RTD: Doctor Who- The Writer's Tale

[Rob McCow]

It is very much a coffee-table book. Although the 'email stylee' is a seriously cheap way of doing it, there are a lot of interesting tidbits that come out of the process. I thought Ben was quite good at asking questions that brought Russell out of himself.

I thought the alternative versions of the scripts were very dull until I actually read them. Some of the differences, the other things that he tried out, were very interesting.

In the end it's a unique, modern way of explaining the writing process. It could have been better and there isn't a discernable structure, but the OMG Facts! are brilliant. Julie crying at seeing OG! Dennis Hopper could have been in the Voyage of The Damned! The name Rattigan is shifted from one character to another! etc.

Maybe not that last fact.

[Fatso the wombat]

Don't know how good they are or anything, but...

http://www.thebookpeople.co.uk/webap...020__category_

Nine quid. Plus ?1.75 P&P.

[Pip Madeley]

I posted that bargain a couple of weeks back in the Bargains thread. And yes, they're reliable.

[WhiteCrow]

Although the 'email stylee' is a seriously cheap way of doing it, there are a lot of interesting tidbits that come out of the process.

I do think you make a good point. By asking the right questions he can make it seem effortless. And there is journalistic skill in that.

However on the whole I've felt some of the entries read just as "RTD going off on one".

I am warming up to parts of it. I just expected to fall in love with it from the get go. It just feels like it would have made a really good series of articles in Doctor Who Magazine, but as a book in it's own right it's the lack of structure which is messy.

A book on writing which lacks structure, seems like they're playing a bit of a joke isn't it.

Damn I tried sounding like I was taking on your point there, and just ended up sounding even more bitchy. MEOW!

[Rob McCow]

A book on writing which lacks structure, seems like they're playing a bit of a joke isn't it.

It's chronological - so you get stuff on Partners In Crime, then Midnight, then the season finale.

[WhiteCrow]

I did like the section of the original script for the season finale, where Davros talks about having been on the surface of Skaro once. A wonderful scene, which really kind of explains who Davros is, where the Daleks came from, and gives a slightly more human motivation to Davros. Shame it never made it through.

[SiHart]

I think it was the sprawling nature of the discussions that made it for me. It's like eves dropping on a really interesting, intimate conversation- I felt as if I was being made privvy to things I shouldn't know about and I came away with a feeling that I knew RTD and I'd had an insight into what goes on his head. It seemed genuinely different to most other Doctor Who reference books because there was no detatchment, it made me feel involved in the process of making the series.

Si xx

[Dirk Gently]

I've not even picked up & held a copy let alone bought it or read it but from the comments it sounds like you should approach with caution & read it like a diary, where it doesn't necessarily flow but comes at you in great lumps of info & can cut off from a subject with no real conclusion.

[Andrew Curnow]

I'm borrowing bruv's copy at the moment - I've only had it a couple of days but I'm already almost halfway through (yer man has just started to write what will become Partners in Crime). So far I have to say I fall very much in the "loving it" camp. Reading the script extracts makes for slightly dull reading in one sense, but then again it's interesting to see where they differ, and how they change - but also, to see what elements are in there right from the getgo and which aren't. For example the 'Doctor flying through the air with the Host' towards the end of VotD was in the very first draft - for some reason I always had the feeling that was a sort of 'later on' change to either save money or speed up the action (or both).

So far there are two really 'gripping' reasons to read it - the one is the chance to see the relationship with, particularly, Julie Gardner and Phil in a slightly different light to the 'all jolly together' one we sometimes see. And perhaps even more interesting are RTD's musings over writing - not just how he specifically does it, but also as to whether we should care about characters, where a story starts, all that stuff. Whether it's right to know how a story ends when you start writing it, or whether that's restrictive. What works and what doesn't (his example of 'man goes down the driveway, gets in the car, drives off' is obvious when it's pointed out, but not until then). It's all very enlightening, not in a DW sense but in a general one.

DW-wise there's also a lot of interest, from learning that a swordfight was cut from The Shakespeare Code, to discovering that RTD is rather like Bob Holmes in terms of the amount of rewriting that apparently goes on.

An excellent book, and Benjamin Cook's contribution goes beyond that of a simple sounding-board, he asks a lot of interesting questions (and dares to do so, more to the point) as well as making intelligent observations. I wonder whether his infamous interview of Clive Swift gets a mention later?

[Andrew Curnow]

Oh, and... I was really surprised to find the original idea for the end of VotD was for the ship to HIT Buckingham Palace. If they'd gone with that, not only would it have been a rather less jolly ending, but also the pivotal moment for Turn Left wouldn't exist. Amazing that such an (IMHO) good choice (ie, to miss the Queen's house) came about only because they desperately had to save a bit of money on the budget!!

[Rob McCow]

I think it was a damn good idea to have it missing Buckingham Palace in the end. On previous occasions, the landmarks had all been destroyed, so to have it aiming right at the Palace and then miss was a good way to play with expectations. I think it should have knocked the flag off the roof or something though!

[Jon Masters]

Finally got this through the library reservations at the weekend.

Interesting stuff about writing, and I agree that Ben Cook (of Doctor Who Magazine ) is doing a better job than I thought he would.

