|
|
Post by iank on Feb 22, 2024 6:19:55 GMT
The man is a gibbering moron.
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Feb 22, 2024 8:50:20 GMT
I broadly agree with you guys tbh, but I was pretty high last night and to be fair that's the experience I had when I was at school It's okay we all say stupid things. I used to call Tommy Robinson a British hero. Ask anyone here it's true. That's way more embarrassing. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Feb 22, 2024 9:38:25 GMT
Lost me at "And regeneration isn’t important..." I mean, it only prevented the show's cancellation...twice. Good to see you back Henshin. I'd imagine this thread isn't the best for you given your love of the RTD era. Still as you know we all go through periods where we find out our favourites are arseholes in some way. Buffy was THE most important show to me during my troubled teenage years and made me realise I wanted to be a writer, even more than Classic Who. However yeah Joss Whedon has shown himself to be an arsehole again and again. Or maybe he's just too nice LOL. Probably the former. It wasn't his fault he shagged all those extras. They were just too good looking. I still say underneath all the Heat Magazine jokes, RTD was actually a good sci fi writer. When he is forced to write a story on another world, another time, or with a stronger sci fi concept he does quite well. His problems were ultimately being put in the showrunner position, (which is terrible for any writer to be fair) his ego, and his lack of respect for the original show, mixed in with his desire to exploit it. Also yes those regeneration comments are stupid and hilariously ironic when you consider what happened to the concept during and after his era by his mates. Regeneration in classic who = An advanced form of healing. It repairs a damaged body by rebuilding it and as a result changes its appearance. His outer personality is given a slight shake up by both the process and simply living in a new body, but his core personality, his consciousness, his memories are all the same, and he can only do this 12 times. Simple straight forward, allows the character to live beyond just one actor and can let the new boy reinterpret it in some ways, but also still allows the Doctor to have a core identity and be a character rather than just a title, which can be developed across multiple incarnations and also gives long time viewers a reason to keep watching as they love the character. Finally it prevents the show from losing its real identity along the way. It is also a fairly quiet process that often happens when he is lying down and sometimes even asleep. Less is more when it's already an over the top idea. It's akin to a caterpillar wrapping itself in a cacoon and changing into a butterfly. Quiet physically yet a big change symbolically. Regeneration in new who = He actually dies completely, his mind burns up and only the memories remain, which just raises more questions like.... what the hell is the point of it anyway? Also how does Time Lord society work? If everything about you changes, suppose you are happily married to a woman and then your next incarnation is a homosexual? Or suppose we have a leader who is a Jeremy Corbyn type of a guy, who regenerates and his next persona is like Adolf Hitler? That said whenever it is convenient we will make out that he is the same character like Matt to Capaldi, and in other times we'll make out that previous Doctors minds still live in his head, making it a horrifying process where all those Doctors we liked are trapped in some barren desert like afterlife within the current Doctors mind. Oh and also when he regenerates he explodes! Again how does that work on Gallifrey? Also how did they lose the Time War, if one of them blowing up kills millions of Daleks? On top of that he can also hack bits of himself off and use regeneration to create a clone of himself. He can also use regeneration to repel bullets, heal people, give people time lord powers, which they can then just dispose of, and he can change sex and apparently must now represent every single type of person on earth, leading to there being no core identity for the character and casting him is now a gigantic political minefield, also he can turn into animals (meaning when the Doctor has eaten meat in the past he is a sort of cannibal if he was say once a cow) and he has billions of regenerations and we are going to show a regeneration in almost every series of new who. Hmm let's see. Series 1, Eccelston. Series 3, The Master Series 4, Tenth Doctor Metacrisis. 2009 specials , "I don't want to go." Series 6, Matt's fake out regeneration and River's real one, in fact technically she has three, the little girl, Mel and then the energy to cure Matt. Series 7, Matt to Capaldi. Series 9, The General's Regenderation. Series 10, Capaldi's regeneration. Series 12, Timeless Children regeneration of which we see what like 7 on screen? 2022 specials, Jodie's regeneration. 2023 specials, Bi regeneration. How many did they show in Classic Who again? 7 on screen and that's it! 5 Doctors, Romana and Knappo. All the Masters and Borusa's happened off screen as did Troughton's, and even then most of Romana's single regeneration happened off screen too, so really 6 and a half. Finally we have the bi regeneration process where not only does he split into two, but he creates entire universes, including all the suffering in them when he changes and some Doctors will be condemned to an eternity of torment like Jon Pertwee who is dying of radiation poisoning and Eccelston whose entire body was destroyed but now can't die, or regenerate. Also does this mean there is a universe where Davros won? I mean it was only that bullshit metacrisis that led to Davros and the Daleks plan to destroy every universe being foiled, so if there is a universe where Tennant woke up fine, then no metacrisis and bam. Destruction of all reality itself! Yeah RTD you and your mates really made that process more accessible to the average viewer. Again though the people I actually blame more than any other are the sell out classic era fans. I wasn't even asking them to disown new who. I was simply asking them to make a distinction between classic who and new who, point out that New Who at least was like Christopher Lee's Dracula to Bela Lugosi's Dracula, IE a totally different interpretation, which would