Slashdot Mirror

Another option - use the Doctor Who Vengeance on Varos method...three strikes and you're OH so out.

Kind of gives a new meaning to the term "survive a vote of no-confidence", doesn't it?

Seriously, though...that's basically what some other countries do (save the actual death of the polititian...pity, that, really, but...). Screw up enough, and you basically find yourself running against the person that people thought that they actually voted for in the first place (you, the politician). If you don't measure up, a new election is called.

Note that, even after a vote of no confidence, nothing says that you can't be re-elected. But it certainly would tend to shake a person up, I'd think.

The chief complaint that I've heard re: these models is that either would tend to bog the government down to a point where elected officials tend to move slowly, be very cautious, and don't accomplish very much. I would argue that this is not necessarily a bad thing.

"However, he was the script editor for almost all of the Tom Baker years."

No, he was script editor for the 17th season only. Outpost Gallifrey has a list of all his contributions to Doctor Who.

The rather sublime debut of new Doctor, Peter Davison, in the wake of the immensely popular Tom Baker, "Castrovalva" is actually a continuation of some storylines from "The Keeper of Traken" and "Logopolis," most notably the third part of a "Master trilogy" with Anthony Ainley. Some of the story was inspired by themes from artist M.C. Escher. This was the first time Doctor Who was not transmitted on a Saturday, but instead a twice-weekly, Monday and Tuesday schedule (later to be switched to other weekdays). It is also the first time that the main character receives the title "The Doctor" rather than "Doctor Who" (or "Dr. Who").

I've been watching Doctor Who since Tom Baker still had the role. To see new episodes after a fifteen-year hiatus honestly makes me apprehensive. Sure I'd like to see new stories, but it would be so easy for them to lose the charm of the show under the weight of stuffy production values.

See, I've always seen Doctor Who as a "fragile" show, one that doesn't survive much tampering. Everyone likes to poke fun at the incredibly cheap sets and effects, but that cheapness, IMHO, is what made Dr. Who a good show. Because the writers/directors/producers couldn't fall back on lavish production values, they had to focus on quality of stories and development of characters to hold the audience's attention. You looked forward to the next show, not because you wanted to see new effects and 3D-rendered alien worlds, but because you wanted to see how the Doctor and Zoe and Jamie and Liz Shaw and Jo Grant and Sarah-Jane Smith and Harry Sullivan and Romana and Nyssa and Peri and (God help us) Mel coped with it, and how it affected them. (As for Brigadier Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart, we always knew how he would react. He started shooting, blindly faithful that, perhaps this time, the bullets would actually have an effect.)

John Nathan-Turner, Dr. Who's final series producer, is a controversial figure among fans. Many believe -- me included -- that he sacrificed story quality in favor of production values. Compare, for example, Frontier in Space (Jon Pertwee era, produced by Barry Letts) with Vengeance on Varos (Colin Baker era, produced by John Nathan-Turner). While both stories utilized elements of violence, Vengeance on Varos seemed to revel in it. In Frontier in Space, the violence is almost completely confined to simple exchange of blood-free gunfire. The plot was advanced by intrigue and the Doctor's endless battle with slow-witted bureaucracy. In Vengeance on Varos, however, we are offered much more graphic violence: A man falling into pool of acid (and then struggling vainly to get out); slow exposure to lethal radiation; death by poison sting; and near encounters with hanging by the neck and falling in lava. Further, the villain, Sil, is physically repulsive. In previous years, the writers would have been content to make the audience despise the villain via his behavior and personality, and did so very successfully. Given that, it's unclear why they went to the extra trouble to give Sil a stomach-turning appearance, other than, "Because we could."

Advance a few more years to the Sylvester McCoy seasons, and things start to turn downright depressing. Delta and the Bannermen has almost no redeeming value whatsoever, being one long almost-continuous gunfight. There's the bizarre and disturbing The Greatest Show in the Galaxy , whose only saving grace is McCoy doing a series of vaudeville-style acts. And the final serial episode, Survival , has you shaking your head going, "What was the point?"

To his credit, Nathan-Turner did turn out some winners. Of note are The Caves of Androzani , Peter Davison's last, and arguably best, episode; and also featuring Morgus, one of the most deliciously despicable villains ever to appear on the show. Also good was Battlefield , where Arthurian legend and two generations of UNIT Brigadiers intersect with a small country village. Watching the new Brigadier kick the crap out of Ancelyn is by itself worth the trouble of watching.

