|
24 Apr 11 - 09:26 AM (#3141602) Subject: BS: Doctor Who From: Dave the Gnome I know there is already a thread on the history but how about we get up to date. Or me be even in future? :-) Who saw last nights? I found it quite confusing but very well acted. I am sure it will all make sense over the next 12 weeks. Anyone see any significance in the death/rebirth thing considering the time of year or am I just reading things in that aren't there? Cheers MP |
|
24 Apr 11 - 09:57 AM (#3141616) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: The Fooles Troupe It's just the original clever way back in the 60s/70s that the producers used to change actors. |
|
24 Apr 11 - 12:37 PM (#3141672) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Dave the Gnome I don't just mean in general, FT. I would give the game away to anyone who has not seen it so suffice to say I am just talkling about last nights episode. Incidentaly - Just found out it was released in the UK and US simultaneously - for the firat time. MP |
|
24 Apr 11 - 07:13 PM (#3141883) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray am I just reading things in that aren't there? Most assuredly; there was no death / rebirth thing, just the usual temporal hi-jinx framed with cod-Morricone driven overkill. So - business as usual really and a very entertaining start to the new season, though you would think they could have come up with a more convincing Nixon and a more original looking alien menance - at least one without such dumb looking claws. What doesn't add up is that over the last 50 years the Doctor has had a fair few regenerations and yet 200 years hence it's still Matt Smith... |
|
25 Apr 11 - 02:29 PM (#3142124) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Dave the Gnome just the usual temporal hi-jinx framed with cod-Morricone driven overkill. Blimey, I wish I had thought of that! I thought Nixon WAS the alien menace but I didn't notice his claws though... :-) MP |
|
30 Apr 11 - 06:42 PM (#3145479) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Dave the Gnome Well, the second one explained the involvement of Nixon and the CIA - Sort of. But who is the girl? A time lord? Did the randy old (young) doc have it away with Amy? (Not that anyone would blame him - particularly if she was in the policewomans uniform. Stop that! Right now!) Sorry, back to my old self again. Anyone else enjoying it? MP |
|
30 Apr 11 - 08:28 PM (#3145514) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Dave MacKenzie "Anyone else enjoying it?" Of course. And while I was waiting for it to start, I watched 'Frontier in Space' with Jon Pertwee, Katy Manning AND Roger Delgado! (Dr Who Heaven) |
|
30 Apr 11 - 10:57 PM (#3145558) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Please remember this is a Saturday tea time children's tv show. We are mature adults with with mostly at least half a century of hard earned real life experience, pain and loss and despair.. ..of course we'd find Dr Who plots over-contrived, far too rushed, confusing and often completely unfathomable. If in doubt, ask a bright fresh young 13 year old teen fan-boy geek to explain every character and story detail our failing memories cannot hope to possibly try to keep up with. Also bear in mind the script writing is not as clever and plot-hole water tight as the BBC would like us to believe... |
|
01 May 11 - 03:41 AM (#3145625) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: DMcG Steven Moffit wrote some of the most brilliant episodes of the earlier series, such as Blink and The Empty Child. In my view the start of this series falls far short of that standard. |
|
01 May 11 - 05:06 AM (#3145637) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Stu Is River Song a time-lord? . . . and that was certainly a time-lord regenerating at the end of last nights show. Excellent stuff and very enjoyable. |
|
01 May 11 - 05:38 AM (#3145651) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: The Fooles Troupe Watchers of Dr Who need to develop the ability to suppress questions. If you grew up on Cliff Hanger Serials in the cinemas in the 50/60s, that is easy. |
|
01 May 11 - 03:06 PM (#3145943) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Dave the Gnome I grew up on Kellogs Cereals. Will that do? MP |
|
01 May 11 - 07:45 PM (#3146086) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Nigel Parsons Is River Song a time-lord? . . . and that was certainly a time-lord regenerating at the end of last nights show. Excellent stuff and very enjoyable. Maybe an earlier/later version of "Romana" (female Time Lord as played by Lalla Ward, or by Mary Tamm). Or maybe The Doctor's grand-daughter as seen in the very first series. (although it is never made clear whether she is also a Gallifrean) There again, the "Doctor's Daughter" from a recent series has yet to reappear as well. So many possibilities! Cheers Nigel |
|
02 May 11 - 07:15 PM (#3146755) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Dave the Gnome I like the idea of regenerating sprog from this series being William Hartnell's Grand-daughter. What a twist that would be! MP |
|
