UNADULTERATED BOORISH OPINION: THE "BAD YEARS" OF DOCTOR WHO - WHAT I REALLY THINK OF THEM: PART TWO

And we're off to Part Two of what will probably constitute my Greatest Rant Ever in this Blog. Amazingly enough, I didn't get any real pushback from Part One. In fact, most seemed to agree with it! 

Missed Part One? Scroll down a bit or click here: 

https://robtymec.blogspot.com/2026/05/unadulterated-boorish-opinion-bad-years.html

If you haven't read it yet, you may want to. Otherwise, Part Two makes less sense.      

THE ART OF SKEWING 

In case it hasn't been made clear enough, yet: My biggest problem with fandom regarding this whole issue is how much they love to "skew". As I've already mentioned, the same story flaw can exist within a Golden Age or a "bad" period. But one will be virtually ignored while the other one gets blown out of proportion. It all depends on when the problem took place. This, alone, is a pretty horrific example of skewing.  

But the skewing process goes even further than that. A poor choice on the production team's behalf during a "bad" era can be a pretty minor one. But, because the Grumpy Old Fan (love the way Mark Gatiss used this term during a recent interview!) is looking for any little bit of ammunition to justify their vitriol, the small error suddenly has a huge effect on their ability to enjoy the show. Basically, one tiny mistake ruins everything. This, to me, is skewing being taken to a ridiculous extreme. 

Since I haven't really given an example of this, I'll make one now. Once more, I'll be using Comparison to bring home my point. 

I remember, back in the day, how much people would drone on about the cliffhanger in Mark of the Rani. 

"It's a cheat!" they used to complain, "At the end of Part One, the Doctor's about to plunge to his Doom. But then, during the reprise in Episode Two, they insert these extra shots showing that George Stephenson was rushing along to save him the whole time!" 

I can't refute the claim. This cliffhanger definitely has a "cheat resolution" to it. And this is where we see "extreme skewing" coming into play. There is much to love about Mark of the Rani. All the banter that takes place between the three Time Lords is some of my favorite dialogue in the whole history of the show. The Rani is an interesting new villainess whose very presence in the story creates a different sort of plot structure. In general, the whole thing is a well-put-together period story/pseudo-historical. 

But certain segments of fandom seemed completely oblivious to the better aspects of Mark of the Rani. That damned cliffhanger cheat ruined the whole story. Once we were a minute into Part Two, everything became total crap. Even all the stuff that had happened in Part One! 

And yet, back in the Great Almighty Hinchcliffe Era, no one bemoaned Planet of Evil. The resolution to Part Three's cliffhanger is equally cheap. The Doctor and Sarah are slid into a special compartment in the Morestran spaceship and should have been ejected into space. We saw the process earlier and know how much time it takes. They should be done for. And yet, as we return to the crisis in Part Four, the Doctor and Sarah just don't stay in the special airlock for as long as they did in the previous episode. Someone very quickly reverses the process and brings them back out. That's as bad of a cliffhanger resolution as the George Stephenson Sneak Attack. Perhaps even worse. Planet of Evil seems to actually be altering time. Even though no time travel mechanics were involved in the process! 

And what about the all-time greatest cliffhanger cop-out of them all? Not only does it also take place during what many consider to be the goldenest of Golden Ages, but it's in what a large amount of fans claim to be an absolute Classic. 

I'm speaking, of course, of Genesis of the Daleks. 

Sarah Jane Smith falling off the scaffolding she's climbing at the end of Part Two and then somehow managing to fall back on to it at the top of Part Three almost feels like Terry Nation was trying to make a parody of cliffhangers. Like he was actually taking the piss out of the whole plot device. 

"But wait, Rob!" those Grumpy Old Fans will persist, "It wasn't just the bad cliffhanger that pissed us off. That bit where Jack Ward turns into a tree and saves Peri is kinda stupid too!" 

Again I must agree. That moment didn't make a lot of sense. So Mark of the Rani does have two whole substantial problems to it. Should this really ruin the entire story, though? Both issues are pretty short-lived. There's a good 88 minutes of material, there, that stands up pretty well. But, because two minutes didn't work, the skewing happens. Mark of the Rani is garbage. 

Let's take a look at those two Hinchcliffe stories I just brought up. A good chunk of Episode Four of Planet of Evil actually stops making sense. Throughout the story, we've established some pretty clear rules on how anti-matter works. It actually seems to be seeking out and wanting to take back whatever stuff from its universe Doctor Solon has stolen. And yet, suddenly, when Solon has multiplied into a small army of anti-matter monsters, the Doctor repels the attackers by waving a cannister of anti-matter at them, 

Huh? That makes absolutely no sense. The anti-matter shouldn't be driving them away. If anything, it should be strengthening them. I know that, in the end, it's all pseudoscience and you can kinda do whatever you want with it. But this is pretty wildly inconsistent. Rules made about anti-matter in earlier episodes are being broken for the sheer sake of plot convenience. How about a line of dialogue somewhere that offers some kind of explanation for why anti-matter suddenly seems to be repelling other anti-matter rather than attracting it? 

