Question From The Doctor Who Ignorant

[Surfsup]

Just out of interest Rob, what would you have done differently if you had the opportunity to continue the series?

Would you have reverted back to the good old days of JNT, recalling his eye for serious sci-fi stories and non panto production style?

[danadoll]

At last the message board is semi-functional again. You must all be aware of the panto style of the remake and of the tendancy to cheap toilet humour, attitudes of don't worry about the rabid monster chasing us, let's dance, and patently absurd plots-a giant fan that blocks it's own off switch. An alien that can't cool down in a space station-with freezing temperatures as the norm without a heating system?

Writing and plot problems, silly panto moments? Oh yeah...Because the classic series didn't have any of that, did it? The Daleks couldn't climb stairs and the Cyberman had a weakness for gold, for cripes' sake!

Onto Dalek history. If you can find a major inconsistency please state one. At the end of Genesis the Thals and Mutos depart leaving the Daleks in their bunker. When they return 200 years later in The Daleks the Thals have abbreviated the name to Dals. The Daleks have built a huge city which they cannot move from. This loss of technology is not a surprise as the last thing they did in Genesis was exterminate their Kaled research scientists, taking untold technology with them.

You're wrong about the Daleks being referred to as Dals (that came much later)...Alydon refers to them as the Dalek people when he first appears (and meets Susan) in "The Daleks". They are referred to as the Dalek people by the Thals later in "The Daleks"...And were said to be teachers and very learned...You're not seeing a problem, with this piece of history?

Davros is also a retcon, since he wasn't mentioned in the original Dalek story.

Check out these links...

http://www.whofic.com/viewstory.php?sid=8382

http://www.kaldorcity.com/features/articles/resurrection.html

I also have to ask you this Rob...Do you consider the novels to be canon or not?

In the remake the Earth is long since abandoned at destruction, in Dr Who The Ark leaves just in time to see it. Also we see humans, not quasi-human hybrids as mentioned in the remake.

Sigh...Both stories ("The Ark" and "The End of The World") could still have happened, Rob...You're being very small-minded.

The TARDIS is always described as a device, the Doctor sometimes called it 'old girl' as he might Bessie. "My machine can't think" as the Doctor explained in the Edge of Destruction.

You really need glasses or something.

Dr Who qualifies as Science fiction as there are no impossible magic creatures such as Dragons and werewolves. The Mind Robber is sometimes confused as fantasy, but it actually deals with the bizarre physics of other dimensions. Battlefield would let the side down if it had not been for The Daemons explaining that old world superstition was based on observations of aliens and their customs and technology. The Destroyer is a type of Daemon.

The Devil-like being in "The Satan Pit" could be one the Daemons too (as could the creature from Torchwood's season finale)...The werewolf in the new series was shown to be an alien and I don't recall seeing any dragons in the new series...What's your point again?

One thing I cannot understand is why you want to link the two programmes when you are so insulting to the original? Leave it be. The cheap shot about Shakespeare can easily be answered by referring to The Keeper of Traken episode 2 where Nyssa confronts Kassia. Now there is drama worthy of the bard.

Finally by ignoring my points you by implication accept them. A bald, unqualified insult establishes that you cannot rebutt the point, so as in normal debate it is left to stand. Please respond with qualified arguments, anybody can shout a nay from the hustings, pointlessly. So far Dana is the only one to attempt a reply.

You've ignored all of my points too, Rob (and the links I placed about the TARDIS being alive in the classic series)...So what's the difference? You're wrong and I'm done trying to get you to listen to reason (you're apparently beyond it)...You have been painfully blind, equally deaf and extraordinarilly dumb. You really need to stop this, you're starting to sound like a nut.

Dana

[ctc]

>and of the tendancy to cheap toilet humour,

Well, the only example of that I can think of was the Slitheen, which I didn't mind. (Not every alien is gonna be macho and scary.) Were there others I'm missing?

>attitudes of don't worry about the rabid monster chasing us, let's dance,

There were a lot of times in the old show where the Doc gave a really, REALLY long speech during the chase or fight. (Sorta how Marvel characters can give speeches between punches...)

>and patently absurd plots-

Here's where you really start to lose me. Dude travels time and space in a phonebooth that's bigger on the inside than outside. At that point "absurd" becomes REALLY relative.