03 May 11 - 03:48 AM (#3146926) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Dave MacKenzie How about young Matt Smith meeting this little old lady called Susan? |
|
03 May 11 - 04:08 AM (#3146936) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST,Shimrod "Also bear in mind the script writing is not as clever and plot-hole water tight as the BBC would like us to believe..." A complete understatement!! It's just a soap opera with glamorous stars, added monsters and a load of lazy, 'make-it-up-as-you-go-along', completely inconsistent and arbitrary, gobbledegook. |
|
03 May 11 - 05:17 AM (#3146953) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Dave the Gnome Come on, Shimrod - Say what you mean. No need to beat abou the bush :-) MP |
|
03 May 11 - 07:01 AM (#3146992) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST,Shimrod OK, MP I will. Mind you if some people like Dr Who that's their business and no concern of mine. But as a long-term SF fan it just makes me 'hoppity wild' every time I catch even just a trailer ... I'll say no more ... |
|
03 May 11 - 11:15 AM (#3147104) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Penny S. He has managed to mix the "making it up as he goes along" with overtight planning and the planting of subliminal links that will be supposed to explain what is happening. I've just been watching "Bowling for Columbine" and it has raised odd connections with this Dr Who, and another thread (guess which one that is). I'm wondering if there is some sub-text behind the rehabilitation of Nixon and the suggestion of the interference of the Silence in the running of the Earth. Moore includes in his film a list of American interventions and establishing of dictatorships under the covert actions of the CIA. Could Moffatt be implying something about America - I'm sure he does not believe in the Silence, or Icke's reptiles running things? Nixon was not apparently involved in the illegal interventions removing elected governments of other states. Penny |
|
04 May 11 - 10:32 AM (#3147715) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST I'm entertained by Dr.Who for the following reasons: 1. He relies on brains rather than brawn 2. He doesn't like guns 3. He thinks military solutions are pretty silly 4. He is a humanitarian 5. No god or religion in the show 6. He evinces hope for mankind in the face of those who don't 7. The show imaginative and seems to have a point-of-view underlying the entertainment. 8. Richard Dawkins had a brief appearance on the show. (I like Lalla Ward) |
|
04 May 11 - 06:11 PM (#3148055) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Dave MacKenzie I've just watched 'The Five Doctors' - could they do something like that nowadays? |
|
05 May 11 - 06:04 PM (#3148841) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Dave the Gnome I have no idea how they got this out so quickly. Unless they used time travel... It was a friends birthday today. Someone had got him a card with a picture of a 'Silence' in a party hat with the caption "No-one ever remembers my Birthday" Sheer genius! :D tG |
|
29 May 11 - 02:55 AM (#3161985) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: DMcG I've been a quite avid fan of the revived Dr Who since it (re)started but have found the 2011 series lacking. We had relatives round last night and I realised I had completely forgotten it was on, which would not have happened for the earlier episodes. While I have it recorded, I don't feel I have to watch it as soon as possible. So the series is lacking something, for me. My daughter also said a week or so ago she is considering stopping watching it so that it doesn't spoil the memory of the earlier episodes. The growing frequency of double-episodes seems a bad idea to me - fine when the story is complex enough to warrant it, but bad when it feels a slim story has been stretched to near breaking point. So what's the general view on the 2011 series? |
|
29 May 11 - 03:17 AM (#3161988) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Dave the Gnome Definitely wasn't kid's stuff last night. I'll say nothing about the plot line if you haven't seen it but it is getting stranger and stranger! I don't think this episode has been as good as some but overall I find the series OK. I'll have to wait until the conclusion to decide if it was any better or worse than others. DtG |
|
29 May 11 - 04:02 AM (#3161991) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: DMcG Rereading all the earlier posts, I can identify one thing that is missing from the new series (IMO) that hasn't been mentioned: it has not been thought-provoking. Take the episode 'Dalek' in series one where the doctor is on the point of killing the last dalek to be told 'you would have made a good dalek'. Or in the family of blood where in the last few moments it is explained how he is punishing them by giving them what they want. Or many, many others. I would say that at least a quarter of the stories have an intellectually deep phrase or moment like that (and that's what 'good science fiction' needs for me, by the way). As yet, I haven't been struck by one in the new series. |
|
29 May 11 - 04:11 AM (#3161993) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: DMcG Oh, to be clear, I don't just mean clever: I mean the kind of cleverness that makes you reflect on your own attitudes and behaviour. |
