|
Post by tuigirl on Jan 6, 2023 11:55:50 GMT
Right. Since I am a recent convert to Classic Who and have not lived through the hiatus and wilderness years, I am pretty much out of the loop and have questions. I tried googling this, but I just did find any satisfying answers.
I know this might be controversial, and I do NOT want this devolve into a mud wresting contest between different opinions. I just seek some reasonable, calm, collected and sensible answers, NOT things like "Saward is the embodiment of evil" or "Saward is the saviour of humanity".
Anyways, here goes.
I am right now making my way through Classic Series DVDs, and listen to the audio commentaries. Saward is quite frequently present for the 5th Doctor sets and is also mentioned in the comments for the Sixie episodes. Yes, he is a bit full of himself, however, he makes valid points and sounds more or less sensible in what he says (however, so, of course, does Colin Baker ).
I know that Colin and Saward had this huge falling-out and I am not sure they are back on speaking terms. I understand Colin's reservations. But I cannot really find the original reasons for Saward's side. The internet only tells me that Saward "did not think Colin was right for the role", "tried to write Sixie into the background" and "stealthily sabotaged Colin during is tenure". Can anybody tell me what exactly Saward thought why Colin was not "right for the role"? Colin certainly is not a bad actor, and he has shown great love and support for Who.
What were his reasons? I surely cannot be "I did not like his face". I also would like if this does not, as I wrote above, devolve into an emotional rant.
I just would like to see both sides of the coin, as unemotional as possible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2023 12:01:26 GMT
Right. Since I am a recent convert to Classic Who and have not lived through the hiatus and wilderness years, I am pretty much out of the loop and have questions. I tried googling this, but I just did find any satisfying answers.
I know this might be controversial, and I do NOT want this devolve into a mud wresting contest between different opinions. I just seek some reasonable, calm, collected and sensible answers, NOT things like "Saward is the embodiment of evil" or "Saward is the saviour of humanity".
Anyways, here goes.
I am right now making my way through Classic Series DVDs, and listen to the audio commentaries. Saward is quite frequently present for the 5th Doctor sets and is also mentioned in the comments for the Sixie episodes. Yes, he is a bit full of himself, however, he makes valid points and sounds more or less sensible in what he says (however, so, of course, does Colin Baker ).
I know that Colin and Saward had this huge falling-out and I am not sure they are back on speaking terms. I understand Colin's reservations. But I cannot really find the original reasons for Saward's side. The internet only tells me that Saward "did not think Colin was right for the role", "tried to write Sixie into the background" and "stealthily sabotaged Colin during is tenure". Can anybody tell me what exactly Saward thought why Colin was not "right for the role"? Colin certainly is not a bad actor, and he has shown great love and support for Who.
What were his reasons? I surely cannot be "I did not like his face". I also would like if this does not, as I wrote above, devolve into an emotional rant.
I just would like to see both sides of the coin, as unemotional as possible.
On the DVDs, he clarifies he just thought Colin was too hammy and better as a character actor than a leading man. He gave an infamous interview totally destroying Colin and the show just after he left which was the most unprofessional thing ever. Even though Colin himself admits he became better on audio when he figured out the role more, even if you agree with Saward: what a crappy thing to do. Take a quick buck to crap all over the STILL airing show you've just left. They've never spoken since.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Jan 6, 2023 12:01:50 GMT
I think the only commentary I’ve heard him on was Warriors of the Deep, where most of his contributions are about how great Earthshock was.
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Jan 6, 2023 12:18:41 GMT
On the DVDs, he clarifies he just thought Colin was too hammy and better as a character actor than a leading man. He gave an infamous interview totally destroying Colin and the show just after he left which was the most unprofessional thing ever. Even though Colin himself admits he became better on audio when he figured out the role more, even if you agree with Saward: what a crappy thing to do. Take a quick buck to crap all over the STILL airing show you've just left. They've never spoken since. Okay, yes, I can get that Colin can be a bit "hammy", but that is exactly the thing I like about him. Matter of taste, I think. And yes, that sounds like a very horrible thing to do! I can understand that Saward was bitter and frustrated and very unhappy- he certainly had some love for the show, and it became, in his view, impossible to continue working for it. But such an emotional outburst appears to be more fit to a 5 year old child having a tantrum than a professional script writer....
