very serious. More experienced/cynical/hardened sci-fi viewers will instantly recognise what’s actually going on: nothing. If a story’s characters spend most of their time hyping up the story they’re in and the rest of the time explaining what’s going on in the story to each other, then there isn’t a story. The Master, The Ood, The Narrator (who is later revealed to be Double-0 Time Lord) and even The Doctor get in on the act, discussing events past and warning each other about things that will definitely happen, even though they might not. It’s a load of utter nonsense and absolutely not what a good story should be.
The rest of the first half plays out in similar fashion with a great deal of posturing, Zoolander-esque staring and not much else. The story we’re told so much about finally threatens to get going when The Doctor chases The Master, who seems to have turned into Emperor Palpatine (more on that in a bit), but then there’s just more talking about what’s going to happen only with more, even less interesting characters who are determined to add yet more plot. It was at this point that I contemplated making notes, complete with annotated diagram, to make sense of it all but then I realised that I had understood it all perfectly: it really was just that bad.
In truth, my interest did pique a little when The Master turned into everyone but as a result of Davies’ ambition to make his Who swansong The Most Epic Thing Ever this feeling was almost immediately crushed by the introduction of the Time Lords. There is simply no way, I thought, that after an hour’s worth of set-up and forced surprises, Davies can resolve this well. And I was right.
It was always going to be difficult to follow such a big cliffhanger but even I didn’t think Part Two would fail as miserably as this. ‘The Master as everyone’ amounted to bugger all very quickly, not unless you count John Simm talking to himself instead of regular henchmen as thrilling anyway. Clearly Davies had no idea where he was really going with this, just a good idea of where he wanted to be by the end of Part One. The eventual arrival of the Time Lords (with planet in tow) promised a little more but as with so much in The End Of Time, this was soon revealed to be a problem far more easily solved than anyone could have reasonably expected (a bullet to an admirably poorly hidden contraption should do it)… but only after much more talking, naturally.
In the midst of all this plot and disappointment was a moderately ambitious action sequence involving The Doctor, his mates, Starbug and a load of missiles. And I probably would have enjoyed it too were it not for the distracting nods to Star Wars. It wasn’t just here that Lucas’ series is referenced either, but in about four or five other areas. For the life of me I have absolutely no idea why Davies seemed so intent on including these references. If I was more cynical I might suggest that they were only included to imply a depth that really isn’t there at all. It’s a similar thing with the story as a whole too: The End Of Time pretends there’s a lot going on, it tells us there’s a lot going on, but really there isn’t much going on at all, only one or two incidents that are quickly rectified once the buggers have stopped chatting.
Before I get on to the ending of The End, though, I would like to address a defence of Doctor Who that frequently rears its head and will inevitably do so again soon. The defence in question is the one that goes something like this: “But you can’t judge it too harshly as it just doesn’t have the production values of other shows.” My rebuttal: Star Trek. If they could consistently make excellent, exciting sci-fi TV on a shoestring budget back in the Sixties with little more than a cardboard set, fine actors and quality scripts then they should damn sure be able to achieve similar results now. With Who, Davies and his team haven’t, and much of the blame lies at the feet of the woefully loose scripts.
As for The Ending… much will depend on how you felt about the 45 minute final reel of The Return Of The King. I hated it. And it’s not because seeing characters wave to each other while looking a bit weepy is overly sentimental either – it’s because it’s self-indulgent twaddle. Seeing David Tennant’s Who mope about for what seemed to be an eternity is not good drama; it doesn’t matter how talented the actor may be (and, for the record, I think Tennant is a very talented one), characters are best served by story not farewells. I’m sure Davies was aiming for something more than he delivered with this but nevertheless it seemed a strange decision to have such a famously outrageous hero go out on such a pathetic whimper. Sill, at least in this respect The End Of Time was consistent.
Oh, and as for Matt Smith… we shall see. Or maybe, like me, you won’t be bothered.
Our 
provides all the latest Sci-Fi news, reviews, previews, interviews and spoilers, while our 
fan page is the best place to communicate with other fans of the SciFiNow magazine.
provides all the latest Sci-Fi news, reviews, previews, interviews and spoilers, while our fan page is the best place to communicate with other fans of the SciFiNow magazine.
