For those who've forgotten what it was like to have a REALLY stupid companion, here she is again

Get excited, people who watch Doctor Who children's spin-off The Sarah Jane Adventures (I don't know who you are, but apparently you exist), because former hysterical idiot Josephine Grant is blundering her way back to the Doctor Who universe! According to the Doctor Who News Page, Katy Manning will reprise her role in an episode of SJA, written by Russell T. Davies himself, and also guest starring Matt Smith (himself). It made sense to bring back best-ever-companion Sarah Jane Smith, but Jo? Really?

Some back-story. In 1968, at the end of Season 5, producer Peter Bryant and script editor Derrick Sherwin introduced the character of Zoe Her(r)iot. She was supposed to be a genius-level astrophysicist from the late 21st Century, but, as was the fate of many a promising companion, she was quickly reduced to the roles of screaming and asking stupid questions. When planning 1970's Season 7, Sherwin didn't know whether the actress would stay. When she did leave, he essentially created another Zoe (a phrase that will be funny to anyone who's been watching Caprica), giving himself a second chance to properly give the Doctor an intelligent scientist as a companion. This time they got it right, and the resulting character, Liz Shaw played by Caroline John, remains in my opinion one of the series' best companions. Sadly, this was not the opinion of incoming producer Barry Letts, who felt that no one wanted to watch two scientists natter away, and that what the Doctor really needed was someone to "hand him test tubes and tell him how brilliant he was," which is exactly what the Brigadier tells him at the beginning of Jo Grant's first story, Terror of the Autons (8.1).

When, a couple of weeks ago, I suggested the writers experiment with not-alienating ways to bring back elements from the "classic series" to tell a good story, a greyer Jo insisting "But Doctor, it is the Age of Aquarius!" to a whole new actor isn't quite what I had in mind.

Now they can tell each other apart

Why does everything designed for children's series these days have to look like it can go in the bath? The best example I can think of is Jonathan Frakes' 2004 live-action Thunderbirds movie, in which, rather than looking wonderfully advanced like it's supposed to, all the technology looks colourful, waterproof, and fun to play with. The new TARDIS interior looks like it was designed specifically with slip-'n'-slide fun in mind. And the redesigned Daleks look like they squirt water if you push their lids down, and they come in a range of exciting colours. The reason for all this should be obvious, partly because it's the reason the Daleks got so popular in the first place: merchandising.

This reminds me of the Sontarans' return two years ago. As I wrote last week, the resulting two-parter (N4.4/N4.5) proved that the Sontarans aren't actually that interesting unless they're there to tell a good story (which their new series return very much wasn't). And while Davros' return that season was used as a surprise, the Sontarans were major marketing tools for Season 4. This gives me some hope for the Silurians' return later this year. While everyone knows they're returning, we haven't been seeing pictures of their redesign since late last year. In late 2007 (six months before they would actually appear), Lawrence Miles commented on the publicity pictures, pointing out that "the 'controversial' new Sontaran outfit makes it look like a five-foot-tall action-figure." Sound familiar?

Yartek, Leader of the Alien Voord! But I thought you were dead!

Last week, I talked about continuity, and I did mean the sci-fi fan definition of the word. ("Continuity" usually means making sure Amy's hair is up or down depending on when in the episode this shot takes place. In fanspeak it means desperately trying to reconcile contradictory events in a programme that isn't even trying in that respect.) And, while I thought last night's episode "The Beast Below" was a number of nice ideas that didn't quite gel into a good story, its interesting premise was based on a piece of Doctor Who history in the manner that I recommended in my last post. The 1975 story The Ark in Space (12.2) introduced all the solar flared ravaging the Earth business. "The Beast Below" doesn't even require you to know The Ark in Space exists, but it draws on an idea that warranted further exploration.

Anyway, this week, another buzzword: "canon". In fanspeak (I keep wanting to type "fansqueak") "canon" means "did it really happen?" When I was growing up, the continued adventures of the Doctor (No. 8) were told in books (BBC), audio plays (Big Finish), and comics (Doctor Who Magazine). Each of these contradicted the other two (and sometimes didn't, which made it even more confusing), so you kind of had to decide which one was real - or "canon". There were some fans who hated the TV movie so much they declared it apocryphal, and therefore there was no Eighth Doctor at all. All that could be definitely agreed upon as canonical were

The time of arising is at hand

That's a hand in that picture. It's kind of hard to see.

Anyway, TONIGHT Doctor Who returns to BBC One! I'm wearing my hipster-store-bought Doctor Who t-shirt in celebration, which even a few years ago would have been met with the utmost derision and a lot of "What does that mean?" Now Matt Smith stares back at me from the side of New York City buses! Sometimes I have moments when I forget that new Doctor Who is being made and then I remember and it's awesome all over again. We in the Rest of the World will have to wait a short while until someone posts it on YouTube (though if you have access you should watch it again when it's on BBC America or whatever station is showing it in a couple of weeks). Until then, here is a recently-released clip from what will be Episode Six of the new season, "Vampires of Venice" (31.6). Okay, before you ask why it's 31.6 and not N5.6, Moffat was apparently advised that Series 5 sounds like an aging brand, and so has said that this season should be referred to either as Series 1 ("exciting") or 31 ("awe-inspiring"). I have my doubts about this (if the fifth season is an aging brand, what is the thirty-first?), and hope everyone will just call it the 2010 season. But for the purposes of the blog numerals, I'll use 31. Because, let's be honest, it's true. If you disagree, let's argue about it in the comments like good little fanboys. Anyway, for some reason, Blogger won't show the clip if I put a break in, so you'll have to see it "after the jump" as they say.