I don't follow this. I understand the bit about it not being the fault of McCoy's performance as I have heard if often enough. But we seem to be entering a hall of mirrors here on the question of 'name the revisionist'.

Exactly. Anyone can convince themselves that their version of events is the correct one, and that people who thinks otherwise must be deluding themselves. It's not a very constructive avenue of discussion for anyone.

Well, now I am really confused and, to be honest, slightly annoyed. As I mentioned earlier the internet seems to be all about talking past each other and this is certainly a case in point. It seems the actual source of our disagreement is that you don't understand the meaning of the word revisionism and in this age where everybody can look things up on the internet, that does seem a tad complacent.

There are multiple meanings of 'revisionism'. Given the context of suggesting that the clips 'put paid to the McCoy revisionism', it suggests that you mean this sense of the word, because to seek to put an end to a legitimate and academically-balanced re-examination of historical facts would be a very odd thing to do.

I'm sure you can see where confusion could occur. Perhaps you could confirm whether or not this is the context you intended, and if not, please reword for clarity before getting annoyed.

Ah the resort to Wikipedia, what could be more helpful? I see that my dislike of McCoy's acting is now associated with holocaust denial. What right minded person could possible get upset about that?

Alternatively of course we could resort to common usage and common sense.

An orthodoxy exists. Some people come along and attempt to revise the orthodoxy. They are the revisionists.

So for the sake of clarity and my sanity, when one references revisionism in a discussion of Dr. Who it is highly unlike that one is referencing either David Irving or Stalin. One is probably (and for 'probably' read 'definitely' because any playful ambiguity will be misread) just referring to the misguided attempt to revise the previous orthodoxy regarding the Rentaghost stylings of McCoy. And in that sentence the weight falls on 'misguided' because revisionism is neither good nor bad (unless one were talking about holocaust revisionism and how fed up am I now at having to qualify everything) but is a case which needs to be proven one way or the other. Hence in the distant past of this exchange my mystification regarding your counter-accusation of revisionism, which seemed to have no connection to any form of orthodoxy, or anybodys attempt to revise it, or to the Soviet interpretation of historical events.

But our 'conversation' has now become so utterly devoid of purpose that I would be eternally grateful if somebody could say something (anything) about Time and the Rani which moves things on a bit.

I am suitably chastened but probably not to the extent of refusing every again to mention the baleful influence of Timothy Claypole on the eventual cancellation of Dr. Who.

yeah.. anyway... DID YOU SEE THE WAY HE FELL OVER!!!

As much as the fans are sympathetic to the problems the show was suffering at the time, you can only judge it by what made it to the screen.

The McCoy era is Who at its worst made by people who were just running out the clock and had no love left for the show.
What you get on screen is by the numbers campery, half hearted attempts and shocks and terrible characterisation.
The much vaunted "master-plan" of the time was "oooh, lets make the doctor more mysterious. ooooh. Maybe he can hint about being a bigger fish back home than he is...oooooh., Maybe he's THE FIRST TIME LORD...oooh, yes they'll like that, very mysterious. Maybe he can wear bigger question marks and leave more question mark calling cards in various places. ooooh...Oooh yes. That'll do. When's the pub open?"

David Walliams and Mark Gatiss were right.
Any old Duffer with an equity card....

Still, that said, nothing is as bad as closing time.
The Doctor is an eccentric house guest, doesn't understand human customs, can speak cat and work in a call centre eccentricly. Great.
But he can still find the time to PLAY FOOTBALL and unite a couple of friends that just needed a little push into a relationship.
Yeah, he doesn't get human customs at al.
Football and relationships? That's 90% of human existence for a large majority of this planet!
Also it has James Corden in it.
Enough said really.

isn't that The Lodger you're thinking of?

A right-minded person wouldn't jump to that sort of conclusion. Are you trying to Godwin yourself?

Time and the Rani is terrible. That clip isn't good (but not much worse than most of the eighties output). But to say that "McCoy's a bad actor" is some kind of accepted historical fact, and that people who disagree are trying to rewrite history, is all kinds of ridiculous.

I appreciate that you're trying to have a laugh. But it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. McCoy is awesome as the Doctor. And that's a scientifically accurate fact. And science kicks history's arse. Take that, philosophical ramblings!