|
29 May 11 - 09:01 AM (#3162085) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Dave the Gnome That is why I am waiting for the full series to unfold before deciding, D. (I don't suppose it is my northern cousin Dave McGnome is it?) The last few have been leading toward a conclusion. OK - There have been the odd plot holes but who cares:-) I think we may just see this one concluding in a very clever way. But then again, I am used to disappointment! DtG |
|
29 May 11 - 12:11 PM (#3162164) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: DrugCrazed I kind of called it. Kind of. |
|
29 May 11 - 01:01 PM (#3162188) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Kit Griffiths "What doesn't add up is that over the last 50 years the Doctor has had a fair few regenerations and yet 200 years hence it's still Matt Smith..." Yes, but you're thinking in linear time. It doesn't mean that he's been Matt Smith for 200 years -he could have got there next week (or 50 years ago) without actually living through those 200 years (unlike poor Rory, who had to live 2000 linear years as a Roman centurion). After all, when the Tardis takes the Doctor back in time, he doesn't revert to being Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, Baker etc. It's probably quantum. Most things seem to be these days. |
|
29 May 11 - 01:40 PM (#3162207) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: DMcG But when the the doctor claims to be 900 years old the only logical meaning is that that is the length of his personal time line, so if he claims to be two hundred years older and still looks the same there must have been two hundred years along his personal time line without a regenration, however the sections of that ptl map on to linear time. Or, more likely (a) its someone else (probably 'flesh') or (b) the script has overlooked the problem. Anyway, its quite interesting that Rory is now twice as old as the doctor ... |
|
29 May 11 - 02:42 PM (#3162231) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: DrugCrazed DMcG appears to have had the same conclusion as I for the solution to the problem in Episode 1. |
|
29 May 11 - 05:05 PM (#3162277) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Dave MacKenzie I'm wondering if they're scripting outside the show nowadays. Last weekend I watched 'Doctor Who Confidential' part of which was shot at Cardiff Castle, and then the highlights of the Heineken Cup Final from Cardiff, with the introduction being given by the presenters standing outside Cardiff Castle from an almost identical camera position. This week I watched 'Wallander' followed by the 'Doctor Who' episode from earlier featuring Sarah Smart who played Ann-Britt Hoglund in the Branagh version of 'Wallander'. Is it my imagination or is the world now smaller than the inside of the Tardis? |
|
29 May 11 - 06:47 PM (#3162312) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Stringsinger " Nixon was not apparently involved in the illegal interventions removing elected governments of other states." Not unless you ignore the assassination of Salvadore Allende. "The possibility of Allende winning Chile's 1970 election was deemed a disaster by a US government who wanted to protect US business interests and prevent any spread of communism during the Cold War.[37] In September 1970, President Nixon informed the CIA that an Allende government in Chile would not be acceptable and authorized $10 million to stop Allende from coming to power or unseat him.[38] The CIA's plans to impede Allende's investiture as President of Chile were known as "Track I" and "Track II"; Track I sought to prevent Allende from assuming power via so-called "parliamentary trickery", while under the Track II initiative, the CIA tried to convince key Chilean military officers to carry out a coup.[38] During Nixon's presidency, U.S. officials attempted to prevent Allende's election by financing political parties aligned with opposition candidate Jorge Alessandri and supporting strikes in the mining and transportation sectors.[39]" |
|
29 May 11 - 06:56 PM (#3162316) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Stringsinger Doctor Who isn't Shakespeare or fantastic theatrical writing. It's a lot of fun and I think good entertainment. It gives me lots of laughs and I enjoy it because I refuse to take it seriously. I think the music is pretty good comparatively to other shows, also. I see the characters as funny entertainment figures and I like the fact that Dr. Who doesn't cotton to military solutions or solving problems with weapons. I like a hero that uses brain over brawn. I like the nutty smiles of Tom Baker and Chris Eccleston. I like Romana and particularly since she's married to Richard Dawkins. Hey people, it's TV entertainment. Lighten up. |
|
29 May 11 - 07:27 PM (#3162332) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: DrugCrazed I've been less than impressed with this current series. Not as good as the last series, but there were some very enjoyable things. |
|