The secondary problem that we can find in Genesis of the Daleks is considerably larger than a rather silly sequence involving a tree. It's the fact that there is nowhere near enough content to fill its six episodes. Sarah Jane's excursion on the scaffolding is a great example of the ridiculous amount of filler that is used throughout the plot. It's a gigantic, drawn-out capture-and-escape. It pads out the better part of an episode but then comes to absolutely no avail. Sarah Jane is re-captured and the whole story goes back to where it was twenty minutes previously. A similar thing is done with Harry and the Doctor trying to escape the Kaleds in Part One. And then, of course, there's the endless scenes of Davros trying to win over more fans in Part Six. More blatant padding that drags on forever and ever. 

Really, the problems with Hinchcliffe stories that also have cliffhanger cheats actually seem larger than the issues in Mark of the Rani. But one story gets berated because it took place in a "bad" time for the show. The other two seem to get glossed over because they are in a Golden Age. The fans skew the negatives in whatever direction they need to in order to justify their opinions. But the Basic Rules of Good Writing present a much different case. 

This is the great problem of skewing. It works on two levels. When something goes wrong in a tale from a "bad" period, it ignores similar problems that have happened during happier times. On top of that, it turns a molehill into a mountain. That small issue suddenly becomes so huge that the entire adventure is now considered "crap". 

Of course, if you skew often enough, then you can start claiming that entire eras of the show are falling short of the mark. The writing is bad. Or the producer sucks. Or something like that. When, really, there's not much of anything all that bad going on. In some cases, we're actually getting better content. Mark of the Rani, at least, does a good job of filling its four episodes. Whereas Genesis of the Daleks really does drag, in places. I'd consider that a far bigger problem than George Stephenson's surprise appearance and a sentient tree coming to the rescue. 

Just to back that point up: I have actually watched Mark of the Rani with far greater frequency than I have Genesis of the Daleks. In fact, I watch the Colin Baker Era way more than I do the Hinchcliffe Period. 

How's that for crazy?! 

WHY DOES IT HAPPEN? PART ONE - THE BIG QUESTION 

Okay, so my little comparison method was fairly effective (to those of you who aren't ridiculously close-minded, at least!). But there might just be one great big gaping hole in my theory that still needs to be covered. One simple question that requires answering:: 

If there truly are no "bad" periods in Doctor Who, then why do fans actually believe that there are?     

Admittedly, it's a valid point. Why do the opinions of so many fans veer into such similar directions regarding what constitutes entertaining and unenjoyable periods for the show? Shouldn't more people see things the way I do?    

Well, firstly, I do think there are a lot more people than we realize that find the show's overall quality is fairly consistent throughout the years. But a lot of us that feel that way have learnt not to speak of such things too publicly. Denounce stuff in a Golden Age and you tend to get a lot of flack for it. Praise something that some fans don't like and you're going to get attacked. So, for the most part, we keep our mouths shut. Unless, of course, we write a blog!

But there is still a significant amount of fandom that subscribes to the idea that Doctor Who has high points and low points. And that those peaks and valleys have nothing to do with their own sense of perception. But, rather, the talent and abilities of those that are making the show at the time. So the question remains: What, exactly, has caused this phenomenon to happen?   

Primarily, I think it has a lot to do with the very simple principle of timing. External factors were going on that caused a lot of people to see the show in a certain light. I'd also attribute some of these opinions to good 'ole fashioned basic human nature, too. 

What do I mean by all this? Let me start by explaining how I think Golden Ages came into being.  

WHY DOES IT HAPPEN? PART TWO - GOLDEN AGES 

Lots of fans have deep feelings about the Golden Ages of Doctor Who. They really are certain that this was when the best version of the show was being made. But, if you follow the show's general trajectory within the public consciousness, I think there's a much different explanation for why a Golden Age happens, 

Quite simply, it's when the show became part of the mainstream. 

At some point during New and Classic Who, the show grows away from being more of a "thing for sci-fi fans" and becomes an event that entire families choose to watch together. Everyone starts feeling like it's a great show. When, really, the quality was staying pretty consistent the whole time. But when Doctor Who first becomes a sort of zeitgeist in British culture, it gets labeled as being "better", . 