Innteresting take. I know Who definitely isn’t your cup of tea, and indeed you make some valid points, but I enjoyed this special (which made prime time news!) regardless. David Tennant was excellent and carried himself far more like the Doctor I’d have liked to see in last couple of years. As a long time Who fan I was constantly surprised how much thus didn’t feel like new Who and nothing like a Christmas either (bar the last ten minutes of part two). Part one felt more lime old Who in it’s posturing and conversation and as a older viewer I was wondering how the typical younger Who fan or general Xmas TV viewer would sit through it. In terms of recent Who I was far more satisfied by the script and acting. It was more intense and less about light entertainment. There were the usual crap aliens in it like the ‘cactii’ and I too noticed the obvious Star Wars nods, at the heart of the was the climax of the complex relationship between the Doctor and the Master and the consequences of the Doctor’s actions of the TimeWar. As someone who cares about the shows continuity and reverence to classic Who I thought thus worked really well. Just a but heavy for Xmas teatime! One dissapointnent was that Timothy (my fave Bond) Dalton wasn’t in it more as Rassilon. I wanted more Timelord stuff. He oozed presence and without really doing much delivered sheer ‘power’. Overall I was left with a sense of hope for the show. Earlier in the day I watched Girl in the Fireplace and Blink and with Steve Moffatt in charge Im sure we’ll get some weight behind the scripts, and the trailer for the new season seems to promise that. I’ve said before that New Who isn’t aimed at my generation, I can go back and watch old DVDs of Jon Pertwee for that, but for a UK prime time show, it’s fun SF that will bring in a whole new generation of SF fans which can only be good for the genre. I thought that for once this Xmas special bridged the gap between new fans and us oldies and that trailer has made me want to watch more…
bollocks to the new ‘WHO’
why can’t Tennant carry on but in a film version like the late great Peter Cushing.tv to low key for something so grand like the ‘DOCTOR’
I don’t care – I LOVED IT!!! I see what you mean about the green aliens (they weren’t that exciting), but John Simm’s performance was superb as was Bernard Cribbins!! I would have liked to have seen more of Donna though and Timothy Dalton and the Time Lords. And of course David Tennant’s turn was moving! It didn’t have the epicness of Journey’s End though, and the whole Gallefry Planet thing was a little rushed… Still, THAT ending at the wedding had me in tears, as well as seeing all the regulars back at the end! Who would have thought Mickey and Martha! I was confused with Billie showing up until I saw it was 2005, and Jack and Luke were brief but superb! I enjoyed Matt Smith’s turn and the TARDIS… wonder what will happen to it and if we will get a new one!
All in all, it’s certainly not classic New Who, but it was much better than what I was expecting. 4/5.
See, this is the kind of approach I always appreciated from SFN. Simply logical, honest, fearless, and painfully accurate.
Course, no “5 Stars”, no “RTD arselicking”, and “no likening this appallingly amateur dross to the works of Shakespeare”, means SFN will never get those juicy behind-the-scenes snippets from the BBC for the new series! Oh well, I can live with that.
It was quite spooky reading this, I’ve never read another opinion on RTD’s stewardship of Who that mirrored my own thoughts so accurately.
You made a good point about the production values being used as a defence by some. I’d also add that while the classic show wasn’t always punctilious about it’s continuity the producers at the time did at least make an effort in those simpler days, when the likelihood of any Dr Who episode being repeated was about one in ten. Defenders of RTDs frankly lousy writing seem to think that the odd slip in 1971 gives the 2009 writers an excuse to rewrite every aspect of the show to the point where it contradicts itself on a week-by-week basis.
The only part of your post I disagreed with was the very last line; “Oh, and as for Matt Smith… we shall see. Or maybe, like me, you won’t be bothered.”
I think that’s a little too cynical, okay I can understand being jaded by having to put up with so many years childish crap masquerading as a classic SF show. Let’s give it just one more chance, and I mean just one. The new production team means there’s an opportunity for a fresh start. Moffat’s got a good track record, not only with his work on Who, and he did write the best episodes of the nu-who revival, even if they were partially mutilated by RTD’s “magic touch”.
If you have any respect or affection for the classic series I think you have to cut it a little slack in 2010. RTD wasn’t the only bad producer the show’s had, Graham Williams almost reduced the show to Carry On Doctor and John Nathan Turner outstayed his welcome by over a decade.
So I’ve really got my hopes pinned on Moffat and Smith, in my wildest dreams he hits the reset button ST:Voyager style and the last few years of stories were just a bad dream. I think in years to come most fans and critics will look back on the RTD years as an aberration in the shows history and that those who’re still admiring the emperor’s new clothes at the moment will wake up one day and wonder what all the fuss was about.
Like Drax, I agree with almost all of Aaron’s comments – pure twaddle. SHame as it was an interesting premise but clearly Davies can’t put a decent script together.
I’m hopeful that the new broom with sweep some new life into the franchise, or like Aaron I’ll be saying, I don’t care.