>The TARDIS is always described as a device, the Doctor sometimes called it 'old girl' as he might Bessie. "My machine can't think" as the Doctor explained in the Edge of Destruction.

My computer can't think either; but it alwys seems to know what program to use, when I've added something, and the best time to crash and totally ruin my day. I suspect the Tardis doesn't "think" but anticipates based on the situation and it's owner. They've shown in the old series that each Tardis is linked to the Eye of Harmony, and posesses a certain measure of psychic connection to it's owner. So it's not alive; but it can react in a way that's beneficial to it's owner. At least that's how it seems to work to me.

>Dr Who qualifies as Science fiction as there are no impossible magic creatures such as Dragons and werewolves.

Okay; the fact that you feel the need to differentiate so bad still bugs me. But, okay; I'll play.

>The Mind Robber is sometimes confused as fantasy, but it actually deals with the bizarre physics of other dimensions. Battlefield would let the side down if it had not been for The Daemons explaining that old world superstition was based on observations of aliens and their customs and technology. The Destroyer is a type of Daemon.

Once you accept stuff like that, ANYTHING is sci-fi. You'd mentioned that 40K was fantasy 'cos the Thousand Sons had magic from their inception, but in 40K what IS magic? Rules wise psionics and magic (from Warhammer Fantasy) work EXACTLY the same, and story-wise there's no reason what was "magic" in the olden days wasn't actually psionics with a lot of window dressing. It's all in the presentation. (Presumably the Warp existed before anyone knew it was there.)

Ultimately I haven't seen anything in the new series that can't be explained science-fictionally. (If you accept the Daemons, and the Guardians; why not that devil guy in the planet?)

>One thing I cannot understand is why you want to link the two programmes when you are so insulting to the original?

Since the point is gonna be pressed regardless; howzabout YOU play along? Why do you think we like the show and don't consider it an icky-poo remake? Just for sake of argument. Put yourself in our shoes and see if you can think through our position.

Don C.

[Wee67]

HOLY HANNAH!!!! I hadn't come back after I received the answer to most of my questions. I appreciate those of you who took the time to answer them specifically. There'a bit much to take in, even with the actual answers.

Thanks again to Mike for turning me on to the new Doctor, though I must admit, I'm not the biggest fan of the most recent incarnation.

Brain's comment about memory seems quite fitting for this post and, honestly, much of my 70's recall. Still, I enjoy my fuzzed memory with its warmly filled-in facts

[danadoll]

This looks like my last post- the server is either sabotaged or overworked or something.

Surf Dr Who's time has come and gone. A story that has been told. JNTs last seasons were merely entertaining, after years of classics. If the 1996 film contradicted it's predecessor then I would happily disregard it as more OK material and separate. But I cannot.

Believe what you will, Rob...Some of us prefer to enjoy the ongoing adventures of Doctor Who, instead of sulking/whining and throwing tantrums about how different it may or may not be.

You can't knock the Daleks for not doing stairs a; because a Dalek is basically a small tank from an alien world unused to stairs, and b; because one flaoted upstairs in Remembrance. Cybermen's internals can be clogged by gold dust (presumably because of its high density), a rational idea from Gerry Davis.

Thinking about Dals that comes from an article so is probably a non-point. The Kaleds they descended from presumably were being described in the Thal history. A thousand year war degraded them, as T. Nation pointed out.

Novels based on TV dramas are not canon. Each form is it's own canon.

Are you saying that the people on the Ark and in Frontios are not human as stated? The contradiction is hard to avoid.

I didn't say that, at all (you're assuming)...Humans evolve and change over time (it doesn't mean they ever really stop being humans), they would definitely evolve differently if they settled on alien worlds. To believe that they'd remain exactly the same a million or more years into the future is height of arrogance and stupidity.

So Doctor Who novels aren't canon, but you consider the Peter Cushing, Doctor Who films still Doctor Who?

I note taht you descend to insults when I refute your argument with a quote from a story you vaguely cited. Life usually means biology, sometimes sentience, TARDIS has neither.

Ah...But life doesn't need biology (or sentience), Rob...Non-biological life is a staple of science fiction, you should know that.

The Cornell episode, silly dragons appear because time has been altered, pure fantasy. You raised a point about a satan character, not me. You left a list of familiar stories, none of which backs your argument and no actual points on or from them. Personal name calling is no match for a rational argument.