Think my 'not-so-keen-on-RTD' glasses may be affecting how I'm reading it but so far a lot of the things I don't like about RTD's writing and influence on new DW seems to be born out in what he's written about himself - so far, IMO, he comes across as very much too powerful a figure whom people are not happy to criticise or stand up to - even to the point of forcing several TW script re-writes at the last minute because he suddenly changes his mind over who dies.

I'm not saying his decisions are wrong (except trying to defend DIM-EOTD to the hilt), but he appear to be a nightmare to work with. I wonder if we'll get some honest opinions from his workmates appearing after he's gone.....

[Si Hunt]

I dipped into this book because Simon got it for Crimbo and I've been hooked ever since - it's fascinating. Somehow although the format seems lazy and contrived, Russell writes is such detail and with such inside knowledge that even though little is new, it remains absolutely rivetting.

My only criticisms are that there are no real 'bombshells' to spice it up (e.g when the actress slated for playing the pre-Donna companion Penny had her identity hidden as 'Miss X' I thought "Why am I reading a book like this if the hot exclusives have been censored?).

Against all the odds, it's an unputdownable read though.

Si.

[Pip Madeley]

when the actress slated for playing the pre-Donna companion Penny had her identity hidden as 'Miss X' I thought "Why am I reading a book like this if the hot exclusives have been censored

The actress in question may not want everyone in the industry to know that she was turned down for Doctor Who.

[Si Hunt]

So what? Not being calleous but if no-one ever revealed anything that didn't remotely put-out anyone else, there wouldn't be very many exciting things to put in books like this.

Si.

[Pip Madeley]

I'm sure we'll eventually find out but at the moment it could very well affect the woman's career. For instance, we now know who auditioned for the role of the Doctor during the classic series because it doesn't really matter now - but we don't know who was knocked back for the role of the 9th and 10th Doctors because it would embarrass the rejected actors.

If you were an actor would you want everyone to know you were turned down for a really plush job?

[WhiteCrow]

Who could have been Penny ... hmmm

I recon it was probably ...



Would make sense - they probably planned her before the whole Celebrity Big Brother fiasco!

[Logo Polish]

Could well have been someone we've never heard of anyway.

[Andrew Curnow]

I'm sure we'll eventually find out

We still don't know who was down to be the companion before Liz Sladen do we? That's 35 years ago!

As for the actress playing Penny in RTD's book - my reading of it is that even she wouldn't know, as it never got to a point where they were casting the role. So she wasn't as much turned down as never even got the chance; but it might, I suppose, as come as a bit of a blow to find her name mentioned!

[Si Hunt]

All this is missing the point! You don't write exciting expose books and censor anything that might slightly offend anyone (and let's face it, not casting someone because you changed your characters around is hardly exposing her as a secret drug baron is it). Or else what's the point!!

Si.

[WhiteCrow]

Hmmm - it's like reading Michael Jayston might have been Bond instead of Roger Moore. You can't help mulling about it.

I'd go "wow he'd be better than Moore", and then all the Moore fans would come out the woodwork and fight fight fight ...

Personally I think he was right to not name names. He is very frank about himself and his own processes in the book, but is very careful not to say anything in any kind of bad light about anyone. It's not an expose about people he's worked with, but about himself, and his own way of doing things.

He as much as possible tries to talk up the people he works with - which is why he always seems such a nice man on the telly and why we'd all probably like to work for him as our boss.

[Si Hunt]

You may be right there Mike.

Si.

[WhiteCrow]

RTD is very good I've noticed at farming out credit where it's due. "The Mill did excellent work here." / "I love David's performance here" / "The Costume department rose to the challenge"

When something doesn't work out the buck tends to stop with him. Well he tends to use a Royal "we" a lot, "I wish we'd redesigned this". I know it's an obvious thing to say "what a luvvie he is".

But it's good man management, I think we'd all want to work with someone like that. That's probably why a lot of people have worked with him before and since.

[Captain Tancredi]

We still don't know who was down to be the companion before Liz Sladen do we? That's 35 years ago!

I think Barry Letts has every intention of taking that one to the grave with him (long may the day be postponed!). But yes, particularly if the actress involved came from a "serious" dramatic background then having been passed over in favour of Catherine Tate could be quite an embarrassment.

[Jon Masters]

RTD is very good I've noticed at farming out credit where it's due. "The Mill did excellent work here." / "I love David's performance here" / "The Costume department rose to the challenge"

When something doesn't work out the buck tends to stop with him. Well he tends to use a Royal "we" a lot, "I wish we'd redesigned this". I know it's an obvious thing to say "what a luvvie he is".

But it's good man management, I think we'd all want to work with someone like that. That's probably why a lot of people have worked with him before and since.

Interesting how other people have seen things I must have missed. Having finished it a few days ago I was left with a few feelings about how he seemed to confirm the control-freakery idea I had of him (if he rewrote as many of the scripts as he appears to have done, then he should take a lot more blame for some of the weaker stories that we've had ), how much goalposts were moved to accomodate his way of working and how he dismisses criticism out of hand yet giggles with excitement at bare ratings figures.

Now I know he's not the first staff member to rewrite whole swathes of work when things have gone tits up in the past, and I do admire his attention to detail and his 'Maybe of ideas' (though the cynic in me wonders how much the script extracts we see were tidied up before delivery), but I am looking forward to seeing what the Moff does with DW, if only to see if we can get a true group of trusted DW writers who can fly a bit more on their own, like the Dicks-Holmes-Bob'n'Dave- Hulke posse of the past.