Star Trek TNG - right at the end of the 80s. Even so the first couple of series are dire. Also racial stereotyping beyond the pale - Klingons are honorable, violent and thick, Ferengi are greedy, sexist and thick
Be fair they were just as bad with humans. Any Federation officer who didn't serve on the Enterprise would turn out to be either arrogant, cowardly, incompetant or as bent as a nine bob note (and sometimes all four!!)
I think Peter Davison and his time as the Doctor was great, he is still one of my favorite Doctors. The 6th Doctor I never cared for, I didn't like his abrasive attitude or his episodes and his coat and outfit were truly awful. Of course, I don't blame Colin Baker for this, I'm sure he did the best he could with what he had to work with.
Regarding Sylvester McCoy, I thought his Doctor had a lot of potential and I generally liked his look. However, I thought his episodes were poorly written and not very good and I also didn't like it when he acted campy as I don't like campy science fiction and never have. Also, I thought the background music in his episodes was too loud, too obtrusive and not very good (I sometimes feel this way about the background music in new Who as well). Overall, it was probably best that the show took a "break" at that point.
I actually don't think Colin Baker's Doctor ever recovered from the appalling start they gave him. They actually put his debut story at the end of Davison's final series to get us into the new Doctor. To then make him alternate between homicidal mania, sneering bullying and snivelling cowardice for most of the story was such a bizarre decision I genuinely can't comprehend what possessed them.
Perhaps he could have recovered given better scripts, but he only really had a couple of good stories. And God knows who poor Colin pissed off in the costume department.
Sylvester's portrayal I liked better, but his first couple of series were uneven at best. He really came into his own in his final series though; it was the best series since Davison at least. I wish we could have seen if they could have kept that up.
I firmly believe that Colin's first season was very good. The only duff story was Timelash. The problem was that people didn't warm to his abrasive characterisation, and the show just looked silly with the protagonist dressed up as Ronald McDonald. It became impossible to take it seriously.
Season 23 was pretty poor really, given the show was supposed to have reinvented itself and come back fresh. Of course the BBC clearly didn't increase the budget to help the show, so it was fighting a losing battle.
Season 24 was dire, but no more dire than season 17.
I loved seasons 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 26. Each one had one or two weak stories nonetheless, but so does the show today.
The real issue is that fandom grew up in the 1980s and became hyper critical because they were no longer looking at the show with children's eyes. Michael Grade's attempt to axe the show also made fans hyper sensitive and critical of the show because they were so desperate for it to improve.
Frankly there are truly terrible stories in the 60s and 70s as well, but the show wasn't under as much scrutiny then, nor was it under threat of axe.
Season 24 was dire, but no more dire than season 17.
The real issue is that fandom grew up in the 1980s and became hyper critical because they were no longer looking at the show with children's eyes. Michael Grade's attempt to axe the show also made fans hyper sensitive ...
Frankly there are truly terrible stories in the 60s and 70s as well
But in your opinion would it be fair to say that the mid-80s wobble of either two or three awful series in close proximity was unprecedented? It was a lot of bad stuff, with little good in between.
But in your opinion would it be fair to say that the mid-80s wobble of either two or three awful series in close proximity was unprecedented? It was a lot of bad stuff, with little good in between.
I'd say seasons 15, 16 and 17 were mostly completely hideous.
I'd say seasons 15, 16 and 17 were mostly completely hideous.
I completely agree with that. I haven't even watched all of these seasons because the episodes that I have seen are just gob smackingly awful. Pathetic comedy, appalling over acting by Tom Baker (whose performance I love in all over seasons) terrible production values, absurd special effects and costumes, and dull stories. They couldn't even get the right person to do the voice of K9 for one of the seasons. I literally cannot think of a single good thing to say about these seasons, even the catering was probably rubbish.
I'd say seasons 15, 16 and 17 were mostly completely hideous.
There were certainly some duff stories during that time, but there were some excellent ones too. Series 15 had about three poor stories, two pretty good ones and one fantastic one. Series 16 had only a couple of duff stories. Series 17 had one awful story, one really great one, two not-very-good ones and one massive cheesefest which I know perfectly well is rubbish but which I love for all that.
