That Wacky Redhead

[Brainbin]

Sheffield might have one, perhaps. The councils involved in OTL in the Rate-Capping Rebellion (or the roughly equivalent TTL councils rather) are probably a good indicator of which places might see a DSP MP or at least a strong challenge to the official Labour candidate.

Thanks for that reference! My intention was for Labour and the DSP to split the vote in most constituencies, allowing the Liberals (or perhaps even the Tories) to come up the middle - but in a few socialist strongholds, the core of "true believers" would be enough to allow the DSP candidates to win close three- or four-way races and get elected to Parliament.

Good to see that Dionne Warwick hasn't turned her hand to railroad construction ITTL!

Ah, yes, the obvious but not entirely unwelcome reference to "Do You Know the Way to San Jose". I suspect that once the route is completed, they'll invite Warwick to travel aboard the inaugural train to San Jose (which will be completed well before San Francisco) and have her sing the song to the gathered crowds before she boards the train in Los Angeles.

Without the accident at Three Mile Island (and no China Syndrome), I guess that nuclear power is a bit less controversial ITTL. Better relations between the West and the Soviet Union could well mean that nuclear weapons aren't based at Greenham Common, which would also reduce the controversy of a nuclear-powered carrier. Also no Greenham Common Peace Camp (in combination with the formation of the DSP) probably butterflies The Fourth Protocol.

I would say that seems to make a lot of sense.

Well, speaking as somebody who is not coming from anglosphere - this is UK. It's supposed to build ships. An as I'm influenced by the timeline "The Whale Has Wings", I'm pretty much surprised that the fact that UK builds an advanced aircraft carrier is such a revelation here.

Something to bear in mind is that The Whale Has Wings is the most popular timeline on this site specifically because it presents such a titanic departure from the protracted decline of the Royal Navy IOTL, dating all the way back to the end of WWI (and accelerated after Suez). ITTL, the timing of Argentina and the subsequent White Paper has resulted in a dramatic reversal of British policy regarding the Royal Navy. IOTL, the last full-size fleet carrier prior to the HMS Queen Elizabeth (due in 2017, though it may be delayed further) to be commissioned was the HMS Ark Royal (R09) in 1955 - the year before Suez. (Don't you just love it when history fits a narrative like that? ) In that same span of time, twenty USN supercarriers have been or will be commissioned.

As to the rest of your queries, I feel that e of pi does a very good job addressing them

Good update, Brainbin!

Thank you, Archangel! I had a feeling you might like this one

My theory on stardates is that we're not hearing the complete date. In the real world we often give only the last two digits of the year in everyday conversation. Another fictional example is Warhammer 40,000 - in the Imperium it's usual to give 3-digit years, adding the millennium only when dealing with periods long enough that it might not be the current one: if you mention the year 123 it's understood that you mean AD 40123. So I'm theorising that the stardates actually started long before ST:TOS, and were already well into the tens or even hundreds of thousands by the time of the five year voyage, but Kirk was just following the usual convention in the Federation of quoting only the last four digits in his log entries.

I really like this explanation! Thanks for sharing, CaptainCrowbar! That said, if it were used in The Next Voyage, it would have to be clarified in exposition - the five-year mission would have to be explicitly described as lasting from, say, "41000.0 to 49999.0". There are a number of ways this could be achieved, most intriguingly through some form of callback to the events of an episode of the series proper. One advantage to the "significant digits" system is the gap between "These Were the Voyages" and "The Next Voyage" is just a little bit more than 10000 stardays, then what is already known ITTL as "Lost Years" could also be nicknamed, say, "the fives" or similar. A disadvantage to this system is that attaching a hard number (or numbers - the Federation is probably old enough to require six-digit stardates) precisely dates the creation of the Federation, or at least the adoption of the dating system, which eliminates wiggle room.

---

Since this thread has a very large number of both Star Trek and Doctor Who fans, I'd like to take this opportunity to present a theory which I've developed regarding the two respective properties and how they are distinct in tone and intended audience. I'd very much like to hear what all of you think of this theory, and any rebuttals or corroborating evidence you might have.

