Reading and Viewing

I've completed reading the last of the Dominic Sandbrook books, 'Seasons In The Sun', which took the history up until 1979 with the election of Margaret Thatcher. A hefty read, but well worth it. I have now read all his books, from, 'Never Had It so Good', taking in The Suez Crisis of 1956; 'White Heat', which covers the 1964 election which bought Harold Wilson to power; next 'State of Emergency', covering the years 1970-1974 and that followed by 'Seasons In The Sun', 1974-1979.

I really want to find a book which covers the Second World War, but, as yet, I haven't found anything, and then perhaps a book which covers the period directly after the war and into the 1950's which would cover the Clement Attlee government and the foundation of the welfare state and birth of the N.H.S. I think I may have found something on Amazon. I have found books which I wouldn't otherwise have found if it hadn't been for Amazon. At any rate, even going into a traditional bookshop such as Waterstone's (as good as they are) I very much doubt I'd have come across them. It's obvious that a traditional bricks-and-mortar bookshop has limited space to stock every book that might be of interest, so an on-line bookshop like Amazon does have the advantage.

I'm currently reading 'Ripley's Game,' the second of the Patricia Highsmith's brilliant crime series. It's every bit as brilliant as the earlier novel, 'The Talented Mr Ripley.' The detail is amazing and some of the sequences, particularly that one on the train, is like reading a screenplay for a film. She must have done a great deal of research to get it accurate. You can almost feel your are there as you read it. Certainly a book you can't put down. Mind you, it wouldn't work in the early part of the 21st century, what with mobile phones with cameras and Closed Circuit Television everywhere. Or social media like Facebook and Twitter.

What am I watching on television. Good question. Several drama series. The first of the second run of 'The Frankenstein Chronicles', which is on ITV2. Not really what I'd call a mainstream drama series, and probably all the better for that. More aimed at the 18-30 age bracket and not something that is ever likely to end up shown on a Sunday evening at 9 p.m. Gruesome in the extreme. It has Sean Bean in the central role of John Marlott and set in the 1830s, at the time the first of Sir Robert Peel's policemen are on patrol. Not something for the faint-hearted, but it does have a sort of appeal, if you like that sort of thing. At least it has a sort of honesty about it, and considering it must be made on quite a tight budget, it's remarkably well made and acted. There are so many twist and turns of the plot that take you by surprise that it's that element which makes it such a good read. Thriller-writing at it's best.

Then there's a brand new Sky series called 'The Discovery of Witches.' It's based on a trilogy of books by the author Deborah Harkness. It's partially set in Oxford, and considering how Oxford has played such an important part in my life since my heart attack. I can think of no better place for a drama to be set. How many books can you name which are set in Oxford? Well, the first that springs to mind would be the 'Morse' series, which was made into a highly successful ITV series starring John Thaw and Kevin Wateley and then the spin-off series 'Endeavour' and then 'Lewis.' But think of Lewis Carroll and his 'Alice' books, first 'Alice in Wonderland' and 'Through The Looking-Glass,' then C.S. Lewis who wrote the 'Narnia' children's books and of course J.R.R. Tolkein, who was a friend of Lewis, author of 'The Hobbit' and 'The Lord of The Rings.' Both were connected with the university in some way or other (not sure of their exact job-titles.) but they lived and worked in Oxford. The there's the Philip Pullman series 'His Dark Materials' which are set in an alternative Oxford and have been adapted for the stage by the National Theatre and the first of the books made into a not altogether successful film. Coincidentally, the production company which makes 'The Discovery of Witches' is scheduled to adapt the Pullman novels for television, but as yet there's no news of when it's likely to be produced and then broadcast.

As to 'Discovery of Witches.' It started off promisingly, but it stayed sort of static for several more episodes. I was on the point of giving up but stuck with it until episode 5 and I'm glad I did as it has moved in a different direction and I shall stick with it until the end of the series.

I'm also watching 'The Man In The High Castle,' which is on Amazon Prime.  I've been following this since it began in 2015 and it's been worth waiting for the third season of this Philip K. Dick adaptation which has now really got into it's stride and as absorbing as ever. Somewhat chilling (when you realise the concept of the plot, being a 'what if' thriller, of a dystopian nature, imagining what would happen if the Nazis had won World War 2.) Good acting, script-writing and production values. It must have a large budget and the use of C.G.I. is well done and not too obvious.

