|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Aug 3, 2024 23:52:11 GMT
The Under the Lake two parter is one of his better ones and way better than the crap with Davros that came before it.
I haven't seen the Flesh two parter since it aired but I didn't like it at the time and have no real desire to watch it again. Saying that, I think every Who fan on the planet prefers it to the writer's other story...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Aug 3, 2024 23:55:57 GMT
I watched The Long Game at 6:30am after I woke up ill yesterday and had nothing to do. This is one of the more watchable episodes from Eccleston's short tenure. I think I like it more because it links to my favourite story of his, but even on its own I think it works thanks to a more straight forward plot that isn't buried beneath the usual melodrama of the era.
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Aug 4, 2024 8:30:23 GMT
I'm in the middle of the flesh people two parter which is honestly really good at all. During this two parter I'd say the line between old and new who was mostly gone. I'm not saying the Flesh two parter is an all time classic story. It's a fairly common idea in sci fi, but it's fun enough. However it's really indistinguishable from a classic era story in that. The Doctor is completely in character. No mopeyness, completely alien, professorial, played by a naturally eccentric actor, compassionate, but also ruthless when he needs to be. The focus is entirely on sci fi concepts, no shallow identity politics, tedious soap opera bullshit. It's a more thoughtful story that takes its time to build up, focuses on the sci fi concepts it's introduced, and doesn't revel in sentimentality and is quite claustrophobic in places. I agree. Not a classic, but a perfectly respectable slice of conceptual sci-fi. Yet for some reason the consensus on places like Gallifrey Base and Reddit seems to be that it's among the very worst things NuWho ever did. I can't even begin to understand where the mainstream fandom is coming from sometimes. The abominable, story-breaking shite that gets praised and the entirely decent stuff that gets disparaged in the harshest possible terms... none of it makes any sense. God that is depressing. To be honest though I hate most official fandoms these days. Buffy fans are the only ones that I can stomach. Futurama fans piss me off even more the way they praise The Late Philip J Fry which is actually the worst episode of any tv show ever made. Seriously it f*cks up Futurama far worse than even the Timeless Children does Doctor Who and actively ruins all of Futurama before and after it to a far greater extent than the Timeless Children could ever conceive of. It also pisses me off that for all the anti multiverse hipsterdom we see from sci fi fans and youtubers, they NEVER attack that story? That one is the shining example of what's wrong with multiverse stories (of course that doesn't mean that the multiverse genre is bad. All genres can be done poorly, but yes if you want to be against multiverse stories that is the worst way they can be used, rather than the no stakes crap they parrot like sheep.) Honestly I think and I hate saying this because it makes me sound like an arrogant shit, but I don't care I'll do it anyway LOL. I think there is a bit of a self loathing aspect to sci fi fandom in general. They are constantly worried that their genre or sub genre will not be respected and therefore will always praise episodes of something that they think packs a real emotional punch, because that shows our stuff is proper drama. Hence something that is a good sci fi story may be overlooked. Of course that's not to say you can't get a good sci fi or fantasy story that has an emotional aspect. Episodes of Futurama like The Sting, or DW classics like Fenric, or Buffy episodes like Passion all fit into that. However you do get some that focus more on the concept and story like say Genesis of the Daleks. The Doctor doesn't undergo a big wangsty moral lesson in that about his girlfriend or anything, so sadly to modern fans it wouldn't be seen as real tv to them and if were made now, would be seen as a dull story. It's deeply depressing. Meanwhile I've just watched two more Matt Smith's. The Girl Who Waited and The God Complex. Both classics. I am so annoyed about Rita. God damn it why didn't I whine like a little bitch over her death like I did Osgood until Moffat brought her back. I was too busy mourning Amy Winehouse I think back then to be fair, but man she would have been one of the best companions of all time. Hell I wouldn't have objected to her being his love interest she was so awesome. I hope Big Finish do an audio series where we find out her faith was so strong it kept her mind alive and then she comes back through wibbly wobbly shit and she and the 11th Doctor can get together for ten seasons of adventures where he married and had kids with her between two random stories like Asylum and Dinosaurs that somehow had no baring on the Doctors development. Also throw Jackie Tyler in somehow. Well onto the worst Cyberman story in all of DW, old and new pre Dark Water/Death in Heaven. Like I said season 6 contains some of the absolute best New Who ever did and some of the worst. |