My theory is thus: Doctor Who is a children's show which has acquired a significant adult audience, whereas Star Trek is a show for older viewers which has acquired a significant youth audience.

What say all of you?

 

[Thande]

My theory is thus: Doctor Who is a children's show which has acquired a significant adult audience, whereas Star Trek is a show for older viewers which has acquired a significant youth audience.

What say all of you?

I'd say that putting it that way would be a bit of a simplification to fit an artificial black-white dichotomy (the actual situation is a tad greyer I would say), but having said that, there is probably some truth to it.

By the way, have you seen An Adventure in Space and Time? Having missed it when it premiered last year as part of the 50th anniversary Doctor Who celebration, I finally saw it recently and it was a very good telling of how Doctor Who came to be and the story of the First Doctor's tenure--ironically made by the same people who made a short, jokey sketch on the same subject for the 35th anniversay (IIRC) but had always wanted to do a proper one, and finally had the opportunity to do it.

I would kind of like something similar to be done for Star Trek, but I don't know who would make it.

 

[NCW8]

Ah, yes, the obvious but not entirely unwelcome reference to "Do You Know the Way to San Jose". I suspect that once the route is completed, they'll invite Warwick to travel aboard the inaugural train to San Jose (which will be completed well before San Francisco) and have her sing the song to the gathered crowds before she boards the train in Los Angeles.

Good job they didn't try to build a line from San Jose to Amarillo - no one would ever be able to find it!

Since this thread has a very large number of both Star Trek and Doctor Who fans, I'd like to take this opportunity to present a theory which I've developed regarding the two respective properties and how they are distinct in tone and intended audience. I'd very much like to hear what all of you think of this theory, and any rebuttals or corroborating evidence you might have.

My theory is thus: Doctor Who is a children's show which has acquired a significant adult audience, whereas Star Trek is a show for older viewers which has acquired a significant youth audience.

What say all of you?

I think that you probably need to look at some of the plot summaries of the William Hartnell episodes. They include such items as the Doctor trying to kill a wounded man because he was slowing them down, Susan attacking Ian with a pair of scissors and an attempted rape of Barbara. Doctor Who had an adult audience and dealt with adult themes from the beginning. It was originally conceived as a family show rather than a children's programme. Note that a children's drama would normally have a child protagonist, so Susan should have been the main protagonist of the series. Actually, Ian and Barbara were initially the protagonists with the Doctor in a more antagonistic role. The Doctor's character mellowed during the first season so that he became the main protagonist.

Even the scheduling indicates this - it was shown between the afternoon sports and news and Juke Box Jury (which was made for a teen/young adult audience) - it was only really in the late Seventies that this cam to be considered to be a timeslot for children's programmes. It was parodies on Michael Bentine's show It's a Square World in December 1963 (just a couple of weeks after the first broadcast), which implies that it had a large enough adult audience to get the reference. Also, anecdotally, my parents and some of their friends watched the show from its first broadcast; and they didn't have children at the time, so it's not like they were watching along with children.

So the adult audience was there from the beginning - it's not something that was aquired later.

By the way, have you seen An Adventure in Space and Time? Having missed it when it premiered last year as part of the 50th anniversary Doctor Who celebration, I finally saw it recently and it was a very good telling of how Doctor Who came to be and the story of the First Doctor's tenure--ironically made by the same people who made a short, jokey sketch on the same subject for the 35th anniversay (IIRC) but had always wanted to do a proper one, and finally had the opportunity to do it.

Co-incidently, my dvd of it arrived this morning. I just need to get some time to watch it.

Edit: I've watched it now and as Thande says it does an excellent job of telling the story. David Bradley is particularly good in his portreal of Hartnell. There's some nice touches for the fans (I liked how Hartnell's "Anti-Radiation Gloves" fluff fit into the story) but I don't think they overwhelm the drama.


Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[Brainbin]

I must begin by thanking you all for 800,000 views! I'm not going to speculate on any particular reasons why this timeline has proven so popular, but I will take this opportunity to remind everyone who might be considering writing a timeline of their own that just about anything can find an audience - not just War & Politics (even though my last two updates were about war and politics, respectively ).

I'd say that putting it that way would be a bit of a simplification to fit an artificial black-white dichotomy (the actual situation is a tad greyer I would say), but having said that, there is probably some truth to it.

I think that you probably need to look at some of the plot summaries of the William Hartnell episodes. They include such items as the Doctor trying to kill a wounded man because he was slowing them down, Susan attacking Ian with a pair of scissors and an attempted rape of Barbara. Doctor Who had an adult audience and dealt with adult themes from the beginning. It was originally conceived as a family show rather than a children's programme. Note that a children's drama would normally have a child protagonist, so Susan should have been the main protagonist of the series. Actually, Ian and Barbara were initially the protagonists with the Doctor in a more antagonistic role. The Doctor's character mellowed during the first season so that he became the main protagonist.

Even the scheduling indicates this - it was shown between the afternoon sports and news and Juke Box Jury (which was made for a teen/young adult audience) - it was only really in the late Seventies that this cam to be considered to be a timeslot for children's programmes. It was parodies on Michael Bentine's show It's a Square World in December 1963 (just a couple of weeks after the first broadcast), which implies that it had a large enough adult audience to get the reference. Also, anecdotally, my parents and some of their friends watched the show from its first broadcast; and they didn't have children at the time, so it's not like they were watching along with children.

So the adult audience was there from the beginning - it's not something that was aquired later.

Thank you for your thoughts, gentlemen. Interesting that Doctor Who had an adult audience from the outset (of course, Star Trek had a young audience from the outset as well) despite having been devised as an educational program for children (and Star Trek, likewise, as a showcase of "adult science-fiction"). Still, I'm sure there must be some fundamental principle which is at least usually true of one but not of the other, and I'm perfectly happy to keep looking for one until we reach a consensus. But until then, there are other issues to discuss...

By the way, have you seen An Adventure in Space and Time? Having missed it when it premiered last year as part of the 50th anniversary Doctor Who celebration, I finally saw it recently and it was a very good telling of how Doctor Who came to be and the story of the First Doctor's tenure--ironically made by the same people who made a short, jokey sketch on the same subject for the 35th anniversay (IIRC) but had always wanted to do a proper one, and finally had the opportunity to do it.

I would kind of like something similar to be done for Star Trek, but I don't know who would make it.

Edit: I've watched it now and as Thande says it does an excellent job of telling the story. David Bradley is particularly good in his portreal of Hartnell. There's some nice touches for the fans (I liked how Hartnell's "Anti-Radiation Gloves" fluff fit into the story) but I don't think they overwhelm the drama.

The unfortunate reality about "behind-the-scenes" docudramas concerning the making of American television programs is that they tend to be associated with rather tawdry "exposé"-type telefilms which depict each respective show's most controversial cast member as being solely responsible for all the headaches, all the heartache, and all the problems during the original run. Two great examples are Surviving Gilligan's Island and The Unauthorized Story of Three's Company. Even the telefilm of Growing Up Brady (which was told from Barry Williams' perspective and was mostly a dramatization of his romantic exploits with Maureen McCormick) indulged in this to an extent (with Robert Reed - and they actually liked him). In the case of Star Trek, the villain would obviously be Shatner - the problem there is that the obvious viewpoint character is Leonard Nimoy (who was there from beginning to end, and can even "flash-forward" to himself in the reboot movies), and he was one of the few cast members who did get along with Shatner (as did DeForest Kelley). Therefore, it's difficult to reconcile those two approaches within a traditional network telefilm. However, something akin to the old-style HBO miniseries such as From the Earth to the Moon and Band of Brothers might be able to walk that fine line. Otherwise, there's always a theatrical release, which might result in an Ed Wood or (more recently) a Hitchcock sort of movie. Personally, I'd love to see some re-creations of famous scenes, and of course there would have to be a cameo appearance by a certain Wacky Redhead...

