Doctor Who: The Colin Baker Years

When we last left the Doctor, he was dying from spectrox toxemia in the end of "The Caves of Androzani." It was 1984 and Peter Davison had decided his third season in the role would be his last. The question again became who would play the eponymous time lord. Producer John Nathan-Turner decided to cast character actor Colin Baker, who had actually played a supporting role in an earlier Peter Davison story. The thinking behind the regeneration this time 'round was to give the fans an entire story at the end of season 21 to get to know Colin Baker before the season break. Thus began arguably the most turbulent time in the show's history.


The idea was to make the sixth incarnation of the character a sharp contrast to the amiable, fatherly, and all-around likable fifth; to make Baker's Doctor one that audiences, and other characters, weren't sure about and then eventually, over the years and years he'd play the part, peel away the outer layers until he becomes more or less what people were used to. The story, titled "The Twin Dilemma," introduced audiences to an arrogant, bi-polar, and ultimately unstable lead character, an attribute given within the narrative as a regenerative crisis. The instability of the character was expressed visually be a loud, clashing costume that is by all accounts the least attractive piece of clothing ever worn on a human.

The rest of the story follows this post-regeneration weirdness, and at one point The Doctor actually physically attacks his companion Peri, only to become aghast at himself when he sees his reflection in a mirror. He then decides to exile himself, and Peri as a result, to a distant rock planet to atone for his ways. The rest of the story is unimportant and frankly pretty bad, as it has something to do with twin boy geniuses who are brainwashed into helping a giant slug move the planet into the path of another planet... and it just goes downhill from there. It is the coupling of the sub-par script with the shocking new direction of the lead character that have caused many to deem this one of the worst episodes in the series' history. In fact, in the Doctor Who Magazine poll of the 200 stories broadcast to that point, "Caves of Androzani," as I mentioned last time, ranked as number 1, "The Twin Dilemma" which immediately follows is ranked 200.

The first full season with Baker 2 saw a change in format, going from four 25-minute episodes to two 45-minute episodes comprising each story. While this difference did offer a great deal more time to develop individual characters or ideas, it cut down the episode-ending cliffhangers which had been a staple of the series since its inception. Another change was that the level of violence was upped considerably. Blood was actually shown in a few scenes, which was very limited prior, and The Doctor himself actually causing the demise of some enemies. This fit the new characterization Baker was employing, with a much more passionate Doctor often leaping before he looked, but this did garner even more concern from censorship groups claiming that the show was too scary for children and should no longer be allowed to be so.


This season also saw a marked lowering in both production cost and quality of scripts. John Nathan-Turner continued his decree that established Who or sci-fi writers should not be commissioned and new, fresh writers be given a chance, much to the chagrin of script editor Eric Saward who had been with the show since Davison began. A show always known for its low-budget effects was now at its lowest which, even to fans of the show and the genre, makes it increasingly hard to stay committed to the premise. Saward tried everything to make the season worth watching, bringing back old favorite villains like the Cybermen and the Daleks, and even an appearance by second Doctor Patrick Troughton. Even so, the ratings started to slip slightly, and the network brass desired to make new programs. So, despite still being quite popular, the BBC decided to cancel Doctor Who at the end of season 22 in 1985.

That is until JNT and the fans started petitions to keep the show around, leading to the eventual agreement that the show be placed on an 18 month hiatus, after which time it would return to its 25-minute format and the number of episodes be cut from the usual 26 (or 13 longer episodes) to 14 episodes, making it the shortest season of Doctor Who ever. The shakeup more or less stopped for the moment, though, as neither Saward nor Nathan-Turner, nor any of the cast, were fired or replaced. This very much seemed like a short reprieve rather than a full pardon, and Saward and company decided to depict the show being on trial for its life with a season-long saga of the Doctor on trial himself.


"Trial of a Time Lord" ran the length of season 23 and consisted of a frame story wherein the Doctor is taken out of time by his people, the Time Lords, and put on trial as a menace. The story-proper was split into three with each normal adventure being played as evidence at the trial. The final two episodes would tie up the trial storyline and wrap up the season. Longtime Who writer and script editor during the best period in the show's history, Robert Holmes, was brought on to write the first four episodes and help Saward write the last two. Unfortunately, Holmes took ill before the script for the final episode could be written. John Nathan-Turner did not agree with Holmes' idea of ending the season with a cliff-hanger and forced Saward to change it. As he was very good friends with Robert Holmes, who actually passed away during the skirmish, Eric Saward refused to change anything and subsequently left the series in a huff of bad blood. Nathan-Turner asked husband-and-wife team of Pip and Jane Baker to write the last episode, having just written the third story of the season.

