Invasion of the Dinosaurs

Fact - for many years I thought "Invasion of the Dinosaurs" was a seven-episode story. It seems strange now, although re-telling the anecdote to Mum promoted merely a blank expression as she failed to identify the obvious absurdness of a seven parter nestling amid Season 11, the clueless wench. The original error arose in DWM 100 due to a typo on their pullout episode guide, and for some reason every time I subsequently saw the story labeled as a six-parter I assumed it was a mistake.

The Dinosaurs are what everybody talks about of course. The trouble with Doctor Who special effects is that it's very difficult for us fans to approach them objectively, and thus determine exactly how good (or bad) they are. You obviously can't judge them by today's standards, as today's lovely/Godawful (take your pick) CGI visuals simply didn't exist back then; as UK Gold once said, this story is "light years away from Jurassic Park". But how do you judge by the standards of a decade that passed by before you were even born? The only 'control' we have is the rest of Doctor Who. And, bad though Dinosaurs is, it was only made on the same relative budget as other Pertwee stories. In fact, it was probably more expensive than a lot of them. How can we accept the Drashigs, Bubble Wrap Wirrn Grubs and the like but then say that "Dinosaurs" has rubbish monsters?

And then there's the expectation that we have in approaching the story. There can't be any fan who has bought the recent video release that doesn't know its principle special effects wizardry has been the laughing stock of the Pertwee era since before "J" Jeremy Bentham had his first words printed (although the video cover must be vying for a Trade Descriptions Act condemnation! Is it a joke?) On the whole Barry Letts didn't make too many major mistakes as a producer, but basing a story around a monster that could only be realised by the use of models was asking for trouble. He was naturally appalled by the results, but are the Dinosaurs actually any worse than that rubber Plesiosaur in "Carnival of Monsters" (which he seems to cream his pants over today)? That escapes major stick, and yet it seems bizarre that Doctor Who lore has "Dinosaurs" marked down for atrocious modelwork when "Carnival", "The Silurians" and many others committed equal crimes in the name of over-ambition.

The difference is that "Dinosaurs" makes the bendy beasts its main attraction, meaning it's better aspects are always a secondary consideration. I've always liked the genuinely startling way the whole of UNIT turn against the Doctor when he's framed as the traitor, leaving him alone and on the run and facing an adversary more terrifying than any amount of rubber and latex (convincing or not) - the prospect of old friends that have lost faith in him. But as the story isn't called "Doctor Who Against UNIT" or some such, it's not this aspect of the production that's on show and up for judgement.

Happily, it now longer matters that the Dinosaurs are of a standard you could probably better by popping down to "Toys R Us" with ten quid. Maybe it did then, or perhaps (judging by the Pertwee era's other stabs at depicting prehistoric terrors) this is yet another myth. But today, a poorly dated seventies monster is no longer that much worse than a poorly dated eighties one. And let's face it, most of Doctor Who's monster effects have dated by now anyway. If we're being honest, Doctor Who itself has compensated for Barry Letts mistake by pushing the envelope on so many other occasions - and thank goodness it did as it'd have been a pretty dull programme otherwise.

No Doctor Who today can be judged by its special effects, so at long last "Dinosaurs" can be loved for its true qualities - great direction, an interesting story and some suitably sinister performances. It's taken long enough, but we got there in the end.