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Jan 6, 2023 12:20:31 GMT
Right. Since I am a recent convert to Classic Who and have not lived through the hiatus and wilderness years, I am pretty much out of the loop and have questions. I tried googling this, but I just did find any satisfying answers.
I know this might be controversial, and I do NOT want this devolve into a mud wresting contest between different opinions. I just seek some reasonable, calm, collected and sensible answers, NOT things like "Saward is the embodiment of evil" or "Saward is the saviour of humanity".
Anyways, here goes.
I am right now making my way through Classic Series DVDs, and listen to the audio commentaries. Saward is quite frequently present for the 5th Doctor sets and is also mentioned in the comments for the Sixie episodes. Yes, he is a bit full of himself, however, he makes valid points and sounds more or less sensible in what he says (however, so, of course, does Colin Baker ).
I know that Colin and Saward had this huge falling-out and I am not sure they are back on speaking terms. I understand Colin's reservations. But I cannot really find the original reasons for Saward's side. The internet only tells me that Saward "did not think Colin was right for the role", "tried to write Sixie into the background" and "stealthily sabotaged Colin during is tenure". Can anybody tell me what exactly Saward thought why Colin was not "right for the role"? Colin certainly is not a bad actor, and he has shown great love and support for Who.
What were his reasons? I surely cannot be "I did not like his face". I also would like if this does not, as I wrote above, devolve into an emotional rant.
I just would like to see both sides of the coin, as unemotional as possible.
The way its been Recorded is that Colin, JNT and ES all went to a Party of a friend of a friend during which JNT apparently said to ES "Colin's the new Doctor" ES apparently replied "What without Audition"? in an incredulous tone, which he later apparently repeated to Colin on set. Also JNT had a habit of wanting scripts to fit around Guest Stars or Locations anyway and ES didn't mind side-lining the Doctor. Regards mark687
|
|
|
Post by bonehead on Jan 6, 2023 12:39:56 GMT
When I saw the heading for this thread, I thought the worst!
en now when interviewed, Eric seems strongly against most of the ideas JNT was putting forward at the time, regarding Who. Whether that is right or wrong, my question would be - why did he stay with the show so long if he disagreed with the direction it was taking? He wasn't hugely keen on Peter Davison's casting, less so with Colin, and wrote strong guest characters (like William Gaunt's Orcini) to show how things should be played. That, and leaving the show after being told his finale for Trial of a Timelord was too downbeat and his subsequent interview with Starburst, could be seen as pretty unprofessional. Colin felt particularly gutted by Eric's attitude because Eric had confided in Colin during the making of the show, how he felt JNT was steering things in the wrong direction - and I think he felt betrayed by Eric's subsequent behaviour. Which, to be honest, I can fully understand.
Eric had also complained about being given a shopping list for various stories by JNT (for example, setting The Two Doctors in Spain, bring back Troughton and Hines). Yet - and this is personal observation - when Eric was free to write a story (for audio) free from the shackles of his producer, we got Slipback, which was terrible!
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Jan 6, 2023 13:29:31 GMT
When I saw the heading for this thread, I thought the worst!
en now when interviewed, Eric seems strongly against most of the ideas JNT was putting forward at the time, regarding Who. Whether that is right or wrong, my question would be - why did he stay with the show so long if he disagreed with the direction it was taking? He wasn't hugely keen on Peter Davison's casting, less so with Colin, and wrote strong guest characters (like William Gaunt's Orcini) to show how things should be played. That, and leaving the show after being told his finale for Trial of a Timelord was too downbeat and his subsequent interview with Starburst, could be seen as pretty unprofessional. Colin felt particularly gutted by Eric's attitude because Eric had confided in Colin during the making of the show, how he felt JNT was steering things in the wrong direction - and I think he felt betrayed by Eric's subsequent behaviour. Which, to be honest, I can fully understand.