The ending wrapped up the season in a lovely little bow and ensured Doctor Who would remain on the tv schedule at least for another year. However, the BBC decreed that Colin Baker should not return to the role for a third season. It was believed that much of the backlash the series had received over the passed two years was due directly to Baker, which is unfair to my mind. While he isn't my favorite Doctor, he does grow on you and he is quite good at playing the arrogant yet honorable blow-hard the character became. I thought full-well before I started that Colin Baker would be my least favorite Doctor, and while he doesn't rate nearly as highly as Davison or Pertwee, he served the purpose necessary and did so admirably.

As stated, the Colin Baker years were pretty light on good stories, in fact only one was ranked in the top 100 in the DWM poll, but still I will recommend three with the caveat that they are not probably for people unfamiliar with the show. Watch some Davison first, then check these out.


First, "Vengeance on Varos," wherein the Doctor and Peri arrive in a cave-world on which the people vote for everything by watching television. They vote whether political prisoners should live or die, and indeed if the president proposes new legislation, he is himself executed via public electrocution if he is voted down. It hearkens back to Roman times with gladiators subject to the whim of the people, and public shows of violence were common entertainment. There's also a really great villain in the form of Sil, a small reptilian slug creature who has the real control of the city.


Second, "The Two Doctors," the only three-part story of the bunch. It features the return of Patrick Troughton as the Second Doctor and his longtime companion Jamie McCrimmond, played again by Frazier Hines. While the actual story is a bit thin here, with genetic reassignment and alien conquerers, it's great to see Troughton again as the Doctor. He's a personal favorite of mine and I will discuss the Second Doctor at length in my next "Who-Review."


The third, and best of the bunch, is "Revelation of the Daleks," written by Eric Saward himself. It is a twisty story that sees two rival factions of Daleks, one ruled by the Dalek Emperor, the other by their mad-scientist creator Davros. The Doctor actually takes more of a secondary role in this story as there are many many side characters, including a pair of assassins, an all-seeing DJ, and the dastardly proprietor of a funeral home. The plot is pretty hard to describe without going on for awhile, but needless to say, it's good fun with the Daleks and probably the best writing of the entirety of C. Baker's run.

Poor Colin Baker was in the role for such a short time that all of his episodes have been released on dvd. "The Trial of a Time Lord" set includes some really great commentaries and documentaries that both enlighten and entertain.

Next up for me with Doctor Who... I don't know. The Seventh Doctor, Sylvester McCoy, has barely any stories released and I don't feel it prudent to write a review based on having not seen everything available. So, next we're going back to the Second Doctor, who also saw some unfortunate happenings with his output, though not in the same fashion as the Sixth. Until next time.

You're welcome.
-Kanderson

Teasers

Hi all, just writing to let everyone know that there are going to be some exciting new things here on the ol' Embrace Your Nerd blog. Still getting the details worked out, but the site will be expanding and bringing in new factors. Vague enough for you? Just a taste for now. Get psyched!

You're welcome.
-Kanderson

Top 6: Remakes That Don't Suck

Without question, I think remakes are awful. Not necessarily the quality of the film itself, but the sheer audacity, NAY!, the balls to deem it prudent to remake a movie that is already good. Especially nowadays, no movie made since the invention of cinema is safe from the money-hungry clutches of the uncreative. I am not looking forward to this weekend's "A Nightmare on Elm Street," despite enjoying the remakes of "Halloween" and "Friday the 13th." The reason is, most remakes just pale in comparison, I'm looking at you, Gus Van Sant's "Psycho." This all being said, there have been a few examples of the remake being as good (if not better) than the original. These are the top six remakes that are okay.


VI - 3:10 TO YUMA (2007)
Fifty years after Delmer Daves' minor classic, James Mangold did a slam-bang action-rich version of the story of a poor farmer charged with transporting a wanted criminal to a station to make sure he boards the eponymous train. Starring famous angry men, Russell Crowe and Christian Bale, the 2007 remake of 3:10 succeeds in making a western that speaks to modern audiences. Not since "Unforgiven" has there been such an enjoyable entry to the genre. It upholds the western film trope of honor among men, even enemies, while still having fairly raucous action sequences that the original didn't attempt. Mangold does pretty drastically change the ending, for good or bad, that makes the film an interesting counterpoint to its source material.