Then 'Doctor Who,' which began it's latest season two Sundays ago. Lots of changes, with, of course, the biggest being Jodie Whittaker taking over from Peter Capaldi as the first female Doctor. Also, a new show runner in Chris Chibnall. He was writer of the hit ITV series 'Broadchurch' where he would have worked with Jodie Whittaker and another former Doctor in David Tennant. A new broom, introducing new titles for the show as well as brand new theme tune and incidental music as well as several new companions, one of whom is Bradley Walsh. When I first heard that he had been cast in the latest series, I thought it was a hoax, but soon I discovered that it was correct. Certainly  long way from his compere role in the ITV gameshow 'The Chase,' although I'm half expecting Anne Hegarty or any of the other Chasers to pop up in 'Doctor Who' as villains! They've redesigned the interior of The Tardis, giving it a far more organic look. I don't have a problem with Jodie Whittaker. I know there was a lot of fuss when it was announced that a woman would take over as The Doctor, but she's making a perfectly good job of it. There is always some sort of fuss whenever a new actor takes over in the role, so it's perfectly normal when this happens. It will take several episodes before things settle back down. It's important that she gets good scripts and that the villains (monsters) are good (not necessarily 'good' but you know what I mean.) Unfortunately the monsters in the first two episodes have been rather feeble. Just a pity that we won't be meeting any of the 'classic' monsters in this series, such as the Daleks or Cybermen. Perhaps they have tended to rely to heavily on them over the past couple of series and haven't spent enough time and energy creating new, convincing ones to replace them.

August Bank Holiday Monday Outing to Claydon

I took Alfie out for his by now routine walk around Eaglestone Park and we saw the lady with the white poodle. Alfie saw them first and trotted off to say hello and another lady appeared with a chocolate Labrador and Alfie was in his element as this dog was eager to run around with him. The other little dog didn't want to know. Perhaps he's just no sociable. Anyway, it means that Alfie has another dog to be friendly with, but he insists on running in circles around both dogs. If only he would just stand still. Well, with all his exuberance at least he's getting lots of exercise which is good for him.

We drove out to Claydon House this morning. It was good to get away from the house and Milton Keynes, even if for only a couple of hours. We have been there before, as members of the National Trust we get free entry but it must be at least 4 years since we last visited. We didn't go into the house. They say that you're no more than 20-30 minutes from a National Trust property. I don't know how true that is, but I suppose if pushed, and the traffic isn't too heavy, it's probably 35 or 40 minutes away. Probably the same to Stowe Landscape Gardens. Waddesdon Manor is probably an hour or so away.

We headed out towards Buckingham on Standing Way. I had the satnav on, the one fitted in the car and it was useful as we couldn't remember exactly how to get to Claydon. The traffic got busy on the road out to Buckingham and then we turned left in Buckingham near Tesco's. We went this way when we took Carol's mum and dad to Waddesdon Manor a couple of months ago when they came up to stay at the hotel in Newport Pagnell. The weather did it's best to stay fine and sunny, but there was a cool breeze and dark, brooding clouds suggested that we could expect a downpour at any moment. But Bank Holidays always have to have rain. It's part of the tradition and it has definitely got to be endured. But all the time we were out it didn't start to pour, fortunately.

As we approached Claydon House we saw notices for 'SK' but we had no idea what it referred to. Then, as we drew up in the carpark we saw tents in a field some way from the main garden and entrance to the house. Some sort of history festival or other. Then, across a field, a gathering of what looked like people dressed in period costume. Then we heart the sound of gunfire. It was a Sealed Knot event, the society that reenacts battles of the English Civil War period. Then, as we walked towards the manor we saw people walking about in 17th century costume. A bit like when I've been on location for television dramas and, if they're period, supporting artistes would be walking about in costume. Somewhat incongruous to see people draw up in a modern van or car, and then get out dressed in 17th century costume.