Eric had also complained about being given a shopping list for various stories by JNT (for example, setting The Two Doctors in Spain, bring back Troughton and Hines). Yet - and this is personal observation - when Eric was free to write a story (for audio) free from the shackles of his producer, we got Slipback, which was terrible!
Thank you for your answer and analysis! I am also glad that I did not play into your worst fears
Oh yeah. Slipback. This might be the single worst Sixie audio there is. It is (shudder!) maybe even worse than Exile. Or at the same level.
So yeah, not sure what to make of it. I can agree with some of his opinions (although I loved the Two Doctors, so I am glad we got that). He certainly thinks a lot of himself- but from just one slip(back), I cannot really judge if he is just incompetent when left to his own devices. After all, while Nick Briggs wrote Exile, he also wrote one of my favorites, Dark Eyes. We all make mistakes.
At least Saward has calmed down for the DVD commentary and sounds quite reasonable and professional....
|
|
|
Post by bonehead on Jan 6, 2023 13:57:03 GMT
When I saw the heading for this thread, I thought the worst!
en now when interviewed, Eric seems strongly against most of the ideas JNT was putting forward at the time, regarding Who. Whether that is right or wrong, my question would be - why did he stay with the show so long if he disagreed with the direction it was taking? He wasn't hugely keen on Peter Davison's casting, less so with Colin, and wrote strong guest characters (like William Gaunt's Orcini) to show how things should be played. That, and leaving the show after being told his finale for Trial of a Timelord was too downbeat and his subsequent interview with Starburst, could be seen as pretty unprofessional. Colin felt particularly gutted by Eric's attitude because Eric had confided in Colin during the making of the show, how he felt JNT was steering things in the wrong direction - and I think he felt betrayed by Eric's subsequent behaviour. Which, to be honest, I can fully understand.
Eric had also complained about being given a shopping list for various stories by JNT (for example, setting The Two Doctors in Spain, bring back Troughton and Hines). Yet - and this is personal observation - when Eric was free to write a story (for audio) free from the shackles of his producer, we got Slipback, which was terrible!
Thank you for your answer and analysis! I am also glad that I did not play into your worst fears
Oh yeah. Slipback. This might be the single worst Sixie audio there is. It is (shudder!) maybe even worse than Exile. Or at the same level.
So yeah, not sure what to make of it. I can agree with some of his opinions (although I loved the Two Doctors, so I am glad we got that). He certainly thinks a lot of himself- but from just one slip(back), I cannot really judge if he is just incompetent when left to his own devices. After all, while Nick Briggs wrote Exile, he also wrote one of my favorites, Dark Eyes. We all make mistakes.
At least Saward has calmed down for the DVD commentary and sounds quite reasonable and professional.... He does. That maybe because (as far as I know) he has had a low profile since Who. I know he would have liked to have written more for Big Finish, and feels as if he has been shunned a bit - but I think he might have burnt a few bridges!
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Jan 6, 2023 14:21:44 GMT
Thank you for your answer and analysis! I am also glad that I did not play into your worst fears
Oh yeah. Slipback. This might be the single worst Sixie audio there is. It is (shudder!) maybe even worse than Exile. Or at the same level.
So yeah, not sure what to make of it. I can agree with some of his opinions (although I loved the Two Doctors, so I am glad we got that). He certainly thinks a lot of himself- but from just one slip(back), I cannot really judge if he is just incompetent when left to his own devices. After all, while Nick Briggs wrote Exile, he also wrote one of my favorites, Dark Eyes. We all make mistakes.
At least Saward has calmed down for the DVD commentary and sounds quite reasonable and professional.... He does. That maybe because (as far as I know) he has had a low profile since Who. I know he would have liked to have written more for Big Finish, and feels as if he has been shunned a bit - but I think he might have burnt a few bridges! Yeah, he certainly has.
While I would be curious what he would come up with for Big Finish, I cannot see it happening while Nick is in charge, since he is a friend of Colin. I do not really think that Colin would actively oppose Saward from writing for BF, but I would also guess he would not be thrilled about it, either. Colin might be one of the nicest people on the planet, but he is no pushover, and after Saward pulled that nasty stunt.... I would guess it could happen if Saward would apologize openly and in all honesty, but at a guess, Saward would be too proud to do that. So he maneuvered himself into quite a tight corner.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2023 14:58:16 GMT
Yet - and this is personal observation - when Eric was free to write a story (for audio) free from the shackles of his producer, we got Slipback, which was terrible!
