BOOK OF LISTS:

5 PIECES OF ESTABLISHED FAN OPINION THAT I JUST CAN'T WRAP MY HEAD AROUND

Another Opinion Piece that may make a return appearance now and again. Particularly when I feel a good rant coming on. Certain schools of thought are running through the general opinions of fans. Some, of course, are more popular than others but many of them are quite silly. I just thought I'd address a few of them.  

5. ONE VERSION OF WHO IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER.
Some who have only discovered the show "apres 2005" swear that Classic Who is just too damned slow and cannot be appreciated by modern standards. Others, who were there "back in the Old Days" say the New Series does not show proper respect to its roots and should not even be considered canon.

The truth is, both of these groups are ridiculous.

There is much to be said for the intensity and the presence that the Classic Series has. And the New Series is pacey and breath-taking. In the end, though, neither version of Who is perfect. But neither is bad, either. I think the nay-sayers just need a bit of patience.

Classic Who Purists: maybe New Who didn't meet your initial expectations but the show has done some serious maturing. Try it again and stick with it a bit more. But also understand that the format of the Classic Series is now outdated and would never work in modern-day television.

And for the New Who Lovers: Classic Who can be an acquired taste and, sometimes, needs to be viewed contextually. But even going back to Unearthly Child, you will see flashes of brilliance all over the place. Hang in there and keep watching.

But quit sounding like a tired old crank or a superficial young upstart as you complain about the version of Who that you hate. Fact of the matter is, 26 years can't be all that bad. Nor can a decade.



4. THE SHOW WENT DOWNHILL IN THE 80s

No. The show didn't get the budget it needed to keep up with what was going on with Sci-Fi TV in other parts of the world and it just started looking too silly. Or the ratings system back then sucked and a lot more folks were watching the show on their VCRs and weren't being included in the audience count. Or the BBC was just getting really stupid because they desperately wanted to kill the show and were doing all they could to make it unpopular.

But there was no drop in quality. We had many Classics in 80s Who and many Duds. Just like any other era of the show. But, for some reason, fandom becomes ultra hyper-critical in the 80s. Jon Pertwee can get chased by 20 Ogrons in a slow-moving three-wheeler for 5 minutes and we let it slide. But Sylvester McCoy better not hang by that brolley at the end of Dragonfire. Both situations are pretty cringeworthy. But they're okay if they happen in the 70s.

In some future essay, I shall finally reveal my Top Ten Favorite Stories Of All Time. Take note of how many of them are 80s stories.


3. ROGER DELGADO: BEST. MASTER. EVER.

I hate to speak ill of the dead, so I won't. Delgado did a great job of being the first to bring the character to life. But, like any actor, he had his off days and some of them got caught on film.

Ainley was the first to truly let the Master's insanity really start rising to the surface. I loved that. Pratt and Beevers really let the sense of evil run wild. And that could really give me the chills. Simm took that madness to a whole new level and gave us some great OTT moments. Jacobi did so much in the little time that he was given as the actual Master. Gomez is so good that she made it possible for us to accept the gender change.

Hell, even Eric Roberts was pretty damned watchable and we all need to stop picking on him so much!

I know it's tough to not want to pay extra reverence to Delgado since he had such a tragic ending. But he was just one of many and his Master had stronpoints and weakpoints. Just like any other incarnation. I can get that it's a matter of preference for some. In the same way that we all have favorite incarnations of the Doctor. But there seems to be this underlying attitude with some Delgado fans that he was great and all the other Masters have been rubbish compared to him. The only rubbish I see is an opinion like that.


2. COLIN BAKER'S DOCTOR WAS GREAT - BUT HIS STORIES WERE CRAP

The way I see it, both Vengeance On Varos and Revelation of the Daleks are actually Classics. Ultimate Foe is pretty amazing, too. Which is even more impressive when you consider the behind-the-scenes nightmare that went on to write it. Three really strong stories in a season-and-a-half (let's remember, Trial of a Time Lord was half the length of Season 22) is pretty good odds, right there.

On the other end of the spectrum - yes, we do have Twin Dilemma and Timelash. Both stories that get far worse of a rep than they deserve. They're not, necessarily, amazing either. But I wouldn't place them as low as they are in The Mighty 200. Personally, I think they got that rank because of the inaccuracy of this whole ideology about Colin's era.