have allowed classic who's identity to be preserved for other possible remakes and alternate sequels in the future and the new who fans to have their version, and people who just like the basic concept to appreciate both. However that was beyond them because they were so insecure about the original, so shallow in wanting to be popular, and best of all so out of touch they were stuck in the 00s as the zeitgeist moved on and the new who formula itself became dated (far more so than old who's ever did.) They are the ones who tried to force both of these incompatible shows together and spread bullshit lies in websites and official biographies like the Master wanted to shag the Doctor etc. They made DW in general a jumbled mess and will go down as the worst fans of all time. Again when you compare them to Godzilla fans it's f*cking hilarious. (Speaking of which I cut out my what I would have liked to have seen from a modern Godzilla bit from that previous post as that was off topic and boring even by my standards.) |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Feb 27, 2024 19:01:27 GMT
To be fair to Clockwork though I don't think he was saying bullied kids deserve it in general. I think he was just saying that Cornell is such a condescending git, who constantly calls people sexist, talks down to them, arrogantly assumes everyone is stupid but him, and is himself a cliquey bully, that maybe that's why lots of people hated him? The tone of that entire revolting exchange is eerily familiar to me as someone went to a school with more than its fair share of spoilt, upper middle class brats. The cliquiness, the pompous self-congratulation, the unearned sense of superiority as they sit in the corner giggling about the unworthiness of their presumed inferiors. If the Fitzroyers' contempt for science fiction is motivated by a belief that liking it is what made them unpopular growing up, then they ought to re-examine that belief. Everything about their 30+ years in the public eye would indicate that they're simply terrible people who deserve to be treated with absolute disdain. That's okay I didn't think you were condoning bullying at all. I know you, and know you wouldn't do that. You were just saying you thought Cornell in particular who comes over as such an elitist snob, making out DW fans in general aren't as smart as him, or on his wave length etc, it's not hard to see why lots of people would hate him. To be fair though maybe outside of the DW world he isn't like that at all? I mean we can all get a bit carried away with the show and have had fallings outs even with each other here over silly fandom politics. Hell me and Claudia used to be on bad terms somewhat over stupid little fandom opinions and cliques LOL now I consider her one of my best friends and one of the best people I know in general. Even Omie a guy I used to hate on GB and who at one point I believe set up an account on the old hive and turned away after a few mins he couldn't stand me so much. Me and him are friends now! I'll give Paul the benefit of the doubt with this in mind as far as how he may be in real life. (Granted I've been a bit bitchy about RTD so I'm not going to act all high and superior LOL, but to be fair RTD does outright swear at people online and certainly comes over as more of an overt bully with things like his treatment of Eccelston. Big difference between that, and Paul just being a pompous, self absorbed wanker in a conversation with his friends. Ditto Benjamin Cook with his treatment of Claudia and others. Never heard anything like that about Paul in all fariness to him. ) Still whatever he's like in real life, Paul Cornell certainly when it comes not just to DW, but sci fi and fantasy in general comes over as an upper middle class, cliquey brat who looks down on most other fans in the genre for one reason or another. It's okay to have critiques of fandom obviously, but with Paul's there is an air of elitism, where it's not just fandom politics but that they are actually inferior to him as a person. Either they are just not as enlightened as him, re his politics over petty things like a female Doctor, or they aren't as well read or as intelligent as him or they are losers compared to him etc. It's all just about how wonderful he is compared to the rest of the backward fandom. Also I might add his ego is misplaced. I'm not going to shit on his work, as at the end of the day that is all just taste, but Jesus Christ if he's such a brilliant writer whose work is too much for a feeble mind like mine and the rest of us who just want bad tv to understand, why is he wasting his time with DW? Similarly if he is the most enlightened man in sci fi fandom, who cares about female, LGBT and non white characters sooooo much more than manbabies who just want a male Doctor, why the f*ck does he not go out there and create more minority and female characters, or at the very least, use his platform as a popular writer to write more reviews and bring more attention to female led things and female created forms of entertainment? Why is it almost always male led and created forms of entertainment that he talks about, from Sherlock Holmes, to Hammer Horror movies, to classic who? Not to boast, but I have created far more female led things and tried to bring more attention to female led and created forms of entertainment in my smaller platform than he ever has in his decades long career, and I'm the epitome of the type of fan he would look down on for wanting my DW to "be like bad television." Would you guys know about Dionne Bromfield if it wasn't for me LOL. Really Paul in the sci fi world is just a classic example of small name big ego and is completely up his own arse. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Feb 28, 2024 10:01:15 GMT
 Imagine him actually liking that comment. |
|
|
|
Post by iank on Feb 28, 2024 20:44:35 GMT
I'm sure he gets off on it. He's like a spiteful little child.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Feb 29, 2024 17:49:35 GMT
I heard that Davies recently turned up at Oxbridge again for a Q&A, hosted by a man who was once chair of the EHRC (an organisation fully complicit in the Corbyn/antisemitism smear campaign). Here are a list of questions he presumably wasn't asked out of "necessity":
"Why are most gay characters in your dramas vacuous, self-serving and stereotypically promiscuous?"
