"Dr. Who was rubbish" says Michael Grade.

[Dave]

The self confessed Sci-fi hater, and ex-BBC1 controller, Michael Grade says that 'Dr. Who', the show he axed in 1989, "had no redeeming features."

He appears on the BBC2 show 'Room 101' (named for the room in the George Orwell novel '1984') in which guests give details of their own pet hates.

"It was a waste of license payers' money."

"I thought it was rubbish, I thought it was pathetic, I'd seen 'Star Wars', 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' and 'ET', and then I had to watch these cardboard things clonking across the floor trying to scare kids!"

"There was a huge press campaign to save it... thousands of letters from three fans writing all night!"

"I got an award, a gold statuette of the rear of an animal, the 'Horse's Ass Award' from the Dr. Who Appreciation Society of America."

 

[ray gower]

Did he get away with it?

Ultimately he had only himself to blame. As controller of the BBC it was his name at the bottom of the cheques.

No money equalled cheap, wobbly sets and poor stories.

 

[Qwxy]

well most old sci fi programmes look cardboard now anyway but some of the 7th doctor episodes were quite good all you need to do is let go of your sense of 'thats fake and so is that' way of thinking and the shows become really good

p.s. soon my mate James will be posting under my name on here but all his will be signed James just letting you know but it will be done here (my house) so i will still be around

 

[Dave]

Your mate James could join himself, and still post from your computer, you each just need to 'log out' on the bottom of the main page when you've finished, and the other wants to log in.

Yes, good science fiction is about original ideas and storytelling. That's why 'Dr. Who' and 'Blake's Seven' were good even though the sets wobbled. Mr Grade says he dislikes any science fiction. He obviously just doesn't get it, and he has no intention of even trying to understand it.

Dr Who plots in the sixties were very, very original, that's why it was so good. Aliens such as Daleks and Cybermen were remarkable. (Aren't the 'Borg' and other cyborgs really just 'Cybermen'?)

I know this isn't everyone' view ( many think it was the actors fault, or the budgetary constraints that lead to it's demise) but I think that the stories became progressively less original and borrowed too many things from elsewhere.

Luckily someone at the BBC still had the insight to commission 'Red Dwarf'.

 

[Qwxy]

i dont think he would actually want to sign up also i want another alien head and i dont remember my password or anything

 

[obcooke]

[Dave: The self confessed Sci-fi hater, and ex-BBC1 controller, Michael Grade says that 'Dr. Who', the show he axed in 1989, "had no redeeming features.]

Well, you know the old expression that every once in a while, even a blind pig finds a truffle?

I imagine that that blind pig misses a lot of diamonds while sniffing out that lone truffle.

Oh, did I just compare Mr. Grade to a pig? Now I will have to brace myself for protest letters from the pigs.

 

[Boranon]

Jelly Babies anyone?

Doctor Who was very witty! It was the interaction of the players and the stories that kept me watching not the special effects! :rolly2:

 

[obcooke]

You got that right Boranon.

The Doctor was such a strange lead character, that I guess you either went along with how different he was or you hated him. But the interaction between him and the companions was never boring.

If you don't like Sci-Fi than your ability to appreciate the really strange probably is pretty low.

That's my theory.

 

[gr8scott]

It seems clear that Michael Grade's negative view of the show was driven mainly by the b-grade special effects.

I've noticed that there are three broad categories by which I grade shows... Plot, Acting, and Effects/Cinematrography. I've also noticed that most of my SciFi friends lean heavily toward the Plot side of things and tend to "ignore" the other categories (for the most part) as long as the plot is strong.

I bet the people, myself included, who like DW tend to like it for it's plot. It was excellent - very original. As far as special effects... admittedly - they sucked! But I just didn't care. Acting, well I don't think that was very high either except for Tom Baker who was outstanding IMO.

 

[ray gower]

Originally posted by gr8scott
I've noticed that there are three broad categories by which I grade shows... Plot, Acting, and Effects/Cinematrography. I've also noticed that most of my SciFi friends lean heavily toward the Plot side of things and tend to "ignore" the other categories (for the most part) as long as the plot is strong.

Problem here of course is that most US Science Fiction is done for the effects, story is secondary and acting doesn't even loom in the vocabulory.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by gr8scott
I've also noticed that most of my SciFi friends lean heavily toward the Plot side of things and tend to "ignore" the other categories (for the most part) as long as the plot is strong.

I bet the people, myself included, who like DW tend to like it for it's plot. It was excellent - very original. As far as special effects... admittedly - they sucked!