Admittedly, this theory is a bit more tenuous during the Classic Series. We did get Dalek Mania during the early 60s. This definitely propelled Doctor Who into the stratosphere. But I would argue that Dalek Mania was more about Daleks than the show, itself. When the Skarosian Tyrants weren't in episodes, ratings could definitely flounder. In fact, the show struggled quite a bit to stay alive during both Hartnell and Troughton. 

Now, many cite the Hinchcliffe Era as being Who at its absolute peak. But they will add that Classic Who's Golden Age spanned most of the 70s. Which means, of course, that it started with Pertwee. Which is about when the show became "Must-See Viewing" for a good chunk of the British public. Did the writing become any better during this period? Not really. I can, easily, compare Pertwee's stuff to Hartnell and Troughton and we'd see an equal proportion of brilliance and failure. I'm more inclined to believe that Doctor Who became more popular as Pertwee took the stage simply because it had been around long enough. Its longevity got a good enough number of people to finally take the time to check it out and start tuning in regularly. The quality had always been there. It just needed to get noticed. 

I also think we should take into account that there was a baby boom going on just prior to the show starting. Which means lots of people reached that highly-influenceable age as the 70s kicked in. That magical period in life that one gets massively nostalgic about as they grow older. Which causes an era of a show to often be re-watched at a later time with rose-tinted glasses. Sure, there's some plot holes in the stories you grew up with. But they don't really matter. Cause you're remembering so well how thrilling it was to watch it when you were still just a kid. 

Television is moving much faster by the time New Who arrives. So it only took one season for it to become an institution, again. Admittedly, quality did have some role to play in this. Series One is quite excellent, If it had not been so well-constructed, becoming a zeitgeist might have taken longer. 

But there are a ton of stumbles that Series Two makes that many people who were discovering the show for the first time gloss over. They're caught up in the excitement of this great new show that they love and are less likely to notice the warts. As far as they're concerned, this is Doctor Who at its height. Don't tell them otherwise. 

Because television is moving faster, the second Golden Age of Doctor Who is much shorter. Whereas the first one spanned Pertwee and most of Tom Baker, this second peak only seems to last for Tenant. People still like the show for quite a bit after he leaves - but it's already only a shadow of its former self.  

WHY DOES IT HAPPEN? PART THREE - THE "BAD" PERIODS

During the last part, I pointed out how a large percentage of Who's viewership during a Golden Age were at a highly-influenceable age when the show was being made. I stressed this for Classic Who but I also think it had a strong role to play in the New Series, as well. If we follow this logic, then, we can then see why "Bad" periods for the show can happen. 

Quite simply, the audience grows up and becomes a bit more discerning. 

When you're only twelve years old, Sutekh being given everything he needs to escape his imprisonment is something you neither notice nor care about. But watching a tree grab someone and save them from a land mine looks pretty stupid when you're in your 20s. Both scenarios are a bit ludicrous (again, I would even argue that the plot hole in Pyramids of Mars is far bigger) but you were far easier to win over when you were only twelve. Whereas you have a much more critical eye in your later years. I wouldn't say the show hasn't changed at all since you watched it as a kid. It's grown and evolved a bit. But it's always going to have shortcomings. You're just noticing them better, now. 

Something else besides nostalgia happens to a fan once they've hung in with a franchise for a bit: Entitlement. Enjoying something like Doctor Who for a handful of years will cause many a fan to believe that they know the show better than any professional that comes along and produces it. In this instance, it's no longer just a case of a more discerning eye - they've become hypercritical. If the show does anything to fall out of the specifications of what they hold to be "Good Who", they start foaming at the mouth! People that make a living creating television can't know how to make a better show than they do! Gosh darn it, they should be the Head Writer! 

We need only look at most of the fan fiction that gets made to see how bad of an idea that would be! 

There is a saying I've been hearing lately about fandoms, in general. It seems like many people want the franchises they love to be "preserved in amber". Once a formula has been found that resonates with them, they don't ever want things to change. 

But good television is also good art. And art evolves and transforms over time. It seems to me that Doctor Who continues to try to grow after a Golden Age. But parts of fandom just don't want to grow with it. 

WHY DOES IT HAPPEN? BECAUSE IT HAPPENS. ROLL THE BONES

(SORRY. COULDN'T RESIST MAKING THE RUSH REFERENCE) 

This has been a very long-winded essay. So much so, that I'm tempted to break it down and release it in installments (which I may still do! We'll see as I go through the editing!) (Oh look! I did!) 

Ironically, the whole crux of my argument can be summed up by one statement. A simple sentiment uttered way back in the 80s by a man in a Hawaiian shirt 

"Eat it. Just eat it." 

Wait. Wrong guy. 

