All true. But I doubt any of the naysayers are listening...

For me Pertwee was my first Doctor & I thought he was great. I loved his humour & gadgets which hasa sort of James Bond about it as well as when he would get into punch ups with his venusian akido. The Dr master interaction was good ole Good v Evil panto style or Bond v Blofeld as it always had that feel about it. I never liked Worzel Gummage but Pertwee will always remain one of my fav doctors.

In fact, Spearhead from Space was pretty good! Especially where the Autons - pretending to be taliors' dummies - start moving in the shop window ........ (shop window still there, now Marks & Spencer!).

Liz Shaw was a good idea, supposedly a 1970s liberated woman, and a scientist (groundbreaking , at the time ........),

Having no Tardis - to reduce costs - was a mistake, as were the daft James Bond aspects (The Whomobile).

They are listening - but disagreeing. Again, one person's opinion of how internal changes at the BBC might have impacted on Doctor Who in 1989 are - for other forum members - simply excuses for poor production values which resulted in an exodus of viewers.

But it isn't one person, is it? These are the accounts of people who were there and working on the show. How much evidence do you need in order to accept those accounts as factual, rather than dismissing them because they contradict your own preconceived ideas (which aren't based on anything more than conjecture)?

Tony, I stopped watching Doctor Who in 1988. The reason? Because it was no longer believable. The effects were straight off Blue Peter, the show looked tired and I felt tired watching it. The production values were largely pathetic and anyone could see that the BBC had simply lost faith in it. putting it against Corrie wasn't the reason it failed. It failed because it was no longer a good programme.

It became like "Last of the Summer Wine" and while it was sad that that comedy series had ended, it was probably right that it did.

The one positive element of Doctor being rested (it was never officially axed) back in 1989 was that we now have it back again, stronger than ever before. If the show had been allowed to continue back then. it is doubtful it would have ever been revived.

I must admit I stopped watching when McCoy became Dr, it just seemed so amateurish and sad compared to the highpoint of the Tom Baker years.

I simply fell out of love with it.

I watched the TV movie but that didn't really do it for me either, so I am eternally grateful for RTD for doing such a fantastic job in bringing it back.

I rediscovered the joy of watching it that I used to have as a child, each new episode was like opening a present on Christmas day, exciting and thrilling.

My love had returned.

SM has by and large carried on that feeling and I have high hopes for the series' future.

The show now is unrecognisable to the mess that was 88/89, and I for one am glad that it is.....

In your opinion, it was no longer a good programme. In the opinion of many others, which is equally valid, it still was, and indeed was getting better. Your opinion of it is not really likely to be the reason it was axed. It was axed because the BBC wanted it axed, and deliberately buried it in the schedules in order to minimize any possible outcry over that.

I don't know what you were watching in 1988, but it evidently wasn't the same show i was watching. And the 1989 season was spectacular, one of the best in the series' history.

Why are you telling me something I-and everyone else-already know? They didn''t formally cancel it because it would have caused uproar and they didn't want a replay of 1985!
I disagree.

Some people have no taste.

I agree with you that the show was better in the last season of '89, I think you're probably right that the scheduling against Corrie was deliberate and part of the reason it was axed but agree with previous poster, it probably has done it some good having a rest. Shame we had to wait so long for it to come back, but I think all things are better after a rest, Doctor Who certainly was.

Are you disagreeing with my point about it better than ever or that it wouldn't have been revived?

Both. I don't think it came back better than ever. I think much of the last five years has been vastly inferior to that last season in 1989, and indeed to pretty much everything before that; it's only now pulling itself together, though I did love this last season. I also disagree that it would never have been revived: if Cartmel and JNT had been able to continue for another couple of years in the direction they were taking it, I don't think it would have needed to be revived, because I don't think it would ever have gone away. It would have changed, yes. it would have grown up a bit, changed time slot, changed format (the days of the 25 minute serial were over by then, pretty much) but it would have won back its audience and survived.

There is a lot of passion in your post above. You never make it a secret that you enjoy classic Who and that the RTD era was not your cup of tea.

I do however have one issue with your comments. I'm not disrespecting your viewpoint, but when you say it would "have won back its audience and survived" I don't believe it would have won a large audience in the way New-Who has. The core Doctor Who audience of true fans is really all that the show would have achieved. That would not ensure its survival.