|
|
|
Post by UncleDeadly on Aug 4, 2024 13:54:52 GMT
I watched The Long Game at 6:30am after I woke up ill yesterday f*ck, you were ill, weren't you..? |
|
|
|
Post by mott1 on Aug 4, 2024 15:10:51 GMT
I watched The Long Game at 6:30am after I woke up ill yesterday f*ck, you were ill, weren't you..? That’s the equivalence of applying leeches in the old apothecary days! Such masochism… |
|
|
|
Post by mott1 on Aug 4, 2024 15:14:27 GMT
I'm in the middle of the flesh people two parter which is honestly really good at all. During this two parter I'd say the line between old and new who was mostly gone. I'm not saying the Flesh two parter is an all time classic story. It's a fairly common idea in sci fi, but it's fun enough. However it's really indistinguishable from a classic era story in that. The Doctor is completely in character. No mopeyness, completely alien, professorial, played by a naturally eccentric actor, compassionate, but also ruthless when he needs to be. The focus is entirely on sci fi concepts, no shallow identity politics, tedious soap opera bullshit. It's a more thoughtful story that takes its time to build up, focuses on the sci fi concepts it's introduced, and doesn't revel in sentimentality and is quite claustrophobic in places. I agree. Not a classic, but a perfectly respectable slice of conceptual sci-fi. Yet for some reason the consensus on places like Gallifrey Base and Reddit seems to be that it's among the very worst things NuWho ever did. I can't even begin to understand where the mainstream fandom is coming from sometimes. The abominable, story-breaking shite that gets praised and the entirely decent stuff that gets disparaged in the harshest possible terms... none of it makes any sense. Yep the flesh people two parter was pretty decent, at a time when I feared the Matt Smith era was going downhill badly. And Sarah Smart, who had a major part in it, is an absolute sweetie! She and her agent were genuinely supportive when I started writing and sent them a manuscript. |
|
|
|
Post by UncleDeadly on Aug 4, 2024 16:48:39 GMT
Sarah Smart, who had a major part in it, is an absolute sweetie! She and her agent were genuinely supportive when I started writing and sent them a manuscript. What was it; Woof 2: "The Bitch Is Back"..? |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Aug 5, 2024 9:41:04 GMT
Finished series 6.
Sadly series 6 came to a dismal ending. Wedding of River Song is just gibberish held together by cameos "oh here's a Dalek, oh here's a Pterodatcly, here's Dickens, here's Churchill."
Even Amy and Rory started to annoy me in this episode with all the macho shit. Also Moffat is the absolute worst at writing dialogue I've ever seen. Every f*cking word out of a characters mouth is either a flowery, pretentious, pseudo intellectual attempt at getting a tears in the rain speech, or innuendo and sexual tension or worse characters pointing out how two other characters are flirting. In all honesty I'd like to apologise to Claudia Boleyn here. I know we became friends anyway, but still the way Moffat sexualizes his female characters is pretty awful and she and others were right to call it out. I'm not saying he's a rank misogynist or anything or that I agree with the more extreme sides of the STFU Moffat crowd (there's a blast from the past.) Like saying Asylum of the Daleks promotes gassing the mentally ill. Still yeah he does basically write with one hand down his pants when it comes to female characters a lot of the time.
I mean we all will base characters from the opposite sex on our fantasies to some extent from time to time (or the same sex if you're gay or bi.) I've based some of my characters on Amy Winehouse and Gina Carano, what does that tell you? Women do it too. However Moffat takes it to a whole other level. Again it's not just that his female leads are the type of woman he likes, he has almost every word out of their mouths be some sexual fantasy, has them all lust after the male hero who is his avatar, regardless of how inappropriate it is (the main character's supposed to be an asexual alien, or the companion's already with someone and it makes her look unsympathetic or it's the f*cking Master he's turning into that etc.) Also he tends to make that their entire story arc too, which given his statements about how women need us more than we need them because they are needy is very telling.
He needed railed in when writing his female characters or someone needed to throw ice cold water over him at least.
Incidentally I remember this same problem is evident in the upcoming Dinosaurs on A Spaceship, though granted that one was written by Chris Chibnall but as much as I dislike him, I reckon those moments were pure Moffat. Chibnall's attempts at having sexy dialogue is even worse. At least there can be if you're in the right mood a charming, Adam West/Catwoman cheesiness to Moffs. Chibnall's are so misjudged they come over as more Richard Richard and Edward Elizabeth Hitler LOL like the famous ever cummed so hard line from Torchwood.
I think Richie's pimp game was better to be honest.