"Why does Eccleston think you're a twat?"
"Did you personally approve of John Barrowman's penis becoming a common object for exposure?"
"Did Andrew Cartmel really think you were rubbish?"
"How does changing a character's long-standing design aid disabled people in the slightest?"
|
|
|
|
Post by cyberhat on Mar 2, 2024 10:33:26 GMT
"Why are most gay characters in your dramas vacuous, self-serving and stereotypically promiscuous?" This is a good question. I don't think RTD has advanced the cause of gay rights one bit. All the gay people he writes are horrible. The Naked Civil Servant was, and shall remain, the number one homophobia cure to come from British television. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Mar 3, 2024 17:31:05 GMT
"Why are most gay characters in your dramas vacuous, self-serving and stereotypically promiscuous?" This is a good question. I don't think RTD has advanced the cause of gay rights one bit. All the gay people he writes are horrible. The Naked Civil Servant was, and shall remain, the number one homophobia cure to come from British television. Also remember that Quentin Crisp was played by John Hurt a womanizer in real life. I only bring that up because RTD also said that only gay actors should play gay characters. Such a brain dead statement. As seen with John Hurt some of the best performances of gay men have been by straight actors, whilst alternatively some of the best performances of straight men have come from gay actors, like Jon Glover a gay man's brilliant performance as creepy letch Lionel Luthor. That's why they call it...... acting Russell. Again though as I said in the last post, I think we're at a time when we should just be writing gay people as normal. The couple from Two Doors Down, Sammy from Camp Cretaceous etc are all gay characters that are just normal people. It's absolutely fine to still do things like The Naked Civil Servant to come at it from a historical context and to do modern dramas that touch on gay people's lives the way that other dramas do for other sections of society. However the point is we need to see gay characters integrated into stories that aren't about them being gay if that makes sense. Sammy, a lesbian woman can star in Camp Cretaceous and yes you can give her a lesbian romance in it, but that doesn't mean it has to be a statement for gay rights, or a comment on being gay in today's world. It's a romance in a story that's still about Dinosaurs and adventure. Similarly Two Doors Down is still just a sitcom, and them being a gay couple is just part of the dynamic. With this in mind, yes a gay companion in DW who is just a normal person, that gets caught up in the adventures with monsters and so on, is absolutely fine. The only problem with Russell is again that he is ironically incapable of doing that, hence why he has to completely rewrite the Doctors entire character to make him gay, stick in crude, inappropriate sexual references and again write his gay characters as cliches to fit his own narrow view point. Incidentally does anyone remember when Caitlin Moran said that RTD was responsible for gay marriage being legalized because of Captain Jack? Yeah I don't think she'd be saying that now. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2024 21:02:46 GMT
I'm gonna come out of left field here and say that RTD's portrayal of gay men has been consistently accurate. Yeah, it's quite unsavoury and glorifies some of the worst aspects of homosexual life, but it's not exactly uncharacteristic of the real world. A large part of a young gay man's life is going to be comprised of promiscuity and hookup culture. Heck, nowadays that's the case for most straight people. I don't even have a problem with portraying us as soft, effeminate, etc. because quite often that is genuinely the case, it certainly is for me.