And that was where Saward's credibility went down the drain for me... Slipback was awful!
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Jan 6, 2023 16:19:01 GMT
When I saw the heading for this thread, I thought the worst!
en now when interviewed, Eric seems strongly against most of the ideas JNT was putting forward at the time, regarding Who. Whether that is right or wrong, my question would be - why did he stay with the show so long if he disagreed with the direction it was taking? He wasn't hugely keen on Peter Davison's casting, less so with Colin, and wrote strong guest characters (like William Gaunt's Orcini) to show how things should be played. That, and leaving the show after being told his finale for Trial of a Timelord was too downbeat and his subsequent interview with Starburst, could be seen as pretty unprofessional. Colin felt particularly gutted by Eric's attitude because Eric had confided in Colin during the making of the show, how he felt JNT was steering things in the wrong direction - and I think he felt betrayed by Eric's subsequent behaviour. Which, to be honest, I can fully understand.
Eric had also complained about being given a shopping list for various stories by JNT (for example, setting The Two Doctors in Spain, bring back Troughton and Hines). Yet - and this is personal observation - when Eric was free to write a story (for audio) free from the shackles of his producer, we got Slipback, which was terrible!
Quote for the Ages! Regards mark687
|
|
|
Post by coffeeaddict on Jan 6, 2023 17:34:29 GMT
Yet - and this is personal observation - when Eric was free to write a story (for audio) free from the shackles of his producer, we got Slipback, which was terrible!
And that was where Saward's credibility went down the drain for me... Slipback was awful! So were his novelizations of Resurrection of the Daleks and Revelation of the Daleks. The BBC should be giving some type of danger pay to everyone who made the unfortunate mistake of reading them.
|
|
|
Post by timleschild on Jan 6, 2023 19:20:08 GMT
a sad man
|
|
|
Post by martinw8686 on Jan 6, 2023 20:57:17 GMT
I would be interested to have Eric listen to a selection of Colin's Big Finish greatest hits and give them an objective review, also Peter's as well.
Despite his original reservations, I would hope he could see how much each actor owns their part, and how Big Finish have managed to build on their era's whilst retaining the best elements of the 80s.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,812
|
Post by lidar2 on Jan 6, 2023 23:19:16 GMT
I would be interested to have Eric listen to a selection of Colin's Big Finish greatest hits and give them an objective review, also Peter's as well. Despite his original reservations, I would hope he could see how much each actor owns their part, and how Big Finish have managed to build on their era's whilst retaining the best elements of the 80s. I would be especially interested in Saward's view on BF's Lost Stories from his era
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,812
|
Post by lidar2 on Jan 6, 2023 23:49:17 GMT
I think Saward at his best did some very good stuff, but he was not always at his best and turned out some pretty bad stuff too.
In terms of his behaviour in 1986, I think he was in a very bad place. I know what it is like to work for a domineering, bullying, control freak, so I have a certain amount of sympathy for him. I can understand the desire to lash out at the individual and to hurt the individual by hurting the organisation and others in it, but not the decision to give in to that desire as Saward did. The wise course would have been to leave after the 1985 hiatus, but instead he stayed on. Holmes' death seems to have tipped him over the edge. I wouldn't condone his infamous interview, but, as I said, I do have some sympathy for the position he was in.
To be topical for a minute, Saward's interview is rather like the current furore over Prince Harry's memoir, as although the circumstances are different, there are some parallels between Harry's mental position to the one Saward felt he was in in 1986
Saward never wrote for TV again after 1986 so he has been "punished" by the industry for his transgression.
