I'll have to politely disagree, the whole format and style need a complete overhaul, as had happened with the 2005 relaunch.

The style of multi parters that was being done had seen it's best days imho.


Some ideas yes, but the show needed much much more than that imho.






Well just look what Graham Harper did with 'Caves' and I am genuinely stumped why the imagination he and others used in a limited studio setting on those episodes, in terms of direction, lighting, editing was not furthered to other stories, that, imo, was a massively missed opportunity to bring some dynamics into the show in terms of those skills. Graham Harper showed what could be done, what direction the show could go in in terms of direction and so on and what did we get, bright flat lit sets and garish colours.

the 13 episode 45 minute format was already in play in 1985



Yep but like I said a new producer was also needed. There was a lack of confidence in the production team that they didn't solve until season 26


True, but Graeme Harper seems to be the exception. In fact the whole of Caves seems to be a bit different to the rest of the Davison era (for the better). But again if that was JNT's last story as producer he would be remembered better than he is now.

He was offered "Bergerac" round about Season 25 so the notion that he was trapped by the BBC is slightly incorrect. I agree that if he'd left earlier - for me, Season 20 - he wouldn't be the divisive character that he sadly is.


Particularly agree with your comments about the quality of the stories / scripts. There was very little innovation during the Saward era and it was this period, I feel, which cemented the series reputation as appealing to a certain type of person - ie. obsessive fans. The production team at the time seemed to have no idea of what the series was about so, therefore, had no idea how to move the series forward. Cartmel did have fresh ideas but the series had lost its way by the time he was in charge so the general audience really weren't interested. Blaming the scheduling for the dwindling audience isn't good enough - sure, "Coronation Street" was a ratings juggernaut, at the time - but Doctor Who was a shadow of its former self. I think there's a lot of worth in Seasons 24-26 (the final season, particularly) but the storytelling was out of kilter with the TV landscape of the time.

Yes, but I mean the style it is presented, it was still slow and lumbering with terrible pacing and exposition. Like a lot of the classic series with some serious editing the stories could loose at least one episode and not effect the actual story line at all, thus making it sharp and well plotted instead of rambling and padded.








That's my point, JNT made the decision not to further the style Harper had introduced, surprising considering the so called darker Doctor Cartmell thing. Why the bright lights and garish colours, well you only need to look as far as JNT's shirts to see his preferred tastes then

Not heard that but I'll take your word for it. However I've also read that JNT felt that if he left as producer the programme would have been canceled so he stayed.

There is another factor which I don't think has been mentioned as yet and that is the Television trends that so often dictate and produce programmes...in the early 60's viewers were used to sci-fi/surreal shows such as "Quatermass", "The Avengers", "Adam Adamant", "Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased)", "The Man from UNCLE", "The Champions"...eccentric as it seems as a premise today, in 1963 "Doctor Who" slotted in quite happily...flash forward to the 1980's and TV was in the grip of the "Gritty Drama" phase championed by such Dramas as "Boys from the Black Stuff", "Brookside" and "Eastenders" where even "Grange Hill" became a vehicle for drugs and abuse storylines...as has been mentioned in another Forum, "Coronation Street" rarely tackled "issue" storylines before EE began and was forced to play catch-up for a good few years as it was considered a bit "Last of the Summer Wine" by the younger audience...

...I think part of the problem then was the (imho mistaken) view that all programmes had to hit the "realism" factor hard and DW just didn't fit into that picture. Add in the advent of "Star Trek: TNG" which brought us state of the art SFX and so-called mature storylines over from the US and it was never going to be possible for DW to survive...

...I know it pains a lot of people to make this next comparison but I suspect without the success of US imports such as "Buffy" and the way they seemed to garner audiences of all ages necessitating an early evening and late night versions on BBC2, the BBC would not have considered bringing back DW at all...now, thanks to DW we have "family programming" back on Saturday nights and a whole raft of fantasy shows "Torchwood", "SJA", "Merlin", "Primeval", "Survivors", "The Deep", "Demons" (less said about the last one there the better but you get the point)

I thoroughly enjoyed most of the 80's, that's the era I grew up. I know it got bad in Seasons 24 and 25 but overall, I much more enjoy watching this period of Doctor Who back than any 60's or 70's ones.

My main problem with JNT's Era is inconsistentcy. You could have a great story like The Caves Of Androzani followed by something awful like The Twin Dilemma. Then you'd have the not-so-good Timelash followed by Revelation Of The Daleks, the best storty of Season 22 by a country mile. In some ways it's the same in New Who but the swing between the good and bad stories is not as bad.


I didn't actually know Time and The Rani was out yesterday, I never seem to get the DVDS when they come out. Cheaper to wait in my opinion.

Wasn't it the case that Sci Fi / fantasy television in particular other than Star Wars cash ins like Buck Rodgers or the original Battlestar Galactica or was considered the domain children's TV - eg Terrahawks (though Rodgers and Battlestar possibly where targeted at children not just Doctor Who struggled in the 1980's (possibly due to Star Wars) until the arrival of TNG.

I might be wrong about this, but wasn't Red Dwarf almost not taken up because Sci Fi was so unpopular - that is until they managed to pitch it as "Porridge in space"?


I actually wrote my dissertation in 1998 on the evolution of television effects - I can't believe how hazy my memory is on this

I think you're right with Star Wars and Buck Rogers, Battlestar etc. but when Star Trek: TNG emerged, Roddenberry refused a major Network deal in order to ensure they could tell more "adult" stories without interference...it aired at 21:00 originally in the US and was considered a part of the Prime Time schedule...also very true about Red Dwarf...