Still all the bits between the big game hunter and the Egyptian babe in Dinosaurs on a Spaceship I can remember made me cringe like when he went on about Egypt breeding fire crackers like her UGH. I doubt that I'll change my mind when I watch it back.
Can I just say I think it's funny how men who like being dominated by women are always portrayed in such a romantic way in popular culture. It's always guys like this, or guys like Spike in Buffy who loves wild, dangerous women that can kick his ass because he's such a wild, dangerous, badass.
In truth most masochist guys are actually out of shape middle aged sleaze bags who go and visit some hooker they pay to smack them behind their wives backs. Like this bit in the Beavis and Butthead movie where they stumble upon their Principal who they regularly drive to a mental breakdown LOL. Honestly this is one of those moments that just makes you laugh whenever you think about it. I have to try not to when I'm in public or I'll look like the Joker.
Yeah that's a more accurate representation than a dashing rogue like Spike or the guy from Dinosaurs on A Spaceship LOL.
Obviously I'm not saying there is anything wrong with liking strong, dominant women. I of all people would be a huge hypocrite if I said that. Confidence and charisma are sexy regardless of the gender (though so is awkwardness and shyness, well that's more cute than anything else.) Also what you get up to in your own time is none of my business. However I don't know I think when they write guys going on about "I love a woman with fire in her belly." "I love a woman with the heart of a lion" etc, it always makes me cringe because it comes over as either the writer wanking, or being quite condescending to women in general like "Oh that's cute you think you're tough."
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Aug 5, 2024 9:57:37 GMT
I agree. Not a classic, but a perfectly respectable slice of conceptual sci-fi. Yet for some reason the consensus on places like Gallifrey Base and Reddit seems to be that it's among the very worst things NuWho ever did. I can't even begin to understand where the mainstream fandom is coming from sometimes. The abominable, story-breaking shite that gets praised and the entirely decent stuff that gets disparaged in the harshest possible terms... none of it makes any sense. Yep the flesh people two parter was pretty decent, at a time when I feared the Matt Smith era was going downhill badly. And Sarah Smart, who had a major part in it, is an absolute sweetie! She and her agent were genuinely supportive when I started writing and sent them a manuscript. I can believe that. I got real Ducky vibes from her in that episode. Even when she was evil. |
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Aug 5, 2024 15:13:48 GMT
Finished series 6. Sadly series 6 came to a dismal ending. Wedding of River Song is just gibberish held together by cameos "oh here's a Dalek, oh here's a Pterodatcly, here's Dickens, here's Churchill." Even Amy and Rory started to annoy me in this episode with all the macho shit. Also Moffat is the absolute worst at writing dialogue I've ever seen. Every f*cking word out of a characters mouth is either a flowery, pretentious, pseudo intellectual attempt at getting a tears in the rain speech, or innuendo and sexual tension or worse characters pointing out how two other characters are flirting. In all honesty I'd like to apologise to Claudia Boleyn here. I know we became friends anyway, but still the way Moffat sexualizes his female characters is pretty awful and she and others were right to call it out. I'm not saying he's a rank misogynist or anything or that I agree with the more extreme sides of the STFU Moffat crowd (there's a blast from the past.) Like saying Asylum of the Daleks promotes gassing the mentally ill. Still yeah he does basically write with one hand down his pants when it comes to female characters a lot of the time. I mean we all will base characters from the opposite sex on our fantasies to some extent from time to time (or the same sex if you're gay or bi.) I've based some of my characters on Amy Winehouse and Gina Carano, what does that tell you? Women do it too. However Moffat takes it to a whole other level. Again it's not just that his female leads are the type of woman he likes, he has almost every word out of their mouths be some sexual fantasy, has them all lust after the male hero who is his avatar, regardless of how inappropriate it is (the main character's supposed to be an asexual alien, or the companion's already with someone and it makes her look unsympathetic or it's the f*cking Master he's turning into that etc.) Also he tends to make that their entire story arc too, which given his statements about how women need us more than we need them because they are needy is very telling. He needed railed in when writing his female characters or someone needed to throw ice cold water over him at least. Incidentally I remember this same problem is evident in the upcoming Dinosaurs on A Spaceship, though granted that one was written by Chris Chibnall but as much as I dislike him, I reckon those moments were pure Moffat. Chibnall's attempts at having sexy dialogue is even worse. At least there can be if you're in the right mood a charming, Adam West/Catwoman cheesiness to Moffs. Chibnall's are so misjudged they come over as more Richard Richard and Edward Elizabeth Hitler LOL like the famous ever cummed so hard line from Torchwood. I think Richie's pimp game was better to be honest. Still all the bits between the big game hunter and the Egyptian babe in Dinosaurs on a Spaceship I can remember made me cringe like when he went