I think the McCoy era is far and away the worst era of Who.

I believe that's down to bad writing, bad production, bad direction and, above all, atrocious acting from the poorest "actor" ever to take on the hallowed role.

I know many disagree with me but I just find his acting cringeworthy and embarrassing, and I'm not just talking Who here, I've seen him in many other shows and I get the same feeling every time.

I've got nothing against the man personally, I just don't rate him as the Doctor at all I'm afraid.

....and then the Rani made a face.

One for the Stewart Lee fans.

Has anyone ever counted how many times Ace calls him 'Professor' or 'Doctor' to see which occurs the most?

The Sylvester McCoy is era is terrible and I can barely watch any of his stories.

It was also the era that got the show cancelled. It was up against Coronation Street but if it had been any good it would have survived.

That said I like the guy as a person and I've liked him in other things Ive seen. Just wasn't good enough for the Doctor.

I don't think people defending him are revising history, it's more that he was the Doctor when they 1st started watching. They still had some viewers.

Always find it interesting listening to Doctor Who people talk about the later years.

Verity Lambert hated it, Terrance Dicks says they got the casting right for the 1st 4 incarnations and in general there's a feeling that they didn't take the show seriously and 'sent it up'.

I would generally agree. The only 2 stories I would say are good are Remembrance & Fenric. I can just about watch Delta and Battlefied as guilty pleasures the other 8 would be amongst my least favourite stories (along with Twin Dilemma and Timelash for the record).

It all became a dreadful embarrassment.

I do feel Colin Baker is (to some degree) remembered as an actor who failed in the role of the Doctor - because during his tenure the show was put on hiatus and then halved in length. And then he was sacked.

By McCoy filmed the same number of stories as Baker, but the show was actually axed while he was in the role. And by that time, there was no public outcry to keep the show going.

I know you can blame lots of things (scripts, budgets, scheduling etc) but I do personally think McCoy's acting and interpretation of the role was a serious negative factor affecting the chances of the show's long-term success. My personal view is that a better, more popular Doctor would have made a difference.

I absolutely agree, but I think it's a bit unfair of some people to blame McCoy personally for the problems.
He is a capable actor, as can be seen in many of the other parts he's played.
He was just wrongly directed when he was the Doctor, and we did see flashes of how good he might have been towards the end of his tenure.
Sadly it was too little, too late.

i like McCoy but he is was miscast. Bad production certainly but he was not right for this part which isn't to say he wasn't right for other parts since. I don't think he ever redeemed himself, even in battlefield or paradise towers.

Just turned 40 actually, so you're close. And I think my first response on finding out that Sylvester McCoy had got the job was thinking they just couldn't get anyone else to do it. I harbour the same suspicions about Andrew Cartmel's appointment as script editor.

I guess I'm a similar age so in that sense it wasn't bad timing. You're just getting into girls so you're not that bothered that it's gone a bit downhill. Girls didn't like boys who liked Doctor Who.

You go to uni, live the good life then wait out the Doctor Who wilderness years.

Ironically now girls do seem to like Doctor Who... we'll my wife doesn't.

My office is full of Titan Figures, Time Squad, sonic screwdrivers etc. my wife hates it all

Time And The Rani is probably the worst ever Who story IMO (just edging out even Fear Her and The Twin Dilemma), and, yeah, that initial clip is the lowest point of the show's darkest hour - just utterly abysmal, woeful even (although I can't bring myself to hate on Kate O'Mara - terrible as the serial is, and as nonsensical as it may be in plot terms, I kinda love her Bonnie Langford impression later on in the story).

I have to disagree with the hating on the pulse scene, though. The build up to it - especially when Seven falls fictim to some Mel-Fu - is dreadful, no doubt, but the bit where they actually check each other is brilliant - the only beacon of light in an otherwise awful set of episodes (though I could have done without Mel's random "Ah, yeah, I know all about regeneration for some reason, let's just skip over the explanations and get on with the adventure, eh Doc?").

In terms of Seven's tenure as a whole... I don't hate it.

