The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

What's currently on the box
User avatar
Ross
D-MAC
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:06 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Ross »

GarethR wrote:
Although I do hope they bring Missy back, if only to piss off the hardcore window-lickers even more.
Window lickers????

(Checks Wiktionary)

"Window licker. (UK slang, offensive.). A mentally handicapped person."

Oh...

brigham
HD
Posts: 1061
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:59 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by brigham »

Did you really have to look it up?

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by GarethR »

I don't believe for a second you've never heard that expression before, if only because I'm fairly sure that you've read threads here and on Roobarb's in the past where I've used it. I first heard it about 25 years ago at Capital Radio, in reference to the obsessed fans who pressed in at the windows of cars carrying pop stars, and also at the front windows of the building while the stars were inside. I did actually see some of them licking the windows. Because of its association with obsessed, irrational types, it got used interchangeably with "anoraks".

If it's also been given the definition of "mentally handicapped person", then that's a shame, but that's language for you. "Idiot", "moron" and "stupid" all have OED definitions that specifically reference mental retardation, and I doubt that you'd pull anyone up for using any of those.

ctraynor
D-MAC
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:43 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by ctraynor »

I never thought that much of the original Sontarans anyway, although the script for their first story The Time Warrior made up for it by being quite witty with one or two good ideas in the script lines. The current butler Sontaran and his Silurian companion I know are liked by some younger viewers (eg someone I know in her early 20s) but they're a bit of a travesty of the original stories to me. Must admit window licker's one I hadn't noticed before. Almost witty enough for a Robert Holmes script.

simon10011
405 lines
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by simon10011 »

Richard Charles Skryngestone wrote:
Duncan wrote:I don't have the figures to hand but I suspect ratings were high in 2009 because it was a gap year with only the specials.

From DWM the last seasons ratings appear to be remarkably consistent

Basically reading your posts it seems you have a classic old school proprietorial attitude towards the show and if it doesn't fit your image then it must be rubbish. Even Levine isn't as bad as that.
But still consistently below what Tennant was getting.

But really, which is it now? Is Doctor Who "more popular than ever before"? Or is it that "ratings for all shows are down, and Doctor Who is no exception"?

Basically if you read my posts you would see that your claims are not the case at all. I stated that I believe everything must change and adapt. However, Moffat hasn't added anything of value to Doctor Who. He has however stamped his mark all over everything right back to before the beginning, he has turned once iconic characters into bad comedy figures, and he has turned a BBC Science Fiction Drama into a third-rate imitation of every US Superhero and Fantasy movie from the past 10 years. One of GarethR's statements was that Doctor Who has become part of the furniture. Well maybe it's time for some new furniture that doesn't stink, and doesn't have holes in it.
There's an article in the xmas DWM that compares the ratings from series one all the way through to series 8
Series 1 had an average of 7.95 million and series 8 of 7.26 million. A drop yes but hardly massive.
So of all your arguements that don't really wash this one really doesn't!

Mark
Committee
Posts: 3335
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:26 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Mark »

ctraynor wrote: Must admit window licker's one I hadn't noticed before. Almost witty enough for a Robert Holmes script.
You must be kidding, he would never have used something as banal as that.!

We are talking about the genius that was Robert Holmes, here.
"A cup of Tea....Tea...Tea"

billo
405 lines
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:19 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by billo »

I doubt if Nigel Kneale regarded Holmes as a genius...!

ctraynor
D-MAC
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:43 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by ctraynor »

No, but then Nigel Kneale wrote Kinvig. Anyone else out there think like me that Kneale protested too much when defending his comedy show?

billo
405 lines
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:19 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by billo »

No

ctraynor
D-MAC
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:43 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by ctraynor »

Righto. Although I thought Kinvig was a bit forced, myself. Kneale could be defensive about it in interviews, blaming the production team for not translating his ideas quite right.

User avatar
spflog1
625 lines
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:26 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by spflog1 »

Oh, as a kid I loved Kinvig at the time and I didn't mind in the least that it was mocking the very sci-fi nerd/UFO buff which I then was. I think some people just can't take a joke. I bought the series on DVD fairly recently and still found it extremely enjoyable, with only the slightly irritating audience laughter being its sole down point.

ctraynor
D-MAC
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:43 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by ctraynor »

I go with the slant of Kinvig but it wasn't quite as good as it could have been, I thought. Come Back Mrs Noah was great though. Mollie ("Everything's all right, in't it?") Sugden and no beating about the bush.