30 May 11 - 03:07 AM (#3162447) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: DMcG Doctor Who isn't Shakespeare ... Hey people, it's TV entertainment. Lighten up. I believe Shakespeare wrote his plays as entertainment, not as material for school examinations. I don't buy the argument that because something is entertainment it is sufficient to look good and pass the time. |
|
30 May 11 - 04:37 AM (#3162478) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Amergin I have a hard time liking this current Doctor...he's too cartoonish, and wimpy. |
|
30 May 11 - 03:34 PM (#3162765) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray The new Doctor seems to getting back to basics - all it's needs is a 95% reduction in the budget and replacing the CGI with latex. Still, at least they had the wit not to show the shuttle in last night's episode - nice touch! As was the reference to Tom Baker ('...would you like a jellybaby?') - all this and Marshall Lancaster too, so it's well on track & cracking TV to boot. Good times for TV these days - Nighshift, Shameless, Ideal, Vic Reeves' Rogues Gallery - almost worth the license fee. |
|
30 May 11 - 08:04 PM (#3162858) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Naemanson As for the show being a children's show that is a topic of conversation between me and my wife. Her first exposure to The Doctor was Christopher Eccleston. She really enjoys what she's seen so far. One of these days I'm going to buy a few episodes of Tom Baker and see what she thinks of those. Anyway, she doesn't see it as a children's show but as a show for adults and children. I'm not so sure. As for an opinion of Matt Smith as The Doctor I guess I'd have to say I'm disappointed but then I've been disappointed before by actors in that role. Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy were disappointing. Hell, it was tough making the transition from William Hartnell to Patrick Trughton and Jon Pertwee to Tom Baker. So I'm willing to ride this horse for a while longer. |
|
31 May 11 - 08:19 AM (#3163049) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Nigel Parsons As for being a children's show. This week's cliffhanger might revise that notion. |
|
31 May 11 - 08:37 AM (#3163054) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: DMcG I think Doctor Who is a children's show in the same sense that the Narnia stories are for children, or the Alice books, or the majority of the traditional story tales. Namely, it is possible to thoroughly enjoy them at that level, but the (better) stories simultaneously deal with much deeper material that is truly adult. To take Narnia as an example, for a change, in "The Last Battle" there is a paragraph explaining the difference between Aslan and Tash which is so simply written a child can understand it, but is also conceptually very sophisticated. And if you don't know the reference: now's the time to read the book! |
|
31 May 11 - 10:24 AM (#3163090) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray now's the time to read the book! No way - such thinly veiled Christian propagandising has no place on a Dr Who thread. Kids get Traditional Stories on a level no adult ever could - adults areway too sophisticated to get the immediacy of it, Dr Who likewise. I think Robert Cormier had it about right - when they made the film of The Chocolate War he was forced to rewrite the ending to make it apealing to adults - or at least what adults thought was more suitable to a kids film - but kids faithful to to the novel were justifiably outraged by the untypical up-ending (in every sense). The most disturbing book I ever read (Cormier's stuff notwithstanding) was Diana Wynne-Jones Fire and Hemlock which pitches True Thomas and Tam Lin into a twisted tale of evident evil and imminent adulthood; a kids book, but as an adult I doubt I got the half! |
|
31 May 11 - 10:45 AM (#3163105) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: DMcG Ok, we'll agree to differ on Narnia! Please translate the comment into the equivalent for, say, Cinderella if you feel more comfortable with it. |
|
01 Jun 11 - 02:59 AM (#3163545) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Naemanson This last couple of seasons have The Doctor doing more things in which he manipulates time more than the old Doctors. I enjoyed the Christmas Carol special episode though I had not expected to. I liked the way he kept going back to visit the boy in order to change the old man. |
|
01 Jun 11 - 04:45 PM (#3163900) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Stringsinger Entertainment is something that entertains someone. Everything doesn't have to be great art. It can be pretty good and make you laugh. That's what Dr. Who does for me. I don't take it seriously but as good fun. The "willing suspension of disbelief" is immediately broken when space creatures start speaking in North Country English or Brit slang. I find that in itself hilarious. As the Dr. says, "Every planet has a North". (Only true of Earth, I think). In the meantime, it's a merry romp with the special effects and interesting characters, not the ponderous ones you see on cop and crime shows or "shoot-em-ups". The show has a good humor about it which belies the conspiracy theory that it has subterranean messages (Christian or otherwise). Again, lighten up. It's supposed to be fun. |