The proper quote would be: 

"The Memory Cheats" 

The dips or rises in quality that Doctor Who has gone through over the years are negligible, at best. Overall, I feel it's always been a strong show. Some people, however, watch the show during a  certain  time in their lives where nostalgia can, sometimes, color their viewpoint.  

It probably helped that I'm a Canadian in his 50s. So I've experienced the show in a very different way from a lot of fans. I found Doctor Who on what we call PBS TV stations. In the area I live in, those stations broadcast the episodes all at once. Oftentimes, on a daily basis. I started watching Who around 1983. Within a year, I had watched the entirety of the show up to that point. From Hartnell to the first signs of Colin Baker, I'd seen it all. I was only about Twelve at the time. So all of it was very exciting for me. While I was still much less critical at that age, I could also be just a little bit more objective. I didn't just watch a certain era during that period of my life, I watched everything that was out there at the time. 

In that sense, it's allowed me to view Doctor Who just a little bit more holistically, Even at Twelve, there were scenes that I found to be genuinely cringeworthy. But, most of the time, I felt the program was quite brilliant. But I can't honestly think of a period where the show was "taking a turn for the worst". Nor do I feel like there was a time when Who was at its "absolute best".

I will go so far as to say that there are weaker seasons of Doctor Who. I'm not very fond of Season Seventeen or Series Two. Season Twenty-Four has some pretty nasty misfires too. But in all these instances, lessons get learnt. A much better season follows after that. 

Which means that, in the end, it all comes clean in the wash. Overall, the quality of Doctor Who remains consistent throughout the ages. You may beg to differ - and that's fine. As always, you're entitled to your opinion. I, at least, have managed to present mine with a fair degree of logic and impartiality.

There we go: Rant complete. Expressing such an opinion in so complete a manner actually felt quite good.

Some of you may be noticing that I'm writing in here less and less frequently. I contributed regularly to this blog for a good solid decade. Oftentimes, when I reach a ten year mark with something, I start growing disinterested. I often joke that this may be the reason why I never got married! 

What I'm really getting at is this could actually be my final PRETENTIOUS DOCTOR WHO ESSAY. If it is, this is a nice note to go out on. 

Thanks very much to anyone who has bothered to even sit through a single entry. And to those of you who have read quite a few: Hope you enjoyed the ride 

UNADULTERATED BOORISH OPINION: THE "BAD YEARS" OF DOCTOR WHO - WHAT I REALLY THINK ABOUT THEM: PART ONE

This is an entry that has been a long time in coming. I probably would have never even written about this if the show hadn't entered another one of these phases. But, since it has, I feel I should rant about it a bit. 

I want to talk about the periods where certain vocal fans decided that Doctor Who had become "bad".   

The non-geeks of the world are often befuddled by fandoms. They suppose that people that are heavily into a certain franchise are mostly happy by what it puts out. Sure, we might object to certain creative decisions that are made by the production teams that are currently in charge of the Brand. But, overall, we like what we're seeing. 

In many ways, this idea can't be further from the truth. Quite often, the latest output from a franchise is ruthlessly torn to pieces by its "fans". Every single flaw is picked apart under the harshest of microscopes and complained about endlessly. Only once a few years have passed does the content finally get "re-evaluated". It turns out the material wasn't so bad, after all. Maybe even quite good, in places. The latest crap that's coming out, however, is utter drivel! 

And the cycle continues...

In defense of geeks, it's usually only a small-but-very-vocal segment of fandom that does this. A lot of us really are, for the most part, happy with what the production team is doing with what we love. That small-but-very-vocal segment, however, loves to berate us if we state opinions that don't fall in line with what they feel. So, for the most part, we put up with them and just let them complain. There's little point in opposing them. Even if they do make us appear bad to those looking in from the outside.  It's just easier to silently appreciate what we're enjoying and stay out of the cross-hairs of toxic fans. 

We see this endless repetition of hate what's new and only like it later in Doctor Who over and over. But there can be a deviation in the pattern. For a time, the show can enter a period where the re-evaluation takes considerably longer. Or, for some people, never happens at all. It becomes a sincere belief that Production is creating material that is just-plain bad. 

"The show has slipped" small-but-vocal fans will say, "The stories are awful." 

Poor writing is usually cited as the main problem. Or, at least, that's the superficial claim. There are, sometimes, ulterior motives that are trying to be concealed. Those hidden reasons are usually of a somewhat off-color persuasion that would put the disgruntled viewer in a poor light. In recent years, for instance, some people have been upset that a woman or an openly-gay black male has been cast as the lead. But they know it's not something they should openly admit to. So they blame bad writing, instead. 

But we can't just use racism, homophobia or misogyny to dismiss this issue. There can be other factors involved. 