Anyway, yes, Dr Who, marvellous programme.

Mark
Committee
Posts: 3335
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:26 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Mark »

ctraynor wrote:
Anyway, yes, Dr Who, marvellous programme.
It was.!
"A cup of Tea....Tea...Tea"

Mark
Committee
Posts: 3335
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:26 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Mark »

Have you read the latest semi-humorous interchange between Moffat and RTD, after a fan asked whether The Doctor is a bigamist or not, having supposedly tied the knot with Marilyn Monroe, River Song and Elisabeth I.... it just gets worse.

Also, in an interview, last year, Mr Moffat was asked, how there could have been a Danny Pink in the future, when the present day one is dead...he wasn't sure.

Unbelievable.!
"A cup of Tea....Tea...Tea"

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 446
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

That's one thing I've strongly disliked about Moffat. He "just writes stories". They don't have to make sense. They don't have to be possible. And one episode doesn't have to be consistent with the one before or after it. Moffat's response is that "it's a show about time travel" and of course "wibbly wobbly etc." It's one thing to be a continuity anorak, it's another to want two stories written by the same writer in the same series to be consistent. I am reminded of an infamous interview with Paul Cornell where he said something like "It doesn't have to make sense. It's just Doctor Who" or something very similar. That probably explains why all his stuff is so unenjoyable.

People forget that Doctor Who is Science Fiction, not Fantasy. In Science Fiction, improbable and unlikely stuff can happen, so long as it is possible. And, if you've established one set of "rules" when it comes to a character, species, machine, whatever, then you must remain consistent with that set of "rules", or if you don't explain why and how things have changed. But Moffat doesn't care about any of that.(By the way i have never watched Moffat's Sherlock, but apparently he does the same things there with inconsistency, and not bothering to explain impossible happenings...)
Great News Inside, Chums!

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by GarethR »

Richard Charles Skryngestone wrote: People forget that Doctor Who is Science Fiction, not Fantasy
Who gets to make that determination?

In my experience, science fiction fans dismiss DW (and most other TV sci-fi) as being science fantasy. Lightweight mainstream fluff that's fine for a bit of escapism, but not to be compared to proper grown-up science fiction.
In Science Fiction, improbable and unlikely stuff can happen, so long as it is possible
If you're going to assert that the central conceit of the show - time travel in a dimensionally transcendental space/time ship - is possible, then you pretty much have to be OK with *absolutely anything else* the show does being possible, whether it actually is or not. So that would seem to put it firmly in the science fantasy camp.
And, if you've established one set of "rules" when it comes to a character, species, machine, whatever, then you must remain consistent with that set of "rules"
DW has regularly played fast and loose with its own continuity, it's hardly something new or unique to Moffat. After all, the majority of viewers of any given episode aren't going to be hardcore fans who live and breathe the show, so they aren't going to know about (for example) the interior of the Tardis supposedly being in a state of "temporal grace" where guns can't be fired.

User avatar
Ross
D-MAC
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:06 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Ross »

Different writers contradicting an old story is unfortunate, but the same writer contradicting himself and not giving a fuck about his own potholes is just contempt for the audience and/or incompetence.

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 446
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

