Ad content continues below
Earthshockwas partly the latter, but it was also designed to be simply exciting.
Bluntly put, people die.
It contains sustained peril.
Sometimes people die in very moist and very green ways.
Mainly, though, one of them dies because a planet hits him in the face.
The guy had his moments.
Doctor Whoin 1981 was not ready to do that.
Its very odd, almost as if the grieving has been demarcated to one scene only.
The other lesson is another obvious but an increasingly difficult one: maintain your surprises.
They can still sneak a few things past us, but a returning monster is probably too difficult.
We dont mind taking a few Kraals for the team if it means we get the occasional Zygon.
If it was, then these stories wouldnt be as distinctive.
Stepping back, though, its clear thatDoctor Whocant sustain prolonged grimness.
The early Tom Baker stories still had a sense of fun, and of terror, and adventure.
Theres less of that obvious in the stories which followedEarthshock.
Would you rather watch it in its entirety thanThe Sarah Jane Adventures?
People watchDoctor Whobecause it has elements of both, not one or the other.
Put simply (and, in many ways, renderingallthe words above pointless.
Ah, journalism),Doctor Whocant be likeEarthshockall the time, because then it wouldnt beDoctor Whoanymore.