THE TWO TIMES THIS HAS HAPPENED 

As we move forward with this diatribe, I should clearly establish which periods of the show have been considered by certain segments of fandom to be "bad". As we take a closer look at each era, we will see that the actual beginning of this decline in quality is somewhat subjective. In some instances, one might even say a bit misleading. 

The First Time

It would be almost easier to count the start of the first "bad" period of Doctor Who as occurring at the beginning of a season. But most people who feel that Classic Who took a turn for the worst would actually claim its initial problems manifested during a season finale. They would say it happened right at the end of Season Twenty-One. 

Right when Colin Baker took over the role. 

Most are nice to the actor, himself. They say he did the best with what he was handed. The blame is laid more at the feet of the producer and the writing team he put together. The critics will tell you that John Nathan-Turner made some very bad choices as Colin Baker was cast as the Doctor. He instructed the authors to make the Sixth Doctor too unlikeable. He accepted scripts that were ill-constructed. And, most significantly, he picked out that horrible costume! It's from Twin Dilemma onwards that the detractors say Doctor Who went downhill. 

This benchmark, however, is only so accurate. 

Harsher fans would actually say that it all began the moment JNT took over. Tom Baker's last season was a poor conclusion to his reign. Peter Davison's era was not really that great, either. Colin Baker was just a continuation of things that were already very problematic. 

On the other end of the spectrum, however, we see even more inaccuracies. Many fans will tell you that the show didn't keep degenerating once Seven took over. Sure, his first season was rough. But the final two seasons of the Classic Series were, in fact, two of its best. And the show only died because the BBC had decided it was going to regardless of how well-made the program had become.  

Others, however, will contradict such a notion and say that the show went down the tubes from Colin Baker, onwards. Regardless of how much most people loved Seasons Twenty-Five and Twenty-Six. 

As you can see, the waters regarding when Classic Who became "bad" are quite murky! It can last all the way from Season Eighteen to the end. Or it can be as short as Colin Baker and a bit of Sylvester McCoy. 

The Second Time

By the standards of some, it is believed that Doctor Who's second "bad" phase is happening even as I write this. 

Again, there are problems with when it all started. Most would say it began when Chris Chibnall became Head Writer and cast Jodie Whitaker as the lead. Fans who believe this can be a bit crueler than the ones that bashed late 80s Who. They not only claim that the writing was poor but many also believe that Jodie's acting skills were not up to par. They continue to disapprove of things as RTD returns. The Sixtieth Anniversary Specials were a bit of a disappointment and the stuff with Ncuti Gatwa was absolutely horrible. These fans have one huge point that they love to make to support this idea. 

"Look at the ratings!" they'll say, "If Doctor Who isn't so bad, right now, then why are so few people watching it?!"

That very argument, however, points out the hugest flaw in their reasoning. 

New Who's ratings began their big plummet during Peter Capaldi's final season. Which is, of course, an entire year before Chibnall took over.  This was meant to be a time when the show was still "good". So if the ratings support the notion that the program has declined in quality, then why did they first drop during Series Ten? Such a situation should have only began when Thirteen was piloting the TARDIS. 

In both cases, the beginnings and even endings of these "bad" periods are somewhat nebulous. Opinions differ greatly on when things started going wrong. Which means we're already getting a strong indication that this whole theory of Doctor Who having significantly weaker eras might not be as sound as some would lead us to believe. 

WHAT I REALLY THINK (AND HOW I WILL PROVE MY POINT!)

So, if you've been following this blog at all, you know that Six is my favorite Doctor and Thirteen is my second favorite. Both of these incarnations are at the epicenter of what some consider to be Doctor Who at its worst. So you can, very obviously, figure out that I don't agree with this sentiment. Mind you, if you've never read this blog before, I think you can still tell by the tone of this entry, alone, that I don't find these periods to be "bad". 

Now, expressing your taste is one thing. I would, in fact, have no problem with fans that just say that these periods of the show "weren't their cup of tea", That's fine. If you didn't enjoy it - for whatever reason - you're entitled to that sentiment. 

But the fact that some people feel the need to label these eras as "bad" compels me to stand up and make my voice heard. And, more importantly, point out to the detractors that their opinions are only on so solid of a ground. As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to validly insult the tastes of others (which is kinda what you're doing when you're saying something I like is "bad"), you should be ready to back up your points. So often, however, we just hear these people say things like: "The writing is awful." Which always makes me say: "Well, what's so awful about it?!" Most of the time, however, they don't elaborate. I get the equivalent of: "It just is!" 

So I'm going to try to pick some things apart, here. While many do remain vague in their opinions, I have heard a few pointed complaints about things that make these two periods so terrible. I'm going to address them and try to show how, quite often, the internal logic of these objections fall apart. 

