you haven't answered the question. if Russell's scripts are just as good why haven't they been nominated and then go on to win in these sci-fi writing awards?

perhaps the judges felt farting aliens and a blob with a Northern accent was a bit too high brow for them
Last edited by Black Guardian : 19-03-2007 at 21:19

While I am in general agreement with this post - I certainly prefer 'behind the scenes' shows to give out a few more details on how the process works etc. , I do have to note that your final statement cuts both ways. There are areas where the classic series wasn't perfect and it's perfectly valid for the production team to point this out especially if a number of fans are constantly praising the classic series to the detriment of the new one

If fans of the old series can't handle any criticisms maybe they're in the wrong 'job'

I love it when you 'rough me up' a bit Dangerman!

I love the old series and a significant number of the episodes of the new series Dangerman which I have indicated on the forums many times.
Last edited by Black Guardian : 19-03-2007 at 21:24

I've just finished rewatching the whole of series one (plus DWCs) and am half way through series two on the same basis. I'm afraid you are retraocatively rewriting things. The only real difference with series one DWC was more clips of the old series. In fact - there was a lot more old series/new series comparison in series one DWC - including references to what the new series could do better.

Likewise your charcterisation of DWC doing 'we do it so much better than the old series' has nothing to do with the second series DWCs so far (which, BTW, have had RTD express regrets on things they got wrong or wish they had more time/money to do, at least a couple of times now). References to the old series have been pretty respectful (a couple of jokes about public perception of the old series and one or two comments pointing out that the old series had a bad budget and led to some dodgy effects etc. - that's as 'bad' as it gets - and are we really going to argue that any of that is untrue?).


He is. Lovely, enthusiastic and a keen fan of Who old and new - which is why I feel it unfair that the odd bit of truth in his comments, or tongue in cheek humour from him, is being taken as him hating the old series.


The farting gags (as you put it) were a couple of scenes in which it was established that the Slitheen farted when in disguise. It was played as humour - thus making its later use (to show that Jackie was in danger from a policeman we the viewer knew was a Slitheen) all the more effective. I call that genius scripting. If there was fault it was with the directorial choices (the very first one before camera, a director who seems to have clashed with cast and crew). If the fartng had been handled better I don't think it would be criticised.

As for the bj thing - well - time has shown that people still read everything in L&M as literal - despite all the clues that it wasn't - so I'm not having that discussion again.


They clearly can - and are quite often self critical in the commentaries - but DWC is not the place for navel gazing.

In another place I once constructed a post containing nothing but comments made by RTD (in interviews etc.) that were self critical - but I didn't keep a copy and it's beyond the search parameters now. Suffice it to say it was a long post.

we will just have to agree to disagree Dr Thete! for the record I do like RTD's output with regards QAF, Casanova, Bob and Rose. brilliant. I guess I just prefer the scripts of other writers on the show.

not that it is much consolation either but I am just as critical about myself!

But you're only one person - who by his own admission tends to dislike RTD's scripts . There are others who are more general and frequently criticise 'new' while praising 'old' - are the creators of 'new' not entitled to defend their work ? Of course they are and let's be honest there are plenty of areas of 'old' which they can honestly say they have surpassed.
That's not to say that 'old' should be completely dismissed , of course it shouldn't , it has established the premise and the characters ( not to mention the fanbase ! ) which has allowed 'new' to take it's current lofty position without starting from scratch , as another show has done on 'the other side'

I did answer it - I pointed out it was a bloody silly argument.

His lack of nomination doesn't make his scripts any the less good - just means that someone else's script was seen as better overall.

Russell still got the story that had the best critical reception, he still has the highest ratings and AI figures (no - I'm not equating that to having the best quality - just noting it as important), he still has responsibility for the series overall (which has won awards and critical plaudits), he won the Pioneer award at BAFTA, and he had a part in the scripts that came second and third to The Empty Child/TDD in the Hugos.

He also, of course, focuses on the stories that begin and end and move the series on overall. He generally give others the slots in which they can shine.

So your question is founded on an entirely spurious point.

believe me I know the classic series had plenty of faults..I still feel queasy at the mere thought of watching Timelash!

as I pointed out in a post above I do like some of RTD's work outside Who. his scripts for Who just haven't worked for me in the same way others have.