We had to visit the restaurant, which was new to us. I think when we last visited the restaurant was on the opposite side of the courtyard. There was a group of people in there dressed in 17th century costume. Even more odd seeing them in there as if they'd got lost in time and space and wandered in through a time warp or Doctor Who's Tardis or something equally science fiction related.Perhaps they had and we hadn't noticed and nobody else had thought to ask. I just hope they hadn't sent a Dalek or Cyberman or two along with them for company. But I don't think they looked the sort of people who would have thought it the least bit amusing as I had. Anyway, we ordered the regulation lattes and scones and sat and ate them. Very fine and pleasant. Just what was required and completed our visit perfectly. We had a look in some of the art studios which are within the courtyard. When we were married in 2007 we wanted to have a unique piece of art made and decided on having it created by a potter who was based at Claydon. It was made with a slate base with a hand-crafted flower on top of it and we had it at the house in Crownhill, but it got removed and then destroyed when we had problems with our then landlord. It would be nice if we could have it re-mde but at the moment that would not be possible. When it had been ordered and then made we went to Claydon to collect it and on the journey there from Milton Keynes there was an almighty rain-storm and it was so torrential, we could barely see out of the car and had to stop in a lay-by to wait for the storm to pass. It was like a river bursting it's banks and it wasn't safe to continue the journey so it was best to stay in that lay-by. I'm almost sure that had we got out of the car when it was raining that afternoon we would very likely have been washed away because of the force of the water running down the side of the road. As it was you couldn't see clearly the rain was falling so heavily on the car's windscreen.

So, having seen everything we wanted to at Claydon, we returned to the car and then drove back to Milton Keynes through Buckingham.

Waiting For The Doctor

No, nothing to do with Doctor Who, not waiting for the Time Lord to turn up. Far more prosaic. Perhaps if The Doctor was involved, perhaps he could send in the Daleks or the Cybermen to hurry things along. Go backward or forward in time in the Tardis to sort things out. To what do I refer? Well, Carol needs a doctor's appointment at Ashfield Medical Centre. We thought we'd try and get an appointment by telephoning the surgery at 8 o'clock. Any thoughts of actually getting through were thwarted. The lines were obviously not open as all we got was a 'burr, burr' sound. After about 25 minutes of attempts I drove to the surgery. One other person waiting. Nobody else. No staff immediately in attendance, they were in another room, chatting. I moved towards the desk and a staff member appeared. I managed to get a 'ring-back,' meaning that our doctor would call at some time during the morning to discuss what the issue was before deciding if an actual face-to-face appointment was necessary. Getting to the surgery is made worse at 8-9 o'clock in the morning because the traffic is heavy through the Standing Way roundabout. As I came out of Eaglestone into Saxon Street I noticed there was heavy traffic outside the Academy. Parents leaving their children. But they're not supposed to park in the road directly outside the school. They are supposed to use the carpark at the rear of the school (where the old school used to be, which Milton Keynes Academy replaced.) There's a perfectly adequate amount of parking there, but people seem to refuse to do what is far safer. They've already put yellow lines outside the Academy and it's clear that it's not a parking area. Some parents even park half on and off the road, onto the grass, which is simply not safe. I just think it's very selfish and goodness knows what would happen if there was an emergency, such as a fire, or if an ambulance was needed for whatever reason. They would never get into the school grounds with so many vehicles in the way.

We did eventually get a call from Ashfield Medical Centre, at gone Midday. Carol had an appointment booked with one of the practice nurses at 5.

Football and Sunshine

Yesterday morning I managed to virtually complete the clearance of the brambles and weeds at the end of the garden. I did the work before it got to hot. Not a good idea to be outside in direct sunshine. There is still some more to do, but it can wait as I'm not risking going out in the blazing sun.

Carol needed to go back to the oncology department at Milton Keynes Hospital at 2.20 yesterday afternoon because they needed to check the P.I.C.C. line which was used to administer the chemotherapy. We got to the carpark and there were fortunately two or three spaces so that was one less thing to worry about. A woman came in and got in the way as we were attempting to park. Some people just don't seem to care so long as they get what they want, regardless of the other person. Never mind. It was far too hot to argue anyway. We walked into the oncology department and it was a lot cooler than outside. Not many patients. Quite a few of the chairs empty, but few staff to deal with things, as usual, so what nurses were available seemed to be doing several people's work. Carol was soon seen and went into the little room to have her line checked. She may have the line taken out, depending on what the next stage of her treatment is, and probably not until she's seen the consultant next Friday.

We walked back to the car and got out without having to use the ticket machine because the barrier was raised. All that bother to get the ticket checked and then there's no need to use it. It's so irritating that you have this constant annoyance and then the thing doesn't work properly or at all. Never mind, it's them that's loosing the cash involved if it doesn't work.

