NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/arts/drwho/8112

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-23 | 3.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!demon!cix.compulink.co.uk!jbyrne
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
From: [e-mail] (Johnny Byrne)
Subject: Re: Movie
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:29:00 +0000
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Lines: 68

The Part I of Doctor Who - The Movie posted on here found its way to
me.  As the Johnny Byrne mentioned in the message that preceeded the
script I'd like to clear up one of the many confusions expressed by
the witless individual who originated it.

First my professional background in brief: I've published two novels
and many short stories, including Science Fiction, one of which was
chosen for a Judith Merrill Best Of etc...

I've originated, devised and written over a hundred hours of film and
TV screened drama.  This in cludes a United Artists feature film, 3
Doc Who television tales, 36 episodes of "All Creatures Great &
Small" (a programme I also helped to originate) 12 Episodes of
"Space 1999" (on which I was also Exec. Story Editor).  I also
devised and am main writer on "Heartbeat", which after one season
over here is the top rating drama series... Modesty forbids me to
continue in similiar vein.

I mention it because it might be helpful to the originator of the
message to know "... what sort of people created this thing."

He professed to recognize a professional movie script although he did
confess that "it didn't read like one."  Nor did he have a scintilla
of doubt as to its merit.  It was so definitively awful that he post
d it so that the rest of the world could see "... just how bad it
is."

Now, one need not be a writer, professional or otherwise, to know
that assessing movie scripts is, even for experts, an alchemical art.
Itcan never be more than subjective.  Yet this character seems to
possess such massive certainty that it verges on the miraculous.

He is, like the rest of us, entitled to an opinion.  And opinion,
elevated to the level of provable fact (he confuses the two) betrays
a bog standard arrogance compounded by ignorance.

I know a great number of Doc Who fans and like them.  But even the
most charitable fans of the show know that we have more than our
share of dim-witted anoraks, among whom this one must rank the
dimmest.

The script portion he posted was part of an early (1988) story
development.  It was a confidential document and, as such, its public
broadcasting could have adverse commercial repercussions.  That it
was pirated and sold at conventions does not alter this important
fact.  Yet this air-brained nerd goes ahead and massively pushes it
out into the public domain without a thought for the consequences -
either to the people who have huge sums of money invested in the
project - or to himself.

That he also did so simply to demonstrate his ignorance and contempt
for my professional standing... well, I can live with that.  What I
am less inclined to accept is a gross breech of my copyright - the
producers also have a serious interest here and their very highly
paid Learned Jocks across the water will no doubt be expressing an
even more particular interest.

To use a writers work in this way is not only grossly discourteous,
it is also despicable.  It could, as I've said, damage the company
concerned and damage  also, the individuals who worked on the
project.  And as a gross breech of copyright, it is also seriously
actionable.

But then, some lessons have to be learned the hard way.  Sadly
though, a man made poorer, does not necessarily end up any the wiser
- which I suspect would be the case here.

Johnny Byrne