|
01 Jun 11 - 07:12 PM (#3163951) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: akenaton Well, I was a classmate and pal of one of the Doctors. I usually get asked "What planet was that on?" :0) |
|
04 Jun 11 - 06:42 PM (#3165305) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Dave MacKenzie So now we know who River Song is, or at least partly. |
|
05 Jun 11 - 03:21 AM (#3165370) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray The series finale was back to the absurd excesses of the Tenant Tenure, which was a shame after the lumbering sit-com sci-fi of the preceding two episodes. Too much budget & CGI as I say; and having a Sontaran offering to wet-nurse a human (for all intents and purposes) baby is maybe a joke too far. |
|
05 Jun 11 - 07:13 AM (#3165414) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Stu Loved it. Great series so far. |
|
05 Jun 11 - 05:21 PM (#3165615) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Stringsinger It's funny but I find myself not caring for the new series because the dialogue is often muffled and the plots are confusing. The one about the "gangers" was not too interesting, I thought. I appreciate the Matt Smith is a good actor but I miss the swashbuckling sense of adventure that Tom Baker and Chris Eccleston brought to the character. They seemed like more fun than Tenant, who I liked, or Smith, who I haven't really gotten used to. I like the character of Riversong, a kind of Dragon Lady but Karen Gillam seems too bland for my tastes. I liked the incoherence of Katherine Tate's character. I guess it's just a matter of opinion. I wish they would sharpen up the dialogue on the new series so that it isn't reminiscent of a parody of "Actor's Studio" where the naturalized speech patterns are sometimes, at least for me, unintelligible. I know the Brits know how to speak well when they want to. The monsters are beginning to look alike, as well, an elongated giant insect with the face of a human used in the last episode and on the one where the man tries to create his fountain of youth but takes a wrong turn with his DNA. Maybe it's just me but I think the earlier episodes were a little more intelligent and less formulaic. |
|
06 Jun 11 - 02:11 PM (#3166072) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Dave the Gnome I think this incarnation of the Doctor is becoming realy interesting - Showing how he has his vindictive side in particular. The bit where he told the general or whatver he was to surrender was positively frightening! Looking forward to the next bit. We had already figured out (read no more if you haven't seen it)... The Pond/River connection. DtG |
|
06 Jun 11 - 02:33 PM (#3166084) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: DMcG Interesting you picked up on that one, Dave. It struck me as one of the best lines in the current series as they said it. |
|
07 Jun 11 - 02:24 AM (#3166340) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Penny S. Us Brits are finding the speech a bit hard to pick up, as well. Too fast and too indistinct. It isn't just me, it's on a number of review sites. People having to watch several (and not just twice) times to hear what is said. People having to put the subtitles on. I hope Moffat picks up on that. Penny |
|
07 Jun 11 - 05:37 PM (#3166727) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Dave the Gnome I'm English and therefore come under the general category 'Brit', although I dislike that term, yet have no problem understanding any of the dialogue. Not doubting you Penny but what, in particular, are you having difficulty with? And I also wish to point out that not all of us 'Brits' have the problem. Maybe a regional thing - although I am not at all sure what Smith's accent is! Cheers DtG |
|
08 Jun 11 - 11:35 AM (#3167133) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST,Shimrod As a Brit I'm having difficulty in understanding how this stupid, silly, lazy, sci-fi soap opera ever became popular ... but then soap opera is popular - which also baffles me! |
|
08 Jun 11 - 01:14 PM (#3167174) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker The most significant problem with this new series is the over-complex far too rushed pace of the storytelling. Each new episode is now an exasperating strain to keep up with; like watching a 3 hour narrative condensed into a 45 mins abridgment of edited highlights, and not necessarily edited in the correct order... A bit reminiscent of watching confusingly dubbed & heavily censored imported Kung Fu and Italian Horror movies and Spaghetti Westerns back in the 1970's... |
|
08 Jun 11 - 03:27 PM (#3167227) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Stringsinger I guess I'm going to have to watch the last few episodes over again to decipher the naturalistic conversation. I like the idea of brains rather than brawn as a model for heroism. Dr. Who eschews the use of guns, which I think is an excellent message. He also has a sense of humor regarding the lockstep of military enterprises. I like the sense of compassion that he exhibits toward humanity. The character retains the sense of adventure and objective humor about the predicaments he enters. I don't think I like his temper tantrums that have been added recently. |