Some form of refreshment was in order, due to the heat. We drove to Oakgrove, a short drive along Chaffron Way and parked near Waitrose. We went into the nearby Costa and had cold drinks, their tasty strawberry-and-cream cooler which did the trick. It was fascinating to sit and watch people passing by as we sat inside. I can't say I was exactly over-enthusiatsit about the music they were playing in Costa's. That droning, reparative drivel that passes for modern pop music. It was awful. Why is it necessary? As we sat inside Costas we could see children walking past. It was only about 3 o'clock. They were leaving school. From the comprehensive school just over the road from Waitrose and Costa, Oakgrove School. A very different lot of children to those who attend Milton Keynes Academy. They look far neater in their dress. All wearing uniforms, with blazers with the school symbol emblazoned on them. Ties done up neatly (not just the boys, but also the girls.) Not in the least bit scruffy. Talking quietly. Amazing, but having said that, somewhat boring. I bet the behaviour is better than at the Academy. But somehow they looked mechanical, almost robotic. Too good to be true. This was going me ideas. As I'm watching the Channel Four series 'Humans' about robots or 'synths' these children do have the look and feel of synths. It could be as if they were  being controlled. Just the impression I got somehow. Think also of the Cybermen in 'Doctor Who.' Just a bit creepy. There's a story brewing in my mind . . .

I'm not in the least bit interested in football, and not bothered by the World Cup. There was a match on yesterday evening at 7 o'clock. England versus Belgium. Regardless of whether you've an interest or not there is the constant drip drip drip of football . . . football. . . football. Everywhere you go. The supermarkets are stocked up with beer, pizza, Coca Cola, and all the paraphernalia they expect people to want to buy. Nothing wrong with that. I suppose it's better than Brexit. The warm weather is adding to the excitement. Our neighbours were having a party or a barbecue. They were having guests. Quite a few cars drawing up outside the house. The time for kick-off was approaching. Carol was upstairs watching on the bedroom television. I was downstairs, completing the Futurelearn course on Shakespeare. I did watch the  England v Panama match with Carol the other afternoon, although I wasn't concentrating too closely. Just doesn't do it for me. No sense of engagement. I think they over-do the build up to such sporting events. Then afterwards the endless discussion, the dissecting of the game, the post mortem. They go on and on and on and on and on and on. Fair enough, but some of us are bored silly.

The football match wasn't exactly setting the world on fire. You would have known something was going on if there had been a goal scored. No cheers from next door, or from upstairs. It was after an hour or so that I ventured upstairs and there was a 0-0 scoreline. Carol said it was 'boring.' But looking at the screen, it looks remarkably like some sort of computer game. The grass on the pitch is too green, more like carpet. The players look like computerised graphics. If you remember the television show, which must have been one of the first things on Channel 4 when it started in 1982, called 'Max Headroom.' He was a computerised character. Well, the players look very much like him. Unrealistic looking. Tanned, with over-styled hair.  They seem to move in a sort of artificial manner to me. It looks really dull and lifeless. Why?  Loads of advertising all around the ground. What on earth is Wanda? It was being advertised at the edge of the pitch. You can't ignore the advertising. It's there, centre-stage if you like. I know the advertising is essential to the funding of these events, but it does tend to intrude. Is Wanda a person? An insurance company? A beer? A soft drink? Goodness only knows, but whatever she is, she's got a lot to answer for. The sport is being taken over by money. The players are payed in telephone numbers, for merely kicking a ball around on a piece of grass for 90 minutes. Hence the advertising. I think I may have answered my own earlier question. Too much money and if I was looking at the advertising, even if it was for a company I'd never heard of, at least I was thinking about that (which is earning money) even if it wasn't the football.