They weren't dragons, Rob...They were called Reapers (cosmic cleaners). Regardless of what you believe is fantasy and what is Science Fiction...Daleks from an alien world called Skaro and Cybermen from Mondas, Refusians, Quarks, the Animus, Menoptera...Are all still just fantasy, Rob....Please get used to it. Doctor Who is not straight up sci-fi...It never has been. It is science fantasy.

Dana

[ctc]

>CTC A long speech is very different to ignoring an immediate threat and play instead.

....not while you're being fired on....

>Unambigously described magic spells that contradict all natural law are the definition of fantasy, even if they are described with limitations.

True; but I consider the pseudo-science gobblegook of a sci-fi explanation to be pretty much the same thing. "We use accelerated tachyons to...." isn't all that different from "By the glowing codpiece of Rangoon!" One may SOUND better 'cos it refrences a real world something, but (true to the "fiction" part) it does so in a nonexistant manner. And in both cases a bad story will violate it's own precepts with impunity, whereas a good story will work within it's own established limits.

>Ten dimensional quantum physics is an accepted branch of science,

...uh....

>the theory of infinite realities an unconfirmed theory, but still considered in physics.

....UH.... I don't remember taking 10D physics at the U; and the infinite realities thing isn't given a lot of credibility because it can't be falsified. Currently it's still science fantasy.

>I understand you write comic books. That is a very different format to prose or TV drama, there are different looser accepted norms there. You can write a great fantasy story in comic form that fails as a script (or Vice versa with a sci-fi in comics).

True; but that's not inherent to either media. That all depends on the story, the genre, characterization, levels of humour, drama, etc. A good story is a good story is a good story; regardless of genre, medium, target audience, whatever.

>I did think through your position, which is why I query why you want to connect the contradictory versions.

Well.... if you can't reconcile that; then you haven't really thought through my position. Ask again, what would make someone NOT see the two seires as unrelated.

>If the remake continues anything then it is the Dr Who comic strips and paperbacks.

Hmmmm.... trickier.... I'd love it if they officially accepted some of the old comics; but even if they don't, a lot of 'em were episodic and don't really contradict anything. Except maybe some of the Dalek ones. (Y'know... an Absolm Daak show might be cool....) I know the new show continues from the radio dramas; so I suspect those things are considered cannon.

I guess THAT'S part of the equation too. If the actual producers consider something as official, shouldn't the audience? I can see not liking something; but if the actual folks making the show say "well, the Daleks and Time Lords wiped each other out" then isn't that the case?

It's THEIR show, we're just along for the ride.

>There is the point about the remake Tardis zapping Annette Badland but giving Piper super powers over life and death. That is very much fantasy, both for inconsistency (a natural force or energy cannot make a judgement call in science)

... but in essence a machine CAN. If it's attuned to the Doc it'd "know" Rose was an ally, and act accordingly. Sort of an advanced version of the IFF we use in the military.

>and for the impossible super power angle.

They've shown folks getting synched with the time stream/great cosmic all/universal power before, so it's not really inconsistent. If you can warp the bounds of time and space, scrooching a few aliens doesn't seem like that big a deal...

>I have faced hostility from the first.

Well, sure. Everyone here LIKES the new show, so when you come up with an unpopular theory you've got to expect a measure of recalcitrance. And you've got to be prepared to explain your position very meticulously; since a lot of folks here won't be working from the same assumptions you do.

>The remake is such but a remake is not automatically bad,

There's one there! Most folks don't consider it a remake, since it doesn't rehash any old story points but instead continues from them. Could be a somantics problem, but that's how most folks see it.

>my criticisms are based on the content.

Maybe; but you're still working with a lot of assumptions folks here don't have. "Science fantasy inferior to sci-fi" is one. Most of us don't care either way. So any point that comes up based on this will seem boggling to the majority of folks here. That's why I suggest trying to think through my position; it'll give you a better idea of the attitudes you';re dealing with, and a better chance of expressing your view in a way that'll register with more people.

Don C.

[danadoll]

This site is really on the fritz! Getting impossible to post.Wonder if this will make it?

Dana the Cushing films are their own canon, the current remake is it's own canon, the books and comic strips are their own canon Big Finish is it's own canon, probably shares with the Genesis LP and Slipback. The Original Doctor Who is it's own canon. All contradictory, some in Science Fiction, some in Space Fantasy.

Perhaps you're just to anal retentive for your own good, Rob?