GarethR wrote:
Richard Charles Skryngestone wrote: People forget that Doctor Who is Science Fiction, not Fantasy
Who gets to make that determination?
The people who originally created Doctor Who for the BBC created a Science Fiction Drama show. And for the first 26 years, that's what it was.
In my experience, science fiction fans dismiss DW (and most other TV sci-fi) as being science fantasy. Lightweight mainstream fluff that's fine for a bit of escapism, but not to be compared to proper grown-up science fiction.
I'd agree with you on that today. But in the past, DW was definitely SF. And many well-known SF authors were heavily influenced by Classic Who.
In Science Fiction, improbable and unlikely stuff can happen, so long as it is possible
If you're going to assert that the central conceit of the show - time travel in a dimensionally transcendental space/time ship - is possible, then you pretty much have to be OK with *absolutely anything else* the show does being possible, whether it actually is or not. So that would seem to put it firmly in the science fantasy camp.
There is a difference between something possible, but just much too technologically advanced for us to make today, and something from the realms of fantasy. The other big thing is of course that in the very first episode, the show went to great lengths to state that the TARDIS is just technology far far beyond 1963 Earth technology, and equate it to American Indians and trains. These days, the TARDIS is a "magic flying box". There's an enormous difference between the two. Having a talking computer in the shape of a dog is possible, having a newly-hatched giant magic flying space chicken lay an egg larger than it itself is is not possible. Etc. etc. etc.
And, if you've established one set of "rules" when it comes to a character, species, machine, whatever, then you must remain consistent with that set of "rules"
DW has regularly played fast and loose with its own continuity, it's hardly something new or unique to Moffat. After all, the majority of viewers of any given episode aren't going to be hardcore fans who live and breathe the show, so they aren't going to know about (for example) the interior of the Tardis supposedly being in a state of "temporal grace" where guns can't be fired.
[/quote]
Having someone contradict a single line of dialogue from an episode made decades ago is understandable. Having the same writer contradict his own story that aired a couple of weeks before the present one is just stupid.**I see Ross already said this**
Great News Inside, Chums!

DuncanS
405 lines
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 12:25 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by DuncanS »

To be honest though out of the 8 million people or so who would have seen the episodes less than 1000 will actually care about these so called plotholes - I mean the show has destroyed Atlantis three times but I dont see demonstrations on the street.

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by GarethR »

Richard Charles Skryngestone wrote: The people who originally created Doctor Who for the BBC created a Science Fiction Drama show
They used the term "science fiction" because that was the catch-all term back then. The distinction between science fiction and science fantasy was something that only the cognoscenti knew (or cared) about. That still largely holds true today, of course.
There is a difference between something possible, but just much too technologically advanced for us to make today, and something from the realms of fantasy
Are you seriously going to try and claim, with a completely straight face, that the central conceit of the series - a dimensionally-transcendental space/time machine - is something entirely possible but merely too advanced for us to make now, while a newly-hatched giant magic flying space chicken laying an egg larger than itself is clearly just ridiculous fantasy? I have a horrible feeling that you are.

DW is science fantasy. Pretty much *anything* that involves time travel is. Shows like Blake's 7 or Star Trek or Battlestar Galactica have a vastly more credible claim to being science fiction, although almost inevitably they all involve faster-than-light travel, which is a problem.
The other big thing is of course that in the very first episode, the show went to great lengths to state that the TARDIS is just technology far far beyond 1963 Earth technology, and equate it to American Indians and trains
So just because they wrote that dialogue in 1963, that means that a dimensionally-transcendental space/time machine is actually possible? If you're going to accept that, you *have* to accept all the other bollocks they just made up (and continue to make up).
Having the same writer contradict his own story that aired a couple of weeks before the present one is just stupid
For the handful of viewers who actually notice, maybe. For the other 99% of the audience? Not really. And guess who the show is primarily made for?

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 446
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

GarethR wrote:
Richard Charles Skryngestone wrote: The people who originally created Doctor Who for the BBC created a Science Fiction Drama show
They used the term "science fiction" because that was the catch-all term back then. The distinction between science fiction and science fantasy was something that only the cognoscenti knew (or cared) about. That still largely holds true today, of course.
Bollocks. There was already a clear divide between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy. And certainly people making television would know the difference. Read the original paperwork from before Who debuted, talking about how it needs to be a serious Science Fiction Drama, which must be taken seriously.