...All of which is an overly long-winded way of saying: The standard Hollywood rules of lavish production values do not apply to Doctor Who. John Nathan-Turner tried it, and the results were, at absolute best, mixed. Doctor Who survives by story and character advancement. I have concerns about whether the new production company will understand this and, for that reason, am uneasy about this announcement.

If you're in the San Francisco Bay Area, the good Doctor can still be seen every Sunday night (barring pledge drives) on PBS station KTEH in San Jose, CA. They've broadcast every Doctor Who episode available over the years at least twice, and are currently running through the Jon Pertwee era.

Schwab

I've been watching Doctor Who since Tom Baker still had the role. To see new episodes after a fifteen-year hiatus honestly makes me apprehensive. Sure I'd like to see new stories, but it would be so easy for them to lose the charm of the show under the weight of stuffy production values.

See, I've always seen Doctor Who as a "fragile" show, one that doesn't survive much tampering. Everyone likes to poke fun at the incredibly cheap sets and effects, but that cheapness, IMHO, is what made Dr. Who a good show. Because the writers/directors/producers couldn't fall back on lavish production values, they had to focus on quality of stories and development of characters to hold the audience's attention. You looked forward to the next show, not because you wanted to see new effects and 3D-rendered alien worlds, but because you wanted to see how the Doctor and Zoe and Jamie and Liz Shaw and Jo Grant and Sarah-Jane Smith and Harry Sullivan and Romana and Nyssa and Peri and (God help us) Mel coped with it, and how it affected them. (As for Brigadier Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart, we always knew how he would react. He started shooting, blindly faithful that, perhaps this time, the bullets would actually have an effect.)

John Nathan-Turner, Dr. Who's final series producer, is a controversial figure among fans. Many believe -- me included -- that he sacrificed story quality in favor of production values. Compare, for example, Frontier in Space (Jon Pertwee era, produced by Barry Letts) with Vengeance on Varos (Colin Baker era, produced by John Nathan-Turner). While both stories utilized elements of violence, Vengeance on Varos seemed to revel in it. In Frontier in Space, the violence is almost completely confined to simple exchange of blood-free gunfire. The plot was advanced by intrigue and the Doctor's endless battle with slow-witted bureaucracy. In Vengeance on Varos, however, we are offered much more graphic violence: A man falling into pool of acid (and then struggling vainly to get out); slow exposure to lethal radiation; death by poison sting; and near encounters with hanging by the neck and falling in lava. Further, the villain, Sil, is physically repulsive. In previous years, the writers would have been content to make the audience despise the villain via his behavior and personality, and did so very successfully. Given that, it's unclear why they went to the extra trouble to give Sil a stomach-turning appearance, other than, "Because we could."

Advance a few more years to the Sylvester McCoy seasons, and things start to turn downright depressing. Delta and the Bannermen has almost no redeeming value whatsoever, being one long almost-continuous gunfight. There's the bizarre and disturbing The Greatest Show in the Galaxy , whose only saving grace is McCoy doing a series of vaudeville-style acts. And the final serial episode, Survival , has you shaking your head going, "What was the point?"

To his credit, Nathan-Turner did turn out some winners. Of note are The Caves of Androzani , Peter Davison's last, and arguably best, episode; and also featuring Morgus, one of the most deliciously despicable villains ever to appear on the show. Also good was Battlefield , where Arthurian legend and two generations of UNIT Brigadiers intersect with a small country village. Watching the new Brigadier kick the crap out of Ancelyn is by itself worth the trouble of watching.

...All of which is an overly long-winded way of saying: The standard Hollywood rules of lavish production values do not apply to Doctor Who. John Nathan-Turner tried it, and the results were, at absolute best, mixed. Doctor Who survives by story and character advancement. I have concerns about whether the new production company will understand this and, for that reason, am uneasy about this announcement.

If you're in the San Francisco Bay Area, the good Doctor can still be seen every Sunday night (barring pledge drives) on PBS station KTEH in San Jose, CA. They've broadcast every Doctor Who episode available over the years at least twice, and are currently running through the Jon Pertwee era.

Schwab

I've been watching Doctor Who since Tom Baker still had the role. To see new episodes after a fifteen-year hiatus honestly makes me apprehensive. Sure I'd like to see new stories, but it would be so easy for them to lose the charm of the show under the weight of stuffy production values.