I suppose my last point has more to do with a suspicion that the BBC probably wouldn’t allow Moffat and co to drift too far from Mr Davies’ template. The BBC is unlikely to take any risks with a show that coasts to 10 million viewers at Christmas and more often than not gets rave notices. Frankly, keeping the show as similar as possible is probably the sensible thing to do and at the risk of sounding too cynical, the board are probably more concerned about Matt Smith’s sex appeal than they are quality of the show, which they almost certainly see as near perfect.
Of course, if the direction is markedly different – and I won’t totally rule out the possibility – then I shall give it every chance.
Couldn’t agree more. I confess that I have high hopes for The Moff’s run, but other than that I’m with you on this one.
I considered mentioning this article on the relevant review page of another popular SF magazine, but decided against it because I wouldn’t want to inflict the hoards of RTD worshipping zealots upon you!
Thank goodness for you and your opinion of the end of year specials! While I do enjoy the new Doctor Who, and don’t entirely agree with your views of the acting performances, it’s great to see that not everyone seems to have had the wool pulled over their eyes by RTD’s rubbish writing.
As for the future of the programme, I do trust the man who wrote Coupling to deliver better quality (and he has written some of the best Who stories of the past few years). As for Matt Smith, I’ll reserve judgement until I’ve seen a few episodes.
Have to agree with Mr Brown, You were overly harsh on the actors. The performances were great.
I know SciFi now tends to veer to the negative, but all in all, I think it was fitting end to the RTD run on Dr Who: Great ideas and moments, but hung together by sheer force of will and flim-flammery and far too self indulgent.
I think if an editor took the two final episodes and sliced off the fat, you’d have a great 1.30hr episode.
First to go would be the Doctors (RTD’s) “reward”.
So true. RTD has ruined the show and should never pick a pen up again and write/produce anything ever again.
As soon as he cast Billie Piper the show was blasted into the worst possible scenario and don’t get me started on Catherine Tate. The woman was utterly unsuited for Who.
David Tennant wasn’t as good as he has been made out to be ethier. It can only get worse now with the wriyer of Coupling taking over.
I’m so upset about this. Thank you Sci-Fi Now for priniting the truth about the show.
I look forward to seeing the return of the Daleks though. Atleast they have been good throughout the new run.
As much as I agree with many of the points here, I wonder if it was really wise to assign someone who never liked “Doctor Who” the task of reviewing “The End of Time.”
I *am* a Doctor Who fan. I’ve watched the show for years, through good and bad, and always found it, at its best, to be a clever, charming, and occasionally brilliant show. And I can’t lie, the punk rocker in my loved the low-budget D.I.Y. aesthetic.
I did not, however, like the “End of Time.” In my humble opinion it showcased the worst of what Russell T. Davies is capable of: nonsensical plots, cardboard characters, spectacle over logic, sentimentality over drama, and worst of all, a staggering degree of self-indulgence.
And yet, with this review, I can’t help but think scifinow is guilty of more than a little indulgence themselves. Wouldn’t it make more sense to assign the review to someone who had even a hope in hell of liking it? This just seems like publishing a review of “Oklahoma” by someone who openly hates musicals.
Honestly, what kind of serious review ends with the sentiment, “Don’t bother watching the brand new show under a completely new production team, because Doctor Who always sucks?”
son of solo. toddle off back to the sfx forum, where your dislike of sci-fi now is well known, and take your lame sarcasm with you.
gigshaft – It’s just an opinion column. The review, written by a Who fan, will be printed in the next issue. Aaron just wanted to post his thoughts up about it.
Thanks for your comments Gigshaft. Although, perhaps you should have read the first line of the review before expressing your confusion.
As well, I disagree with the Oklahoma comparison; sci-fi entertainment is the real context here, not Doctor Who itself, which is what you imply. As you might imagine, I have a great love of sci-fi and therefore feel more than qualified to remark on any sci-fi show. Besides, wouldn’t it be both absurd and self-defeating to only get shows reviewed by die-hard fans?
Son Of Solo: you are more than welcome to post your thoughts here, sarcastic or otherwise.
So Low: thanks for the support but we prefer to have our message boards populated with a variety of opinions. Otherwise, what’s the point?
Aaron,
Ah, indeed I was confused by the purpose of the post, as the link I followed here billed it as a “review.”
And perhaps a better “Oklahoma” analogy would be a review written by someone who openly hates Rogers and Hammerstein. I understand you’re a science-fiction fan — as, I assume, we all are here — but there are plenty of broad science fiction fans who don’t openly hate the particular show they’re commenting on.
I’m not suggesting only hard-core fans should comment on any given show, but I’m wondering what purpose you serve by trashing a show on “the premiere sci-fi web site” that you were guaranteed to dislike before you even flicked it on?
I mean, as someone who openly hates all things “Twilight,” I’d be only preaching to the converted if I published a rant on “New Moon.” (Or whatever the hell it’s called.) Though I might make myself feel better…
The purpose of the opinion piece is to express an opinion.
