Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Original Robert Holmes Scripts for 'The Ultimate Foe'


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 31-10-2013, 05:41
Tom Tit
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,887

Is the original Robert Holmes script for Episode 14 of 'Trial of a Timelord' (part 2 of 'The Ultimate Foe') online anywhere? Also, has his original script for Episode 13 ever seen the light of day?
Tom Tit is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 31-10-2013, 05:47
JCR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 14,126
Episode 14- http://homepage.ntlworld.com/thebatg...Time%20Inc.pdf
JCR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2013, 05:57
Dr2Pat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 409
Deleted, because the above has been posted.
Dr2Pat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2013, 09:32
Mulett
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Essex
Posts: 6,696
Did anyone read it before it was deleted? Didn't it end with the Doctor and Valeyard having a punch up and falling into the time stream? I'm sure the original episode ended with a cliff hanger, suggesting the Doctor had died. But JNT was worried this would make it too easy for the BBC to cancel the show for good.
Mulett is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2013, 09:42
daveyboy7472
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peri's Cleavage
Posts: 14,160
Did anyone read it before it was deleted? Didn't it end with the Doctor and Valeyard having a punch up and falling into the time stream? I'm sure the original episode ended with a cliff hanger, suggesting the Doctor had died. But JNT was worried this would make it too easy for the BBC to cancel the show for good.
I'm a bit confused because this version says it was written by Eric Saward at the bottom. I was under the impression Robert Holmes died before he finished writing the story so Eric Saward finished it off and as you say JNT vetoed it because he didn't want to finish the show on a downer if the BBC decided to cancel it.

Thus he got Pip and Jane Baker to do a rewrite of Episode 14.

That's what I've read but I'm open to correction.

daveyboy7472 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2013, 10:13
Mulett
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Essex
Posts: 6,696
I heard he fell out with JNT over his planned ending (cliff hanger with the Doctor looking pretty dead) and so withdrew his completed script. The Bakers then had to write their own replacement episode with no knowledge of what had been in the original.
Mulett is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2013, 11:18
Tom Tit
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,887
Thanks for the link JCR!

I wasn't being ignorant in not thanking you earlier; I just didn't expect a response so quickly, so early in the morning, and so left and came back later.

I was listening to Eric Saward's commentary for the episode from the DVD this morning and according to his telling: Robert Holmes was scheduled to write both parts. He got ill after writing the first one and so Eric Saward stepped in to write the second part, and also rewrote much of part 1 to fit in with it. JNT wasn't happy with the cliffhanger ending, Saward quit and Pip and Jane Baker were brought in to write their own ending.

Yes, I erroneously put Robert Holmes, where I meant to write Eric Saward in the original post. No script for episode 14 was ever written by Robert Holmes. Sorry if my typo confused anyone.

I would love to see the story as Robert Holmes would have written it.
Tom Tit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2013, 12:14
TheSilentFez
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: In the corner of your eye...
Posts: 8,933
"There's nothing you can do to stop the catharsis of spurious morality!"
(what does this even mean?)
TheSilentFez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2013, 12:31
adams66
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 1,970
I heard he fell out with JNT over his planned ending (cliff hanger with the Doctor looking pretty dead) and so withdrew his completed script. The Bakers then had to write their own replacement episode with no knowledge of what had been in the original.
Not only did the Bakers have to write it with no knowledge of what had originally been scripted, but even if they had, they were legally barred from using any of the plot of Saward's original script.

So the Bakers weren't the finest scriptwriters Doctor Who ever had, but they could turn in useable scripts, on time, on budget, and to very tight deadlines. Some of their dialogue is excruciating, but their characterisation was always very strong. Both Peri and Mel are written about well as they ever were in their Baker scripts. And, daft though the plotting may have been, Baker scripts always made some sort of narrative sense.

The Bakers were old fashioned scriptwriters, they wrote stories, with a beginning, middle and end. And that's something that Saward rarely did - look at Attack of the Cybermen, (don't argue about the credit, it's basically his script) or Resurrection of the Daleks - sure they look good, and contain lots of exciting set pieces, but there's little in the way of a coherent plot to join all the bangs and guns together, and the supporting characters are mainly one dimensional ciphers about whom we simply don't know enough to care one bit when they are killed in increasingly violent ways.
adams66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2013, 12:53
CoalHillJanitor
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,025
And that's something that Saward rarely did - look at Attack of the Cybermen, (don't argue about the credit, it's basically his script) or Resurrection of the Daleks - sure they look good, and contain lots of exciting set pieces, but there's little in the way of a coherent plot to join all the bangs and guns together, and the supporting characters are mainly one dimensional ciphers about whom we simply don't know enough to care one bit when they are killed in increasingly violent ways.
I can't stand the confusion in my mind!
CoalHillJanitor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 11:47
Vopiscus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Probably not Syracuse
Posts: 421
"There's nothing you can do to stop the catharsis of spurious morality!"
(what does this even mean?)
Assuming the question isn't simply rhetorical...

For "catharsis" read "cleansing" and for "spurious" read "false" and it just about makes sense. Another case of the Bakers' being too near a thesaurus and too far from a dictionary, I fear.
Vopiscus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 18:24
TEDR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,274
What evidence is there in favour of the posted PDF being real? Where did it come from? It's only seventeen pages long, full of odd typos (though they could be OCR issues, I guess) and contains dialogue like:

"I don't know. (sudden thought) Unless someone wants us to think we're not orbiting this circulation of a circumference in a peripatetic mode. (amazed) Did I say all that?"
TEDR is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:03.