See, I've always seen Doctor Who as a "fragile" show, one that doesn't survive much tampering. Everyone likes to poke fun at the incredibly cheap sets and effects, but that cheapness, IMHO, is what made Dr. Who a good show. Because the writers/directors/producers couldn't fall back on lavish production values, they had to focus on quality of stories and development of characters to hold the audience's attention. You looked forward to the next show, not because you wanted to see new effects and 3D-rendered alien worlds, but because you wanted to see how the Doctor and Zoe and Jamie and Liz Shaw and Jo Grant and Sarah-Jane Smith and Harry Sullivan and Romana and Nyssa and Peri and (God help us) Mel coped with it, and how it affected them. (As for Brigadier Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart, we always knew how he would react. He started shooting, blindly faithful that, perhaps this time, the bullets would actually have an effect.)

John Nathan-Turner, Dr. Who's final series producer, is a controversial figure among fans. Many believe -- me included -- that he sacrificed story quality in favor of production values. Compare, for example, Frontier in Space (Jon Pertwee era, produced by Barry Letts) with Vengeance on Varos (Colin Baker era, produced by John Nathan-Turner). While both stories utilized elements of violence, Vengeance on Varos seemed to revel in it. In Frontier in Space, the violence is almost completely confined to simple exchange of blood-free gunfire. The plot was advanced by intrigue and the Doctor's endless battle with slow-witted bureaucracy. In Vengeance on Varos, however, we are offered much more graphic violence: A man falling into pool of acid (and then struggling vainly to get out); slow exposure to lethal radiation; death by poison sting; and near encounters with hanging by the neck and falling in lava. Further, the villain, Sil, is physically repulsive. In previous years, the writers would have been content to make the audience despise the villain via his behavior and personality, and did so very successfully. Given that, it's unclear why they went to the extra trouble to give Sil a stomach-turning appearance, other than, "Because we could."

Advance a few more years to the Sylvester McCoy seasons, and things start to turn downright depressing. Delta and the Bannermen has almost no redeeming value whatsoever, being one long almost-continuous gunfight. There's the bizarre and disturbing The Greatest Show in the Galaxy , whose only saving grace is McCoy doing a series of vaudeville-style acts. And the final serial episode, Survival , has you shaking your head going, "What was the point?"

To his credit, Nathan-Turner did turn out some winners. Of note are The Caves of Androzani , Peter Davison's last, and arguably best, episode; and also featuring Morgus, one of the most deliciously despicable villains ever to appear on the show. Also good was Battlefield , where Arthurian legend and two generations of UNIT Brigadiers intersect with a small country village. Watching the new Brigadier kick the crap out of Ancelyn is by itself worth the trouble of watching.

...All of which is an overly long-winded way of saying: The standard Hollywood rules of lavish production values do not apply to Doctor Who. John Nathan-Turner tried it, and the results were, at absolute best, mixed. Doctor Who survives by story and character advancement. I have concerns about whether the new production company will understand this and, for that reason, am uneasy about this announcement.

If you're in the San Francisco Bay Area, the good Doctor can still be seen every Sunday night (barring pledge drives) on PBS station KTEH in San Jose, CA. They've broadcast every Doctor Who episode available over the years at least twice, and are currently running through the Jon Pertwee era.

Schwab

I've been watching Doctor Who since Tom Baker still had the role. To see new episodes after a fifteen-year hiatus honestly makes me apprehensive. Sure I'd like to see new stories, but it would be so easy for them to lose the charm of the show under the weight of stuffy production values.

See, I've always seen Doctor Who as a "fragile" show, one that doesn't survive much tampering. Everyone likes to poke fun at the incredibly cheap sets and effects, but that cheapness, IMHO, is what made Dr. Who a good show. Because the writers/directors/producers couldn't fall back on lavish production values, they had to focus on quality of stories and development of characters to hold the audience's attention. You looked forward to the next show, not because you wanted to see new effects and 3D-rendered alien worlds, but because you wanted to see how the Doctor and Zoe and Jamie and Liz Shaw and Jo Grant and Sarah-Jane Smith and Harry Sullivan and Romana and Nyssa and Peri and (God help us) Mel coped with it, and how it affected them. (As for Brigadier Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart, we always knew how he would react. He started shooting, blindly faithful that, perhaps this time, the bullets would actually have an effect.)

