jts@cornell.UUCP (10/12/84)
From: jts (Jim Sasaki) >From a recent article on "Black Orchid" -- > ... it is only an ordinary 20's country-house murder story .... > The murderer has some kind of super-strength which is NEVER explained .... > There's an Indian who cannot tie knots, and doesn't learn to keep from > being knocked out repeatedly from behind. Gee, I kind of liked "Black Orchid", precisely because it WAS just a 20's style country-house murder story. (I mean, saving the universe is nice, but surely not EVERY week?) The super-strong insane murderer and his faithful Indian companion seem appropriate, in context. > .... he could have just as easily moved in time as well as space and > prevented the murders from happening (and himself from being suspected) in > the first place! .... I wish they really DID take advantage of the > time-travel aspects; then their writers would really have to WORK .... The basic problem with letting the Doctor change history is that it's hard to know when to stop: go back and prevent the murders? Go back further and keep the murderer from being driven insane? Sure, I agree that it'd be nice to get more of the time-travel aspect into the plots: that's why I liked Mawdryn Undead, flaws and all. But letting the Doctor change history opens up a can of worms. Jim Sasaki (jts@cornell.ARPA, {decvax|ihnp4|uw-beaver|vax135}!cornell!jts)
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (10/15/84)
> know when to stop: go back and prevent the murders? Go back further and keep > the murderer from being driven insane? Sure, I agree that it'd be nice to > get more of the time-travel aspect into the plots: that's why I liked Mawdryn > Undead, flaws and all. But letting the Doctor change history opens up a can > of worms. Black Orchid was really just one of many shows that Davison did the first season that were basically historic. I watched 'The Visitation' last night-- quite good and once again very different from the old style 'save the universe' thing. True, this time they were saving the entire earth, but it is obvious to me that nathan-turner has made Davison a much more introspective Doctor than Tom Baker was. I think this is a nice change, and mucking about in the history of Earth may teach us a bit about history while enjoying it. Please remember that Dr. Who is really a childrens show and is occasionally used to slip one over on the kids when they aren't looking. Saving the universe is wonderful-- but not every week. The other main advantages of the Davison stuff is the companions. I'm not a big fan of Teegan or Turlough, but Adric (until they waste him in Earthshock) was good for keeping the Dr. on his toes, and Nyssa is simply, to lack of a better word, scrumptous. Intelligence, witty, self-assured, of royal blood, and quite attractive-- now I know what I want for Christmas... You can keep your grey haired gents, folks-- I know who the real sex symbol of the series is.... *grin* chuq (I don't even miss K9 much since I saw her.... well, as much) -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA How about 'reason for living?'
demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (Rob DeMillo) (10/16/84)
> > The other main advantages of the Davison stuff is the companions. I'm not a > big fan of Teegan or Turlough, but Adric (until they waste him in > Earthshock) was good for keeping the Dr. on his toes, and Nyssa is simply, > to lack of a better word, scrumptous. Intelligence, witty, self-assured, of > royal blood, and quite attractive-- now I know what I want for Christmas... > You can keep your grey haired gents, folks-- I know who the real sex symbol > of the series is.... *grin* I agree that Davison makes a fine Doctor. But I DO have a complaint about his companions: (a) There are far too many. 3 companions is hard to keep track of and even harder to write a story line for. Get at least two of them off the payroll. (b) What's all this I keep hearing about Sarah Sutton!? My God, she's absolutely awful!! She can't act, she can barely speak her friggin' lines - and she is NOT particularly attractive, in my opinion, either....as a matter of fact, the only thing she seems to be good at is being a wimp. ("I'll stay in the TARDIS," "let's wait and here what the Doctor says", or, more regularly: "SSSCCRREEAAAMMMM!!") Which brings me to a different topic: Why are the majority of women with the Doctor completely wimpy useless humanoids? The only exceptions that come to mind are Leela (she was great), Romana (although she seemed to do her fair share of screeching), and (barely) Tegan. Any thoughts about this? -- Rob DeMillo MACC ...seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!demillo
ee173xcb@sdcc3.UUCP (ee173xcb) (10/17/84)
I feel I have to add my two cents about The Black Orchid. I don't mind the setting of the story. As a matter of fact, after the first instalment of the story, I felt that it was going to be a great Dr. Who story. However, after the second I think it is possibly the worst story of all time. It's not that not everything is explained, but rather that almost nothing is explained! They never really say what happened to the professor, and ddon't even explain the significance of the black orchid in the title. There were several other loose ends that infuriated me, but since it has been almost a year since I last saw that episode, I can't remember what they were. I notice that the show was only two episodes long. The only other two episoder that I am aware of, "The Sontaren(sp?) Experiment," was only two episodes because Tom Baker broke his leg during the filming. The Black Orchid certainly seems to me that something interupted the filming, and they just sort of edited together the pieces as best they could. Does anybody know if this is the case? Greg Vaughan (University of California, San Diego)
hobbit@sunybcs.UUCP (Thomas Pellitieri) (10/22/84)
In article <2363@sdcc3.UUCP> ee173xcb@sdcc3.UUCP (ee173xcb) writes: >It's not that not everything is explained, >but rather that almost nothing is explained! They never really say >what happened to the professor, and don't even explain the >significance of the black orchid in the title. The title of the episode is also the title of the book that the guy had written. I know I didn't catch it the first time! Does anyone know if there really is such a book? >I notice that the show was only two episodes long. The only other >two episoder that I am aware of, "The Sontaren(sp?) Experiment," >was only two episodes because Tom Baker broke his leg during the >filming. The Black Orchid certainly seems to me that something >interupted the filming, and they just sort of edited together the >pieces as best they could. Does anybody know if this is the case? > > Greg Vaughan (University of California, San Diego) Tom Baker broke a collar bone, not his leg, during "The Sontaran Experiment". You can catch where this happens when watching, since Styre almost throws Baker to the ground while he's trying to rescue Sarah Jane. All of Davisons seasons have six four-part episodes and one two-parter to cover the 26 episodes. John Nathan-Turner doesn't like the six-part episodes because they tend to be too long and are really a four-part and a two-part story with some common link. Each of the Baker 6-parters are this way. From the Headquarters of the Campaign for Real Time, -The Parker Hobbit -- decvax!sunybcs!hobbit or seismo!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!hobbit "'Once Upon a Time' should be in the future Storytellers keep it in the past Dreaming's what improves us, Motivates and moves us, You won't be my first love, but you might be my last!"
s211@sol1.UUCP (s211) (11/03/84)
I rather enjoyed this episode...after all, it's the first
time in 15 years that a Dr. Who episode didn't deal with science
fiction in any way. I just wish I knew more about cricket
so I'd know what was going on in the cricket game...you kind of
understand that he's doing something great, but you don't know what..
Jim Scardelis
"So this is what I've become....a clown and a dandy"
-The Three Doctors
uucp:...ihnp4!akuga!sol1!s211 MCI Mail:fhobbit
Compuserve: [75665,436]