V - THE DEPARTED (2006)
Most people probably didn't know that the Oscar winner was a remake of a Hong Kong think-piece when it came out, but it is. I actually saw the original, "Infernal Affairs" long before "The Departed" came out, picking it up at Blockbuster when I was in the throes of my John Woo-inspired Asian action phase. I was slightly disappointed as it wasn't a double-pistoler, but it definitely had something about it, as the two lead characters, a cop posing as a criminal and a criminal posing as a cop, face their moral, professional, and personal dilemmas. Martin Scorsese's fantastic redo has the same amount of pathos, but what makes it better in my opinion is that it fleshes out all of the supporting characters into much more memorable and indelible figures, specifically Jack Nicholson's mob boss character who is present in the Chinese film, but is much less defined. I went to see "The Departed" three times in the theaters, so yeah, I like it.


IV - THE THING (1982)
John Carpenter's favorite filmmaker is Howard Hawkes and has actually remade two Hawkes films: "Assault on Precinct 13" (1976) is essentially a remake of "Rio Bravo" (1959) and this film which is a remake of Hawkes' production "The Thing From Another World" (1951). Carpenter dropped a reference to the first "Thing" in "Halloween" and a few years later was given the opportunity to mount a remake. As fun as the earlier film is, Carpenter's film eclipses it by heightening the sense of isolation, the paranoia, and of course the viscera. The special effects by Rob Bottin absolutely make the film what it is. The creature can look like anything and can assimilate anyone, evidenced at the end when it manifests as six people and pieces of a couple dogs. Compare that with James Arness in a head application from the original. Also, Kurt Russell is a badass. Nuff said.


III - THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN (1960)
The samurai genre from Japan is very closely tied to America's wild west. They both depict men of action displaying their own codes of moral conduct in a relatively lawless environment. I was tempted to put "A Fistful of Dollars" which remade "Yojimbo" on here, but I decided to go with the earliest example. "Seven Samurai" is one of the greatest movies ever made. It's an epic by every definition of the word. It's also 3hrs 27min long. John Sturges' western is not as fantastic a movie as its predecessor, but it's very accessible and it's a great deal of fun. It is also one of the first examples of a heroic team. Up to this point, the western hero was a loner and an outsider who has to save a town/woman/family/horse/whatever, but "Magnificent Seven" gives you seven such characters to choose from, each with their own backstory and personality. It starred Yul Brynner and started the careers of universal cool guys Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, and James Coburn.


II - DAWN OF THE DEAD (2004)
The idea of this seemed blasphemous. George A. Romero made a modern classic in 1978 with his adventurous satire against consumer culture and for some unknown music video director (Zack Snyder) to touch it went against everything I held dear. And then I saw it. While not as thoughtful or profound as the original, Snyder did a phenomenal job of taking Romero's original concept and making it about family and friendship, as well as making it a horrifying ride. For me, the film works best as an action movie that happens to be about zombies, rather than a "scary" horror film. It's full of gun fights, explosions, chases, and running around. It's a fun romp through a post-apocalyptic America. Plus, it turned me on to Richard Cheese's brand of lounge covers of metal and rap songs. So thanks.


I - THE MALTESE FALCON (1941)
You might think such an old film couldn't possibly be a remake, but you'd be wrong. John Huston's classic noir flick (arguably the first in the movement) that stars Humphrey Bogart as private eye Sam Spade was actually the third attempt at making Dashiell Hammett's novel to the screen, made once in 1931 and again in 1936. Both were disappointments, but the last one was an unqualified success. I haven't actually seen the first two so I can't compare all of them, but I will say that this is the instance where remaking something works best. Why should GOOD movies be remade? Why not remake ones that suck or fail for one reason or another? Maybe one day there'll be a remake of "Howard the Duck" or "Teen Wolf" that improves upon the underwhelming performances of the originals? I'd be all right with that. Let "Maltese Falcon" be the model; if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but if it is broke, fix the shit out of it until it's good.

You're welcome.
-Kanderson

Cigarette Burn Pictures

Hey all, do you like independent film, silly videos, new content every week, and essays about the inner workings of a soon-to-be-huge production company?

If you do, (and really who doesn't?) head on over to Cigarette Burn Pictures site and say hi to Rob, Monty, and Steve, three of the best, most stand-up guys you'd ever want to know.

Check out their latest masterpiece, "Son of a Beach."