I'd say seasons 15, 16 and 17 were mostly completely hideous.
You're probably right. So corporate confidence and the general television landscape is all I can think of as a difference — certainly the viewing figures don't appear to have been all that different as the Season 16 range was 6.5m – 10.1m and the Season 22 range was 6.0m – 8.9m.
The other factors commonly cited — that the BBC was pushing all production out of house, that science fiction was out of favour, that bigger budgets elsewhere were making Who look dated, that some of the creative decisions made around Colin's introduction were so questionable — were likely the problems.
Quite entertaining to watch that report and see Andrew Cartmel talking up his era like it was getting multiple BAFTAs every season. It was, even at its best moments, only barely tolerable. As for 80s Doctor Who being rubbish, I think that's an unfair generalisation but contrary to the opinions of fans who seem to think that the final two seasons were like a combination of the best work of Robert Holmes, Isaac Asimov and Dennis Potter, I think they were about as poor as the series ever got.
It started well - season 18 wasn't bad, and season 19 remains one of my personal favourites.
The remaining Davison seasons were OK, with a mix of good and not-so-good stories.
I wasn't hugely struck by Colin Baker's first season, and stopped watching Who during Trial of a Time Lord, only rekindling my interest in the show when NuWho came along in 2005.
I haven’t seen the DR Who classics. A couple of friends who have seen both classics and new ones said that the new ones are better.
Obviously that is just an opinion.
So corporate confidence and the general television landscape is all I can think of as a difference — certainly the viewing figures don't appear to have been all that different as the Season 16 range was 6.5m – 10.1m and the Season 22 range was 6.0m – 8.9m.
The other factors commonly cited — that the BBC was pushing all production out of house, that science fiction was out of favour, that bigger budgets elsewhere were making Who look dated, that some of the creative decisions made around Colin's introduction were so questionable — were likely the problems.
I agree with all of this. Absolutely the right assessment!
The generalisation about 80 Who is one I hate. There is, unquestionably, good and bad, brilliant and terrible in every decade. It just so happens that in the 60s and 70s the show wasn't under such public scrutiny by being put in the dock by its own makers, and nor were its fanatics as vocal and mobile as they grew to be in the 1980s.
As a viewer in the mid 1980s, I can remember willing each episode to be good, precisely because I knew it was now being scrutinised so much. Consequently any shortcomings seemed to me to be more obvious.
I also think that being under such pressure from the BBC management also hugely unsettled the production team and was highly detrimental. Creative people work at their best when they feel valued and safe and respected. No wonder season 24 was as bad as it was. The producers of seasons 15, 16 and 17 don't have that as an excuse.
I don't think it was all rubbish in the 80's, I think a better word was inconsistency. I know that's a word you could use for most of the Series and Seasons but I find the 80's stories veer really wildly from one extreme to another. For example, you had Earthshock followed by Time Flight which though interesting isn't in the same league. Then you had The Caves Of Androzani followed by The Twin Dilemma. Then in Season 22 it went in reverse and we had the mostly awful Timelash followed by the superb Resurrection Of the Daleks!
I think Season 19 is my favourite and works so well because, as with today, it really does have fresh original stories mixed with those featuring old adversaries. Season 20 was very continuity conscious because of the anniversary and then imo what happened was there was some good stories bogged down with continuity and when all that was dropped and we had fresh original stories again, the stories themselves were crap. It wasn't until some stories in Season 25 and most of 26 that the match between low continuity and good stories finally married again but by then it was too late. The damage caused the Hiatus had finally done it's work.
It wasn't until some stories in Season 25 and most of 26 that the match between low continuity and good stories finally married again but by then it was too late. The damage caused the Hiatus had finally done it's work.
Remembrance of the Daleks, Silver Nemesis and Battlefield were all quite heavy on the continuity porn I'd say, in addition to being not particularly good.As for the continuity-light stories, I don't think they were good enough to persuade anyone at the BBC that Doctor Who was worth keeping on TV.