I also think that it only holds true with you and your mates.
There is a difference between something possible, but just much too technologically advanced for us to make today, and something from the realms of fantasy
Are you seriously going to try and claim, with a completely straight face, that the central conceit of the series - a dimensionally-transcendental space/time machine - is something entirely possible but merely too advanced for us to make now, while a newly-hatched giant magic flying space chicken laying an egg larger than itself is clearly just ridiculous fantasy? I have a horrible feeling that you are.
One is technology. The other is something biologically impossible. Again, the show went to great lengths to state that the TARDIS was something possible, just way beyond our modern understanding. Is it possible that machines that can travel in time will one day be built? Well, Wells used that decades before Who. As for 'dimensionally transcendental', again read what i wrote, and watch how Ian and Barbara react to the TARDIS, and then the Doctor and Susan's reaction to their reaction. That's Science Fiction. You yourself have stated that you don't know the difference between SF and Fantasy, and that you believe that Who was always Fantasy. When someone disagrees you keep going back to the same tired argument, which has been answered multiple times now.
DW is science fantasy. Pretty much *anything* that involves time travel is. Shows like Blake's 7 or Star Trek or Battlestar Galactica have a vastly more credible claim to being science fiction, although almost inevitably they all involve faster-than-light travel, which is a problem.
And once it was believed that faster than sound travel was impossible. Verne's submarine would have been interpreted by the 19th Century GarethR as Science Fantasy.
The other big thing is of course that in the very first episode, the show went to great lengths to state that the TARDIS is just technology far far beyond 1963 Earth technology, and equate it to American Indians and trains
So just because they wrote that dialogue in 1963, that means that a dimensionally-transcendental space/time machine is actually possible? If you're going to accept that, you *have* to accept all the other bollocks they just made up (and continue to make up).
No, they pointed out how Ian and Barbara couldn't accept it as real, but for the Doctor and Susan it was. Not magick, but rather simply because their technology was centuries(at least) in advance of Earth in 1963. It was treated seriously by the characters, who reacted the same way any normal person would react in those circumstances, and never devolved into "timey wimey spacey wacey" explanations. Again, Science Fiction often relies on technology that doesn't exist today, but could exist years or even centuries in the future. Whereas Fantasy just relies on magic. But then you can't tell the difference, so this discussion is going in circles. Classic Who explained things the way one would expect it to be in real life. Nu Who's explanation is "because it is". It's also the difference between the Third Doctor and Liz spending ages in the lab using trial and error, and crosschecking facts trying to find a cure in Spearhead from Space and the Tenth Doctor's cure in New Earth.
Having the same writer contradict his own story that aired a couple of weeks before the present one is just stupid
For the handful of viewers who actually notice, maybe. For the other 99% of the audience? Not really. And guess who the show is primarily made for?
[/quote]
Most viewers probably won't notice something that contradicts a story from years ago. Most viewers most likely will notice something that contradicts a story less than a month old. Only someone who can't remember the post before last on a Forum they keep saying the same stuff over and over again would fail to notice the error only a couple of episodes apart.
Great News Inside, Chums!

User avatar
Mickey
625 lines
Posts: 440
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:45 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Mickey »

Oh, they notice! The issue is the different levels of caring. The issue of where 'Future Danny' came from, if 'Actual Danny' died without having children, gets discussed all over the internet. Most viewers see it as a jumping-off point. Something to discuss and theorise over. Something for bouncing ideas about; something for writing stories about. Moffat may explain it eventually. For all we know, Clara is pregnant. Or maybe he has a child out there somewhere? Maybe he won't explain it. Either way, fans are happy to come up with their own theories. A bit like UNIT dating. Or how Troughton and Pertwee can be so much older in "The Five Doctors" (Moffat himself came up with a possible theory for that, in "Time Crash". Up to you whether you choose to take it as canon or not). Or how the First Doctor only has one heart, or how come all TARDISes are called TARDISes, when Susan claims to have come up with the name just for the Doctor's.

You're perfectly at liberty to prefer a certain type of TV, obviously. Others do it a little differently.

Mark
Committee
Posts: 3335
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:26 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Mark »

Agree, with Ross, and Richard, over continuity, then and now.

Moffat obviously forgot about the future Pink, when he decided to bump off the present one, a decent script editor would have picked up on that, and something could have been worked out.

He seems to be making it up as he goes along, with no one to restrain him and point out when ideas make no sense, so it just ends up in a muddle.

Future pink's, extra Doctors, reboots, multi-Clara's, ex-wives......the best Script Editor in the world couldn't sort that lot out.!
"A cup of Tea....Tea...Tea"

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by GarethR »

Richard Charles Skryngestone wrote:There was already a clear divide between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy
Among the cognoscenti perhaps.
And certainly people making television would know the difference
People making television who also happened to have a personal interest in science fiction, perhaps. But the majority of people who ever worked on DW had no particular interest in, or knowledge of sci-fi - there are enough cast and crew interviews where they flatly state that.
Read the original paperwork from before Who debuted, talking about how it needs to be a serious Science Fiction Drama, which must be taken seriously
Would that be from when it was going to be a contemporary series about a group of scientific troubleshooters? Sure, that would have been science fiction. But the moment they created the concept of the Tardis, it became science fantasy.
I also think that it only holds true with you and your mates
Do you reckon that if you canvassed passersby in your local High Street, most of them, when asked, would be able to explain the difference in detail, with examples?
the show went to great lengths to state that the TARDIS was something possible, just way beyond our modern understanding
I hate to break this to you, but the fact that a TV fantasy programme says that something is possible doesn't mean that it actually is or ever will be.