 

[Thande]

The unfortunate reality about "behind-the-scenes" docudramas concerning the making of American television programs is that they tend to be associated with rather tawdry "exposé"-type telefilms which depict each respective show's most controversial cast member as being solely responsible for all the headaches, all the heartache, and all the problems during the original run. Two great examples are Surviving Gilligan's Island and The Unauthorized Story of Three's Company. Even the telefilm of Growing Up Brady (which was told from Barry Williams' perspective and was mostly a dramatization of his romantic exploits with Maureen McCormick) indulged in this to an extent (with Robert Reed - and they actually liked him). In the case of Star Trek, the villain would obviously be Shatner - the problem there is that the obvious viewpoint character is Leonard Nimoy (who was there from beginning to end, and can even "flash-forward" to himself in the reboot movies), and he was one of the few cast members who did get along with Shatner (as did DeForest Kelley). Therefore, it's difficult to reconcile those two approaches within a traditional network telefilm. However, something akin to the old-style HBO miniseries such as From the Earth to the Moon and Band of Brothers might be able to walk that fine line. Otherwise, there's always a theatrical release, which might result in an Ed Wood or (more recently) a Hitchcock sort of movie. Personally, I'd love to see some re-creations of famous scenes, and of course there would have to be a cameo appearance by a certain Wacky Redhead...

That is the norm for shows of that type over here as well, it is rare that you can find something where so many people treat retelling its origin as a labour of love for its own sake as was the case with Doctor Who. I remember Eddie Braben saying something similar about journalists desperately trying to find some fictional disagreement between Eric and Ernie in interviews with him, and him gleefully inventing stories of them violently attacking each other and seeing how long it took for the journalist to see that he was making it up. In the end it took until a couple of years ago for a properly well-balanced take on Eric and Ernie's origins to hit the screens, and again that worked because it was made by people who loved the original show. (So have you seen An Adventure in Space and Time or not? - I don't think you actually said)

 

[Brainbin]

(So have you seen An Adventure in Space and Time or not? - I don't think you actually said)

Sorry about that - you're right, I didn't. No, I haven't seen it. Given your glowing review, I'll have to put it on my watchlist. (I'll just have to find out if there's a way I can legally watch it.)

 

[NCW8]

Thank you for your thoughts, gentlemen. Interesting that Doctor Who had an adult audience from the outset (of course, Star Trek had a young audience from the outset as well) despite having been devised as an educational program for children (and Star Trek, likewise, as a showcase of "adult science-fiction").

The actual description was "semi-educational". In the more paternalistic early Sixties, that wasn't necessarily synonymous with "for children". Like the restriction on "No Robots, No BEMs, No Death-Rays", it didn't last very long once Dalekmania hit Britain.

Still, I'm sure there must be some fundamental principle which is at least usually true of one but not of the other, and I'm perfectly happy to keep looking for one until we reach a consensus.

It's tricky, not least because Doctor Who has a very flexible format - in some ways it's more like a compilation series such as The Outer Limits. If I had to pick one thing, I'd say that the Regeneration gimmick is a unique feature of Doctor Who that not only allows it to have a revolving door cast but also gives the series a reboot every few years. While you do get the complaints that the new Doctor isn't as good as the old one (which has been going on since Patrick Troughton took on the role), they are, if anything, less serious than the complaints about the Star Trek reboot movie.

I think that you yourself have said that Star Trek wouldn't be Star Trek without Kirk, Spock and McKoy. While Doctor Who wouldn't be Doctor Who without the Doctor, that isn't such a restriction.


Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[Thande]

Sorry about that - you're right, I didn't. No, I haven't seen it. Given your glowing review, I'll have to put it on my watchlist. (I'll just have to find out if there's a way I can legally watch it.)

Yeah, that's the irritating part. I can't remember which politician recently advocated the BBC doing an on-demand subscription service overseas (which is something I've been calling for for a while) but whoever it was, I agree with them.

And while they're at it, how about letting us get the BBC World News channel they get abroad but we can't get here, even though it's far superior to the UK version...grumble.