WHAT I REALLY THINK (AND HOW I WILL PROVE MY POINT) PART 2: COMPARISON 

This is, perhaps, the best argument I can use in this debate. 

For the most part, fans who believe that there are periods when the show was "bad" also believe in the idea that it also had its Golden Ages. Eras where the show was absolute perfection. It could do no wrong. Everything that came out during such a time was absolute brilliance. These fans, themselves, will compare a low point in Doctor Who to one of these totally awesome Golden Ages and rant endlessly about how much better things were back then. 

I'm going to participate in a similar exercise. Except, in my case, I'm going to try to be more objective about it. 

Quite often, I find that when you line a "bad" time up against a Golden Age and remove those rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia, the two eras are really not that different. Each has low points and moments of greatness. More times than not, it's all about skewing things. Certain traits - both negative and positive - get over-emphasized in order for people to get their points across. 

With this in mind, I shall do my best to strip away biases and show how the idea of Doctor Who being awful doesn't really make a lot of sense. If you're hating those supposedly weaker points in the show's history, than you should be despising those Golden Ages too. Because, in many ways, they're putting out the exact same level of quality in their content. 

The First Time

While I've pointed out the subjectivity of when exactly Classic Who's low point occurred, I'll focus in on the Colin Baker Era, anyway. That does seem to be the spot that people complain most about. The Big Question is: What, exactly, shall I compare it to?   

70s Who, in general, seems to be held in high regard. Pertwee's Doctor is greatly-loved and, of course, Tom Baker has achieved near-godhood! But to try to go through ten years of the show would probably be a bit too laborious of a read. So let's whittle things down a bit and look specifically at three seasons from that decade that receive the greatest level of appreciation. Many would even say that Doctor Who was never better than it was during this time. I, however, am about to make the most controversial of statements: 

The Philip Hinchcliffe Era is a bit overrated. 

It's got a few Classics in it, yes. Stories like Ark in Space and The Deadly Assassin have actually made it into my Top Ten Favorite Doctor Who Stories Ever. However, it should be noted that there are also what I call "Fake Classics" in there, too. Stories some fans love to go on about. But, when I look at them, I see way too many flaws for them to have such a status. Genesis of the Daleks, for instance, riddles itself with needless captures-and-escapes to pad out its six episode run. Terror of the Zygons possesses the most threadbare of plots. Both of these tales, however, tend to get tremendous respect. But, at best, they're really just middle-of-the-road. We even have something like Seeds of Doom - which I think is actually pretty bad. For two episodes, it gives us the most simple of adventures: A man turns into an evil plant. Then it stretches the exact same plot out again for four more episodes! It wasn't anything special the first time round, guys - what makes you think we want this again?!  

On top of the Fake Classics, we do have a number of stories that I feel are quite average but still good: The Sontaran Experiment, Planet of Evil, The Masque of Mandragora and The Face of Evil are all great examples of this. Nothing too spectacular - but still solid. 

I would even say that we have a Hidden Gem. Brain of Morbius is a legitimate Classic that never seems to get the credit it deserves. 

Then, finally, we get some duds. I consider The Android Invasion to be one of the worst Doctor Who stories, ever. Why do the Kraals go to ridiculous lengths to build a fake human village and populate it with androids just to figure out how to release a virus into our drinking water? It makes no sense! An equal amount of silliness happens in Revenge of the Cybermen. We have Vogans making shackles out of gold so that it's easy for Harry and Sarah-Jane to escape from them. But when it comes to bullets that could actually kill their most feared opponents - they seem to go for lead, instead! 

I think the greatest strength of the Hinchcliffe Period is that many of the serials are very well-directed. Even with the low budget, a lot of it looks quite filmic. The vivid moods created by the visuals (and some stellar incidental music) make a strong impact on viewers and help us to look past a lot of problems. Thus earning those Fake Classics the place they have in some of our hearts. Something like Talons of Weng Chiang might be dripping with atmosphere, but it's about two-and-a-half episodes longer than it needs to be. uses an extremely silly plot contrivance to extend itself (he forgot the key to the cabinet back at the theatre, really?!) and has an ending that just sort of peters out. 

And let's not even get into that eye make-up! 

We can then jump over to Sixie's period and see it's got all the same stuff. Some legitimate Classics like Vengeance on Varos (also in my Top Ten) and Revelation of the Daleks. A lot of mid-range stuff like Attack of the Cybermen, Mark of the Rani, The Mysterious Planet and Terror of the Vervoids. There's a few "clunkers", of course, like The Twin Dilemma and Timelash. But then, like Morbius, I find The Ultimate Foe to be a bit of an Unsung Classic. 