That said, if you're going to take the position that a dimensionally-transcendental space/time ship may be possible to build at some point in the future, then you can't complain about - for example - the sonic screwdriver being used as a "magic wand". If we ever reach the point where we can manipulate space and time so that a Tardis could actually exist, why *shouldn't* the sonic screwdriver, with its myriad capabilities (and more), also exist? There's no reason at all why it shouldn't. Ditto anything else in the DW universe.
When someone disagrees you keep going back to the same tired argument, which has been answered multiple times now
So essentially, no different from what *you* do? "Same tired arguments" is pretty much your stock-in-trade - but then again, this *is* a thread about Doctor Who. There's nothing new to say.
Science Fiction often relies on technology that doesn't exist today, but could exist years or even centuries in the future
So if you're going to take the position that anything that needs to exist to serve the plot may be possible, including a Tardis, then you *have* to accept everything else the writers make up. You can't point to one piece of preposterous fantasy technology and say "This might exist one day", and then point to another piece of preposterous fantasy technology and say "Well, of course, the idea that this could ever exist is just ridiculous". Although I somehow suspect you'll try.
Classic Who explained things the way one would expect it to be in real life
More accurately, it explained things using entirely invented technobabble. It did it for the same reasons NuWho uses "because it is", but it had more time to pad.
Most viewers most likely will notice something that contradicts a story less than a month old
Give me an example from NuWho, then.
Mickey wrote:The issue of where 'Future Danny' came from, if 'Actual Danny' died without having children, gets discussed all over the internet
If you're enough of a fan to think about the show in that kind of depth, and then go online to discuss it, you're *not* the kind of casual viewer who makes up the vast bulk of the show's audience.

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 446
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

Doctor Who was created as a Science Fiction Programme for the BBC Drama Department in 1963. All the paperwork, and notes from Sydney Newman speak of how it must be kept Science Fiction. The average person at the time may not have been able to go into great detail about it, but everyone knew the essential differences between Science Fiction and Fantasy, and would be able tot ell you that 1984 and Quatermass were SF, whereas Lord of the Rings was Fantasy. It truly astounds me that GarethR insists time and time again that nobody could tell the difference between the two. I guess he has difficulty separating them, so he just says that everyone must have felt the same way. The nature of Science Fiction is that stuff happens that may be unlikely but is possible, the setting is the real "universe", people react how normal people would react etc. Again GarethR goes in with the the misconception that Doctor Who "was always Science Fntasy", and that it was always set "in the Doctor Who Universe". Stories like the Dalek Invasion of Earth only work because they are not set in the "Whoniverse", same as Planet of the Apes(the real one, not the laughable remake), 1984 etc. only move us the way they do because the Earth of Winston Smith is our Earth, the Statue of Liberty on the beach is our Statue of Liberty, the Trafalgar Square of Dalek Invasion of Earth is our Trafalgar Square.

Does stuff happen in Science Fiction that hasn't happened in real life, or is unlikely to happen in real life? No shit Sherlock(in GarethR's case, that would appear to be the Cumberbatch one...) But everything must be treated as real and possible. Time travel is seems impossible to us today, but already scientists have been able to move particles in time. Just as air flight, undersea travel or putting a man in space seemed impossible to us once. That really is a huge part of what Science Fiction is...showing us what future technology may bring, and how it will affect real people, like you and me. If the TARDIS is Science Fantasy, then The Time Machine, The Invisible Man, Star Trek, From the Earth to the Moon, and thousands more well-known stories are also all Science Fantasy. GarethR's entire argument is based on the "fact" that because the TARDIS is way way beyond our current understanding of the workings of the universe, that it must therefore be Fantasy. Just as people less than two hundred years ago would have considered things like aeroplanes and space shuttles to be Science Fantasy.