I don't think it was all rubbish in the 80's, I think a better word was inconsistency. I know that's a word you could use for most of the Series and Seasons but I find the 80's stories veer really wildly from one extreme to another. For example, you had Earthshock followed by Time Flight which though interesting isn't in the same league. Then you had The Caves Of Androzani followed by The Twin Dilemma. Then in Season 22 it went in reverse and we had the mostly awful Timelash followed by the superb Resurrection Of the Daleks!
I think Season 19 is my favourite and works so well because, as with today, it really does have fresh original stories mixed with those featuring old adversaries. Season 20 was very continuity conscious because of the anniversary and then imo what happened was there was some good stories bogged down with continuity and when all that was dropped and we had fresh original stories again, the stories themselves were crap. It wasn't until some stories in Season 25 and most of 26 that the match between low continuity and good stories finally married again but by then it was too late. The damage caused the Hiatus had finally done it's work.
Interesting point made about being a slave to continuity in an anniversary year.
OT And mentioning Androzani when my digibox decided not to show it to me yesterday is mean.:p
Remembrance of the Daleks, Silver Nemesis and Battlefield were all quite heavy on the continuity porn I'd say, in addition to being not particularly good.As for the continuity-light stories, I don't think they were good enough to persuade anyone at the BBC that Doctor Who was worth keeping on TV.
I would agree about the three stories you mentioned but two of them were in an anniversary year and the third had the Brigadier in so you couldn't really not have any continuity in them! However, 3 out of 12 stories is better than every story and it was really Season 24 that sort of crossed my mind more when referring to the continuity/good story balance. In this Season an effort was made to go back to fresh and original stories but it turned out to be the worst Classic Who Season Ever imo. So yes, I agree to a point with you but i do think Season 26 was on the right lines for getting that balance right but as I said previously it was too late by then.
I tend to agree with daveyboy (wow that is a rare event ) that it's more that the show was inconsistent in the 80's. But you have to remember that, especially the last few years, it was in a vulnerable state because people in the BBC actively did want to get rid of the show. Budget was always an issue for Doctor Who in the classic era, but even more so towards the end. So often times, good stories had to fight to emerge from the barriers put in front of it and didn't always succeed.
Gems like Earthshock, Caves, Remembrance....these are what should define the 80's era, not the clunkers.
In my opinion, Doctor Who was no worse in the 80's than it was in the 70's. They had some 'clunkers' in the 70's!
I enjoyed Davison's era - apart from one or two. Colin Baker - I actually LOVED him in his first series - but wasn't so keen on THE TRIAL stuff!
McCoys era was dotted with classic stories (Remembrance, and YES Delta & The Bannermen! IMO, Fenric and Survival)
But McCoy had some cheap crappy stories too.
Anyway - Coronation Street killed it off!
Doctor Who did go downhill in the '80s in my opinion. Once JNT took over for the end of the Fourth Doctor, his addition of costumes and question marks were... questionable to say the least. Once we got into the Fifth Doctor, I thought the stories still ranged from good to decent for the most part, but Peter Davison's portrayal of the Doctor didn't feel like "the Doctor" to me. During the Sixth Doctor's era, the stories started ranging from decent to slightly bad, but Colin Baker's portrayal was amazing and definitely redeemed every episode he was in, so I didn't mind sitting through the boring stories. The show definitely got back on its feet in its last few years, as the Seventh Doctor is one of my favourites and the stories were so much more entertaining than they were during Colin's time, but unfortunately (or fortunately, in some cases) it was too late. I do feel like once Moffat took over he started moving the show back into the direction it was heading before it got cancelled (in terms of characterization and stories etc.), which I do appreciate.
The companions though.... I found every single companion of the '80s annoying, except for Nyssa and Turlough (once he was freed from the Black Guardian).
But overall, Doctor Who was still good in the '80s. While the '60s and '70s did have their bad stories, I felt like the good stories of the '80s weren't as good as the good stories of the previous two decades.