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Jan 7, 2023 1:26:33 GMT
I think Saward at his best did some very good stuff, but he was not always at his best and turned out some pretty bad stuff too. In terms of his behaviour in 1986, I think he was in a very bad place. I know what it is like to work for a domineering, bullying, control freak, so I have a certain amount of sympathy for him. I can understand the desire to lash out at the individual and to hurt the individual by hurting the organisation and others in it, but not the decision to give in to that desire as Saward did. The wise course would have been to leave after the 1985 hiatus, but instead he stayed on. Holmes' death seems to have tipped him over the edge. I wouldn't condone his infamous interview, but, as I said, I do have some sympathy for the position he was in. To be topical for a minute, Saward's interview is rather like the current furore over Prince Harry's memoir, as although the circumstances are different, there are some parallels between Harry's mental position to the one Saward felt he was in in 1986 Saward never wrote for TV again after 1986 so he has been "punished" by the industry for his transgression. And THAT is exactly what I suspected also came into play in this. I also have been there, I had been pushed into a dark corner with seemingly no escape, and I also lashed out. This is NO excuse, but I also understand it.
And yeah, that has been my thought about Harry, too.
Thank you for helping me understand this a bit better.
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,666
|
Post by shutupbanks on Jan 7, 2023 8:22:10 GMT
I think Saward at his best did some very good stuff, but he was not always at his best and turned out some pretty bad stuff too. In terms of his behaviour in 1986, I think he was in a very bad place. I know what it is like to work for a domineering, bullying, control freak, so I have a certain amount of sympathy for him. I can understand the desire to lash out at the individual and to hurt the individual by hurting the organisation and others in it, but not the decision to give in to that desire as Saward did. The wise course would have been to leave after the 1985 hiatus, but instead he stayed on. Holmes' death seems to have tipped him over the edge. I wouldn't condone his infamous interview, but, as I said, I do have some sympathy for the position he was in. To be topical for a minute, Saward's interview is rather like the current furore over Prince Harry's memoir, as although the circumstances are different, there are some parallels between Harry's mental position to the one Saward felt he was in in 1986 Saward never wrote for TV again after 1986 so he has been "punished" by the industry for his transgression. Nicola Bryant’s comments on the recent Season 22 boxset would reinforce that idea as well. Here’s some chunks of the interview: doctorwho.livejournal.com/3941912.htmlIt’s pretty harrowing and describes a fairly horrible workplace, although I’m pretty sure, judging by the tone, that Saward gave just as good as he got.
|
|
|
Post by elkawho on Jan 8, 2023 3:01:18 GMT
I think Saward at his best did some very good stuff, but he was not always at his best and turned out some pretty bad stuff too. In terms of his behaviour in 1986, I think he was in a very bad place. I know what it is like to work for a domineering, bullying, control freak, so I have a certain amount of sympathy for him. I can understand the desire to lash out at the individual and to hurt the individual by hurting the organisation and others in it, but not the decision to give in to that desire as Saward did. The wise course would have been to leave after the 1985 hiatus, but instead he stayed on. Holmes' death seems to have tipped him over the edge. I wouldn't condone his infamous interview, but, as I said, I do have some sympathy for the position he was in. To be topical for a minute, Saward's interview is rather like the current furore over Prince Harry's memoir, as although the circumstances are different, there are some parallels between Harry's mental position to the one Saward felt he was in in 1986 Saward never wrote for TV again after 1986 so he has been "punished" by the industry for his transgression. Nicola Bryant’s comments on the recent Season 22 boxset would reinforce that idea as well. Here’s some chunks of the interview: doctorwho.livejournal.com/3941912.htmlIt’s pretty harrowing and describes a fairly horrible workplace, although I’m pretty sure, judging by the tone, that Saward gave just as good as he got. It shocking how he describes his work place, but there's also a lot of bitterness. And to disrespect to many of the directors. Wow.
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,666
|
Post by shutupbanks on Jan 8, 2023 3:22:39 GMT
Nicola Bryant’s comments on the recent Season 22 boxset would reinforce that idea as well. Here’s some chunks of the interview: doctorwho.livejournal.com/3941912.htmlIt’s pretty harrowing and describes a fairly horrible workplace, although I’m pretty sure, judging by the tone, that Saward gave just as good as he got. It shocking how he describes his work place, but there's also a lot of bitterness. And to disrespect to many of the directors. Wow. That level of slagging off colleagues doesn’t sound like either of them made it a pleasant place to work.
|
|