James Bond, Discovery 

     and Doctor Who

The Cold War over? Where does that leave Bond?

It seems to me that the Bond movie franchise may not survive the latest film to come out if it is as WOKE as people say it is. Will the next 007 be a woman and, if so, where does that leave Bond? 

Growing up in the 1960s and 1970s it was hard to miss the sexual revolution that was going on. 

Prior to this time, people thought married women should stay at home and look after the kids. 

Monetary necessities in the 1970s, however, meant that more and more women had to get out there and at least have a part time job to help pay the bills. 

By the time I was past my teens, it was becoming more and more mandatory for that part time job to be a full time one. And there were plenty of women who didn't want to stay at home and mind the kids anyway but be out in the world earning a living and keeping up acquired skills. 

Now many of us, via computer linkups, work from home. 

What does any of this have to do with the James Bond movies? For many of us, growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, those films were an escape from the real world.

 Even a ten year old would know that the movie Bond, unlike the Bond in the novels, was as fictional as you can get. A spy that sticks out, no matter how good, would always be under scrutiny, and unable to function and would quickly be chopped down. In the movies, this was partly resolved in  You Only Live Twice when Bond's death is faked so he can continue with his missions. 

Spies I understand, are as inconspicuous as it is possible for them to be. They blend in. That's how they stay alive in enemy territory and come back with the goods. Also, from what I have read, there's a lot of fact checking involved. Dull stuff that would find most of us yawning with boredom. 

Trick photography, with cameras hidden in most unusual objects, such as in a shoe, date back to at least the early Twentieth Century. They were part of the spy game. Then, by the 2nd World War, came really small cameras that could easily be hidden anywhere. Writers get that right in both the movies and in the spy novels.

Bond, in the 1960s and 1970s, was all about fast cars, fast women, quick thinking and all sorts of gimmicks. Bond often went up against guys stronger than him and managed to win anyway.

 In terms of writing, I always preferred The Saint to Bond but The Saint was also about fast cars, fast women, and quick thinking as well. Mind you, The Saint started out as a thief, robbing gangsters and, even getting into the 1950s, he had the inclination to steal and, at times, kill when justified to do so. 

Back in the day there seemed to be absolutely nothing wrong with getting away from your life for a while and imagining you were Bond, doing the near impossible, and getting away with it. 

So what has changed? Apparently there are those who think escape into a fictional world for a few hours is bad. Bond is no good because he cares more about the mission than the cars, women and gadgets. 

And so Bond, in the Craig era, had him more down to earth able to care more about the women, even if his performances were wooden, and the storylines kept raising the question of why Bond should even exist at all. 

 Unlike the 1960s and 1970s, Bond during the Craig era, could not be out to prevent the Russians and Americans from getting into a war with each other that would result in mass destruction on a global scale. Bonds missions could never be that ludicrously big ever again. And so the fun went away. 

Bond is designated 007 with a license to kill. Even Ian Fleming said that license would never apply in the real world and that is fine with me. Is it now possible this 007 designation will be given to a woman? If that happens, what about James Bond? In comedy a female 007 would be okay but, other than that, it might mean an end to this long running series of motion pictures. Is it time for Bond to walk  away? I don't know. 

Discovery, the latest Star Trek television series isn't my cup of tea for various reasons. Diversity is fine but, when it comes to damaging Spok, a much loved character, I bow out.  I get the impression a lot of people feel the same way. Also, I felt they brought in the Mirror Universe too early. 

We didn't know the crew of Discovery well enough to be confronted with their opposites. I think the modern Star Trek movies are great but there we have some respect for the original characters. 

As for Doctor Who, I don't know if Davies can save the show. The Timeless Child should be gotten rid of but I do have my doubts that will happen. I remain a William Hartnell fan. To me he is the first Doctor Who.        

 The Killing of DOCTOR WHO

Only the BBC could manage this, the destruction of the Doctor. But why would they want to bump him off? He has been a major player, in one form or another, since the 1960s and a focal point for people around the world, young and old. It is a mystery easily solved when you take into account that this is the age of the politically correct and the BBC has become very politically correct. Also those presently in charge have no idea when it comes to science fiction and also why the Doctor has remained so popular for so long.    

The first Doctor was played by William Hartnell who, back then, was more famous for his tough guy roles in movies. The role gave Hartnell his opportunity to connect with the young including his niece who was a big fan of the show. 

He was my first Doctor, beginning his famous role, as a renegade time lord, in November of 1963. I remember watching the show every Sunday evening knowing it was going to be the last show I saw before bed time and then getting up for school the next day. It thus has, in its early days, bitter sweet memories for me. But he was THE first Doctor. He was old and grouchy but still loveable and his machine, the TARDIS, could go absolutely any where in time and space.