I tend to agree with daveyboy (wow that is a rare event ) that it's more that the show was inconsistent in the 80's. But you have to remember that, especially the last few years, it was in a vulnerable state because people in the BBC actively did want to get rid of the show. Budget was always an issue for Doctor Who in the classic era, but even more so towards the end. So often times, good stories had to fight to emerge from the barriers put in front of it and didn't always succeed.
Gems like Earthshock, Caves, Remembrance....these are what should define the 80's era, not the clunkers.
:eek: Wow Muttley!
Yep, there's no doubt the BBC's attitude was a big factor in the show's decline in the latter part of the 80's. I think if it had the attitude it done today, JNT would have been let go when he wanted or replaced; there's no doubt keeping him on devoided the show of the radical fresh ideas it needed that would have come with a new producer.
I would agree about the three stories you mentioned but two of them were in an anniversary year and the third had the Brigadier in so you couldn't really not have any continuity in them! However, 3 out of 12 stories is better than every story and it was really Season 24 that sort of crossed my mind more when referring to the continuity/good story balance. In this Season an effort was made to go back to fresh and original stories but it turned out to be the worst Classic Who Season Ever imo. So yes, I agree to a point with you but i do think Season 26 was on the right lines for getting that balance right but as I said previously it was too late by then.
The excreable Time and the Rani aside, I really didn't mind Season 24 all that much. I'd rather Colin Baker hadn't been fired (not because I have anything against Sylvester McCoy) and that they hadn't brought in that ghastly title sequence, but I basically found it inoffensive. In Seasons 25 and 26, when the series was supposedly starting to hit its stride again, I'd say that four of the stories were absolute stinkers and that the other four only looked good by comparison. But of course it didn't help that the BBC was clearly run by crass, vulgar populists obsessed with lowest common denominator garbage like soap operas and chat shows. If they'd had any interest in making Doctor Who a success instead of concocting reasons to cancel it, they would have replaced John Nathan-Turner with a successful, experienced producer and insisted on the writers being equally successful and experienced, as opposed to a clique of novices with little experience of anything except a few scriptwriting courses.
The excreable Time and the Rani aside, I really didn't mind Season 24 all that much. I'd rather Colin Baker hadn't been fired (not because I have anything against Sylvester McCoy) and that they hadn't brought in that ghastly title sequence, but I basically found it inoffensive. In Seasons 25 and 26, when the series was supposedly starting to hit its stride again, I'd say that four of the stories were absolute stinkers and that the other four only looked good by comparison. But of course it didn't help that the BBC was clearly run by crass, vulgar populists obsessed with lowest common denominator garbage like soap operas and chat shows. If they'd had any interest in making Doctor Who a success instead of concocting reasons to cancel it, they would have replaced John Nathan-Turner with a successful, experienced producer and insisted on the writers being equally successful and experienced, as opposed to a clique of novices with little experience of anything except a few scriptwriting courses.
I agree that series 24 wasn't all that bad - Time and the Rani was awful, but I liked Paradise Towers (Richard Briers' performance excepted) and Delta and the Bannermen was very enjoyable. Dragonfire wasn't much cop though.
I wonder which 4 you're putting in each category in the last two series? Personally, I thought Rembrance of the Daleks, The Curse of Fenric and Survival were really good. The Happiness Patrol was a good idea badly executed (and ruined by the inclusion of the unspeakable abomination that was the Kandyman). Both The Greatest Show in the Galaxy and Ghost Light were somewhat odd stories, but I liked them. Silver Nemesis and Battlefield were stinkers.
I was always fascinated by the Doctors character and how he was portrayed, polystyrene blocks and wobbly sets i could see past and ignore, once you see past that you can take anything they throw at you. This show has alway primarily been about the Doctor and how he reacts to situations.
It takes imagination and a willingness on the viewers part to go along for the ride. That's why i love the audios so much. I can't see the special effects and i just accept what i'm hearing. When viewing 80's DW, you have to do the same. It's a leap of faith.
Comments
Pertwee was a brilliant Doctor - wash your mouth out
When Mrs Gillyflower started talking about Mr Sweet in The Crimson Horror I had a terrible thought he would turn out to be the Kandyman!!!