Yet, I still have a problem with him. The artistic vision would be fairly sound if he just kept his mouth shut, but hearing what he has to say makes me realise that no, the attitudes of his characters aren't down to realism and a devotion to portraying the worldly truth within art, they're based on his pet hates and misinformed ideas of how people should act in the world. What I thought was gritty realism was really just warped ideological imposition. Years and Years in particular got on my tits for this. The day someone creates a post-2016 film or TV show that reverently and truthfully portrays these subject matters will be the day I die.
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Mar 4, 2024 11:03:04 GMT
I'm gonna come out of left field here and say that RTD's portrayal of gay men has been consistently accurate. Yeah, it's quite unsavoury and glorifies some of the worst aspects of homosexual life, but it's not exactly uncharacteristic of the real world. A large part of a young gay man's life is going to be comprised of promiscuity and hookup culture. Heck, nowadays that's the case for most straight people. I don't even have a problem with portraying us as soft, effeminate, etc. because quite often that is genuinely the case, it certainly is for me. Yet, I still have a problem with him. The artistic vision would be fairly sound if he just kept his mouth shut, but hearing what he has to say makes me realise that no, the attitudes of his characters aren't down to realism and a devotion to portraying the worldly truth within art, they're based on his pet hates and misinformed ideas of how people should act in the world. What I thought was gritty realism was really just warped ideological imposition. Years and Years in particular got on my tits for this. The day someone creates a post-2016 film or TV show that reverently and truthfully portrays these subject matters will be the day I die. Sorry I disagree that it's representative. Yes gay culture in the 70s and the 80s was extremely promiscuous. Those decades for gay people were essentially what the sexual revolution was for straight people in the 60s and 70s. In both cases sexuality had just been so repressed that it exploded when it was finally given even just the tiniest bit of leeway. However 40 years on that is somewhat outdated. Lot's of gay people nowadays don't fulfill those stereotypes at all. Also I think hook up culture is definitely becoming a thing of the past. Most people I know from later millennials to generation Z's meet online via dating apps rather than in night clubs. I honestly haven't known any couples that first met in bars or even in the real world LOL. All dating apps. Furthermore pubs, clubs etc are all dying these days, sadly. I think this change has come about for many reasons, mostly the younger generations perhaps being a bit more coddled and being afraid of going out into the real world, obviously COVID which took two years off of the young generations lives (which when you're young is an eternity, and very important in your development.) Also just the influence of the internet too. The truth is a lot of people just didn't like hook up culture, as it was horrible. You had to put yourself out there, if you were a woman, yes there was a physical danger of some creep roofieing you, clubs are loud, unpleasant, sleazy places, you get drunk and go home with someone who might be dangerous or a creep etc. It's an unpleasant atmosphere and people only did it, to meet people. The internet cut that out via dating apps and allowed you just to get the good bits. Of course that's not to say that predators can't exploit dating apps and lure you in that way, but it's definitely more difficult than in clubs, where any creep can take advantage of someone drunk. The downside to this though is that I think the younger generations are more isolated and lonely until they meet their partners and tend to think of themselves as losers who should be out all the time. Also whilst I don't like sleazy club culture, pubs are a great thing. They do create a sense of community and yes can be good ways for people to meet in safer circumstances. It's a shame that they are dying out too. Still for better or for worse I definitely think younger people these days, gay and straight are relying on dating apps and therefore go through fewer partners these days. Again I'm not saying that you still don't get flirty gay men. (Men in general have a higher sex drive so it makes sense.) Also yes obviously you get plenty of campy, effeminate gay men too. I've known lots of guys like that, and that's fine. Last thing I want is to push an idea that gay men like that are traitors, living up to stereotypes LOL. Still at the end of the day, there is no reason for a gay guy to be portrayed that way as ultimately being gay is just well it's just being gay LOL. Anything beyond simple same sex attraction, are cultural stereotypes being ingrained in people, which hey we're all victim too. If you're someone who doesn't care about stereotypes and is laid back about it, fine, have as many flaming homosexual characters as you want. As I said they are actually a charming stereotype. However if you're someone like RTD who is constantly praised as a great man, who changes iconic characters that have been around for 50 plus years like Davros to get rid of stereotypes that aren't even there, then yeah it's pretty hypocritical to almost always portray gay men that way. Again though I don't even think RTD is ideological. He is just a narcissist in some ways who only sees things from his own, shallow horizon. He lived right the way through the gay sexual revolution, so all gay men have to be written through that lens so to speak. The very idea that there are gay men who don't operate that way, would be offensive to him as it would mean his perspective isn't the only one. |
|