There wasn't much money to be spent on Doctor Who back then and this would be a continuing problem for many years. Even so, it was exciting stuff for a kid in the 1960s and everyone I knew then thought the Daleks, mirrored somewhat on the Nazis, were scary and, also, brilliant.  

Unfortunately, William Hartnell could not last forever as the Doctor. He became ill with fading memory and has to be replaced. This was done in an elegant way through regeneration but for quite some time I did feel the loss of Hartnell in the role and it did take me a while to accept the new Doctor, played by Patrick Troughton. The recorder he played did not help.

Troughton won me over first with The War Games episodes. Then I went back and discovered The Evil of the Daleks and The Ice Warriors and thus became a Patrick Troughton fan.

Jon Pertwee replaced Troughton as the Doctor in 1969. At last the Doctor was in colour and this fresh incarnation was more flamboyant in dress and attitude than the previous Doctors. Roger Delgado came on board as the first Master, a rather sinister fellow time lord. He became a much loved villain capable of freezing the blood with just one look. Prior to becoming the Master, he had had a lively career on television where he generally played either heroes or villains. Sadly, he died in a car accident and, shortly after, the then major players in  Doctor Who, including Pertwee, decided to call it a day. There have been many Masters since Delgado but only the present one, played by Sacha Dhawan,  has ever disgraced the role. 

The Fourth Doctor, played by Tom Baker, is a favourite among my generation of Doctor Who fans. He was quirky but definite in  his views on how evil, in all its incarnations, must be fought. In The Seeds of Doom, for example, there is the question of what humanity is doing to this planet Earth and whether the removal of humanity to give the plants of this world a better go might not be a great idea. The Doctor sides with humanity, since the seeds that are a menace come from elsewhere, but the question of what best to do about the plants of this world remains. Of course previous Doctors, such as the one played by Pertwee, also tackled environment issues but not quite the way Baker did. The Baker Doctor was more alien and sometimes wondered why he sided with humanity at all.

 Fast forward now to the supposedly last Doctor as played by Sylvester McCoy. Here attempts were made to bolster ratings by adding more humour. Like the Troughton Doctor, McCoy was whimsical in the role with the hint that, at times, he knew more about what was going on wherever they went than any of the humans he might be travelling with at the time. Money more than ever was a factor in what could be done on the show. In the end, American programs that had lots more cash thrown into production brought the Doctor Who on television to a halt.  

Doctor Who did not end there. Doctor Who paperbacks with new adventures in them were coming out together with comic books, both UK and American, as well as the official Doctor Who magazine. Also efforts were being made to bring Doctor Who back but with a much larger budget.  

In 2005, with Christopher Eccleston playing the Doctor,  there was a return to television. Fans everywhere cheered. This Doctor was somewhat like Pertwee in that he ran around a lot and, like Baker and McCoy, in that he was indeed a time lord and so not quite human. The special effects were great and everyone back then thought maybe, just maybe Doctor Who would really go on forever.

Again  let us fast forward but very close to the present. So what could be going so wrong with Doctor Who that over seven million British fans are switching off, let alone how many overseas fans?  Is it the Doctor going from male to female? Probably not for most fans since, when the Master became Missy, it was more than alright. Missy as a nasty time lord was playful in a cut your throat sort of way and so the actress playing Missy, Michelle Gomez, did the original Master, Delgado, proud in her wonderful performances.

Yes, the Doctor going from male to female was a surprise for some fans of the show. We wondered what would happen with Jodie Whittaker at the helm. Unfortunately, her role as the Doctor has been marred by bad scriptwriting and a this-is-the-lesson-for-today approach to social issues that is way too simplistic for most viewers and so is off putting. The science fiction elements have been weak and the new Master, played by Sacha Dhawan, is an insult to all the Masters that have come before him including Missy. Sinister? Sacha yells his head off at the Doctor. Nothing sinister in that! In fact, his performances have been tedious!

What is killing Doctor Who is the idea that William Hartnell wasn't the First Doctor. This role must now go to someone more politically correct.

The result? Instead of curtailing racism with this move I believe that the producers and writers of Doctor Who will actually create more of it as people throughout the world feel the pain and react to it.

 No one wants their heroes thrown away simply because of their age and their lack of skin colour. Back in the 1990s, we used to call this form of discrimination reverse racism. In truth it is simply racism. 

Already there has been a big backlash against reducing William Hartnell's role on the show and may this backlash grow  and grow until the BBC understands what it has done and reverses the damage if, indeed, that is possible.  For me, William Hartnell will forever by THE First Doctor no matter what Jodie Whittaker and company might think!