 

[Dan1988]

And while they're at it, how about letting us get the BBC World News channel they get abroad but we can't get here, even though it's far superior to the UK version...grumble.

There used to be a thing in the late 1990s where BBC World and BBC News 24 used to simulcast each other in the late night hours, GMT. At least according to TVArk, from this clip in 1998 with Alaistair Yates.

 

[Daibhid C]

By the way, have you seen An Adventure in Space and Time? Having missed it when it premiered last year as part of the 50th anniversary Doctor Who celebration, I finally saw it recently and it was a very good telling of how Doctor Who came to be and the story of the First Doctor's tenure--ironically made by the same people who made a short, jokey sketch on the same subject for the 35th anniversay (IIRC) but had always wanted to do a proper one, and finally had the opportunity to do it.

I would kind of like something similar to be done for Star Trek, but I don't know who would make it.

Not remotely what you're looking for (closer to what "The Pitch of Fear" would have been if Mark Gatiss thought Sydney Newman was an egotistical ass, rather than saving his hate for Sylvester McCoy) but I'm reminded that in 2001 there was a hilarious musical about Gene Roddenberry at the Edinburgh Fringe called I Am Star Trek.

The audience (the day I saw it) was an equal mix of fans and mundanes; you could tell which by who laughed at the scene when "Kirk"'s shirt gets ripped, and immediately falls open at a right angle...

I think that you probably need to look at some of the plot summaries of the William Hartnell episodes. They include such items as the Doctor trying to kill a wounded man because he was slowing them down, Susan attacking Ian with a pair of scissors and an attempted rape of Barbara. Doctor Who had an adult audience and dealt with adult themes from the beginning. It was originally conceived as a family show rather than a children's programme. Note that a children's drama would normally have a child protagonist, so Susan should have been the main protagonist of the series. Actually, Ian and Barbara were initially the protagonists with the Doctor in a more antagonistic role. The Doctor's character mellowed during the first season so that he became the main protagonist.

I do take your point about Susan not being the main character; compare with The Sarah Jane Adventures, in which Sarah might be the title character, but the audience viewpoint is clearly that of the kids.

On the other hand, I'm not sure there was the same sense of "children's television" in the 1960s as there was, for example, when I was growing up (when Doctor Who seemed determined to prove it wasn't a children's show, sometimes to its detriment). And even in the eighties, when CBBC was becoming a thing, the summer holiday schedule mostly consisted of black-and-white adventure shows with barely a child actor in sight. (At least, that's how I remember it.)

According to the BFI, the Children's Department stopped making any drama and light entertainment in 1961, before being replaced by the Family Programming Department in 1964. So early Doctor Who couldn't have been made as a kids' programme.

I've been unable to find out much about the children's dramas mentioned as made by the Drama Department to compare them to Doctor Who, though.

 

[Plumber]

High-speed rail from LA to Anaheim? Perfect!

[23] As has already been mentioned, this catchphrase enjoyed great currency ITTL and IOTL – though you may note that it has never been executed successfully.

Senator Harrison Schmidt would beg to differ, though as the incumbent it was "What on Earth has he done for you lately?"

 

[NCW8]

I do take your point about Susan not being the main character; compare with The Sarah Jane Adventures, in which Sarah might be the title character, but the audience viewpoint is clearly that of the kids.

And in most cases, the Monster of the Week was defeated by the children rather than SJ herself. The same trope appears in other children's drama - even in written examples, such as Enid Blyton's Feral Child Detective series (The Famous Five et al).

On the other hand, I'm not sure there was the same sense of "children's television" in the 1960s as there was, for example, when I was growing up (when Doctor Who seemed determined to prove it wasn't a children's show, sometimes to its detriment).

I don't remember much of the Sixties (which proves that I was there ), but there was children's television - series such as Blue Peter, Jackanory and Crackerjack all started in the Sixties or earlier. However, children's drama was a bit sparse. The BBC seemed to like adapting "Classic" children's books (particularly The Railway Children), but otherwise the main Sixties British children's drama seems seem to have been puppets (e.g. Thunderbirds) or animation (e.g. Nogin the Nog). Live action drama seems to mainly have been imported (e.g. Casey Jones, Skippy the Bush Kangaroo).