In between those two stories are some pretty strong middle-of-the-road stuff that has weaknesses and strengths. Attack of the Cybermen has some of the best action sequences I've seen in the history of the series (hard not to punch the air every time I watch Stratton and Bates escape). Mark of the Rani introduces such a good villainess that we're still hoping she returns in the New Series. Mindwarp receives high praise for being so unique and different from the standard Who story. At the same time, we can also note how Attack resorts to just slaughtering the main cast to create an ending. Mindwarp can be a bit slow, in places. And Mark of the Rani has: "The tree won't hurt you."

I've made this point in a few other sections but I'll say it again: every era of Who has moments of triumph and moments of failure. I'm amazed how certain eras, however, are only remembered for their failures. Colin's period as the Doctor gets this sort of treatment worse than any other period.

I'm starting to hear the term "serious re-evaluation required" being applied to him more and more. But the inaccurate stygma his stories receive is still too strong. I'm so glad to hear fans of the New Series are going back to look at his stuff and saying: "What's the problem, here?" Just wish the fans that were around when those stories actually came out could wipe the prejudice from their eyes and try to watch the episodes with a clean slate. They'd be surprised.

They might even start thinking crazy things like, quite possibly, the Colin Baker era has better stories in it than a lot of other eras do.



1. STEVEN MOFFAT IS KILLING THE SHOW

I saved this one for last because it's the one I think that is the most unfounded.
On a superficial level, he can't be killing the show if it's as successful as it is. And Doctor Who has never been more successful - internationally and domestically. It's so well-established that it's actually become cool to be a Doctor Who fan. Travel back in time to meet the Teenaged Me of the 80s and tell him that and he would never have believed you!

Some will try to claim that he is riding on the coat-tails of the foundation RTD built and that the success is going to collapse in upon itself at any given moment. To this, I can only say: "It's been over five years since RTD left his post. If that was going to happen, it would have, by now."

In terms of artistic merit, I think this is some of the best stuff the show has ever done. Do I blindly agree with all the choices Moff makes? Of course not. But I am far more in love with all the amazing things he has done to be all that upset with a few minor errors of judgement.

Not that I want to pick on RTD too much - there's quite a bit that he did that I enjoy, too. But, since people are harping on Moff for riding on his success, I'll point out one of the many things that I feel he's doing way better:

Season-long story arcs seem to be the big rage, now. So often, I felt RTD did some very awkward shoe-horning to get some of the story arcs to work (Really? You're going to randomly say "Medusa Cascade" while an alien imatates you? No, you've inserted this dialogue because the Medusa Cascade hasn't been mentioned for a few episodes!).

The arcs work so much better with Moff at the helm. They're so much less intrusive. Occasionally having a dead minor character suddenly meet Missy in the afterlife, for instance, was such a smooth way to remind us that her storyline is going to reach some sort of fruition by the end of season.

Let's not just praise Moff, though. Let's also defend him by addressing one of the common complaints leveled against him:

A lot of people like to bring up certain tropes that Moff has been known to repeat from time-to-time. Yes, he's created two different creatures that do nasty things when you turn away. Oh my God! How horrible! Other great writers for Who never did that! Moff is sooo bad!

To which I must now direct your attention to a fellow named Robert Holmes. Any Classic Who fan will swear to the Four Ends of the Earth that he is the greatest writer to ever grace the show (and I won't argue with them). They'll also harp on endlessly about how Caves of Androzani was the best story he ever wrote (that one, I might argue with). Will even swear that it was the best Who story ever written (certainly, fan polls frequently re-enforce that point).

Want to get a sneak preview of Caves of Androzani? Watch Power of Kroll and Talons of Weng Chiang - there's a tonne of elements from both those stories that pop up again in the plot of Caves of Androzani. There is also a fair amount of re-tread from The Krotons that is seen in Mysterious Planet. And wouldn't the very fact that we have the term "Holmesian Double Act" indicate that there's a certain style of characterization that the author re-uses somewhat frequently?

Is Robert Holmes a terrible writer? Of course not. The truth of the matter is: writers (particularly TV writers) will re-use ideas from time to time.

But this does bring up a second dead horse that I love to beat when I'm talking about Established Fan Opinion. Why is it okay for something to be done in one era of the show but not okay if another era also does it? How can we say: "It's horrible that such-and-such did this?!" but actually praise a different artist that did the exact same thing?  Sometimes, there is no logic to the prevalent opinions of fandom!

While on the subject of the Great Mister Holmes, let me go out on this note: I genuinely feel that the Hinchcliff/Holmes era that we all love to go on about is being matched by the current output we've been getting with Moff at the Helm. These really are the Golden Years Returned. In my book, at least.

How's that for strong words?!


Well, that's off my chest. Think I'll get back to working out a plausible history for the Cybermen...