You have assumed that The Ark and Frontios are set millions of years into the future.

I haven't assumed anything...I'm going by what was stated/shown in "The Ark" episode. In "The Ark"...Steven postulates that they must have traveled forward in time millions of years, because the Earth will soon be destroyed by the sun (a common theory grounded in science...However, it's till just a theory). The Doctor, using the Ark leader's segment of time reference guesses they must have traveled about ten million years into the future. The leader shows no knowledged of Noah's Ark (a well known part of human history/mythology...certain knowledge has been lost) and they have no resistance to the common cold...It does take place millions of years in the future.

I mentioned nothing about Frontios...But if you want to talk about it...In the episode, the TARDIS registers "Boundry Error: Time Parameters Exceeded"...The Doctor states that the TARDIS has drifted too far ahead in time...Sounds like millions of years to me....He also mentions that one of the last surviving groups of the human race has settled on Frontios...having escaped the destruction of the Earth.

None of this indicates there weren't spectators of the Earth's end or that humanity didn't interbreed with alien races or evolved.

They did not give dates in Anno Domini. But they were stated as humans, this pushes us to think that we are looking at perhaps 2 million years ahead at most, another contradiction with the remake. I think this episode probably intended to emphasize that the viewer was watching a new version, not what had started in 1963. The humans descendants described were hybridized with aliens to boot. Most of our ancestor species are extinct, we are not still fish, amphibians, lizards, monkeys etc.
Non-biological life sometimes pops up as was postulated with Xoanon, but it is always sentient, or else it would be chemistry.

Not true, Rob...Life does not need sentience...Animals are still believed by scientists to be non-sentient creatures...Is their existance just chemistry?

Even if something is called a reaper, it is still a big dragon shaped, dragon sized thing which behaves in a dragon like fashion in a fantasy situation. A rose by any other name.

They aren't dragons and were never called as such, Rob....And how do you know how a dragon would act?....They are ficticious creatures...The same as Daleks, Cybermen, Ice Warriors, etc...Science fiction is still just fiction, science fantasy is the same.

Definitions. Science Fiction is defined as an extrapolation of science, fantasy throws away all the rules and limitations, so that even truly impossible (instead of unlikely) things can happen.

Wow...You are too anal.

CTC can you quote an example of The Doctor ever standing around under immediate peril, and saying that it's all right we'll worry about that later. The Doctor tended to be devil-may-care, but not actually suicidal.

The number of dimensions in our spacetime is going up with each new theory. I heard of one person pointing out that we might need more than one time dimension.

My point is that science fiction has an anchor to something real in it, even if it is speculative. Fantasy has none by definition. It all depends on how far the writer is pushing the audiences credibility. Fiction has to reflect the real world, if it suggests a technology not invented then we loosen up into science fiction, if a magic troll appears, then we have loosened totally into fantasy.

Fiction does not have to reflect the real world at all, Rob...hence the term "fiction". If a "magic" troll does show up in a story, who's to say that his abilities or existance couldn't be explained scientifically? The Doctor Who series...Both classic and continuation, expain almost every thing scientifically. Even in the classic series, not everything was explained completely.

BTW...I find it ironic that you bring up trolls...Seeing as how your very first thread in the old MB's Doctor Who forum clearly stirred something up....You haven't stopped stirring things up since.

I think we might do better if we discussed the superiorities (or not) of Science Fiction over Fantasy elsewhere, points seem to be crossing over on this, I'm not saying that the remake is inferior for being a space fantasy, I am pointing out that it is a different genre, and so in consistent with the original Dr Who. If Cagney and Lacey was made as a fantasy that would be separate from the original for switching genres. Could we also stick to the same terminology? Science Fantasy could be used to mean science fiction, remember Well's term Scientific Romances?

The creature who started the remake said in the lead-in programme before the first episode that he was going to ignore continuity, and that Dr Who fans would hate his show, the one thing he got right.

Okay...The fact that you call the producer a "creature" is an indication that there is something wrong with your thinking. He's a person, Rob...Not a creation of fiction/fantasy. Regardless of what he claimed the series would be like...The new Who series does follow continuity and does continue from the old series. There is very little that conflicts with the original series.

BTW...Doctor Who fans do not hate the new BBC Doctor Who series...You do. Every fan I've met online (besides you) enjoys the series.