on about Egypt breeding fire crackers like her UGH. I doubt that I'll change my mind when I watch it back. Can I just say I think it's funny how men who like being dominated by women are always portrayed in such a romantic way in popular culture. It's always guys like this, or guys like Spike in Buffy who loves wild, dangerous women that can kick his ass because he's such a wild, dangerous, badass. In truth most masochist guys are actually out of shape middle aged sleaze bags who go and visit some hooker they pay to smack them behind their wives backs. Like this bit in the Beavis and Butthead movie where they stumble upon their Principal who they regularly drive to a mental breakdown LOL. Honestly this is one of those moments that just makes you laugh whenever you think about it. I have to try not to when I'm in public or I'll look like the Joker. Yeah that's a more accurate representation than a dashing rogue like Spike or the guy from Dinosaurs on A Spaceship LOL. Obviously I'm not saying there is anything wrong with liking strong, dominant women. I of all people would be a huge hypocrite if I said that. Confidence and charisma are sexy regardless of the gender (though so is awkwardness and shyness, well that's more cute than anything else.) Also what you get up to in your own time is none of my business. However I don't know I think when they write guys going on about "I love a woman with fire in her belly." "I love a woman with the heart of a lion" etc, it always makes me cringe because it comes over as either the writer wanking, or being quite condescending to women in general like "Oh that's cute you think you're tough." Series 7 is far less messy than Series 6. When I'm not shooting ropes over Jenna Coleman anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Aug 5, 2024 18:46:23 GMT
A Town Called Mercy is such an overlooked little gem. I have to say Toby Whitehouse is the best writer of the Matt Smith era.
He hasn't written the absolute best episodes. That would be Richard Curtis and in all fairness Steven Moffat with Vincent and the Doctor and the Angels two parter still being the cream of the crop for the 11th era.
However all 3 of his stories have been really, really good, and all 3 are very versatile in terms of their subject, time periods, settings, the monsters (who were all given unique powers, backstories etc and not just tossed in as an after thought like in most of Gareth Roberts stories such as the Lodger.) All also had the Doctor perfectly in character and all kept the focus on sci fi, fantasy etc and all had some of the absolute best, most fleshed out guest characters and all used the companions well. Basically everything I want from DW.
Honestly had Toby been made showrunner for Capaldi's era then I do think things would have been very different for the show. I mean fair enough he'd probably have had the same ideological nitwits breathing down his neck that Moff did, but still I think in all honesty he could have done a really good job for the most part. Also bare in mind that when the push for a female Doctor was at its height just before Jodie was announced, Toby said he wanted Damian Mahoney to play the part. Mahoney btw would have been an excellent choice for a new who type of Doctor with shades of the classic era style. He's an excellent actor who did the old man in a young man's body brilliantly. I also admire the balls on Whitehouse for daring in 2017 to suggest a white straight man play the part of the Doctor. I'm amazed he wasn't Gina Carano'd out of existence.
It's funny in a way Toby is kind of the opposite of RTD. His biggest success story was Being Human. That began where Toby was given a sitcom to write about three twenty somethings with psychological conditions. One had rage issues, the other was agoraphobic and the other a sex addict and he found that boring to write for, so he made the rage issues guy a Werewolf, the agoraphobe a Ghost and the sex addict a Vampire, creating a genre classic in the process. RTD meanwhile his biggest success story is where he was given a show about a man who can travel to any planet at any point in its history and is famous for fighting over the top monsters and aliens, but he found stories about alien planets boring and dull, so he made it more of a soap opera.
Kind of reminds me of the Cat's conversation about spiritual enlightenment and the pursuit of clothes LOL.
Angels Take Manhattan is also a bit of an overlooked gem. I do understand why some fans take issue with it. It's a damn shame really as overall it works and it is the most terrifying the Angels ever were, but the gaffs are very big. I can overlook them for the other bits I like, but yeah I can understand why some can't. The Angel being a statue of Liberty is extremely stupid. I don't care if it looked quite cool, the idea that it could walk across Manhattan unnoticed stretches credibility to breaking point. It isn't helped by the Doctor pointing out that New York is the city that never sleeps. (That old saying refers to the fact that in New York the trains are always on, there's always cafe's, cinemas open all night etc. I mean I doubt that a 200 ton statue could walk across any city being unseen to be honest, but New York is possibly the worst one of them all. Also it's not even as though the Statue say glides or floats as a ghostly figure high above the city. In that case I just might buy it depending on how fast it moves, but no it clearly walks as you here the smashing of its foot steps and the building shaking when it gets nearer. Honestly how does it not destroy large sections of New York and how the f*ck does it walk across the water to get to the mainland?)