John Nathan-Turner, Dr. Who's final series producer, is a controversial figure among fans. Many believe -- me included -- that he sacrificed story quality in favor of production values. Compare, for example, Frontier in Space (Jon Pertwee era, produced by Barry Letts) with Vengeance on Varos (Colin Baker era, produced by John Nathan-Turner). While both stories utilized elements of violence, Vengeance on Varos seemed to revel in it. In Frontier in Space, the violence is almost completely confined to simple exchange of blood-free gunfire. The plot was advanced by intrigue and the Doctor's endless battle with slow-witted bureaucracy. In Vengeance on Varos, however, we are offered much more graphic violence: A man falling into pool of acid (and then struggling vainly to get out); slow exposure to lethal radiation; death by poison sting; and near encounters with hanging by the neck and falling in lava. Further, the villain, Sil, is physically repulsive. In previous years, the writers would have been content to make the audience despise the villain via his behavior and personality, and did so very successfully. Given that, it's unclear why they went to the extra trouble to give Sil a stomach-turning appearance, other than, "Because we could."

Advance a few more years to the Sylvester McCoy seasons, and things start to turn downright depressing. Delta and the Bannermen has almost no redeeming value whatsoever, being one long almost-continuous gunfight. There's the bizarre and disturbing The Greatest Show in the Galaxy , whose only saving grace is McCoy doing a series of vaudeville-style acts. And the final serial episode, Survival , has you shaking your head going, "What was the point?"

To his credit, Nathan-Turner did turn out some winners. Of note are The Caves of Androzani , Peter Davison's last, and arguably best, episode; and also featuring Morgus, one of the most deliciously despicable villains ever to appear on the show. Also good was Battlefield , where Arthurian legend and two generations of UNIT Brigadiers intersect with a small country village. Watching the new Brigadier kick the crap out of Ancelyn is by itself worth the trouble of watching.

...All of which is an overly long-winded way of saying: The standard Hollywood rules of lavish production values do not apply to Doctor Who. John Nathan-Turner tried it, and the results were, at absolute best, mixed. Doctor Who survives by story and character advancement. I have concerns about whether the new production company will understand this and, for that reason, am uneasy about this announcement.

If you're in the San Francisco Bay Area, the good Doctor can still be seen every Sunday night (barring pledge drives) on PBS station KTEH in San Jose, CA. They've broadcast every Doctor Who episode available over the years at least twice, and are currently running through the Jon Pertwee era.

Schwab

I've been watching Doctor Who since Tom Baker still had the role. To see new episodes after a fifteen-year hiatus honestly makes me apprehensive. Sure I'd like to see new stories, but it would be so easy for them to lose the charm of the show under the weight of stuffy production values.

See, I've always seen Doctor Who as a "fragile" show, one that doesn't survive much tampering. Everyone likes to poke fun at the incredibly cheap sets and effects, but that cheapness, IMHO, is what made Dr. Who a good show. Because the writers/directors/producers couldn't fall back on lavish production values, they had to focus on quality of stories and development of characters to hold the audience's attention. You looked forward to the next show, not because you wanted to see new effects and 3D-rendered alien worlds, but because you wanted to see how the Doctor and Zoe and Jamie and Liz Shaw and Jo Grant and Sarah-Jane Smith and Harry Sullivan and Romana and Nyssa and Peri and (God help us) Mel coped with it, and how it affected them. (As for Brigadier Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart, we always knew how he would react. He started shooting, blindly faithful that, perhaps this time, the bullets would actually have an effect.)

John Nathan-Turner, Dr. Who's final series producer, is a controversial figure among fans. Many believe -- me included -- that he sacrificed story quality in favor of production values. Compare, for example, Frontier in Space (Jon Pertwee era, produced by Barry Letts) with Vengeance on Varos (Colin Baker era, produced by John Nathan-Turner). While both stories utilized elements of violence, Vengeance on Varos seemed to revel in it. In Frontier in Space, the violence is almost completely confined to simple exchange of blood-free gunfire. The plot was advanced by intrigue and the Doctor's endless battle with slow-witted bureaucracy. In Vengeance on Varos, however, we are offered much more graphic violence: A man falling into pool of acid (and then struggling vainly to get out); slow exposure to lethal radiation; death by poison sting; and near encounters with hanging by the neck and falling in lava. Further, the villain, Sil, is physically repulsive. In previous years, the writers would have been content to make the audience despise the villain via his behavior and personality, and did so very successfully. Given that, it's unclear why they went to the extra trouble to give Sil a stomach-turning appearance, other than, "Because we could."