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. To enjoy science fiction you need a certain amount of imagination, otherwise you just don't get it anyway. If you have that much imagination, then all the lines don't need to be drawn in for you, as long as the dots are there.

 

[Dave]

The self-confessed sci-fi & Dr Who hater has just been appointed Head of the BBC Board of Governers. The appointment of the Former Channel 4 boss and ex-BBC1 controller comes after previous chairman Gavyn Davies quit over the Hutton Report on the BBC's handling of Iraqi War reporting.

So how many seasons do you think the "new" 'Dr Who' series will last?

 

[ray gower]

If my understanding of the role of the governors is right (they make policy, wheedle money etc.) then Low Grade is now in a position where he might actually do some good!

The beauty of policy is that it is so easy to work around- Through-deck cruisers instead of aircraft carriers, educational childrens drama in place of science fiction etc. It is all the same

 

[Dave]

I just watched the BBC2 'Doctor Who Evening' and during the 'Things you should Know about Doctor Who' item, Michael Grade himself came in for some serious digs...

Firstly, John Culshaw said that he only lasted as BBC1 Controller about as long as Doctor Who did after he had cancelled it.

Then he said that it was Michael Grade who decided what went into the Millennium Dome - clearly attacking his powers of judgement.

Michael Grade himself was quoted as saying that he didn't mind if Doctor Who did return, as long as he didn't have to watch it.

Just to bring things up to date, the Government announced last week that the BBC Governors are being abolished anyhow.

 

[ray gower]

Originally posted by Dave
Michael Grade himself was quoted as saying that he didn't mind if Doctor Who did return, as long as he didn't have to watch it.

Well that seems fair enough. I chose not to bother wasting my time going to the Dome!

Just as long as he is forced to watch all the trailers, that at least will form some recompense for the exhortations to see the non-working wonders of the Dome.

OT Which episode of TNG was it that listed the various Doctors?

 

[little smaug]

Ray, I think the TNG episode was "The Neutral Zone" in season 1.

 

[Dave]

It was 'The Neutral Zone'. The same Library Computer screen had references to 'M*A*S*H' and 'Gilligan's Island' characters. Without the advent of video recorders and the ability to freeze-frame, no one would ever have noticed the joke.

 

[Marduk]

Hi. I signed up to this forum just to respond to this, so i doubt you'll be hearing from me ever again.

I was recently able to watch some of the McCoy/Colin Baker era of DW and, while i sympathise with anybody who says the sets and costumes were barely tolerable, but outright cancellation was just the lazy solution of a man who simply didn't like the show.

But he only has himself to blame.

I can't help but think a lot of money was wasted on that show. If he had oversight over the budget for shows such as Doctor Who then he was not paying close enough scrutiny as to how the money was being spent.

There were a hell of a lot of guest stars, for example, playing completely inconsequential, utterly forgettable, parts; actors and comedians who were well known at the time, such as Ken Dodd, Hale & Pace and Richard Briars.

These roles could have been performed by extras (hell, most of them could have been cut out completely) without making ANY difference to the audience and the funds could have been diverted toward better sets, costumes + make-up.

There are little things, too, like; why did the Rani's TARDIS need a completely unique console? Why not use the Doctor's console in front of a different backdrop and alter the lighting?

Not to mention the obvious; of classic british TV shows, surely Doctor Who had the most and best selling merchandise (toys, videos, powers, lunchboxes, mugs, etc.... Not to mention the sale of actual props and costumes to collectors) surely it was making more returns than ANYTHING else broadcast by the BBC!?

Ultimately you can't really blame him for all of these things, somebody lower down the food chain was responsible for what to do with the money the show was allocated but he was still responsible for that person and could have hired somebody else to take that person's place.

 

[Dave]

Hi. Of the people posting in this thread, I think only I am left, 10 years later!

I don't disagree with your analysis except to say that many people say that Doctor Who is still rubbish, and that it is now going down the "hell of a lot of guest stars" route once again!

But we really don't know how much those guest stars were paid - you must have watched "Extras" by Ricky Gervais? There were kudos for being a 'Who' monster.

And I don't think the BBC did make enough money from those spin-off toys and ephemera at that time. The BBC is (was) a strange beast. Being a commercial success is almost like selling out. It comes from being able to raise money too easily via the TV tax... er license. Easy come, easy go. People say 'but only the BBC can make non-commercially successful dramas and natural history programmes,' but in the modern world of multiple digital channels that is no longer true.