He also thought we would watch it just for the same name. The Dalek episode I understand is a clone of a Big Finish story, called jubilee, I think. Same writer credited. Plus the first episode bore a strong resemblance to Spearhead from Space starting with the new version Doctor fresh with a new face he says, and ending with Autons invading by posing as mannequins and bursting out of a shopping mall. I know you like the remake, but bear in mind the countless devotees who can't stand it. For me it signifies the decline in UK drama over the last two decades, something wonderful has been lost. Mass audiences, especially children are the primary aim, rather than an intelligent drama with a point that will last into the future. I came to the Mego site because I like to make heads, Wee67 asked a straight question about one of my great loves and here is an honest answer. As this is a proremake group of course you will like it, but to connect it to the Doctor Who it takes its name from is to misrepresent the original Doctor Who from which all others derive.

Pro-remake group (again with that bull)? You are wrong, Rob. We're not misrepresenting anything...We are enjoying the continuing adventures of Doctor Who...You are choosing not to. "Devotees"? Interesting choice of words...Are you a part of some Doctor Who religious group?

I am not picking canon randomly according to what I like, as some think, (Cushing is not the same canon) but to what can fit and what cannot.

You are picking what's canon and what's not simply on what your preferences are, Rob...There is no doubt about it. You've made yourself very clear in this. This series does fit with the classic Who, it is a continuation...You just don't want to see it for that.

Dana

[Mikey]

Are you a part of some Doctor Who religious group?

You're almost on the mark......

It's people like this that ruined the classic series during the Colin Baker years when Who SUPER-FANS were brought in as tech advisers.

They turned the series into crap.

[Mikey]

But a lot of kids use this forum, think of them when you use foul language, obscure it a bit eh.

The word crap is foul language ?

Maybe you should message the Mego Museum higherarchy and ask them to reprimand me.

[ramsey37]

I'm reminded of an old saying:
"Never wrestle with a pig. You'll just get dirty and the pig likes it"
George

[johnmiic]

Wee,

I just love a pi$$$ing contest! I wish I had discovered this thread sooner.

I have many old DW's on VHS and if you want to watch them I'll take a detour after work to deliver them uptown to you. I have very few Jon Pertwee episodes, Doctor #3 but have most Hartnell, #1 Troughton, #2, T. Baker, #4 some Davidson, #5 and some C. Baker, #6 and a few McCoy, #7. Look over an episode guide and throw some inquiries my way. Remember that many Hartnell and Troughton B&W stories are lost so I only have what was in syndication and offered to PBS in the 80's.

Anyway Mike makes an interesting point here, in the long forgotten, early part of this thread:

The series ran from Nov 1963 to Dec 1986 .... went off the air and came back Sept 1987 and went off again in Sept 1989.....

Every year DW was renewed almost without much thought of ending the show. There was the changeover to Pat Troughton, Doctor #2 in 1966. Then to Jon Pertwee, Doctor #3 in 1970. Those were tense times. But from Pertwee to Tom Baker the show pretty much chugged along without worry for years.

What happened in 1986 was the show was cancelled. The fans went into an uproar and the Beeb waffled saying it was just a hiatus because they were not entirely happy with the content of the show under the new incarnation as played by Colin Baker. When the show returned after the "hiatus" it still didn't seem to deliver in the ratings.

Colin Baker was blamed and fired. Interestingly JNT the producer was blamed by fans but not by the Beeb. Slyvester McCoy was hired and he limped along in many sub-standard stories till the "official" cancellation in 1989.

What is playing out in this thread is a microcosm of what occurred in the UK during the mid 80's. You had 2 camps of fans fighting over whether the series was good or bad or needed to be fixed or left alone. It was so bad Starlog magazine didn't know whose *** to ki$$ and wouldn't touch it with an article until after Sly McCoy was cast in the role. It was a dark time and mercifully ended with the show's cancellation in 1989.

Many horrific plans to bring the show back as a movie or American series were floated and resembled the show as much as Bea Arthur's Amanda By The Sea resembled John Cleese's Faulty Towers, ( and lemme tell you what a stinker Amanda... was!). Until in 1996 someone actually suceeded in making a movie of the week for American television on the Fox network. It was one of the least offensive comeback's of DW to be developed but didn't catch on here in the states.

