Oh, nuts. I think I used language that hit your spam filters.
Yes, Six was awful, and Five not much better. They, plus the shenanigans at the Beeb with who ran the show at the time, were key reasons it was canceled. (Imagine if Sylvester McCoy had directly followed Tom Baker, and had had more than a couple of decent scripts...)
I disagree with you about the Valeyard: I think, handled well (won't give good odds on that, to be sure), it would be a hook for Old Who fans, as well as giving New Who an opportunity for a healthy catharsis. It will be tricky, but I think it could be done; maybe they can get Gatiss to write it. Or Moffatt -- if there's a strict editor who can rein him in.
Whoever's running the show by then, I do hope they read Charlie Jane Anders on io9 (http://io9.com/the-central-problem-with-steven-moffats-doctor-who-507670201), though.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-05-19 02:51 am (UTC)Yes, Six was awful, and Five not much better. They, plus the shenanigans at the Beeb with who ran the show at the time, were key reasons it was canceled. (Imagine if Sylvester McCoy had directly followed Tom Baker, and had had more than a couple of decent scripts...)
I disagree with you about the Valeyard: I think, handled well (won't give good odds on that, to be sure), it would be a hook for Old Who fans, as well as giving New Who an opportunity for a healthy catharsis. It will be tricky, but I think it could be done; maybe they can get Gatiss to write it. Or Moffatt -- if there's a strict editor who can rein him in.
Whoever's running the show by then, I do hope they read Charlie Jane Anders on io9 (http://io9.com/the-central-problem-with-steven-moffats-doctor-who-507670201), though.