More Television Annoyances

Well, for a start, why on earth do we have to have 'what's coming up' on some television programmes? They do this with 'Bargain Hunt.' Why spoil things if you're going to give away some details? Are producers worried that we are going to turn to another channel or just loose interest unless there's 'peaks' in the show which we have to be told about in advance? If you're reading a really good novel, do we have to turn to the end to find out how it's going to end? Why do television dramas have to have the 'next week' or ''next episode' bit after the credits run at the end? It's an American thing I'm sure, because so many of our television shows are sold to the U.S.A. and a lot are co-produced with American television stations. There's no sense of surprise if we know that a certain character is going to be in the next episode or some major plot-point is going to be revealed. Doctor Who used to be one of those shows which had an element of surprise about it, that is, in it's original format, running from 1963 up until it was taken off in 1989. When a story of so many episodes, usually 4 or 6, came to an end the Doctor and his companions would get in the Tardis and fly off and we wouldn't know where they would end up until the doors of the Tardis opened at the beginning of the next episode. Now, since the 'new' version, which started in 2005, we have to be told exactly what to expect, well in advance. The difference is that now we only get about 13 episodes a season (or series) together with a Christmas special, but we have pages and pages in the Radio Times and elsewhere about the different stories and what monsters will be appearing, whether it's the Daleks or Cybermen or hopefully new monsters and villains. Not knowing is obviously not an option and any surprise is totally lost. In it's original form Doctor Who ran virtually all year round. I think it may have had breaks at some point during the year, probably Easter and during the summer, but when it began in the '60's it seemed to be on for most of the year, certainly not in bursts of 12-13 episodes. This is another American thing, also, having it as hour episodes (not actually 60 minutes, as it has to be sold to commercial networks it has to run for around 45-50 minutes so that 10-15 minutes is left for advertising.) I'm sure it was better when it was 25-30 minutes, and each story was told over 4-6 episodes so you got a cliff-hanger at the end of each episodes so the excitement of 'what will happen next?' was built in. The longer episodes don't always work as the writers have to create stories which tie up within the longer framework, although some stories cover two or more episodes. They may have thrown more money at the new Doctor Who stories, so we have better sets, locations and special effects, but it doesn't always mean better stories. The production values are a good deal higher than the original show, but some of the C.G.I. effects look totally obvious. Some of the computer-generated monsters, for example, look sort of 'pasted on,' almost Photoshopped onto the video footage. In film and television you should never be able to spot what is 'real' and not. If it stands out too much it's not working properly. It's a bit like 'seeing the joins' in something.

Do producers and others who are involved in television not realise that they spoil the impact of the stories they're attempting to tell by giving away plot details? What's the point to putting so much effort into something if you are going to give away these details in advance? Just crazy.

Peter Capaldi Leaves 'Doctor Who'