I don't rate it as highly as some do, but I don't hate it. Sylv's on-screen depiction is probably the lowest-ranked for me (though he f***ing nails it with Big Finish), but too much of the televised stories are utter gash IMO. Rememberance, Fenric and Survival are cracking stories (and you can't shake the feeling that in Survival Ainley is finally getting to play the scary Master he always wanted to, and clearly relishing every second), Battlefield and TGSITG aren't bad, and I have a weird, dirty and utterly secret love for Delta And The Bannermen, but the rest is outright poor IMO. It was improving, no denying it, and Season 27 would probably have been legitimately great assuming the rate of improval continued, but as it stands it's nothing special IMO.

I think that the nail was hit on the head when people mention that season 26 looks so good in comparison to 24 and 25.

I also think that retrospectively our view of Seven's era has been changed. People always talk about McCoy's dark and amnipulative performances as the Chessmaster, and as Time's Champion etc., but watch the episodes, with no thought to what came after, and... there really isn't much there of that persona at all. Sure, he's a bit manipulative of Ace in Fenric, but otherwise the dark Doctor pulling the strings from behind the scenes is only really present on screen in a few scenes in Rememberance, and in the premise of Ghost Light.

The character that we think of as Seven is almost wholly invented by the Vigin NAs, and carried forward to Big Finish - we've then all retrospectively applied it to his TV stories. Sure, he was definitely getting darker as the seasons went on, and I do feel that the NAs were a logical continuation of what was on-screen, but in terms of his three seasons on air, McCoy is nothing like the Seven that fandom recognises or perceives.

Not saying that's a bad thing (or a good thing, come to that), I just find it interesting is all.

I'm going to be controversial here and say that I think Seasons 25 and 26 are vastly more enjoyable than season's 15, 16 and 17. Out of these three Tom Baker seasons, the only stories I actually enjoyed were The Horror of Fang Rock, The Image of the Fendahl, City of Death and Nightmare of Eden (as well as a bizarre soft spot for The Power of Kroll).

The Curse of Fenric is one of my all-time favourite stories, as is Remembrance of the Daleks. Survival was brilliant also and Ghost Light, Battlefield and The Greatest Show in the Galaxy were thoroughly watchable.


I've never read a Virgin NA book or listened to a Seventh Doctor Big Finish audio so my opinion of Seven is based solely on his television performance which I personally think is a lot better than some people make it out to be.

With all this said though, I would agree with most people on Season 24. It was utterly utterly dire. Apart from some bits of Dragonfire, season 24 is mostly complete filth which I will never watch again in my life.

I think it would be controversial if you were to say Seasons 25 and 26 were vastly more enjoyable than Seasons 12, 13 and 14. But when it comes to comparing Seasons 15-17 and 25-26, for me it's a choice between mediocre and downright unwatchable.

Incidentally, I don't find anything in Time and the Rani, as putrescent as it may be, quite as embarrassingly bad as Mordred's 'evil laughter' in Battlefield or the Doctor's "THERE WILL BE NO FIGHTING!" scenery-chewing nonsense in the same story. Obviously that's novice writers' idea of intense and thought-provoking, but I think it looked like the kind of stuff 10 year-old fans make on video cameras in their back gardens. No offense to 10 year-old fans, by the way - some of the stuff they're doing is probably a million times better.

I think where that came from is the loose arc that surrounds Ace's history - when he meets her, she explains her unusual circumstances, and there's a sense of continuity as he unravels her backstory, to the extent of manipulating her and tricking her into confronting her past. And he was never played as being reactive, there was always a sense that he was taking information in and working out a solution in the background - that he knew something we didn't and was stalling for time - which may not help pacing, but does help plot resolutions feel a little more earned. That's what I remember most from episodes like Ghost Light and Remembrance.

I think people were used to Doctors that were either grumpy all the time, or played the fool but had a thoughtful or melancholy side - whereas the Seventh swung straight from the extremes of being a complete fool, far too silly for many, and being legitimately dark and angry. In a way, the same sort of criticisms that people have had of Smith's portrayal. Although I obviously rate Smith as the better actor.

By the time of stories like Remembrance, most of the foolishness was gone, and the Doctor willing to trick a species into their own genocide was in full effect.