Be fair they were just as bad with humans. Any Federation officer who didn't serve on the Enterprise would turn out to be either arrogant, cowardly, incompetant or as bent as a nine bob note (and sometimes all four!!)
I actually don't think Colin Baker's Doctor ever recovered from the appalling start they gave him. They actually put his debut story at the end of Davison's final series to get us into the new Doctor. To then make him alternate between homicidal mania, sneering bullying and snivelling cowardice for most of the story was such a bizarre decision I genuinely can't comprehend what possessed them.
Perhaps he could have recovered given better scripts, but he only really had a couple of good stories. And God knows who poor Colin pissed off in the costume department.
Sylvester's portrayal I liked better, but his first couple of series were uneven at best. He really came into his own in his final series though; it was the best series since Davison at least. I wish we could have seen if they could have kept that up.
Season 23 was pretty poor really, given the show was supposed to have reinvented itself and come back fresh. Of course the BBC clearly didn't increase the budget to help the show, so it was fighting a losing battle.
Season 24 was dire, but no more dire than season 17.
I loved seasons 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 26. Each one had one or two weak stories nonetheless, but so does the show today.
The real issue is that fandom grew up in the 1980s and became hyper critical because they were no longer looking at the show with children's eyes. Michael Grade's attempt to axe the show also made fans hyper sensitive and critical of the show because they were so desperate for it to improve.
Frankly there are truly terrible stories in the 60s and 70s as well, but the show wasn't under as much scrutiny then, nor was it under threat of axe.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
But in your opinion would it be fair to say that the mid-80s wobble of either two or three awful series in close proximity was unprecedented? It was a lot of bad stuff, with little good in between.
I'd say seasons 15, 16 and 17 were mostly completely hideous.
I completely agree with that. I haven't even watched all of these seasons because the episodes that I have seen are just gob smackingly awful. Pathetic comedy, appalling over acting by Tom Baker (whose performance I love in all over seasons) terrible production values, absurd special effects and costumes, and dull stories. They couldn't even get the right person to do the voice of K9 for one of the seasons. I literally cannot think of a single good thing to say about these seasons, even the catering was probably rubbish.
There were certainly some duff stories during that time, but there were some excellent ones too. Series 15 had about three poor stories, two pretty good ones and one fantastic one. Series 16 had only a couple of duff stories. Series 17 had one awful story, one really great one, two not-very-good ones and one massive cheesefest which I know perfectly well is rubbish but which I love for all that.
You're probably right. So corporate confidence and the general television landscape is all I can think of as a difference — certainly the viewing figures don't appear to have been all that different as the Season 16 range was 6.5m – 10.1m and the Season 22 range was 6.0m – 8.9m.
The other factors commonly cited — that the BBC was pushing all production out of house, that science fiction was out of favour, that bigger budgets elsewhere were making Who look dated, that some of the creative decisions made around Colin's introduction were so questionable — were likely the problems.
The remaining Davison seasons were OK, with a mix of good and not-so-good stories.
I wasn't hugely struck by Colin Baker's first season, and stopped watching Who during Trial of a Time Lord, only rekindling my interest in the show when NuWho came along in 2005.
Obviously that is just an opinion.
I agree with all of this. Absolutely the right assessment!
The generalisation about 80 Who is one I hate. There is, unquestionably, good and bad, brilliant and terrible in every decade. It just so happens that in the 60s and 70s the show wasn't under such public scrutiny by being put in the dock by its own makers, and nor were its fanatics as vocal and mobile as they grew to be in the 1980s.
As a viewer in the mid 1980s, I can remember willing each episode to be good, precisely because I knew it was now being scrutinised so much. Consequently any shortcomings seemed to me to be more obvious.
I also think that being under such pressure from the BBC management also hugely unsettled the production team and was highly detrimental. Creative people work at their best when they feel valued and safe and respected. No wonder season 24 was as bad as it was. The producers of seasons 15, 16 and 17 don't have that as an excuse.