Things definitely improved in the Seventies, starting with Catweazle and Timeslip (both of which I just about remember) and leading onto The Tomorrow People and Children of the Stones (Which Channel 4 rated as number 76 in The 100 Greatest Scary Moments, just beating the Twilight Zone's Nightmare at 20000 Feet)

And even in the eighties, when CBBC was becoming a thing, the summer holiday schedule mostly consisted of black-and-white adventure shows with barely a child actor in sight. (At least, that's how I remember it.)

There's an interesting quote from the BFI page on the series Orlando (which I don't remember) - "Research in the mid-1960s showed that children often preferred 'adult' action series to those programmes specifically intended for them". By the looks of it, this research occured after Doctor Who started - and maybe was prompted by its success.

According to the BFI, the Children's Department stopped making any drama and light entertainment in 1961, before being replaced by the Family Programming Department in 1964. So early Doctor Who couldn't have been made as a kids' programme.

I hadn't realised that there was so much turmoil in the BBC Children's Dept in the early Sixties. It seems to have had long term effects with ITV maintaining a lead in children's drama well into the Seventies. The BBC really only caught up when it produced The Changes and Grange Hill.


Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[Miss Teri]

Odd question that occurred to me:
How's Arthur C. Clarke doing ITTL? Around this time OTL, he is working on 2010:Odyssey Two. Does that, or its movie adaptation, still exist?

 

[NCW8]

Yeah, that's the irritating part. I can't remember which politician recently advocated the BBC doing an on-demand subscription service overseas (which is something I've been calling for for a while) but whoever it was, I agree with them.

I'd welcome that. There is an IPad IPlayer App that makes some BBC TV series available in some European countries and Canada, but it tends to show older series rather than current BBC output. Strangely BBC Radio is available on the Web with no restrictions.


Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[NCW8]

Thank you for your thoughts, gentlemen. Interesting that Doctor Who had an adult audience from the outset (of course, Star Trek had a young audience from the outset as well) despite having been devised as an educational program for children (and Star Trek, likewise, as a showcase of "adult science-fiction"). Still, I'm sure there must be some fundamental principle which is at least usually true of one but not of the other, and I'm perfectly happy to keep looking for one until we reach a consensus.

You might find it interesting to read the section about Doctor Who on the TV Tropes page for Unbuilt Trope - particularly the parts discussing An Unearthly Child and The Edge of Destruction. I must admit to being curious about your reaction to the suggestion that The Daleks Master Plan seems "like a Darker and Edgier version of the sort of Genre Star Trek popularised".

Following TV Tropes links (as you do), I also noticed an interesting point made on the Seinfeld is Unfunny Live TV examples page about the synthesizer theme tune used in the original series. Dr Robert Moog gave the first demonstration of a prototype Synthesizer in October 1964, a year after Doctro Who first aired. In other words, the BBC's Radiophonics Workshop invented the synthesizer sound before the synthesizer was available.


Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[Daibhid C]

I'd welcome that. There is an IPad IPlayer App that makes some BBC TV series available in some European countries and Canada, but it tends to show older series rather than current BBC output. Strangely BBC Radio is available on the Web with no restrictions.

Presumably, the logic is that the radio licence hasn't existed since 1971, so BBC radio is "free" anyway.

 

[Brainbin]

That is the norm for shows of that type over here as well, it is rare that you can find something where so many people treat retelling its origin as a labour of love for its own sake as was the case with Doctor Who. I remember Eddie Braben saying something similar about journalists desperately trying to find some fictional disagreement between Eric and Ernie in interviews with him, and him gleefully inventing stories of them violently attacking each other and seeing how long it took for the journalist to see that he was making it up. In the end it took until a couple of years ago for a properly well-balanced take on Eric and Ernie's origins to hit the screens, and again that worked because it was made by people who loved the original show.