Also yes Amy and Rory's fate whilst very moving in places is also stupid. Why couldn't the Doctor just land the TARDIS somewhere else or a year later, and then visit them via train and take the Ponds away for more random adventures and return them? Amy doesn't even say in her goodbye note that she hasn't seen him ever again since the Angels? For all we know she could be like 84 when she wrote that and hasn't seen him in just 10 years which means she has another almost 50 years potentially to see and travel with her raggedy man?
I think it would have been better if the Ponds had been snatched and then the Doctor ran into the TARDIS to find them and landed later in Manhattan to try and rescue them only to learn that he had arrived a couple of decades too late and in the meantime Amy and Rory had a kid who was now like 20 and the Doctor obviously couldn't go back because he didn't want to erase the child from existence, and he also couldn't take them away again as now they had a son and were too settled, so he waved goodbye to them on a bittersweet note, happy they finally had a family, but sad they'd moved on. To me that would have been better and tied in with Amy's status as the girl who waited and the fairy tale theme of her being a Wendy figure better.
Still in spite of these faults I do love this story. The setting is fantastic and the Angels are so much more terrifying here than in any prior story including even the great Blink. I mean yes in Blink the idea was fresh and more effective that way, but I think the horror of this story sticks in your mind more. What they do to Rory is absolutely horrific, trapping him in a small room where he'll never see anyone again and be driven mad for the rest of his very long life and the idea that even the Doctor can't help him, and no matter where he goes those monsters will chase him throughout time and space, honestly in that scene they truly are among the scariest monsters in the shows history. The claustrophobic setting is also used brilliantly for some sequences too like when Rory is trapped in the room with the Angel babies. That always suited them better. Even though I liked the series 5 two parter I think the Angels maybe did lose some menace in the forest setting where it felt like you could run more easily.
Honestly I think we underrate the Angels round these parts. They are truly one of the all time great monsters in sci fi. Not only are they obviously terrifying and unnerving, but they actually do have more to them as a concept. I think people often dismiss them as just being a jump scare, but that idea that they throw people backwards in time and the fact that they are more predators than a vast empire gave them surprisingly a lot of scope and creativity compared to other monsters. I love all of the Angels stories, and whilst they were only in four, the same is true for the Sontarans and the Ice Warriors in classic who, but sadly not all of their 4 appearances were good. (Both have at least 1 stinker with The Invasion of Time and Monster of Peladon, though the latter is fun in a cheesy way and Sarah is at her hottest in that with her cool leather coat.)
The Angels meanwhile have a perfect record at least in the first 7 years.
Also finally whilst it may not make much logical sense I still did enjoy the Ponds departure. It was nice seeing how much Amy and Rory had grown. In the early days she came over as selfish compared to Rory who was the noble Centurion, but in the end Amy gives up her life in the modern world and her life with the Doctor to ensure Rory isn't alone in the past without her. I also found the final note Amy left him to be really sweet and surprisingly powerful. It was nice when she said that "we love you" to the Doctor. Again shows you how far his relationship with Rory has come too. They started off as love rivals (unintentional on the Doctors part) but by now Rory is one of his best friends and they care about each other in their own strange way.
I'm really going to miss the Ponds. Even though their story had definitely played itself out and after two and a half years it was probably time to let somebody else have a go, Arthur and Karen and their chemistry with Matt was always a joy right to the end. I know I'm going to sound fickle but sorry they're my favourite trio again LOL after rewatching them, over Ten, Jack and Martha. I do still love that trio, but in all fairness since we saw Amy, Rory and Matt for longer, and got to know them more then yeah they're the best team the TARDIS ever had by far in the revival.
(My favourite trio overall still has to be Jamie, Zoe and 2, though Matt, Arthur and Karen are next in line after them to be honest.)
Looking forward to the Snowmen tomorrow. That's a big favourite of mine. Cool Victorian setting, Richard E Grant hamming it up as a ridiculous villain and Victorian Clara. All perfect. It's hard to believe though I've only got a couple more episodes after this and then I'm done.