You're welcome

-Kanderson

Defending "Victory of the Daleks" - aka Another Doctor Who post no one will read

I'm a huge nerd and have been keeping up with the UK transmission schedule of the new Doctor Who season so I'm about two weeks ahead of anyone who just watched "The Eleventh Hour" premiere last night on BBC America. If you've seen episode 3, "Victory of the Daleks," read on. If not, I'd suggest waiting until you've seen it.

It’s sort of disheartening to hear how several podcasters didn’t think much of this episode, in particular I refer to Tom’s recent review for Two-Minute Time Lord. This is crushing to me as I felt it was a great episode, certainly much better than last week’s “The Beast Below.” What I liked so much about it is that is was FUN. When’s the last time we’ve honestly had any fun with a Dalek episode? Yes, I realize they’re the scourge of the universe, the Doctor’s sworn enemy, the annihilators of Gallifrey, but they’re just so darn stuffy. Even “Dalek” which we can all agree is the best new series Dalek episode, and arguably one of the best ever, is awfully dour. With each subsequent appearance since then, my interest in the Daleks has gone down exponentially. “Victory” is the first one since “Dalek,” where they haven’t been portrayed as a nigh-omnipotent plague and I haven’t then rolled my eyes at the very sight of them. Each and every time they show up, it’s an all-out melodrama, complete with Captain Jack proclaiming “We’re dead” and cowering behind something in Torchwood. The Daleks stopped being menacing. The reverence we’re meant to have for them was gone. By that point, they were no longer a threat in my eyes. How many times can they be destroyed en masse just to come back as large and in charge as ever?


But this one is different. The Daleks are running scared. Their numbers have dwindled. There are only three at the beginning, and even after the upgrade and cleansing of the impure, there are only five. And the “end of the world” aspect, the Bracewell bomb, is really just a means for them to get away. They are victorious, but they succeed by retreating. THAT’s the kind of villain I want. They’re wily and opportunistic as well as being unfeeling and ruthless. Say what you will about the new Dalek design, but like everything about the Moffat era thus far, it’s a bold move. The Daleks have been different every single time you see them in one shape or another. Here they have again evolved but there isn’t a human-hybrid or a Davros’ head in the bunch. They’re just plain old Daleks again, if a little beefier. They have cleansed their race, a further allusion to the Third Reich.


One criticism I completely disagreed with is that this episode wasn’t “Doctor Who” as it was back in the day. Now, I wasn’t there from the beginning. I’m 25 years old. I was born two months after the last episode of the Twin Dilemma was transmitted, AND I’m American, so admittedly, I don’t have the history with the show that a great many fans have. But over the passed year since I discovered the series, I’ve been watching as many adventures, both new and old, as Netflix will allow and what’s great about it for me is that, it’s ALL new. Every time I watch an adventure, it’s new Doctor Who. It’s all happening now. Victory of the Daleks is 100% in line with the classic series and the bulk of the new series. It’s everything between Turn Left and End of Time that seems incongruous. It’s like we’ve forgotten that the Doctor is a HERO and not always a TRAGIC hero. Tragic’s overdone.

Was it a perfect episode? Absolutely not. For starters, the stuff with the professor didn’t really work for me. While the performance of Bill Patterson was very good, I wasn’t ever sold on the ramifications of his coming to terms with not being human. Sadly that’s the bit that was too long. I think there needed to be greater build up to the Doctor’s near-frothy blowup at the Dalek. I would have liked to have seen more of them being “helpful,” beforehand. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t there talk that this was supposed to be a 65 minute episode? Clearly a lot was cut out of the beginning. The Doctor ended up on the Dalek saucer way too soon. This could have easily benefitted from a few extra minutes if not a whole second part for development’s sake. Like “The Beast Below” before it, “Victory of the Daleks,” suffered the most from poor direction on the part of Andrew Gunn. The camera was almost never where it needed to be. The Doctor/Dalek confrontation would have been excellent if we could have seen it properly. Also the pacing of the two episodes, especially last week’s, was very off.


That all notwithstanding, “Victory of the Daleks” did come away as a victory for me. It’s an adventure, it’s a swashbuckling, Flash-Gordon-y throwback to a simpler era. I think if we can glean anything from the first three episodes of Steven Moffat’s era, it’s a deliberate attempt to reconnect with the 1960s, down to the TARDIS’ control panel which looks to me like what science fiction films of that decade thought the future would be like. If this whole season were in black-and-white, I don’t think it would feel the least bit out of place. Like the WWII era movie serials on which its clearly based, this episode stands as a rip-roaring, high-flying good time that possessed wide-eyed kidness that the latter RTD years sorely lacked.