But even if something is way beyond our present understanding, there is literally a genre apart of the way that technology is presented to the viewer/reader/listener/etc. Treating it like some futuristic technology, explaining it as clearly as possible using the understandings and sciences of the time is one. Simply saying "wibbly wobbly" and treating it like magic is another. Putting a rocket on the moon was something Verne did in the 19th century. It was explained using the understandings of ballistics at the time. Saying that the moon is a giant egg laid by a flying space chicken that's smaller than the egg it laid was given no explanation now. And that's even after the numerous trips to the moon the Doctor had taken before in both Classic and Nu Who.

Really, the difference between treating the TARDIS like a highly advanced piece of technology, and treating the Sonic Screwdriver like a magic wand is clear to even my little nephew, who loves Nu Who far more than I ever will, but even he says that it's just fun, and makes no sense.

There's also an enormous difference between placing an alien invasion several years in the future, and having real people react the way real people would, and having spaceships crash in London in the present day(or one year ehead from now) in a London where Harriet Jones is Prime Minister, the President of the US gets killed by new UK PM Harold Saxon, London is overgrown by magic trees, or the entire nonsense of Dark Water/Death in Heaven. Classic Who may have done stuff that people found unlikely(and a few nutters thought was Science Fantasy). Nu Who just does stuff and doesn't even try and rationalise it as being realistic. After all, it takes place in "the Doctor Who Universe", where presumably Science works differently to our universe.

I'm sure that GarethR will go back to the "Oh, but there's nothing like a TARDIS today, therefore it was always Fantasy", and "I can't understand the difference between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy, therefore nobody can!" But I won't bother to reply to him again, as this is getting beyond tedious.
Great News Inside, Chums!

brigham
HD
Posts: 1061
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:59 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by brigham »

I have to agree with that final remark! Tedious doesn't even begin to describe it.

User avatar
Doom Patrol
625 lines
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:25 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Doom Patrol »

In the end it doesn't really matter. It's all a sliding scale based on individual taste.

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 446
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

One thing I've found interesting is that, in my experience at least, this belief of what Doctor Who actually is actually coincides with which stories are considered classics or duds.

Those of us who subscribe to the idea that the Pertwee stories were set in the not-too-advanced future where the Oxley Woods is our Oxley Woods tend to consider the UNIT era a Golden Era. While people who subscribe to the idea that the UNIT stories were set c.1969-1973 in a "Whoniverse" where Shirley Williams was PM tend to think of the Pertwee era as subpar.

Likewise, there was a clear split among Series 8, with one camp thinking Time Heist brilliant and Dark Water/Death in Heaven shit, and the other camp thinking the opposite.
Great News Inside, Chums!

drmih
625 lines
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by drmih »

Richard Charles Skryngestone wrote:One thing I've found interesting is that, in my experience at least, this belief of what Doctor Who actually is actually coincides with which stories are considered classics or duds.

Those of us who subscribe to the idea that the Pertwee stories were set in the not-too-advanced future where the Oxley Woods is our Oxley Woods tend to consider the UNIT era a Golden Era. While people who subscribe to the idea that the UNIT stories were set c.1969-1973 in a "Whoniverse" where Shirley Williams was PM tend to think of the Pertwee era as subpar.

Likewise, there was a clear split among Series 8, with one camp thinking Time Heist brilliant and Dark Water/Death in Heaven shit, and the other camp thinking the opposite.
and then there were the 99.99% of us who just watched it, missed the Shirley Williams thing altogether and never even realised that there were 'camps':) I think it is far simpler than that - if you watched the program and liked it, then you always have a soft spot for that particular Doctor. As you got older and realised that some elements were a bit rubbish and embarrassing, you associated those with the current incumbent but tended not to re-evaluate your own Doctor(s). The new series, to most of us I guess, is something we engaged with in middle age, and watch as a family. Therefore it's about family entertainment and not taking it too seriously and seeing the enjoyment it brings to our children and grandchildren. We take each episode on it's own and judge it accordingly.

Mark
Committee
Posts: 3335
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:26 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Mark »

It still should have some coherence, and not so slapdash, I agree most of the audience don't care, or notice, as they watch it on catch-up on their mobiles, whilst sitting on the loo.

Trouble is the BBC don't care, either, with the money it makes, very poor standards, these days.
"A cup of Tea....Tea...Tea"

Post Reply