Why do you think they cancelled New Who in 2013? It was doing so well. I know there was that rumour about the next series having an episode where the Brig was a Cyberman and the Master was a woman and the Doctor (who was also President of the Earth) was going to get off with her, but that was a hoax clearly. They definitely shouldn't have stopped making it in 2013, though given the culture war that's raged since maybe it had a lucky escape.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Aug 5, 2024 19:25:19 GMT
Tooth and Claw
Usually like this one, but switched it off after twenty minutes. One of those classic "it was much better when I was a kid" experiences.
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Aug 5, 2024 20:30:28 GMT
Tooth and Claw Usually like this one, but switched it off after twenty minutes. One of those classic "it was much better when I was a kid" experiences. It's funny I think New Who and Old Who should be rewatched in completely different ways. With Classic Who you can pick out any random story. I'm not doing a Paul Cornell here and saying DW had no continuity, but many stories were made as essentially one offs, with any continuity links being handled in such a way where you could enjoy them on their own, and you wouldn't be put off watching an earlier story. On the contrary you might think "I want to see how Davros made the Daleks.." As they'd give you just a bit of info so it seems tantalizing, but not flashbacks or full descriptions of the plot or anything like that. Of course you can watch Classic Who from the start if you want and plenty of people have enjoyed it that way. However the fact that is so long and vast can put people off. Also it's unique multi episode format can seem a bit daunting at first if you're not used to it, and to overcome that along with the other limitations of the very early Hartnell stories can be a bit much for a brand new viewer. On top of that the fact that a huge chunk of it is missing can serve as a further obstacle that I can imagine can make a lot of people say "oh no I don't want to make that kind of commitment." That's why if you want to introduce people to the show I'd say show them 10 random stories from all Doctors eras. That will introduce them to the world, the character, the format and after that if they like it they can pick stories to watch. (I'd say Remembrance is the best first story to introduce people to the show with.) New Who meanwhile I've never ever had a hankering to watch just random episodes of it. I think you have a better appreciate if you watch it right the way through (well up until series 7.) New Who ironically before they embraced the bullshit "no continuity" rule actually had really good, tight continuity, more so than the original and part of what set it apart in a good way from the original, was that you felt like you were watching the story of the characters unfold. Not just the Doctor, but the companions who we get to know a bit better, the seasonal story arcs, even the villains who we see undergo an arc like the Daleks, the Cybermen, the Master and the Silence etc. Whilst I'm not saying there are no good stand alone episodess, even then I feel that given how much shorter and thinner the stories are, that watching them on their own kind of feels a bit underwhelming. To be fair the same is true of many, many tv shows like Once Upon A Time. Still ironically whilst new who has often been said to be more accessible, I think the classic era is as I can always rewatch random classic stories for entertainment, even if I'm not in a big DW mood, where as with the revival I have to think okay I really want to get back into this world in order to plow right the way through it. |
|
|
|
Post by mott1 on Aug 5, 2024 20:59:05 GMT
Tooth and Claw Usually like this one, but switched it off after twenty minutes. One of those classic "it was much better when I was a kid" experiences. It's funny I think New Who and Old Who should be rewatched in completely different ways. With Classic Who you can pick out any random story. I'm not doing a Paul Cornell here and saying DW had no continuity, but many stories were made as essentially one offs, with any continuity links being handled in such a way where you could enjoy them on their own, and you wouldn't be put off watching an earlier story. On the contrary you might think "I want to see how Davros made the Daleks.." As they'd give you just a bit of info so it seems tantalizing, but not flashbacks or full descriptions of the plot or anything like that. Of course you can watch Classic Who from the start if you want and plenty of people have enjoyed it that way. However the fact that is so long and vast can put people off. Also it's unique multi episode format can seem a bit daunting at first if you're not used to it, and to overcome that along with the other limitations of the very early Hartnell stories can be a bit much for a brand new viewer. On top of that the fact that a huge chunk of it is missing can serve as a further obstacle that I can imagine can make a lot of people say "oh no I don't want to make that kind of commitment." That's why if you want to introduce people to the show I'd say show them 10 random stories from all Doctors eras. That will introduce them to the world, the character, the format and after that if they like it they can pick stories to watch. (I'd say Remembrance is the best first story to introduce people to the show with.) New Who meanwhile I've never ever had a hankering to watch just random