So, Peter Capaldi is to leave 'Doctor Who.' I'm not actually very surprised. I reckon he had to endure some of the worst scripts ever during his tenure. And it all down to the show runner, Stephen Moffat. I have been a fan of Doctor Who since the very first episode was aired in 1963. I would imagine that I was the right age to fit the demographic of the audience they were attempting to attract when it was originally broadcast. I was about 13. I loved it from the very first. I recall distinctly the first appearance of the Daleks. They were mysterious. We gradually got to know them over many later stories. Infact, in some ways, they were used far too much, probably because the BBC knew that with them in an episode they could help boost the ratings. What made 'Doctor Who' so distinctive was the fact that it was made up of so many episodes, and around every four to six weeks, when the Doctor and his companions got in the Tardis and took off at the end of a serial, you never knew exactly where they would land in the next episode, the doors of the Tardis would open and you would be in a completely different world, or time, be it past or future, a historic story, say, set in ancient Rome, Ghengis Khan, or to a future with robots, megalomaniac semi-human robots such as the Cybermen or Daleks, the Sea Devils or whatever. Infact, some of the best stories I remember were those during the tenure of Jon Pertwee, when the Doctor was forced to remain on Earth and deal with aliens during the 20th Century. The fact that the Doctor could be regenerated every couple of years was a stroke of genius, a device cleverly introduced when the original Doctor, William Hartnell, decided to leave the series. As a result, every time a new Doctor is introduced, the show could be reinvented, given a make over. This is how the show has managed to survive for more than 50 years. In 1989 the BBC cancelled 'Doctor Who.' It was no surprise, really. It seemed they didn't want it to survive, giving it a really poor place in the schedules, shown twice mid-week, and opposite ITV's soap 'Coronation Street.' Also, not helped by two actors taking over the lead who were, frankly, totally mis-cast, Colin Baker and then Sylvester McCoy. No fault of theirs, they were just not provided with very good storylines or scripts and the budget for those episodes most likely got reduced as the special effects were very poor, to say the least and the sets generally of a very poor standard unfortunately. It is no wonder the ratings plummeted. Why show the programme mid-week, and opposite such a ratings juggernaut as 'Coronation Street'? There was always talk that 'Doctor Who' would be rebooted. There was even a one-off film with Paul McGann in the lead role. I never saw it. I didn't want to. By then I'd lost interest in the who 'Who' thing. But then, in 2005, the BBC decided it was time to revive the series. It was given a complete make-over, the show had what was termed a 'Showrunner' a job which came from American television. This time Russell T. Davies was in charge, writing many of the episodes and the actor who was cast as The Doctor was Christopher Eccleston. The show was given a new format, each story running for 45-50 minutes. I think this was the first mistake they made. The original 30-minute running time is far better, with stories running over 4-6 weekly instalments. In it's original form, Doctor Who ran more or less continuously throughout the year. In it's rebooted form  it ran for 13 weeks. Also, they began it in May, which means that the evenings are getting lighter (by then the clocks have moved back to Summertime.) It was still scheduled on a Saturday, as the original show was scheduled. By now it wasn't really a children's show as originally intended, but more what you'd class a 'family' show, meaning they could make the stories and characters far more scary. But did they heck! No, it became far more aimed at an older audience, and many of the stories became far too frightening for a younger audience and as a result the good old BBC decided in it's infinite wisdom to put it out later and later on a Saturday evening. In the old days Doctor Who would be on at around 5-6 p.m. on a Saturday, after such things as Grandstand were finished (the long-defunct sports magazine.) The 30-minute format was far better than telling a story in a 45-minute slot because you had cliff-hangers at the end of each episode and so built up the excitement of what was going to happen next in the following week's episode. You can hardly do any such thing in a one-episode story, although they have done the occasional two-episode story. But even then the 45-minute stories do seem incredibly rushed, there's hardly time to develop a story sufficiently to make it an engaging  or worthwhile viewing experience. They may have had more money to spend on these episodes compared to the classic episodes, but even then it was all crash, bang, wallop, big and brash, lots of running around, chasing monsters as usual, but it became very jokey and a lot of the time hardly any character development or subtleties that would make a story interesting. Too clever and pretentious for a children's audience or even an adult audience. It was made for an hour slot, following the American model, with the idea that it would sell overseas. If it's made for a 45-50 minute running time, the hour is made up on a commercial channel with around 10-15 minutes of commercials.  A lot of C.G.I. was used, but my one complaint is that that is cheating. The best monsters are those that are 'in the flesh,' are real in the sense they are there in the studio or on location. The C.G.I. monsters did tend to look as if they'd be sort of Photoshopped on during the editing process. Almost as if they'd been cut out and stuck on afterwards. One of my big complaints was what they did to the Daleks. They had always had the problem of not being able to go up stairs. Probably because they were designed to run on castors, a sort of built-in problem probably due to budget restraints. You came to accept that the Daleks couldn't go up stairs, but in the new Doctor Who, when they appeared in the newly-rebooted show, suddenly they could fly. It just looked absolutely ridiculous. And done by C.G.I.! As  result, the Daleks are little more than a laughing stock and as a result don't seem anywhere as menacing as they did when I remember them as a boy of about 15. And in one episode at about the time of the 2010 Election they even had to make some of the Daleks have what would appear to be the colours of the major political parties. In one episode they came across as being, well, frankly, camp, the way they moved and spoke. More like dancers in the chorus of a really awful musical! Well, definitely not menacing.

Christopher Eccleston only lasted one series as The Doctor and then was replaced by David Tennant. A totally different interpretation. That's what makes Doctor Who so different to other drama series. If you re-cast your central character you'd expect them to be the same sort of age, height, etc and they'd be played in more or less the same sort of way. Even down to their costume, hair etc. Not with The Doctor. He can be played by an older actor as with William Hartnell, who played him as a doddery old gent with a Grand Daughter. Or, he can then be played as a sort of space hobo, which is how Patrick Troughton played him, or as a rather cheeky comic character, which is how Tom Baker played him. From Tennant we had Matt Smith, who played him as a combination of Tom Baker's Doctor and Patrick Troughton's version. Then, when Matt Smith took over we got Peter Capaldi, who was the same sort of age as William Hartnell when he first played the part. He certainly gave the part a sort of gravitas, but, unfortunately, the scripts just didn't cut the mustard in my view. Stephen Moffat took over at the time Russell T. Davis left as show runner and things just went from bad to worse. He made the stories very 'clever-clever.' The Christmas episodes became more and more predictable and not up to much. I didn't watch many of the later episodes. I haven't see the 2016 Christmas episode nor many of the last series in 2015. The 2016 episodes got scheduled later and later, probably because some of them were deemed to frightening for younger audiences. It seems it has lost it's way and, to be frank, it would be better if they killed the show off completely, although I can't imagine the BBC doing that because it's quite a good earner and is shown all over the world, as well as generating a good income for them through their commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, what with merchandising deals with such companies as Lego.