...it must have been incredibly frustrating for all concerned on DW in the last years of its classic run - like working in a job where everyone one else knows you're not wanted and just looking for an excuse to get rid of you without having to shell out for redundancy...

Did he?

I sometimes think he was making a panto down in Brighton.

He was wrong for the job. Just because you are a champion of the programme it doesnt make you a good producer.

He was a beancounter (and he couldnt always get that right) where he went wrong, apart from casting, was that he didnt know a bad story from a good one. Stuff like Timeflight, Twin Dilemma and Delta would have been kicked into touch in the Terence Dicks era.

He did preside over the demise of the programme. But it was the BBCs fault for not moving him and giving it a fresh producer.

He became a liability then a scapegoat.

I don't think you can put all the demise of Doctor Who in 89' at JNT's Door. If you're saying a new producer was needed, then it was also the fault of the BBC for forcing him to stay on after Baker had gone and not replacing him with someone who could have revamped the show in the same way both certain people with 3 initials and SM have done now.

Okay, he wasn't perfect as we all know but he did help get the show back in '86 after the hiatus from behind the scenes, so credit to him for that.

Terence Dicks was a Script Editor not the Producer!

i think there are a number of things that led to Whos demise...and I am afraid he is top of the list.

The major one was that the BBC lost interest. But I honesty belive the stories and castings undermined the credibility of the programme.

Alot of the previous producers came from a literary or drama background. They could call on a length of talent to carry the weight ie Malcolm Hulke, Robert Holmes. He wasnt from that background. He was a floormanager. He didnt know good story from bad.

The truth is that perhaps WHo had outlived its time in the eighties and was outgunned - but he hastened the demise.

Absolutely, everything you said above is true. JNT undoubtedly made some really bad decisions which didn't help but all I was saying is that you can't blame him entirely for the show's demise in '89.

I agree - he is not entirely to blame. One criticism of JNT that comes through on quite a few of the DVD commentaries is that he did not understand script writing.

He was very much into publicity (e.g. claiming that he might do away with the Police Box and make the TARDIS look like something else) but perhaps wasn't the best judge of a good story.

Yeah, I'd go with that. He had his strengths and weaknesses which were quite at extremes from each other. Writing was one of those weaknesses which is why style ultimately won over substance a lot of the time during the 80's.

JNT was really in a no-win situation after TOATL-stay on a low-budget show the BBC had no interest in promoting, or leave and give them an excuse to cancel it.

It should be noted that whatever his flaws, there was an absolutely hysterical campaign against the man from a small
segment of extremist Doctor Who fans. Even people who otherwise would never have a good word for JNT thought the stuff DWB printed about him was unfair.

The Time and the Rani is not Doctor Who's brightest spark!

Incidentally, you referred to a documentary on this story, I don't suppose you know where I can get a copy of "The Doctor Who Story" that was originally shown Christmas 2003? I haven't found it shown since or have not seen it on any DVD!

Not very often I agree with you; however on this I believe your opinions are correct.

I had a lot of contact with JNT between 81 and 85. He was a pompous arse a lot of the time.

He had an ego the size of time itself, and providing you stroked that you were ok.

However he was very loyal and devoted to Dr Who and deserves a lot more credit than he gets.

Important to remember also that Who's viewing figurers began to car crash when Colin Baker was still the Doctor - and his episodes were only ever shown on Saturday evenings (so no Coronation Street to compete against).

I think the show did need a new producer by 1983 and it is a shame if JNT wasn't given the option of leaving. He would be remembered very differently if he had left with the 5th Doctor.

As someone who remembers well the Ian Levine / Eric Saward /DWB witchhunt of JNT it's still interesting to see how people feel about him and his tenure on Doctor Who.

IIRC he wasn't first choice for that job, that was Chris Doyley-John(sp) who had also been working on the show during Tom's era, but he turned it down. Interesting that the BBC appointed Barry Letts to oversea his first season...it was a hard time to pick up the show, with Tom determined to leave and big changes to the show after 7 years.

FWIW I don't like a lot of the work he produced, there are some amazing stories in there like Caves, but I feel these are the exception to the rule, perhaps in spite of everythign the turned out very well, I feel like he made good decisions and then undid them completely, has Colin been allowed to play the Doctor as he wanted and not with that most AWFUL of JNT inspired outfits, then I am sure he would be better regarded than he was.

Michael Grade has said, during the hiatus, he probably would have rested the show, got a new production team in, and get them to sort it out as it had gone stale, perhaps the organised campaign by JNT eventually cost Doctor Who in 1989? Had he left well alone the show may have gone onto greater things under someone elses leadership, instead we got the mess that was Trial, and anyone who thinks Pip & Jane Baker are worthy of writing anything seriously needed his head checked.

Some good stories, some awful prodcuctions, some inspired and also awful casting of regulars (Matthew Waterhouse and Sarah Sutton for two!) and guest cast, probably the man who was rather respoinsible for the show being axed in the end, still controversial after all of these years.

He did give us Nicola Bryant in a bikini mind you

He turned down "Bergerac", which had more viewers than Who.


Sorry for quoting your entire post but I agree with practically every word. Also, I was a regular DWB reader though I didn't want JNT burned at the stake!

Re. the dreaded Pip and Jane - Gary Russell, the series' script editor, said that their understanding of the four-episode story format was "second to none"!

And stayed with Doctor Who because he felt the BBC would cancel it if he left.

It's ok you can quote my entire posts whenever you like!

DWB was generally a good read, the Ian Levine stories about saving the old episodes was brilliant expose on what had happened at the BBC (even if there was an element of blowing his own trumpet!), alas it did lead onto the, at times petty and uncomfortable, JNT witchhunt with him and Saward.

From what I've heard, it was because he didn't like the star of the show and his decision had nothing to do with Who.