episodes of it. I think you have a better appreciate if you watch it right the way through (well up until series 7.) New Who ironically before they embraced the bullshit "no continuity" rule actually had really good, tight continuity, more so than the original and part of what set it apart in a good way from the original, was that you felt like you were watching the story of the characters unfold. Not just the Doctor, but the companions who we get to know a bit better, the seasonal story arcs, even the villains who we see undergo an arc like the Daleks, the Cybermen, the Master and the Silence etc. Whilst I'm not saying there are no good stand alone episodess, even then I feel that given how much shorter and thinner the stories are, that watching them on their own kind of feels a bit underwhelming. To be fair the same is true of many, many tv shows like Once Upon A Time. Still ironically whilst new who has often been said to be more accessible, I think the classic era is as I can always rewatch random classic stories for entertainment, even if I'm not in a big DW mood, where as with the revival I have to think okay I really want to get back into this world in order to plow right the way through it. Nu Who, for the most part, put me off story arcs. Even Joss Whedon lost his way doing them, with 3 series of Buffy and 1 series of Angel struggling to make sense. And Doll House proved that it’s virtually impossible to do an arc AND a high concept idea in a shorter run. Burrun is right, it’s easier to enjoy Classic Who without teasers or archenemies robbing screen time! Among other things… |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Aug 5, 2024 21:57:05 GMT
It's funny I think New Who and Old Who should be rewatched in completely different ways. With Classic Who you can pick out any random story. I'm not doing a Paul Cornell here and saying DW had no continuity, but many stories were made as essentially one offs, with any continuity links being handled in such a way where you could enjoy them on their own, and you wouldn't be put off watching an earlier story. On the contrary you might think "I want to see how Davros made the Daleks.." As they'd give you just a bit of info so it seems tantalizing, but not flashbacks or full descriptions of the plot or anything like that. Of course you can watch Classic Who from the start if you want and plenty of people have enjoyed it that way. However the fact that is so long and vast can put people off. Also it's unique multi episode format can seem a bit daunting at first if you're not used to it, and to overcome that along with the other limitations of the very early Hartnell stories can be a bit much for a brand new viewer. On top of that the fact that a huge chunk of it is missing can serve as a further obstacle that I can imagine can make a lot of people say "oh no I don't want to make that kind of commitment." That's why if you want to introduce people to the show I'd say show them 10 random stories from all Doctors eras. That will introduce them to the world, the character, the format and after that if they like it they can pick stories to watch. (I'd say Remembrance is the best first story to introduce people to the show with.) New Who meanwhile I've never ever had a hankering to watch just random episodes of it. I think you have a better appreciate if you watch it right the way through (well up until series 7.) New Who ironically before they embraced the bullshit "no continuity" rule actually had really good, tight continuity, more so than the original and part of what set it apart in a good way from the original, was that you felt like you were watching the story of the characters unfold. Not just the Doctor, but the companions who we get to know a bit better, the seasonal story arcs, even the villains who we see undergo an arc like the Daleks, the Cybermen, the Master and the Silence etc. Whilst I'm not saying there are no good stand alone episodess, even then I feel that given how much shorter and thinner the stories are, that watching them on their own kind of feels a bit underwhelming. To be fair the same is true of many, many tv shows like Once Upon A Time. Still ironically whilst new who has often been said to be more accessible, I think the classic era is as I can always rewatch random classic stories for entertainment, even if I'm not in a big DW mood, where as with the revival I have to think okay I really want to get back into this world in order to plow right the way through it. Nu Who, for the most part, put me off story arcs. Even Joss Whedon lost his way doing them, with 3 series of Buffy and 1 series of Angel struggling to make sense. And Doll House proved that it’s virtually impossible to do an arc AND a high concept idea in a shorter run. Burrun is right, it’s easier to enjoy Classic Who without teasers or archenemies robbing screen time! Among other things… In some ways classic who did have arcs, like the Davros arc that ran from Genesis to Remembrance. However I guess if we're talking seasonal arcs, which is what most people mean (and what I meant) that's a different thing. I mean everything will have stories that go on. Hardly any show can be made up of complete one offs. Even Lost in Space had stories that went on like them being trapped on a particular planet, but again that's not the same as an arc like Bad Wolf. Seasonal arcs can be very tricky to get right. Even more so if you have them all link together as part of a super arc. Babylon 5, Supernatural (only up to season 