Dragonfire

We cling to tradition. Even with a series as diverse, free-forming and wonderful as Doctor Who, we always prefer the ones that ones that conform to our expectation of what Doctor Who is: bases under siege, monsters and evil dictators. They have to be done well of course; no-one's pretending "Dragonfire" is better quality TV than "Inferno", but given the choice between a shoddy traditional story and a shoddy inventive one, we'll sigh with relief at the trad. "Dragonfire" topped polls at the time as the fan favourite story of Season 24. What a surprise.

It is though, fairly crap when compared to any other decently made adventure. It has a feel of cheapness about it, whether due to its position at the end of the season or the lofty ambitions of its set and costume design, icy tundra's and cyborg dragon included. In short, it's the Doctor Who story you least want to be dredged up and thrust in your face when making an argument for the "charm" of modest budgets. Yet I can recall the plastic and artificial nature that pervades the season only really becoming apparent in "Dragonfire" - "Paradise Towers" doesn't look too cheap, not by Doctor Who's standards, and unless you're comparing "overseas" locations with some of the series other holiday spots, "Delta" looks comparatively lavish. So why does "Dragonfire" look like it has been made for about two pence?

Maybe because it has its sights set on telling a "traditional" Doctor Who story (and a traditional Superman story as well, which doesn't help). Where-as you could quite reasonably say that there aren't very many other stories like the first three tales that year, "Dragonfire"'s treasure hunt, vengeful war criminal and space conmen are familiar territory. It sounds very Robert Holmesish, although not nearly as good. The drag of the trad goes deeper than this though - you'd be fibbing if you said Doctor Who hadn't overstretched its ambitions or tried to create a story AROUND a hopelessly optimistic setting before, but this is one 'tradition' that "Dragonfire" is first to resurrect this year. Like "The Power of Kroll", the story takes place on a very broad horizon, and one which subsequently collapses down on top of it when it can't be properly realised. By comparison, the tight, claustrophobic setting of "Paradise Towers" is as much what the story is about as it is a perfect home for a Doctor Who adventure. Even "Delta" uses its resources to colour and flavour the adventure; "Dragonfire" is way too ambitious for Doctor Who, and the very fact of its functional traditionalism also fails to detract from its limitations. Did you ever consider how much cash had been spent on "Paradise Towers"? No, because the story is incomparable with any other, so there's no point of reference. "Dragonfire" is like something with more money, only not as good.

It does score with some of his character background, however. To return to its seasonal contemporaries and to re-address the balance slightly, it's very difficult to imagine "Paradise Towers" having existed before that last yellow Kang scurries into shot in the opening moments of Part 1; doing so conjures up all kinds of unanswered (or just plain odd) questions: what was the war about? Where did those girls get their clothes? Who looked after them? As much as it wants to present it enigmatically, it's not a story that can ever have a past. "Dragonfire" does, and it's a rather intriguing one. For a start, there's a Character We Never Meet which is always nice, and the crimes that she and Kane committed recall and echo the grand back story to "The Brain of Morbius". In fact, Kane's motivation is forged from events we don't even get to witness - his love for Morgana, and his vengeance on his people (who again we never meet). And then there's Glitz, roaming round the Universe selling his crew (and a shipment of rotten fruit) for the sake of a few grotzits. Again this recalls "The Ribos Operation", and the skill Robert Holmes had in telling the most exciting bits of the story before the viewer arrives, and then thrilling them with hints about it.

But it wasn't that which attracted people to "Dragonfire" - it was its wretched "traditionalism". An unconvincing monster, lots of corridors and a villain only a shade above donning a cloak and sinister moustache. It's common in life to run back to what you know simply because you know it, rather than risking something new which stands a chance of being worse. Even now, you'd probably choose this over "Paradise Towers", which at least tries to be inventive, perhaps because Doctor Who never had to offer any defense against the waters which "Dragonfire" treads. Because they're so familiar. Whatever happened to our series of infinite possibilities?