Advance a few more years to the Sylvester McCoy seasons, and things start to turn downright depressing. Delta and the Bannermen has almost no redeeming value whatsoever, being one long almost-continuous gunfight. There's the bizarre and disturbing The Greatest Show in the Galaxy , whose only saving grace is McCoy doing a series of vaudeville-style acts. And the final serial episode, Survival , has you shaking your head going, "What was the point?"

To his credit, Nathan-Turner did turn out some winners. Of note are The Caves of Androzani , Peter Davison's last, and arguably best, episode; and also featuring Morgus, one of the most deliciously despicable villains ever to appear on the show. Also good was Battlefield , where Arthurian legend and two generations of UNIT Brigadiers intersect with a small country village. Watching the new Brigadier kick the crap out of Ancelyn is by itself worth the trouble of watching.

...All of which is an overly long-winded way of saying: The standard Hollywood rules of lavish production values do not apply to Doctor Who. John Nathan-Turner tried it, and the results were, at absolute best, mixed. Doctor Who survives by story and character advancement. I have concerns about whether the new production company will understand this and, for that reason, am uneasy about this announcement.

If you're in the San Francisco Bay Area, the good Doctor can still be seen every Sunday night (barring pledge drives) on PBS station KTEH in San Jose, CA. They've broadcast every Doctor Who episode available over the years at least twice, and are currently running through the Jon Pertwee era.

Schwab

I've been watching Doctor Who since Tom Baker still had the role. To see new episodes after a fifteen-year hiatus honestly makes me apprehensive. Sure I'd like to see new stories, but it would be so easy for them to lose the charm of the show under the weight of stuffy production values.

See, I've always seen Doctor Who as a "fragile" show, one that doesn't survive much tampering. Everyone likes to poke fun at the incredibly cheap sets and effects, but that cheapness, IMHO, is what made Dr. Who a good show. Because the writers/directors/producers couldn't fall back on lavish production values, they had to focus on quality of stories and development of characters to hold the audience's attention. You looked forward to the next show, not because you wanted to see new effects and 3D-rendered alien worlds, but because you wanted to see how the Doctor and Zoe and Jamie and Liz Shaw and Jo Grant and Sarah-Jane Smith and Harry Sullivan and Romana and Nyssa and Peri and (God help us) Mel coped with it, and how it affected them. (As for Brigadier Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart, we always knew how he would react. He started shooting, blindly faithful that, perhaps this time, the bullets would actually have an effect.)

John Nathan-Turner, Dr. Who's final series producer, is a controversial figure among fans. Many believe -- me included -- that he sacrificed story quality in favor of production values. Compare, for example, Frontier in Space (Jon Pertwee era, produced by Barry Letts) with Vengeance on Varos (Colin Baker era, produced by John Nathan-Turner). While both stories utilized elements of violence, Vengeance on Varos seemed to revel in it. In Frontier in Space, the violence is almost completely confined to simple exchange of blood-free gunfire. The plot was advanced by intrigue and the Doctor's endless battle with slow-witted bureaucracy. In Vengeance on Varos, however, we are offered much more graphic violence: A man falling into pool of acid (and then struggling vainly to get out); slow exposure to lethal radiation; death by poison sting; and near encounters with hanging by the neck and falling in lava. Further, the villain, Sil, is physically repulsive. In previous years, the writers would have been content to make the audience despise the villain via his behavior and personality, and did so very successfully. Given that, it's unclear why they went to the extra trouble to give Sil a stomach-turning appearance, other than, "Because we could."

Advance a few more years to the Sylvester McCoy seasons, and things start to turn downright depressing. Delta and the Bannermen has almost no redeeming value whatsoever, being one long almost-continuous gunfight. There's the bizarre and disturbing The Greatest Show in the Galaxy , whose only saving grace is McCoy doing a series of vaudeville-style acts. And the final serial episode, Survival , has you shaking your head going, "What was the point?"

