Well I liked them...

It does seem trendy to criticise the hell out of original series Doctor Who these days, doesn't it?

When Logopolis first aired it was the done thing to think Pertwee was the best thing since sliced bread and that Graham Williams was a traitor to mankind. Oh how things have changed. There's a PhD in here somewhere, but I may just wander down to William Hill and place a bet on the exact day that people wake up and dare to utter the words: 'Boomtown was a bit shite really, wasn't it?'

Laver's Law suggests that fashion goes through a 160-year cycle:

10 years ahead of its time: Indecent
5 years ahead of its time: Shameless
Now: Smart
1 year after its time: Dowdy
10 years after its time: Hideous
20 years after its time: Amusing
50 years after its time: Quaint
70 years after its time: Charming
100 years after its time: Romantic
150 years after its time: Beautiful

I suspect Doctor Who inhabits its own cycle - similar categories, different timescale.

Well here's the thing. Logopolis is one of my favourite stories. I admit, the last episode's a bit poor but I forgive it for the quality of the first two (I'm ignoring the whole flushing the Master out story-line, mind you - brain the size of a planet and Bidmead thinks that's a good idea?)

So in true Behind the Sofa Fashion let's ignore the question as set and wander off on a tangent all my own (I failed my English Lit O-level for much the same reason).

The first two episodes of Logopolis are a wonderful exploration of depression. I must have worn down several Betamax copies of this story in my teens as it chimed so perfectly with my own sense of impending doom. I could recite the words, hum the music, feel the angst. Even the bad dubbing seems to fit perfectly, adding a layer of distance to the whole thing. Watching it as a nine year old at the time I, like others here, thought the world was coming to an end. The Doctor was dead.

Okay it all goes downhill with the introduction of Tegan (who ends up being a good companion) and Nyssa (who never does) and the 'oh-my-god-did-they-learn-nothing-from-season-8' appearance of the Master (the legendary 'fifth Beatle companion') but before then, before then I offer you 50 minutes of classic Who.

And then there's Resurrection of the Daleks. So the plot makes little sense, the guest cast clearly rehearsed the wrong script, and I could never quite understand how people can hear a Dalek coming from round the corner and hide. I'd be crapping myself so bad it would be audible.
But the opening of the story offers a splendid few minutes (even though it has no connection with the rest of the story so far as I can tell) that make you want to call your friends in and say 'look! Wobbly sets my arse!' It was FUN, damn you, and Doctor Who hadn't been that much fun since... well, a long time.

At the time - and this is the key factor here - Logopolis and Resurrection were top notch Who that I seem to remember I and my friends enjoyed immensely and watched time and time again. And I can still enjoy them now, for all their faults, because those faults are forgivable for the time.

In 150 years people will be fighting over these... Logopolis and Resurrection of the Daleks: beautiful.

Comments

[Neil]

I don't think it's "trendy" to slag off particular moments of 'Who'. I've always hated Logopolis in much the same way that I've always loved Castrovalva.

Now, if I had gone for episode 1 of Logopolis you'd have got a glowing review. But I figured that if we had just one episode to choose then the last one had the most meat on it.

Maybe the single review thing isn't the way to go. In the past we reviewed a story episode by episode (as you can see in the archives) and it's nearly killed some of us. Participation slumped. Perhaps the best way to go for Stripped Down Phooaaarrrrr! would be to review whole stories in one post. I mean, like anyone is paying attention to my schedule anyway!

Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, despite the fact that this will ruin my arguement against us being overly negative, I think we all thought Boomtown was shite about 10 secs after its transmission, as most of our reviews clearly demonstrate!

Ironically, I quite like it now.

[Jonathan]

It's a bit like ignoring the quality of the meal and criticising a single course, or hating a wonderful symphony because the third movement wasn't to your taste, so yes I think you might be right to focus on a whole story - but actually it is quite amusing to hear individual episodes reviewed out of context.

In the days I used to frequent Outpost Gallifrey, where every story seemed to be rated as 'excellent', Boomtown was held to be on a par with Shakespeare... oh well. that's why I come here instead ;-)

[Wayne Barry]

We are here because we have a love and affection for the show, irrespective of which actor played the Doctor, or who was producing it at the time, or who was writing and script editing the show at the time.

When a story works, we say so. When a story doesn't work, we comment on that too. We are all free-thinking individuals who are not afraid to express how we feel, nor are we enthralled and subserviant to the show. I think what we all bring here is a sense of balance and a sense of perspective. As the great "Sir" Jimmy Greaves once said: "Fandom is a funny old game" ... or some such rot.

"Boomtown" certainly wasn't the best story in Series 1, but it did have some very nice character driven moments, such as the restaurant scene.

"The Twin Dilemma" wasn't the best story to start Colin Baker on his way, especially as it immediately followed the wonderful scripted "Caves of Androzani" by Robert Holmes. I have to say that I was surprised to see an untested "Doctor Who" writer given the priviledge of writing the Sixth Doctor's debut. I think given the chance, Colin Baker would have made a pretty good Doctor.

For the record, I think that Seasons 25 and 26 were generally very good with some good stories and characters. McCoy did a very good job on them - I can't quite understand why some people don't like those seasons. Whereas I think Season 24 is a pile of poo!

[Salem]

"In the days I used to frequent Outpost Gallifrey, where every story seemed to be rated as 'excellent'"

I must have missed those days. Outpost Gallifrey's reviews section is hilarious, they tear classic Who to shreds much harder than we do..

[Jonathan]

Salem: I mean in the forums after each episode...

[Jonathan]

Wayne: I wasn't saying we're not allowed to criticise the show. Indeed, I felt like I was chased out of OG with burning torches for suggesting quite the opposite ;-)
What I'm saying is a) tastes change, so today's reviled story will be tomorrow's classic and b) it's interesting to sometimes try to turn off the critical faculties and try to enjoy something a little more, erm, naively (not the word I'm looking for).

I was reminded of that today when I was describing a course on The Simpsons I ran here at Brighton recently (it was actually about cultural studies but using The Simpsons as the core 'text'). The feedback from students was excellent, except for one (joking) comment: 'you've spoilt the Simpsons now...' and that's a shame.

So while I don't enjoy Resurrection or Logopolis much now, I remember that I did at the time. I'm as guilty of overanalysing DW as others, and I'm only sorry my 'critical' self stopped me enjoying Bad Wolf the way others obviously did.

A lot of DW fans seem to have gone on to study cultural theory, critical theory, writing and the like (which is in part why it came back!) which is, in itself, interesting. We gained so much, but maybe lost a little too :-(