|
08 Jun 11 - 04:13 PM (#3167244) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Dave MacKenzie The Doctor always was a bit crotchety - I've just been watching quite a bit of William Hartnell. All that regeneration can't be doing his personality any good either. |
|
08 Jun 11 - 05:48 PM (#3167295) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Dave the Gnome Ah well, Shims, guess we can't all be intelectuals:-) I suppose we can still enjoy the mundane though. Can we? DtG |
|
08 Jun 11 - 06:01 PM (#3167302) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Sian H On a technical note, has anyone noticed a glitch every week about 15 mins in on the Sat night showing here in UK? The screen freezes for a fraction of a second, and then it happens again a minute later. This doesn't happen on the repeats on Sunday. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 05:59 AM (#3167522) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST,Shimrod "I suppose we can still enjoy the mundane though. Can we?" You can enjoy whatever you like, DtheG! How could I stop you? Speaking personally, though, I find that forms of entertainment that I could 'drive a bus through' are not entertaining. I regard them as insults to my intelligence. I suppose that I want my entertainment to be provided by people who know more than me and can give me fresh insights into the way the world works or, at least, to allow me to suspend my disbelief. I know that's a tough call - but there you go! At a deeper level, though, Dr Who suffers from, what I call, the 'make it up as you go along' syndrome. The writers assume that they know everything that there is to know about Science Fiction (whilst actually they know very little). They then assume that because SF often contains fantastical elements they can just make it up without bothering about consistency or credibilty - whereas real SF authors often care deeply about such things. It's a bit like so-called folk singers who assume that because folk music is old it must have something to do with troubadors etc. - and hence proceed on that basis without actually doing any research. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 06:35 AM (#3167530) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray who assume that because folk music is old it must have something to do with troubadors Hold on there a mo, Shimster - you mean it doesn't? Shit, man - this is where I've been going wrong all these years, assuming that at the heart of Folk there lingered a very real Human Creativity, whereas, in actual fact, Folk is Viral Thang that uses collective humanity as a Passive Medium... Hmmmm; sounds all a bit sci-fi to me; maybe this is why so many Folkies are also Graduate sci-fi nerds and why True Folk no longer apeals to True Folks, who have their own thing going on which the True Folkies invariably despise from their High Towers of Cultural Righteousness. No indeed, Dr Who is part of the free-styling Zeitgeist, too heavy on Bathos and GCI maybe, but part of a storytelling tradition going back - oh - to the time of the Troubadours at least I'd say. In fact, the first ever documented sci-fi is a now-lost poem by Bertran de Born in which he encounters visitors from the future who step forth to greet him from a gleaming silver chalice bigger on the inside than it is on the out. According to Dante he called this device the Tardus by way of temporal irony... |
|
09 Jun 11 - 07:20 AM (#3167555) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Actually in the context this thread that Tardus joke is pretty neat. Those entirely unfamiliar with Latin and its derivations will have to look up to get the laugh though. Folk, I fear, was ever thus! |
|
09 Jun 11 - 12:24 PM (#3167733) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Penny S. Dave, sometimes I find the speech - usually Smith's - too fast, and indistinct. I thought it was me, until I found a number of comments on the BBC's own Radio Times pages which said the same, with people having to repeat passages several times, or run with the subtitles on. So I don't think it is me. It may be background noises off during speech, but it does seem a genuine problem. Penny |
|
09 Jun 11 - 02:40 PM (#3167823) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST,Shimrod Keep on grinding that axe, Suibhne! Perhaps one day (soon ... please!!!!) you'll wear it away. So, don't be tardy, keep that wheel a-turning! |
|
09 Jun 11 - 02:57 PM (#3167836) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: BTNG ... but then soap opera is popular - which also baffles me! so you're saying that the posts in Mudcat baffle you? It hardly surprises me |
|
09 Jun 11 - 05:17 PM (#3167942) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Dave the Gnome I find that forms of entertainment that I could 'drive a bus through' are not entertaining. Ahhhh - I guess that is where we must differ greatly then. I find Picadilly bus station very entertaining... Seriously though - I do understand what you mean. I know people who would kill the person who dressed a 47th Hussar in the wrong buttons or decided that the photon can opener was a good idea when last week the same thing was an atomic poop scoop. Personaly I find that treating light entertainment as documentary is too frustrating. So I don't! Cheers :D (tG) |