5) and Spider-Man TAS were the most successful at doing those kinds of arcs. Sadly however others who've tried it have tended to fall by the way side I admit, which makes it all the more baffling that so many shows insist on doing them. Ironically I personally enjoyed New Who's arcs. Not to sound contrary for the sake of it, but I think New Who had better luck than other series with its arcs. To be fair that's because they were a bit more basic than other shows. For the first four years they were essentially big bad of the year, but that worked for me. It gave me something to look forward to at the end of a season, allowed them to tie up loose ends, but it didn't take over every episode so if you don't like Mr Saxon, well you have ten episodes where he basically isn't there. Also they don't do the worst thing that arcs do which is drag the series down a hole they can't get out of. The Daleks are done and dusted at the end of series 1 and we don't have to revisit that again. I also think that when you look at the whole thing the RTD era's super arc with the Cult of Skaro works really well. Lot's of little things that are small touches that you pick up on in the rewatch like Mr Cooper from Voyage of the Damned being the one who sets up the foundation that saves them all in Joruney's End. Matt Smith's arcs I'll give you were a mess. It's such a shame as the Silence arc starts out brilliantly in season 5, but it just goes off a cliff in S6 and whilst they do at least tie it up in s7, I didn't like the backstory for the Silence. Still even then I don't think it had quite as many problems as some of my other favourite shows. Classic who for instance I think f*cked up more to tell you the truth the few times it tried to do a seasonal arc, rather than an ongoing story like Davros. The Key To Time season is brilliant, BUT the actual arc comes to a very anti climactic ending that doesn't make any sense. Trial of a Time Lord is bollocks meanwhile and unlike the new who arc takes over an entire season. The McCoy era meanwhile has an amazing arc in Fenric, but even then it's arguably a bit more slight than the New Who ones. Xena meanwhile like Classic Who was better when it was mostly self contained with stories running across years. When it did story arcs, well it had one good one. Alti's vision in season 4, which is kickass, but prior to that the Dahak arc again has some great twists like Hope (one of my favourite villains,) but it is very anti climactic and the Gods one is one of the worst stories in the history of tv. Blake's 7 had a decent arc with Star One, but it never really developed it that much and then seemed to abandon the concept of arcs after. The Flash had two of the best of all time in its first two seasons, but its arcs after were either lazy retreads of the first two, or really bad. I also agree that Buffy struggled with its arcs a bit more towards the end. Season 1's is great fun with a brilliant main villain who has a cool masterplan and interesting lore. Season 2 and 3, the villains masterplan and the lore behind it is fairly bland, but the character dynamics between the heroes and the villains like Angelus and Faith more than make up for it. Season 4's arc is okay. I don't hate it like everyone else and it has some great twists like Spike being chipped, season 5's arc meanwhile is like season 1 in that the arc is great because of the main villain and the interesting lore, with Glory having a less personal connection to the hero than Angelus and Faith. Season 6 is in theory a good arc with Dark Willow it just takes too long to build up with Dark Willow only showing up at the end. I HATE the Trio with a vengeance meanwhile. Season 7 well it has some fantastic concepts and characters like the Turok Han who are among my favourite vampire variants, but the actual story is a complete f*cking mess. It really makes no sense and when you watch it back the First is as stupid as Harmony LOL. Angel meanwhile I think might have dealt with arcs in the worst possible way of any of my favourite shows. None of its seasonal arcs do much for me I'm afraid. Its two best seasons are the only two to not have big story arcs. Season 1 and season 5. Sure there are ongoing stories in those seasons, but that's not the same thing. Two and three are good seasons meanwhile, but the Darla/Holtz arcs kind of write the show into a corner where it gives Angel a baby and then they have to think of a way to get rid of the baby, as a baby isn't a good fit for an action show which leads to other complications. It's funny Xena did a similarly AWFUL arc about her getting a baby that they had to git rid of by having the baby get older and go evil and be involved in a creepy love triangle with Xena's love interest, ALL the same shit points that we'd see in Angel. Xena's came first, but that's what made it so insane! First of all why the f*ck would you want to copy that arc, and second that Xena arc only happened because the leading lady got pregnant. The writers had to throw out an entire season and incorporate that and said it was slapdash and badly done. You don't have that problem obviously with Angel, so why put yourself through it willingly? Season 4 meanwhile is an absolute joke of an arc that was made up on the fly and much like Trial is even worse because you can't get away from it. Finally Lost meanwhile I don't think held together quite as well. It wasn't a disaster as others claimed, but the arc I think did suffer a bit towards the end. They're very hard to pull off. |
|