I suppose it's not terribly surprising that the notoriously relentless UK press would cultivate the same dog-eat-dog atmosphere. Kudos to Braben for pulling their leg like that!

I think that you yourself have said that Star Trek wouldn't be Star Trek without Kirk, Spock and McCoy. While Doctor Who wouldn't be Doctor Who without the Doctor, that isn't such a restriction.

I said that within the context of TTL, which has never known a Star Trek without Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. IOTL, obviously, this has not been the case. In fact it's only possible to describe the totality of the Star Trek franchise using very broad, overarching themes and concepts, such as narrative tone, and even then there are exceptions.

Yeah, that's the irritating part. I can't remember which politician recently advocated the BBC doing an on-demand subscription service overseas (which is something I've been calling for for a while) but whoever it was, I agree with them.

And while they're at it, how about letting us get the BBC World News channel they get abroad but we can't get here, even though it's far superior to the UK version...grumble.

It's quite disconcerting for those of us who have been on the internet long enough to remember when it was a realm without borders... but now these regional content restrictions are ubiquitous.

There used to be a thing in the late 1990s where BBC World and BBC News 24 used to simulcast each other in the late night hours, GMT. At least according to TVArk, from this clip in 1998 with Alaistair Yates.

And here's a great example! They did it then, and yet they can't do that now... for what reason, exactly?

Not remotely what you're looking for (closer to what "The Pitch of Fear" would have been if Mark Gatiss thought Sydney Newman was an egotistical ass, rather than saving his hate for Sylvester McCoy) but I'm reminded that in 2001 there was a hilarious musical about Gene Roddenberry at the Edinburgh Fringe called I Am Star Trek.

The audience (the day I saw it) was an equal mix of fans and mundanes; you could tell which by who laughed at the scene when "Kirk"'s shirt gets ripped, and immediately falls open at a right angle...

That show sounds like a lot of fun! It reminds me of the (authorized!) theatrical performances of "Spock's Brain" from ten years ago - played "straight" the same way the old Batman show was.

According to the BFI, the Children's Department stopped making any drama and light entertainment in 1961, before being replaced by the Family Programming Department in 1964. So early Doctor Who couldn't have been made as a kids' programme.

What this tells us, intriguingly enough, is that the circumstances of Doctor Who's genesis were highly particular.

In fact, it might not have even been possible for such a show to be developed prior to 1961, or after 1964.

High-speed rail from LA to Anaheim? Perfect!

Glad you're still reading, Plumber! Are you a fan of Disneyland?

In fact, the Walt Disney Company wasn't the only sponsor. Gene Autry got some great tax breaks from investing in the line - which will bring spectators to Angel Stadium from far and wide.

Senator Harrison Schmidt would beg to differ, though as the incumbent it was "What on Earth has he done for you lately?"

Good point, although I should point out that Schmitt was re-elected ITTL (and I'll get back to that later on).

Things definitely improved in the Seventies, starting with Catweazle and Timeslip (both of which I just about remember) and leading onto The Tomorrow People and Children of the Stones (Which Channel 4 rated as number 76 in The 100 Greatest Scary Moments, just beating the Twilight Zone's Nightmare at 20000 Feet)

There's... something... on... the-wing-of-the-plane!

That obligatory reference aside, it bears noting that you are willing to describe The Tomorrow People (well known as ITV's "answer" to Doctor Who) as a children's program.

There's an interesting quote from the BFI page on the series Orlando (which I don't remember) - "Research in the mid-1960s showed that children often preferred 'adult' action series to those programmes specifically intended for them". By the looks of it, this research occured after Doctor Who started - and maybe was prompted by its success.

I'm not terribly surprised - even if there hadn't been a relative dearth of children's programming at the time, there were only three channels at the time (just two, before 1964) and I have no doubt that dedicated "blocks" of children's programming were hard to come by (stateside, it was just Saturday mornings and maybe after-school). And there was only one television set, so kids watched whatever the person who controlled the remote wanted to watch - which is to say, "adult" programming. It's easy enough to see this paradigm resulting in the youngest cohort of the first generation of Star Trek fans; there's a lot to appeal to children there. Bright colours, strange aliens, exotic locales (sometimes on location), and almost always at least one fight scene.