|
09 Jun 11 - 05:31 PM (#3167951) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Stringsinger I have the same difficulty as does Penny. Sometimes I think that the episodes are out of a Robert Altman movie. Never had trouble understanding Tenant, Eccleston or Baker though. RiverSong is intelligible. Oh well, at least I can understand the Daleks. As to entertainment value, the Doctor is always good for a laugh. If you don't take it seriously, it makes perfectly good sense. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 06:45 PM (#3168002) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST,Shimrod But the thing is, DtheG, Dr Who used to be entertaining years ago when it was a kids' programme. I remember that my brothers and I loved the papier mache monsters ('grolly men' - as we used to call them). We looked forward to each episode and were delighted with the outlandish creations that the BBC props dept. came up with. My youngest brother even watched each episode from the traditional place behind the sofa. We knew that it was rubbish then but we delighted in the pantomime silliness of it. In its more recent incarnations, though, it has become hideously pretentious and full of its own importance. It thinks that its 'relevant' and its become sort of 'actorly' in a nauseating, trendy, metropolitan, 'meeja studies' sort of way. And, for me, that only serves to emphasise the thread-bare stupidity and ignorance of the plot-lines. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 06:54 PM (#3168007) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray ...it has become hideously pretentious and full of its own importance. It thinks that its 'relevant' and its become sort of 'actorly' in a nauseating, trendy, metropolitan, 'meeja studies' sort of way. And, for me, that only serves to emphasise the thread-bare stupidity and ignorance of the plot-lines. Actually, the same could be said of the more earnest side of the folk song & ballad scene one (occasionally) runs into these days. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 07:48 PM (#3168044) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: BTNG *it has become hideously pretentious and full of its own importance* this is getting more and more familiar |
|
10 Jun 11 - 04:21 AM (#3168214) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Jack Blandiver but then soap opera is popular - which also baffles me! Storytelling has always been popular - why be baffled? Actually that's Popular in the sense of its genereal appeal too; it's a hearty catharthis which most people find entertaining on various levels, like when David Essex turns up as wife-murdering Eddie Moon in EastEnders. Most people I know watch at least one, apart from several Righteous Radicals who feel that it's somehow beneath their dignity to do so, much less admit to it. Each to their own. |
|
10 Jun 11 - 07:08 AM (#3168331) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray whatever one of those is? I'm not sure, but maybe Shimrod fits the bill? Which isn't to be too hard on the poor fellow; on the contrary, much respect etc. because in this day and age I might admire anyone who can still summon the indignation to believe in anything, just as long as it fits the bill, of course - fascists, homophobes, racists and sexists need not apply, likewise the religious who dream of their exclusive salvation which would have the rest of us condemned to an eternity of damnation; fecking pillocks the lot of them. |
|
10 Jun 11 - 07:26 AM (#3168335) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Stu "And, for me, that only serves to emphasise the thread-bare stupidity and ignorance of the plot-lines." Just out of interest Shim, do you fancy putting forward some candidates for those TV shows that could teach a thing or two to the writers of the current Dr. Who then? I watched the Neil Gaiman episode again yesterday on iPlayer - it was excellent. |
|
10 Jun 11 - 09:13 AM (#3168376) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray I see some over-zealous jobsworth of a mean-spirited misanthropic Mud-Elf has seen fit to delete a GUEST post which was (in any case) absolutely essential to this discussion. Without it, my last post makes no absolutely sense (no smart remarks from you, Shimrod). Surely in the context of genuine discussion Mudcat's pathetic house rules can be suspended once in a while? So, Mudelf, please reinstate the lost post, and whilst you're about give life a try, you might get a surprise. |
|
10 Jun 11 - 01:25 PM (#3168477) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Dave the Gnome Dr Who used to be entertaining years ago when it was a kids' programme. Agreed. But is that because it was a kids programme or because we were kids? Going back to the point that I cannot treat light entertainment too seriously I think that you may have grown up more than me! I can still enjoy the Doc, plot flaws and all. I have a couple of DVDs with old episodes on and I cannot say, watching them now, that they are better than the new ones. In many ways they were very poor. Plotlines, scripts, acting and all. I cannot say I find the new series particularly pretentious either. But, as you so rightly pointed out - each to his or her own. On which note I think some may be well advised to remember that this is a discussion on personal taste concerning a fictional series on TV. Maybe a bit of light discussion goes better with light entertainment? :-) Cheers DtG |