2005 brings us another comeback attempt. The series is updated and back on the air. Now many people use the term "new series". In fact this is a difference in the language of the UK and the USA. This is not truly a "new series" or new continuity. The term we are familiar with, season, is replaced with the term series. The unique thing about British TV is a show can be off the air for any number of years and when they decide to bring it back it goes into production again amost as if it never left the air. For instance: Are You Being Served? So in 2005 Doctor Who came back but was not a different show in the sense that Battlestar Galactica is a "re-imagining". DW in 2005 onwards is cannon.

[Wee67]

Thanks for the answers, guys. I assume, then, that Torchwood was indeed created in the Queen Victoria ep of the "new" series.

And John, thanks for the offer, but another good member has offered me a few Who eps to peruse.

[danadoll]

2005 brings us another comeback attempt. The series is updated and back on the air. Now many people use the term "new series". In fact this is a difference in the language of the UK and the USA. This is not truly a "new series" or new continuity. The term we are familiar with, season, is replaced with the term series. The unique thing about British TV is a show can be off the air for any number of years and when they decide to bring it back it goes into production again amost as if it never left the air. For instance: Are You Being Served? So in 2005 Doctor Who came back but was not a different show in the sense that Battlestar Galactica is a "re-imagining". DW in 2005 onwards is cannon.

Now you've done it, John...It isn't canon according to Rob.
Same thing was done with Absolutely Fabulous...The Fifth season (Series five, it's called in England) picked up a few years after the fourth season...Same characters, same premise, same continuity...Just a continuation (just like Doctor Who 2005).

John, nothing you say...No amount of proof will convince Rob he's wrong. It's wasted effort...He's too lost in his delusion.

Dana

[ctc]

>Definitions. Science Fiction is defined as an extrapolation of science, fantasy throws away all the rules and limitations, so that even truly impossible (instead of unlikely) things can happen.

See; THIS is the terminal disconnect. Fantasy DOES have rules and parameters. In almost every fantasy setting there ARE rules to magic, monsters and such. Just like how sci-fi has to set it's limits and definitions early on; so too does fantasy. Sci-fi doesn't just whip a cyberarm on you, it explains abit of how they work, how they're made, how people react to them... that way you know what to expect in the story and you have a frame of refrence from which to interpret events in the story. Fantasy does that too; regardless if magic comes from the great spirits, application of mystic formulas, or the descendants of the great witch-kings, it has an oriigin. And limits, and a place in society. Maybe it takes more imagination to accept them, or more daring.... but they're there. And they're no less real than cybernetic arms with built in lasers, or spaceships, or time travel. They may have more POTENTIAL to be real, bgut from where we're at they're still pretend.

>CTC can you quote an example of The Doctor ever standing around under immediate peril, and saying that it's all right we'll worry about that later. The Doctor tended to be devil-may-care, but not actually suicidal.

...didn't Tom Baker do that every couple of episodes? Except maybe when Harry was around....

>The number of dimensions in our spacetime is going up with each new theory. I heard of one person pointing out that we might need more than one time dimension.

I've heard stuff like that too; but Dr Swainson never mentioned it in my classes at the U; so I tend to consider it hyperbole.

>My point is that science fiction has an anchor to something real in it, even if it is speculative. Fantasy has none by definition.

I still think the real goal is internal consistency; not any adherence to real life. Not real is not real.

>I think we might do better if we discussed the superiorities (or not) of Science Fiction over Fantasy elsewhere, points seem to be crossing over on this,

HAW! YOU started it! I think again you'd be best served to think through our position a bit. We don't understand what you're getting at and it looks like you're repeating the same thing over and over. Try guessing why we don't see the new show as different. For sake of argument. No matter how odd the concept seems to you.

>I am pointing out that it is a different genre, and so in consistent with the original Dr Who.

See; we don't see that.

>If Cagney and Lacey was made as a fantasy that would be separate from the original for switching genres.

Unless there was a reason within the story as to why it was suddenly a fantasy. Then it'd still be the same show. (It'd be a much WEIRDER show; but still the same continuity.) And I guess that's how we see the new Doctor. It's different; but it clearly continues from the original.

>For me it signifies the decline in UK drama over the last two decades, something wonderful has been lost.

You seem to read a LOT into this; which implies to me that there's something more than the show itself stuck in your craw.

Don C.

[Mikey]

Is this sci-fi or fantasy and why is she holding a sonic screwdriver ?

http://www.jarillion.com/index.html

m