To his credit, Nathan-Turner did turn out some winners. Of note are The Caves of Androzani , Peter Davison's last, and arguably best, episode; and also featuring Morgus, one of the most deliciously despicable villains ever to appear on the show. Also good was Battlefield , where Arthurian legend and two generations of UNIT Brigadiers intersect with a small country village. Watching the new Brigadier kick the crap out of Ancelyn is by itself worth the trouble of watching.

...All of which is an overly long-winded way of saying: The standard Hollywood rules of lavish production values do not apply to Doctor Who. John Nathan-Turner tried it, and the results were, at absolute best, mixed. Doctor Who survives by story and character advancement. I have concerns about whether the new production company will understand this and, for that reason, am uneasy about this announcement.

If you're in the San Francisco Bay Area, the good Doctor can still be seen every Sunday night (barring pledge drives) on PBS station KTEH in San Jose, CA. They've broadcast every Doctor Who episode available over the years at least twice, and are currently running through the Jon Pertwee era.

Schwab

I've been watching Doctor Who since Tom Baker still had the role. To see new episodes after a fifteen-year hiatus honestly makes me apprehensive. Sure I'd like to see new stories, but it would be so easy for them to lose the charm of the show under the weight of stuffy production values.

See, I've always seen Doctor Who as a "fragile" show, one that doesn't survive much tampering. Everyone likes to poke fun at the incredibly cheap sets and effects, but that cheapness, IMHO, is what made Dr. Who a good show. Because the writers/directors/producers couldn't fall back on lavish production values, they had to focus on quality of stories and development of characters to hold the audience's attention. You looked forward to the next show, not because you wanted to see new effects and 3D-rendered alien worlds, but because you wanted to see how the Doctor and Zoe and Jamie and Liz Shaw and Jo Grant and Sarah-Jane Smith and Harry Sullivan and Romana and Nyssa and Peri and (God help us) Mel coped with it, and how it affected them. (As for Brigadier Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart, we always knew how he would react. He started shooting, blindly faithful that, perhaps this time, the bullets would actually have an effect.)

John Nathan-Turner, Dr. Who's final series producer, is a controversial figure among fans. Many believe -- me included -- that he sacrificed story quality in favor of production values. Compare, for example, Frontier in Space (Jon Pertwee era, produced by Barry Letts) with Vengeance on Varos (Colin Baker era, produced by John Nathan-Turner). While both stories utilized elements of violence, Vengeance on Varos seemed to revel in it. In Frontier in Space, the violence is almost completely confined to simple exchange of blood-free gunfire. The plot was advanced by intrigue and the Doctor's endless battle with slow-witted bureaucracy. In Vengeance on Varos, however, we are offered much more graphic violence: A man falling into pool of acid (and then struggling vainly to get out); slow exposure to lethal radiation; death by poison sting; and near encounters with hanging by the neck and falling in lava. Further, the villain, Sil, is physically repulsive. In previous years, the writers would have been content to make the audience despise the villain via his behavior and personality, and did so very successfully. Given that, it's unclear why they went to the extra trouble to give Sil a stomach-turning appearance, other than, "Because we could."

Advance a few more years to the Sylvester McCoy seasons, and things start to turn downright depressing. Delta and the Bannermen has almost no redeeming value whatsoever, being one long almost-continuous gunfight. There's the bizarre and disturbing The Greatest Show in the Galaxy , whose only saving grace is McCoy doing a series of vaudeville-style acts. And the final serial episode, Survival , has you shaking your head going, "What was the point?"

To his credit, Nathan-Turner did turn out some winners. Of note are The Caves of Androzani , Peter Davison's last, and arguably best, episode; and also featuring Morgus, one of the most deliciously despicable villains ever to appear on the show. Also good was Battlefield , where Arthurian legend and two generations of UNIT Brigadiers intersect with a small country village. Watching the new Brigadier kick the crap out of Ancelyn is by itself worth the trouble of watching.

...All of which is an overly long-winded way of saying: The standard Hollywood rules of lavish production values do not apply to Doctor Who. John Nathan-Turner tried it, and the results were, at absolute best, mixed. Doctor Who survives by story and character advancement. I have concerns about whether the new production company will understand this and, for that reason, am uneasy about this announcement.

If you're in the San Francisco Bay Area, the good Doctor can still be seen every Sunday night (barring pledge drives) on PBS station KTEH in San Jose, CA. They've broadcast every Doctor Who episode available over the years at least twice, and are currently running through the Jon Pertwee era.

Schwab