|
10 Jun 11 - 01:50 PM (#3168486) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST,Shimrod I suppose that the deleted 'Guest' post was probably one of mine. I contributed a witty and incisive opinion upon the subject of soap operas this morning, before I left the house - and probably forgot to include my nom-de-plume in the 'From:' box. So one of my immaculate pearls of wisdom is now lost forever. Oh, woe is me - and oh, relieved are the rest of you! "Without it, my last post makes no absolutely sense (no smart remarks from you, Shimrod)." As if I would be so unkind, Suibhne!! |
|
10 Jun 11 - 02:14 PM (#3168497) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST,Uncle Rumpo What this over-zealously deleted guest post... [Luckily I'm a bit OCD about gathering web pages to read offline... and no, it wasn't me] "From: GUEST Date: 10 Jun 11 - 05:46 AM "- why be baffled?" Because I find soap operas booorrring! They seem to be about the tedious emotional traumas of tedious pillocks who I wouldn't particularly want to know in 'real life'. I don't consider myself to be a "Righteous Radical" (whatever one of those is?) by the way." |
|
10 Jun 11 - 02:46 PM (#3168516) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Joe Offer No personal offense intended. We review all guest posts on a list of guest posts, not within context. If a post has no name, it's likely to be deleted, whenever it's first seen by a moderator. We've been trying to identify no-name posts when we can, but this one we weren't able to identify. -Joe- |
|
10 Jun 11 - 03:09 PM (#3168530) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack en route to the pub for a tun Shim was right about soap operas though, but I don't think Dr. Who is one personally. |
|
10 Jun 11 - 06:15 PM (#3168642) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST,Shimrod Thanks, 'Uncle Rumpo'! As a result of your zeal and forethought my pearl of wisdom is available for perusal again! Perhaps I'm being overly anal about this but the soap opera form (and the soap opera 'pollution' of other forms of mass entertainment) has really, really annoyed me for years! Sorry about the omission of my nom-de-plume from this morning's post, Joe. I'll try not to let it happen again! |
|
11 Jun 11 - 09:15 AM (#3168874) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: Dave the Gnome I think you get Righteous Radicals from drinking Green tea. DtG |
|
26 Apr 13 - 08:05 AM (#3509096) Subject: Lyr Add: Christmas Invasion From: Nigel Parsons Going back to the first David Tennant story: (preferably sung a la Eartha Kitt) CHRISTMAS INVASION Nigel Parsons (1 Feb 2006) I'm just an old fashioned girl with an old fashioned mind Not sophisticated, I'm the sweet and "simple" kind I want an old doctor who will make house calls at night And a doctor who I know will care. I want an old fashioned car, a cerise Cadillac Not a blue Police-Box that has been to Hell and back I want an old doctor who will make house calls at night And a doctor who I know will care. My new doctor looks a hoot In his shirt and tie and suit No more leather jacket or pullover. No more cricket flannels too But between both me and you. Believe me, he's still quite the Casanova! I've got a new Doctor Who looks different from before. Changed his whole appearance But for why? I'm not quite sure. I want my old doctor who will make house calls at night And a doctor who I know will care. There are several sounds that please, Like those spinning Christmas trees And plastic Santas playing Christmas carols. But the sound that beats both them Is the sound of our PM As she gives it to the aliens with all barrels. I want an old doctor who will make house calls at night And a doctor who I know will care. My new doctor came along when the TARDIS went quite wrong, And aliens invaded in December. And though he supports the right. His hearts weren't in the fight Until he grew a brand new member. I've got a new Doctor, Who can share my room at night Spend the day in PeeJays. But then still put up a fight I've got a new Doctor Who now, for better or for worse Will take me round the Universe. |
|
26 Apr 13 - 08:29 AM (#3509103) Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who From: GUEST,Blandiver Just come across the term Nu-Hu (New-Who) for more recent regenerations. The other day I was so ill it was all I could do to sit and watch all 4 episodes of Attack of the Cybermen on YouTube - featuring a sterling performance from Brian Glover - and a LOL moment when the Tardis materialises in a London scrapyard and the Radiophonic Workshop respond with a twisted approximation of The Steptoe & Son theme. Naturally I loved every minute of it even though I never watched any of the Colin Baker stuff at the time. |