You're welcome
-Kanderson

Top 6 Returns!

I saw Kick-Ass today, which is a film about people becoming real-life comic book heroes, except instead of having super powers, they shoot and stab people to death. This is not going to be a review of that film, though I did quite like it. What it did get me thinking about is how unfun it would actually be to do all that stuff, realistically. Even in a movie depicting "real" superheroics, there are a huge number of liberties taken into the "That'd never happen" category. So here the "triumphant" return of the top six will be - FANFARE -

The Top 6 Reasons It's Stupid To Try To Be A For-Reals Superhero

VI - The Idiotic Costumes
Have you ever worn spandex? Does it look good? Even if you're super hot, it's unlikely spandex is flattering to your every nook and cranny. Have a particular part of yourself you'd rather others not focus on? Too bad! Everyone's gonna see it now that you've become a super hero. And you're going to get laughed at. Hardcore. There's always the scene in every hero movie, and particularly in Kick-Ass, that depicts the bad guys ridiculing the good guy the first time they see him/her. Your weakness better not be the sound of laughter or you're fairly well sunk.

V - No Downtime
In order to find crimes you either need a series of security cameras feeding directly into your secret hideout that depict what's happening throughout the city (or whatever your chosen turf is) or you need to spend all your time walking around looking for crimes to stop. Crime doesn't stop because you're tired or bored. Patrolling has to be the most annoying part of a superhero's day. Street crime happens so fast, how can you be sure you're in the exact spot at the right time? It involves an enormous amount of coincidence, which I'm sure most of us don't have the patience for. Logistically, given constant movement, you'd probably stop one crime every two months. And that crime would probably just be a pick-pocketing

IV - Lack of Fightable Crime
Superheroism depends and awful lot on criminals who are stupid enough to commit their crimes out in the open. Most crimes nowadays are either internet or fraud-based and don't actually include much dark alley shenanigans. And why are old women always walking home at night through dark alleys in the first place? Don't they know that's where jackbooted thugs amass and take turns playing the murder game? Anyone who'd fall prey to that type of stupidity is probably going to do it again even if you save their life. Then, all things being equal, not saving them is really just helping Darwin along.

III - Lookie-Loos
If I know anything it's that people are two things: Discourteous to retail employees, and nosy as hell. Even if you're a "stick-to-the-shadows"-type hero, you'll probably get a lot of people looking at you and wondering what the hell you're doing. You lose the entire element of surprise if you get a group of passersby pointing at you as you lie in wait for the unsuspecting criminal. If I were a bad guy, which I am not, I'd surely want to steer clear of any large congregation of citizenry. I'd probably go around them or turn around and walk the other direction. Even now, if there's ever a massing of people looking at something, I'll go somewhere else. For all I know there's a superhero just around the corner waiting to punch me in the face. I don't want to get punched in the face.

II - Physical stamina and lack thereof
To say nothing of agility, speed, and strength, the sheer amount of fighting you'd have to do would put a tremendous strain on your body. Most professional fighters train for months at a time to ensure they're in peak physical form before getting into the ring, or octagon, and slug it out. And usually they're wrecked afterwards. Imagine going out night after night and, perfect conditions applied, stopping two crimes a night. Just two! You'd be battered and bloody and probably get a concussion before having to sit in a bathtub for six hours so you can do it all again. Your utility belt would have to be full of Icy Hot and 5-Hour Energy. Exhaustion would set in long before your heroic vow was fulfilled.

I - Death
You would die. Flat out, die. Probably by getting shot, but possibly also stabbed, bludgeoned, impaled, strangled, crushed, or devoured by angry guard dogs. But mostly shot. Oh baby, would you die. Probably the first day, too. You'd be all, "I'm Action Guy, and I want you to leave that young Episcopalian alone," and they'd be all, "Just walk away, freak show." Then you'd do the Adam West chuckle and say something witty and strike a fighting stance. And that's when the guy would pull his gun and shoot you in the chest. And you'd be dead. If you happen to be "Getting Shot Man," then you'll probably be used to stuff like this happening, but that doesn't necessarily mean you won't still die when they throw a grenade, or drop a piano, or suggest you read "Twilight" so you can pick up all the Nazi references, confusing you long enough for them to poison you with a strychnine-laced crossbow bolt fired from across the street.

Basically, don't be a superhero.

You're welcome.
-Kanderson

This is why these movies suck

I have absolutely no affiliation with this guy or his site, he just has the best reviewing style I've ever heard. Enjoy.







You're welcome.
-Kanderson