I find it an odd notion that only fans of Who, hardcore or otherwise, should be allowed to review it without reproach; why should someone who is guaranteed to like a show be more entitled to review it than someone who isn’t? I believe Who has been unfairly served by overly-enthusiastic notices for too long so I imagined a different perspective might have been welcome, and it seems, for the most part, I was right.
Besides, it was by no means a guarantee that I wouldn’t like it – I’ve been surprised by worse series before and approach everything I watch with an open mind – it was merely only probable.
At last. At bloody last. After four years of media enthusing over the brilliance of Russell T Davies, someone has actually come out and highlighted that the emperor is, in fact, naked.
So thank you, Aaron Asadi. You’ve said what needed saying and what no-one else would. And you’re right, absolutely right on Russell T Davies, on “The End of Time” and on the Doctor Who revival.
But dont get me wrong. I’m a Doctor Who fan. I’m a Doctor Who fan from before the TV return, and I think the Russell T. Davies era is the most appallingly self-indulgent, lazy rubbish I’ve ever seen. I’m more embarassed by his writing than I could ever be by any wobbly 70s set (of which, contrary to popular opinion, there were very few – people in the 70s took the programme *seriously* when making it).
No-one could ever call Doctor Who intellectual, but at least in times past there was some intelligence, wit, pace, and plotting to the programme. Damn good stories told with damn good actors (usually, anyway – Star Trek has its dud episodes, too).
But here we come to my first gripe with your article – and it’s not really a gripe with your article at all, but with the defence of the new Doctor Who you cite: this isn’t a programme made on a shoestring budget. Not by British TV standards, anyway. Not by the standards of the programme, either. This is the BBC’s flagship drama, and it’s getting money thrown at it.
This is particularly true in contrast to the old series, which was effectively on the same budget in 1989 as it had had in 1963, plus minor adjustments for interest rates. That was a programme on a budget, and it told better stories than we’ve seen in the last four years every week.
My other gripe is the idea that Star Trek was low-budget – America has always thrown more money at TV than Britain, and this is especially evident in Doctor Who. Star Trek may have had a similar budget to Who in 1966, but by 1979, when Doctor Who was in colour, that budget was still about the same.
Star Trek got a hugely expensive film about pompous “hard” sci-fi concepts (or not) and pop-humanism. Doctor Who had “The Key To Time” season – and the difference in budget is pretty obvious. That’s not a fair example, but it was one that showed what was happening in both franchises at the same time – something which isn’t often possible to compare.
Over the last four years, I’ve become exhausted with lazy, shoddy episodes written in a lazy, shoddy manner and excused in an even lazier, shoddier manner by fans, while journalists universally praise it and denigrate the show’s history – when a good plot actually mattered – calling Russell T Davies a “genius”, while denuding his predecessors for producing a “wobbly-setted 70s joke”. Once again, thank you, and at last.
Incidentally, if you are interested in looking at the original run, if you’re going to start at the beginning miss episodes 2-4 of “An Unearthly Child”, and don’t watch “The Daleks” or “The Edge of Destruction”. They’re still not as bad as RTD’s writing, but they’re pretty dull.
I’d go for “Snakedance” or “Ghost Light” – shockingly intelligent, well-acted, well-directed, with good production values. Or maybe “The Deadly Assassin” or “The Caves of Androzani”.
Regardless, thank you. I don’t care if you’re not a fan – that makes you no less entitled to write this timely, temperate, well-reasoned and excellently argued article. You’ve convinced me that I should read SFN.
Finally got around to reading this waht a lot of twaddle dressed up as hey hey it’s an opinion okay, but fair enough. Always nice to see Drax and his tinfoil hats have found somewhere to rest his weary legs. Ah bless him.
A sad episode he should have let wilf to die. realy wanted to see him become time lord victorious maybe they will bring david tennant back as the twelve doctor where he can slowly change to be like the other time lords. If his companion got killed becouse of him the doctor would be a mess and start messing up time even more than usual. I think we all want to see a drunken doctor travel through time.
I would like to express my thanks to this writer for bailing me out of this condition. Right after exploring through the world-wide-web and obtaining strategies which were not productive, I believed my entire life was well over. Living without the presence of answers to the problems you’ve solved through your write-up is a critical case, and the kind which could have in a negative way damaged my entire career if I hadn’t encountered your web blog. Your good expertise and kindness in playing with almost everything was valuable. I don’t know what I would’ve done if I had not come upon such a stuff like this. I can also at this time look ahead to my future. Thanks a lot very much for the expert and effective help. I will not be reluctant to endorse your web blog to anybody who would like counselling on this topic.