The Fifth Doctor, for the first time, was a deliberate reaction against his predecessor.
An explorer with no other agenda than just wandering around looking for things that intrigued him.
This got him a permanent job as script editor, having performed the role partially uncredited after Bidmead left.
Saward had an idea for the direction of the show that required the character of the Doctor to change.
The universe according to Eric was a more cynical place, where the Doctors idealism became misplaced.
His character was driven by the tone of the show, rather than the other way around.
Thats not to say that every story ended with a load of bodies lying at the Doctors feet.
Given the choice, Im not sure if Id rather be an EightiesDoctor Whocompanion or married to Henry VIII.
The Doctor tries to save the girl he barely knows.
Oddly, its never mentioned by anyone working on the show as something that was deliberately intended.
Peter Davisons performance inAndrozani, however, is the opposite of thoughtless.
Theyre not as good, though.
Its possibly the best individual performance by any actor playing the Doctor ever.
The Eighties seems to specialise in going from the sublime to the ridiculous, fromEarthshocktoTimeflightorTerminustoEnlightenment.
People dont stick to what theyre good at.
The producer is good with budgets, and the show looks reasonably good most of the time.
The script editor can produce a good action yarn, and has a nice line in black humour.
to the Davison era.
People dont act, speak or even dress the way that logic dictates they should.
Its in the background, but it all adds up.
John Nathan-Turner micromanages in costume, and scripting and casting, and it often doesnt work.
Overall, the Fifth Doctors era is hardly a disaster.
Its just that, for the most part, its just sort of there.
Frustrating, bi-polar, and divisive, its rife with wasted potential amidst the dire and the daring.
