- Violence in Doctor Who (1963) is very difficult. The Doctor is involved in adventures that deal with violent people and sometimes the only way to deal with violence, unfortunately, is to be violent in return. Personally I feel that if you display violence you should show it for what it is. I don't think you should dwell on it, I don't think it should be gratuitous, but I think that when you do display violence you should show it hurts.
- I was getting very fed up with the way Doctor Who (1963) was being run, largely by John Nathan-Turner - his attitude and his lack of insight into what makes a television series like Doctor Who (1963) work.
- Most of the directors on Who haven't got the lightness of touch necessary. And if they've got it they don't hang around Who for very long because of the budget restrictions, working atmosphere, quality of the scripts and so on. The show isn't that enticing to a rising director.
- John [John Nathan-Turner] can become so unpleasant to someone he's employed, such as his director. The likes of Graeme Harper will not come back to Doctor Who (1963) if they've got something else to do. People like Peter Grimwade, who I suppose is the only other director of any note who has come out of Who since John has been producer, says he wouldn't work with John Nathan-Turner any more - and I don't think Nathan-Turner would employ him.
- [on Michael Grade] I must admit that I didn't understand Grade's note about comedy, last season we had three very comic stories (Vengeance on Varos: Part One (1985), The Two Doctors: Part One (1985), Revelation of the Daleks: Part One (1985)). It was a pity that two out of the three stories were poorly directed.
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