While the directing during Hinchliffe was its greatest strength, Colin Baker's era wins extra points for its boldness. It takes a number of tremendous risks with its grittiness and darker themes. It also gives us some genuinely odd stories like Varos and Mindwarp. .  

Finally, Colin's era takes a huge chance with a season-long concept like Trial of a Time Lord. A particularly bold idea since it's actually doing a bit of art imitating life. The Doctor is on trial for his life while his show is at the same time! 

While the directing is great, we don't really see much risk-taking in the Hinchcliffe era like we do, here. There are a few violent moments that go a bit too far but, aside from that, the show actually plays it pretty safe most of the time

Does all this experimental stuff of Seasons Twenty-Two and Twenty-Three always work? Of course not! But then, there were some pretty poor directorial choices during the Hinchliffe period too (what the Hell, for instance, is going on with some of the editing in Part One of Brain of Morbius?!) Even the strong points of a certain set of stories don't always go well. In either period that we're speaking of

I will even go out on a huge limb and actually claim that a lot of the writing during Colin's era is a bit tighter than the stuff of Hinchliffe. There are some absolutely abominable examples of plot padding during Hinchcliffe's time (Jago and Litefoot in the dumb waiter or Sarah Jane blowing the better part of an episode in Genesis of the Daleks climbing the side of a missile only to get caught again) Whereas Sixie's stuff rarely resorts to the capture-and-escape trick or other such nonsense. Tales like Attack of the Cybermen and Terror of the Vervoids almost seem to have more subplots than they truly need. But I'd still rather have this problem than something that's too thin and needs to mark time endlessly. 

In an extremely cold, unsentimental analysis, I see very little difference between these two eras. They both contain the same assortment of stories: Classics, mid-rangers, duds and underrated stuff. They have an equal number of strong points and weak points. The only real difference I can see is the attitude fans actually have towards them. Hinchcliffe is forgiven for most of his sins while the flaws during Colin's era are frequently over-exaggerated (more about this later). 

If fan reaction is the only thing that really mars something, can we actually put any real blame on the people creating the content? I think not! As far as I'm concerned, the time during Classic Who when the show was considered "bad" is absolved. It was the same show we had always been getting - some of the fans just started getting really picky! That's not the fault of anyone except the actual audience

The Second Time

The temptation, here, is to repeat the same task I just accomplished. But do it with New Who, instead. The most obvious action to take would be to compare Jodie's era to RTD's first run as Head Writer. . 

However, there is a problem: It's difficult for me to remain objective in such an exercise. I just don't feel like this particular Golden Age of Doctor Who is really all that ... golden! 

Series One is absolutely brilliant. I won't deny that. Series Two, however, is a pretty big disappointment for me. In fact, I consider it the second worst season in the entire history of the show (Season Seventeen is the only one I dislike more). Series Three bounces back quite nicely. I didn't enjoy it quite as much as One, but I still felt it was very strong. Series Four, for me, is a very mixed bag. I liked some episodes and found others to be largely uninteresting. Finally, aside from Waters of Mars, there's little about the 2009 Specials that I take much pleasure in. 

I know a lot of people feel very differently about RTD's first time in the Driver's Seat. They think this is the best part of New Who and nothing else beats it. Whereas I see things very differently. 

If we line up the so-called New Who Golden Age with Jodie's period, things fall apart for me pretty quickly. Yup, Series Eleven is a bit rough in places. But I find the Chibnall/Whitaker era gets better and better with every season. By the time we do get to Flux and Power of the Doctor the show is at an absolute high point. For me, it's a no-brainer. In a comparison, these two eras don't even feel equal. I actually like the "bad' period far better than the Golden Age.  

I do sincerely believe that trying to make an objective comparison between these two points in the show just won't work. Too much would be purely opinion-based. But I do think there's another interesting comparison that I can engage in that will feel a bit more fact-based. 

It's pretty safe to say that quite a few fans were not happy with how Ncuti's first season concluded. Most were just fine with The Legend of Ruby Sunday, but Empire of Death did not go over so well. Even I had a problem or two with that particular episode. My biggest issue with it was the fact that it was not a story that worked like 73 Yards. There were certain explanations that RTD needed to give us that were not provided. My biggest qualm being: "Why the Hell was Ruby able to make it snow?!" I can do a bit of headcannon, of course. I assume it was some sort of side effect from using the time window. Or Sutekh being able to influence reality in and around the TARDIS. Or even a combination thereof! But the fact of the matter is: RTD should have supplied us with a proper answer. There were a few other issues of this nature with the plot. But they feel less consequential to me. In the end, however, the narrative needed just a little more exposition than it actually got. 