The reason DW is successful today is because it has successfully managed to attract a brand new mainstream audience. That is due to both RTD and SM being aware of the industry and what they believe will work and what won't.

The BBC would never have committed to the series in the 90's as the corporation too had changed and the way programmes were commissioned, produced and created changed as well, largely due to viewer tastes.

Do you really believe that in 1994, a little sci-fi show about a time traveller in a blue box, with rubbish special effects and rubber aliens would be a success? Things had moved on. We had BUGS, we had a whole new era of US sci-fi shows that Doctor Who could just not emulate. it is these reasonings that I believe (and you're right, it is my opinion) caused the demise of Doctor Who.

I know that's your opinion and I respect that but IMO the writing/acting/production values of the last 5 years are light years ahead of 1989.....

Following the Broadcasting Act 1990, the BBC became required for the first time to purchase 25% of its programming from independent companies. My pet theory is that had Who not been cancelled, it would likely have first been cut to maybe 8 episodes a year per the prevailing trend, and probably subsequently sent off to an independent production company for the reason that McCoy and Aldred had every intention of leaving during the next series and the contractual ability to do so and Nathan Turner had repeatedly tried to leave but with the prevailing wind blowing everyone outside of the BBC had been impossible to replace and unwilling to resign from the BBC completely. So it would be easiest to push the risk out onto a third party given that a near clean sweep of creative staff was going to occur anyway and the BBC weren't themselves interested in massive investment.

At that point I expect they would have done exactly what they did for Jon Pertwee: instructed the new team to roll the dice on a completely new setup. Which, as per Pertwee, would probably have divided fans evermore.

It is, to my mind, completely false to assume that in 1989 the BBC could either preserve Who exactly as it was or cancel it outright. The various Star Trek films and television programmes, and other films like Total Recall prove that there was no inherent reason you couldn't do science fiction in 1990.

Remind me again; what was BUGS? That thing with Henry out of Neighbours in it, wasn't it? I wonder how many people remember that show, as opposed to those who remember, say, Doctor Who...

But that's not the point being made, it's not about what would be remembered, it's about what the type of programme that Dr Who would have been up against in the 90's if it had still been on.....

You make a valid point but BUGS didn't look out of place in the Saturday night schedules of 1994-1998, whereas Doctor Who certainly would have done.

BUGS was never going to be a classic, but it was enjoyable enough. Incidentally, Henry from Neighbours wasn't in it for the entire run. I think it was Jesse Birdsall?!! (Marcus Tandy from Eldorado).

I think its important to remember that opinions can be very diverse, but stating - as fact - that the show was dropped because of a BBC plot is just silly.

Lots of people who worked on the show blame a BBC plot. So what? Are they really going to say 'yes, the show was pants and it was our fault it was axed'?

I stopped watching the show because it simply wasn't very good. The dialogue was basic, the acting was ok rather than great, the film editing often meant episodes lacked momentum and - sometimes - a logical narrative and the incidental music sounded cheap and sometimes did not seem to reflect what was going on on screen.

A BBC plot or deteriorating production standards? My opinion is the latter and it doesn't how many "documented statements" people have blaming BBC managers. The show - by 1989 - simply wasn't very good.

In my opinion.

Well, I'm glad you at least added the qualifier. Though my opinion is that your opinion is wrong. There is more than enough documented evidence to suggest that a BBC plot was exactly what it was, but if you want to ignore it because it doesn't fit with your opinions of the show, fine. I just think you're deluding yourself.

So, why did I stop watching the show back in 1988? Was I tricked into not liking the show by devious BBC managers?

Why [i]you]/i] stopped watching the show was down to personal taste, unless you seriously-and wrongly-think your critical faculties are somehow superior to those of us who were still enjoying it (which I have a feeling is, sadly, the case). Your personal tastes, however, have not a lot to do with internal politics at the BBC or their decision to rest the show.

But why did the millions who watched the TB years stop watching by 1989??

Then do you accept that other Who fans and more casual viewers may also have stopped watching because of their personal taste - and not because of internal BBC politics?

Changing tastes, more channels, and the BBC deliberately burying it in the schedules opposite one of the most popular shows on TV (please note, along with EastEnders, Coronation Street still tends to be one of the few shows that consistently gets higher ratings than Who, even nowadays. So it really had no chance in direct competition). Mostly the last one.