I think Season 19 is my favourite and works so well because, as with today, it really does have fresh original stories mixed with those featuring old adversaries. Season 20 was very continuity conscious because of the anniversary and then imo what happened was there was some good stories bogged down with continuity and when all that was dropped and we had fresh original stories again, the stories themselves were crap. It wasn't until some stories in Season 25 and most of 26 that the match between low continuity and good stories finally married again but by then it was too late. The damage caused the Hiatus had finally done it's work.
Remembrance of the Daleks, Silver Nemesis and Battlefield were all quite heavy on the continuity porn I'd say, in addition to being not particularly good.As for the continuity-light stories, I don't think they were good enough to persuade anyone at the BBC that Doctor Who was worth keeping on TV.
Interesting point made about being a slave to continuity in an anniversary year.
OT And mentioning Androzani when my digibox decided not to show it to me yesterday is mean.:p
I would agree about the three stories you mentioned but two of them were in an anniversary year and the third had the Brigadier in so you couldn't really not have any continuity in them! However, 3 out of 12 stories is better than every story and it was really Season 24 that sort of crossed my mind more when referring to the continuity/good story balance. In this Season an effort was made to go back to fresh and original stories but it turned out to be the worst Classic Who Season Ever imo. So yes, I agree to a point with you but i do think Season 26 was on the right lines for getting that balance right but as I said previously it was too late by then.
So sorry, maybe it's time your digibox regenerated into a new one!
Gems like Earthshock, Caves, Remembrance....these are what should define the 80's era, not the clunkers.
I enjoyed Davison's era - apart from one or two. Colin Baker - I actually LOVED him in his first series - but wasn't so keen on THE TRIAL stuff!
McCoys era was dotted with classic stories (Remembrance, and YES Delta & The Bannermen!
But McCoy had some cheap crappy stories too.
Anyway - Coronation Street killed it off!
The companions though.... I found every single companion of the '80s annoying, except for Nyssa and Turlough (once he was freed from the Black Guardian).
But overall, Doctor Who was still good in the '80s. While the '60s and '70s did have their bad stories, I felt like the good stories of the '80s weren't as good as the good stories of the previous two decades.
:eek: Wow Muttley!
Yep, there's no doubt the BBC's attitude was a big factor in the show's decline in the latter part of the 80's. I think if it had the attitude it done today, JNT would have been let go when he wanted or replaced; there's no doubt keeping him on devoided the show of the radical fresh ideas it needed that would have come with a new producer.
And for some of us, the Pertwee years were the golden era.
The excreable Time and the Rani aside, I really didn't mind Season 24 all that much. I'd rather Colin Baker hadn't been fired (not because I have anything against Sylvester McCoy) and that they hadn't brought in that ghastly title sequence, but I basically found it inoffensive. In Seasons 25 and 26, when the series was supposedly starting to hit its stride again, I'd say that four of the stories were absolute stinkers and that the other four only looked good by comparison. But of course it didn't help that the BBC was clearly run by crass, vulgar populists obsessed with lowest common denominator garbage like soap operas and chat shows. If they'd had any interest in making Doctor Who a success instead of concocting reasons to cancel it, they would have replaced John Nathan-Turner with a successful, experienced producer and insisted on the writers being equally successful and experienced, as opposed to a clique of novices with little experience of anything except a few scriptwriting courses.
I agree that series 24 wasn't all that bad - Time and the Rani was awful, but I liked Paradise Towers (Richard Briers' performance excepted) and Delta and the Bannermen was very enjoyable. Dragonfire wasn't much cop though.
I wonder which 4 you're putting in each category in the last two series? Personally, I thought Rembrance of the Daleks, The Curse of Fenric and Survival were really good. The Happiness Patrol was a good idea badly executed (and ruined by the inclusion of the unspeakable abomination that was the Kandyman). Both The Greatest Show in the Galaxy and Ghost Light were somewhat odd stories, but I liked them. Silver Nemesis and Battlefield were stinkers.
It takes imagination and a willingness on the viewers part to go along for the ride. That's why i love the audios so much. I can't see the special effects and i just accept what i'm hearing. When viewing 80's DW, you have to do the same. It's a leap of faith.