Now, a quick guide to The Temptation of Sarah Jane. The evil Trickster gets his revenge on Sarah by coming up with a complicated plan, presenting her with a time warp that will allow her to return to 1951 and meet her parents who seemingly abandoned her and then died in a tractor crash. Although being understandably paranoid about this convenient rift in time, she goes back with Luke, having a handy list of "don'ts" to deal with her own personal time stream. She chats with her parents under the moniker of "Victoria Beckham" and, deeply confused why such lovely folk would abandon their daughter, nevertheless prepares to return to her own time when the Trickster springs his trap - she thought it was just a random point, but she's arrived the very day, the very hour her parents are due to abandon her, drive off and die.
Sarah is understandably upset and points out what a total fucking misery her life has been, detailing The Monster of Peladon and Invasion of the Bane as reasons why the universe owes her one. She then zaps her parents car with her sonic lipstick, changing the future and saving her parents. Luke points out this could seriously screw things up - with her life completely different, Sarah might not meet the Doctor or save the universe or whatever. But Sarah points out that they can change it back, and in the meantime peek through the time rift to see what the new world will be like.
Now, Mssr Stevens seems to think that this shows Sarah as a complete fucking psychopath, willing to destroy the whole of history for her own selfish desires when she should know better. This is of course, complete bollocks as anyone would know. For a start, people say, "Has she forgotten Pyramids of Mars?" when it's quite obvious she hasn't, and she is deliberately checking on the future to see if she needs to change it. What's more, Sarah is in the belief that simply saving her parents won't be a big issue to the time line. This is EXACTLY the same logic in Father's Day. As the Doctor says, saving Pete wasn't what ended the world, it was saving Pete with two versions of the Doctor and Rose, then holding her infant self.
Simply put, Sarah was perfectly right to think that the world wouldn't instantly end over such a trivial matter - except this 1950s town is at a weak point in time and space, which is why the Trickster put her there, so she'd shatter reality and allow him to escape. He says as much - it wasn't her saving the parents that doomed the world, it was saving them in that town at that point. Had she, say, taken them to Bermuda six months before hand, the world would not have ended. Indeed, in any case, it's not Sarah living a different life that destroys the Earth, it's the Trickster destroying the Earth once he's been freed.
This is SAID in the show. On screen. With dialogue. Explained several times over.
Of course, I doubt anyone will be surprised when Sarah's parents work out the truth and decide to drive off to their lethal appointment. Stevens says this is a 'suicide pact'. Which is a rather dark expression, considering we're coming up to the official birthday of Jesus, a bloke who had similar Emo leanings and father issues. As for Smiths snr killing themselves, it's not only after the world-ending business is explained, but also when they realize their paradoxical nature means everything they touch turns to dust. Like, for example, their infant baby. Each other. They don't have lives to lose!
Stevens screams that this sort of thing is unsuitable for children's TV (after banging on for eight weeks that children's TV isn't edgy and dangerous enough for him), and yet not two days ago I watched the latest Wallace and Gromit movie - wherein a serial killer (and, as she beat up her pet dog, which in this world makes her a child molestor) slaughters thirteen innocent bakers and then tries to do the same to Wallace, at one point even going so far as to bite chunks out of her own arm to implicate Gromit.
Now, if death, torture and psychosis is acceptable in a claymation film for children, the old 'noble sacrifice off screen' is probably OK for an audience (as Stevens continues to abuse) that are mainly over-40s Doctor Who fans. Rather like Stevens himself. Oh, the irony!
Meanwhile, Alan "Holier than Thou" Stevens has this to say:
Sarah's hair was the wrong style for the early fifties. She was sporting a sixties cut.
When someone points out this is no big deal...
Rani was dresses (sic) as she was because a) she didn't know she'd be going back to the fifties again, and b) there were no "fifties clothes" lying around in the quarry to put on. Sarah wore the horrible pink dress, though, to fit into the fifties setting. However, instead of adopting a fifties style for her hair, she went for one that wasn't going to be fashionable for at least another 10 years.
Again, no one cares...
The reason she puts on a "fifties dress" is because she is initially worried she's going to fuck up the timeline by introducing some element that could change the future. However, this does not appear to extend to her hairstlye, which, although has changed, is actually from the wrong decade. Interestingly, everyone who appears in the fifties setting, does have the correct hairstyles. The production team probably decided not to change Sarah's hair too much, because they probably thought the audience would be TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALISE IT WAS THE SAME WOMAN.
Still no one cares...
Do you think Tennant's hair naturally stands up on end? Do you think Billie Pipper's "chave cut" (sic) was just something she happened to be wearing when they filmed for series two? Do you think it's just co-incidence that all the actors and extras that appeared in the fifties section had fifties style hair?
Well, I thought about saying that "as Sarah has a limited amount of time to use the rift to travel back to the 1950s, she probably doesn't have time to go to the hairdressers and, besides, an unconventional haircut is likely to do LESS damage than claiming to be Posh Spice" but Stevo then lets this off...
(After various people suggest that the whole 'saving parents' thing was a charade for a different plan of the Trickster, to be explored in the third part of the trilogy...)
It also could be an ultra-complex plan of the Graske's to shag Rani's mum, but I doubt it. The reason why people are coming up with complex plans to explain what was going on in "The Last Temptation of a Stupid Cow" is because no fucker feels happy with the pile of dung we actually got. "Oh, the Trickster's plan doesn't make any sense at all. Perhaps it a different plan, that goes like this..." we then get reams and reams of nonsense, without a shred of evidence to support it, ending with the proclamation that the writer must be some kind of genius. Well perhaps not. Perhaps he just took the cheque and ran like the wind to the nearest bank, so he could chash it before anyone at the Cardiff production office said, “wait a minute, this script doesn't make any bloody sense at all!”
Now go and listen to any kind of audio Stevens has ever written.
Back? I know. It's obvious that had the Trickster been referred to as "the Fendahl", then this whole story would be above criticism because we don't understand God and it's probably a lot nicer than oh what the fuck, I can't be bothered even PRETENDING to agree with a man who cheerfully admits he'd slaughter his own family because he's cleverer than a fictional character with abandonment issues.
But let's leave the final words to Alan himself...
No fucker feels happy with the pile of dung we actually got!
I'm happy :)
Do you farm rhubarb?
Okay, I give up. Why does dung make you happy?
I disagree this story was shit, so "dung doesn't make me happy".
That isn't what you said
Quote me because I don't see it.
>>no fucker feels happy with the pile of dung we actually
got.<< >I'm happy :)<
Yes. This is the level of debate. Childish pedantry and deliberate stupidity to make fun of those who disagree. Alan Stevens, you need to get a life. Even if you DO end up getting eaten by the Fendahl, but I finally see why YOU think it would be an improvement on mortal existence. Anything would.