Maybe you should rewatch Season 26 then NAF, that whole season was exactly about bringing mystery back into the show (rather successfully too I might add). How exactly did Love and Monsters bring any mystery to the series?

I thought he won the BAFTA for all his work, not just Who?

what part did he play in those scripts?

Dangerman - you think the same as i do - but you can put it across more better in your posts! Well done, sir!

Well, the Doctor and Roses adventures where shown from a different view. So if your first ever episode was L&M, then you'd be in the same spot as Elton, which IMO is a good thing. It's just a different way of showing how the Doctor can affect someone's life.

Is that mystery enough?

That's fine. I really have no issue with that at all.

I'm not uncritical of the new series or RTD. For the record - I thought AoL/WWIII was excellent - but marred by the computer password scene at the end (it took me out of the story). I don't know if that was writing or directorial - but it was a flaw. I think The Runaway Bride had great dialogues and set pieces - but was an unusually below par script, for RTD, in how it flowed. I thought The Long Game was a little dull frankly (though - watched with the hindsight of TPotW it gets better). New Earth was two brilliant scripts that shouldn't have been put togther - as they brought each other down and made a bit of a mess.

But then I look at the brilliance of Boom Town, Love & Monsters (let down only by the Absorbaloff realisation), Tooth and Claw, the series finales, Rose and overall I see him as one of the best thinsg ever to happen to Doctor Who.

So trust me - I'm fine with people holding a view of RTD or the series that differs from mine. My only bugbears are when facts are claimed (to back up such opinions) that are demonstrably wrong. Whether it be the ludicrous (the series isn't successful, is losing viewers etc. - claimed by some still) or the simply wrong (e.g. that Clay Hickman hates the old series). I just see no reason for it.

I think Love & Monsters should have been an introduction episode for a new companion. Not at the start of a series but mid-way through. Then the episode would have meant a lot more.

Very well put...!

The full text of the award noted his work for bringing back Doctor Who - and, as his current work, it was clearly the reason why the award was given at that point.


Rewriting of parts of both (acknowledged by both writers - and positively).

Can you not see why his comments are ill-judged? Personally it winds me up when people, who have made a bit of a living from the old show, go onto shows like DWC and rubbish the old series because they happen to be talking about the new series. I get the "I must look cool and follow the crowd" vibe from the comments he made. It's perfectly possible to praise the new series without rubbishing the old series, though that seems to be one of the main ways in which people justify the direction of the new series. I just don't understand how comparing it to a 15+ year old show with a fraction of the budget makes the new series any better

Interestingly, RTD, the man whose work I least like in the new series, rarely made any negative comments towards the old series during DWC. For that, he gets a bit of respect from me. I may not agree with his direction for Doctor Who but I respect his appreciation of the original series.
Last edited by Rooks : 19-03-2007 at 21:58

I am sure they showed clips from all of RTD's work, not just Who.

which scripts are you referring to?

Oh come on NAF, if any episode of Doctor Who was the first episode you've ever seen then you'd have exactly the same questions. That's not really mysterious. Seriously, go and watch a few of those old Sly McCoy episodes again, especially towards the end of his run. The Andrew Cartmell masterplan of making "The Doctor" truely mysterious again was actually really good. People associate Sly McCoys Doctor with the campy episodes like Time and the Rani and The Happyness Patrol but there are some real gems in there too like Curse of Fenric, Survival and Remembrance of the Daleks.

RTD creates a farting rubber alien, and it's genius! You're easily pleased!

If "L&M" was a viewers "first ever episode", I sincerely doubt they'd tune in again!

No, I'm sure that someone (no names ) would, just to make sure that it couldn't get any worse.

Dear Rooks,
I agree that season 26 was the best of Mccoy's era but the late 80s Doctor Who was not a good time. Compare it to the new seasons and you could lose the arguments. The Curse of Fenric I discovered on DVD (after I stopped watching after The Happiness Patrol) was good as was Remembrance of the Daleks but as for the rest. It also had the worse titles in the history of the programme. You know me Rooks I am no lovie of the new series but compared to this period it is fantastic. The new series should be compared to the best of classic Who and strive to get there. Love and Monsters didn't work for me and Fear Her was dire indeed. However when I think of the Candyman I still shudder. Let's hope we never go there again.

Wish I'd seen this "Candyman" episode.
Someone say his name 5 times?

Still have a feeling this is one of the returning villains for S3...

I thought we already did with the Slitheen.