There's still lots to like about Empire of Death. I do enjoy the concept of the Doctor cobbling together a plan to defeat Sutekh with knick-knacks he found in the Memory TARDIS I also loved the speeches Ncuti delivers as he drags the evil Osiran through the vortex. I know some fans consider the whole episode something of an abomination. But I don't think it's all that bad. 

We should also remember that it is the second half of a two-parter. And I'm actually quite impressed with Legend of Ruby Sunday. The whole plot was designed to lead up to that big reveal in the last few seconds of the episode. But it does contain quite a bit of compelling action before it reaches that point. I particularly enjoyed everything that takes place in the time window. In many ways, Legend reminds me of Part One of Enlightenment. It was really all about seeing the boats in space - but the other twenty-two-and-a-half minutes of the episode are quite strong too!    

Which means that - for me, at least - it's a fairly passable season finale. A few weak points in the second half that mar things a bit. But, overall, I'm okay with it. Even though some love to dismiss it as "complete crap". Or use other derogatory terms of this nature.***

Okay, here's where the comparison comes in: Just for fun, I watched Pyramids of Mars and Legend of Ruby Sunday/Empire of Death back-to-back. I thought it would be interesting to see Sutekh's full story from beginning to end. 

The average fan would have you believe that I'm going to see the hugest of contrasts. Pyramids of Mars is an absolute Classic. The best of the best from the greatest Doctor of them all. Whereas Sutekh's Return is total garbage. We should almost not even consider it canon. It adds a nasty aftertaste to the Osiran's first tale. 

The truth of the matter is, however, there's quite a few problems with the script to Pyramids of Mars. The main premise is that Sutekh is attempting to break out of the prison his own people placed him in. But if he was such a danger to the Universe, then why on Earth did his captors leave him with all the equipment he needs to escape?! The guy's been given explosives and a rocket and even mummy robots to put it all together. 

Where is the logic in this?! Why do you imprison someone and then hand him everything he needs to escape?!  This element of the plot, for me, chops the story off at its knees. Most of what we're watching throughout these four episodes makes little to no sense.    

But there are other problems. The story is not big enough to fit four parts. So some really obvious padding gets added to it. The Doctor becomes Indiana Jones for an episode and must assail a whole series of traps. A trick the show was doing quite often during that period in order to mark some time. We also get the Poacher in Part Two. A character who was brought along strictly as an extra plot strand to help fill out the episode. This becomes especially obvious when he's quickly killed off near the end of the episode. It's almost like the writer is saying: "Right. The ep is full enough now that we cut away to you every few minutes to watch you run around the Scarman Estate for a bit. We can be done with you, now. I'll even give you one of the most ridiculous deaths in the history of the show. Your fate shall be ... Death by Mummy Boobs!" Killing off the Poacher at the end of Part Two can even be seen as a legitimately bad writing choice. In the next episode, Sarah suddenly has to become an expert marksman. It would have been so much smarter to keep the Poacher alive and have him take the shot. 

Now, there's still a lot to like about Pyramids of Mars - don't get me wrong. But it also has a few serious flaws. In fact, I'd go so far to say that there are more problems with the writing in Pyramids than there are in Empire of Death. The "Classic" has some legitimate structural issues. The "piece of crap" just needed to explain things a bit better. 

Comparing the two stories to each other in a microcosm like this illustrates a much bigger picture. Strip away the nostalgia and see things for what they really are, and you start to see that General Fan Consensus is not always what it's cracked up to be. The Classic isn't always a Classic and the piece of crap isn't always fecal matter. When you take a genuine look at the pros and cons of each story, things can often balance out quite evenly. 

Yes, there are still some stories that are genuinely bad. I can barely sit through Creature from the Pit, for instance. And there are Doctor Who adventures that are truly superior. No matter how often I put on Power of the Doctor, I'm always punching the air during so many scenes. But there are a bunch of other times where quality levels stay pretty even. But fans will choose to ignore the flaws in some tales but then overemphasize them in others. Such an exercise creates what I like to call: "skewing", Which gets us to see Golden Ages that aren't really there. 

And, of course, the exact opposite, too: "Bad" periods that weren't really so awful.   

***IMPORTANT NOTE: People that use such extreme terms when they express an opinion need to face a fact: When you talk in such a manner on a regular basis, you're viewed as a toxic fan. The average sensible individual has little or no desire to engage with you. We just see you as a bit of a narrow-minded fool. And an embarrassment to fandom, in general. 

Okay. This is tunring into a pretty long rant. So I'm going to stop things here and embark upon a second part to this topic. 

In Part Two, we will take a look at how the whole idea of "Good" and "Bad" eras of Doctor Who originated. Hopefully, we'll see you there.   

   

  

.