|
|
Post by rushy on Jan 13, 2024 22:17:25 GMT
Yeah, but it's not like RTD is averse to referencing Chibnall stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by RobFilth on Jan 15, 2024 0:25:47 GMT
Yeah, but it's not like RTD is averse to referencing Chibnall stuff. That's only because Chinballs is RTD's half-witted fawning grovelling acolyte and prodigy. |
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Feb 23, 2024 16:05:11 GMT
It was shit. It was nothing more than an extension of RTD's own ego. It was a tribute to RTD from RTD.
For the record, the trans character is irrelevant to the fact that it was shit, and nothing really to do with WHY it was shit, in the sense that writing the character so badly is what was shit.
It always comes back to bad writing in the end, and the identarian political dialogue was unbelievably corny and clumsy. I think that alone was worse than anything Chibnall wrote in that regard. it's the same as I never objected to a female Doctor per se, so long as there's story behind it that presents solid reason why something of such magnitude could happen. But Jodie was awful, and it was all just done for entirely the wrong reasons; the motivation being purely political and nothing more. It was utterly disingenuous, as was The Star Beast.
I genuinely think that Davies entirely perceives himself as the saviour of Dr Who. It impregnated the entire episode on every level. Even the new Tardis scene was utterly self-congratulatory, right down to Tennant running manically round the new Tardis interior shouting THIS IS AMAZING!! I mean I'm all in favour of a trans character, but the dialogue was woeful. I mean Why make the Doctor look a twat? It's not like Tennant needs any help. But basically, whatever you think of 'the message', his way of conveying said 'message' is just infantile. That's always been the problem with NuWho from day one.
I mean for the most part , Classic Who used to deal with injustice in allegorical or metaphorical terms. It made the viewer think; to transpose the message in the story to actual events in the news in their own lives.
But with the NuWho wankers just deliver issues of social justice in the most patronising and clunky ways possible so the producers and writers can publicly pat themselves on the back at how amazingly progressive they are.
It's so cynical that it drives away many people who might be receptive and empathetic to certain issues. They feel like they're being preached at. The 'message' isn't really integral to the story; it's just shoehorned in.
|
|
|
|
Post by UncleDeadly on Feb 23, 2024 16:26:46 GMT
Classic Who used to deal with injustice in allegorical or metaphorical terms. It made the viewer think; to transpose the message in the story to actual events in the news in their own lives. My GOD, someone used the "A" word. +100 Hive points... |
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Feb 23, 2024 16:33:00 GMT
Classic Who used to deal with injustice in allegorical or metaphorical terms. It made the viewer think; to transpose the message in the story to actual events in the news in their own lives. My GOD, someone used the "A" word. +100 Hive points...  |
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Feb 29, 2024 11:06:40 GMT
I mean for the most part , Classic Who used to deal with injustice in allegorical or metaphorical terms. It made the viewer think; to transpose the message in the story to actual events in the news in their own lives. Indeed. There's a gaping chasm between being asked to actively speculate or think about a subject, and merely being told what to think. Mind you, I suspect Davies is fully aware of this difference. I don't personally subscribe to the notion that he's necessarily merely thick- instead, he holds his audience in contempt and assumes their inherent inability to think. |
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Feb 29, 2024 14:26:23 GMT
I mean for the most part , Classic Who used to deal with injustice in allegorical or metaphorical terms. It made the viewer think; to transpose the message in the story to actual events in the news in their own lives. Indeed. There's a gaping chasm between being asked to actively speculate or think about a subject, and merely being told what to think. Mind you, I suspect Davies is fully aware of this difference. I don't personally subscribe to the notion that he's necessarily merely thick- instead, he holds his audience in contempt and assumes their inherent inability to think. I agree in the sense that he's fully aware of what he's doing, but nevertheless he's insincere, and i do find some of his performative stances, like the whole Davros thing for example; utterly stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Feb 29, 2024 15:40:17 GMT
Indeed. There's a gaping chasm between being asked to actively speculate or think about a subject, and merely being told what to think. Mind you, I suspect Davies is fully aware of this difference. I don't personally subscribe to the notion that he's necessarily merely thick- instead, he holds his audience in contempt and assumes their inherent inability to think. I agree in the sense that he's fully aware of what he's doing, but nevertheless he's insincere, and i do find some of his performative stances, like the whole Davros thing for example; utterly stupid. Ah, so "we" should view Davros in a specific visual (and conceptually/historically inaccurate to Doctor Who) image because you dictate it. Thanks, Russell. I'm sorry for not knowing any better beforehand. But I have to ask: Why didn't you know any better when casting Julian Bleach in the original design 15 years earlier? Honestly, what insulting bollocks. "Things used to be in black and white". What "things"? Russell, are you referring to the world in general or to film stock? This lack of specificity wouldn't pass in court. "Monochrome is problematic. If only Vittorio De Sica knew this when he directed Bicycle Thieves (1948), or Waris Hussein when he directed An Unearthly Child. Silly blokes. We can't blame them at all, but the world changes, and there's a problem with the monochrome formats of old. And we know this because I say so." He's also insinuating that a drastic change in physical design devoid of diegetic/"in-world" explanation is comparable to a technical alteration which doesn't influence the basic narrative. No one seriously believes this, and certainly not him. There's a reason he injects " I say" in that clip; his superficial authorial authority is all he can rely on to make it convincing. As my Dad put it at the time: "He sounds like Keir Starmer after engaging in another witch hunt". |
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Mar 1, 2024 21:36:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Spark Doll King on Mar 4, 2024 0:22:22 GMT
At the rate we're going I won't be surprised if I hear someone associated with the show stating "There's been a long and problematic history of associating the daleks with nazis, and I had problems with that..."
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Mar 9, 2024 19:28:22 GMT
Waris Hussein...Silly blokes. Bugger. It turns out he is a silly bloke after all... |
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Mar 9, 2024 19:42:04 GMT
At the rate we're going I won't be surprised if I hear someone associated with the show stating "There's been a long and problematic history of associating the daleks with nazis, and I had problems with that..." "We had long conversations about bringing Sutekh back because he's a fantastic character. Time and society and culture and taste has moved on, and there's a problem with the Sutekh of old in that he's an immobile man who is evil. And I had problems with that- and a lot of us on the production team had problems with that- of associating immobility with evil, and trust me, there's a very long tradition of this. I'm not blaming people in the past at all, but the world changes, and when the world changes, Doctor Who has to change as well. So we made the choice to bring back Sutekh without his immobility, making him capable of ultra-speed (ala The Flash). I say, this is how we see Sutekh now." |
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Sept 17, 2024 16:42:32 GMT
The identity politics were nuclear cringe. And I don't like how schmaltzy RTD has gotten. The rest of it was fun. Very manic, but fun. Absolutely loved Miriam Margoyles' performance. The new TARDIS looks glorious. I'd say it's about on par with the Capaldi era in terms of quality. NuWho's presentation of politics has always bothered me in a way that Classic Who didn't. It's almost an assault in how heavy handed it can be. The Star Beast is an example of Russell thinking certain things are of extreme importance in the grand scheme of things when they're really not. Did the narrative need to pause for Rose to call the Doctor up on assuming the Meep's gender? Are we at the point where everything anyone says or does is put under a magnifying glass? |
|
|
|
Post by iank on Sept 18, 2024 6:11:24 GMT
It's also an example of him stealing other people's work, which is all he seems to do these days. I guess when you're a soap writer masquerading as a genre writer that's all you can do...
|
|