How's Arthur C. Clarke doing ITTL? Around this time OTL, he is working on 2010:Odyssey Two. Does that, or its movie adaptation, still exist?

It's a fairly safe bet that Clarke went back to the Odyssey well. As far as any film adaptation, IOTL it was not released until 1984, and we're only in 1983 at the moment, so stay tuned.

You might find it interesting to read the section about Doctor Who on the TV Tropes page for Unbuilt Trope - particularly the parts discussing An Unearthly Child and The Edge of Destruction. I must admit to being curious about your reaction to the suggestion that The Daleks Master Plan seems "like a Darker and Edgier version of the sort of Genre Star Trek popularised".

From the description, most of the plot details sound rather generic and seem to satirize whiz-bang film serials (the kind which Star Wars would later crib from) rather than proto-Star Trek material.

Following TV Tropes links (as you do), I also noticed an interesting point made on the Seinfeld is Unfunny Live TV examples page about the synthesizer theme tune used in the original series. Dr Robert Moog gave the first demonstration of a prototype Synthesizer in October 1964, a year after Doctro Who first aired. In other words, the BBC's Radiophonics Workshop invented the synthesizer sound before the synthesizer was available.

Good for them! It certainly helps to explain why the decision to change to a more generic synthesizer for the 1980 rearrangement was so controversial with the original composers.

Presumably, the logic is that the radio licence hasn't existed since 1971, so BBC radio is "free" anyway.

And yet, BBC Radio continues to broadcast a much wider variety of programming than most American radio has done for the past half-century! (Granted, NPR helps to pick up the slack stateside.)

---

Let's talk about the US Senate! As many of you know, it has 100 members, each of whom serve six-year terms; approximately one-third of all Senators are up for election with each biennial cycle, which has allowed me (with the help and counsel of one of my consultants) to keep track of the Senate roster ever since the butterflies started spreading their wings there in 1970. Unfortunately, that shared responsibility has now devolved to me alone, and since I no longer have chains of PMs to keep track of the Senate's membership changes with each new cycle, I've decided to take "snapshots" with the opening of each new Congress. The Senate of the 98th Congress, which began on January 3, 1983, has the following composition, according to seniority:



Here is where you can peruse the OTL roster for comparison purposes. Feel free to ask after any "missing" Senators and I'll provide an explanation for their absence. One missing name you might notice right off the bat is that of Senator (and one-time Presidential hopeful) William Proxmire, who was defeated in his attempt to secure the Democratic nomination for Senate in his 1982 re-election contest. He dusted off his old "Earth Party" label and ran under that, splitting the left-wing vote and allowing the Republican candidate, State Rep. Tommy Thompson, to come up the middle. There's also a new Senator, formerly the Mayor of a major city and briefly a Congressman, who is well known for ending his speeches on the Senate floor with his "final thought".

And no, before anyone asks, I will not be making one of these charts for the House of Representatives, which is over four times larger and whose entire membership is up for re-election every two years.

Till next time, take care of yourself... and each other.

 

[THE OBSERVER]

Very interesting list. People who were Senators IOTL aren't ITTL and vice versa. Brilliant job.

 

[NCW8]

That obligatory reference aside, it bears noting that you are willing to describe The Tomorrow People (well known as ITV's "answer" to Doctor Who) as a children's program.

Well it was broadcast during the after-school, weekday afternoon slot in the middle of other children's programmes (which Doctor Who never was), so it's a bit difficult to argue otherwise. Just because it's ITV's answer to Doctor Who, doesn't mean that they got the answer right. In any case, it would be more accurate to describe it as one of their answers. There's also Timeslip and Saphire and Steel - the latter of which wasn't a children's programme.

Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[THE OBSERVER]

Notice we are coming close to the 200 page mark. Congratulations Brainbin!