RTD and Eric Saward comparisons

[Deleted]

Jan 31, 2024 12:32:23 GMT burrunjor said:

Jan 31, 2024 12:00:08 GMT @theyakemperor said:

Unfortunately this is the reality. Pretty much every Classic Who episode has pacing issues due to its medium. I know people find it charming but I roll my eyes at every cliffhanger basically. It just stops the story dead. Add to that none of its writers were particularly adept playwrights and you get a pretty glaring overriding issue with the show. I don't think there's any shame in admitting that Classic Who was for the most part shoddily produced, shoddily edited and shoddily directed. It's a very unserious show after all, and the "don't give a shit about how tacky I look" attitude comes across well from a certain point of view I find. I enjoy it a lot, but as a period piece. I would never think to ask for something like Classic Who to come to our screens now. 

At it's best it is some of the greatest drama of the 20th century.

With all due respect, give it a rest. In what world does a middling British science-fiction show contain some of the greatest drama of the 20th century? What about Proust's In Search of Lost Time, Joyce's Ulysses, Pynchon's V., the works of Samuel Beckett, Flannery O'Connor, Virginia Woolf, William Faulkner, Cormac McCarthy, et al. And that's only literary example. The films of Fellini, Truffaut, Tarkovsky, Welles, heck, even someone like Scorsese or Coppola or even Spielberg. Even other BBC dramas do it better, like I, Claudius. I enjoy Doctor Who a lot, but the idea that it constitutes some of the greatest drama of the 20th century is laughable.

[iank]

No, most classic Who doesn't have "pacing issues". It's just that people's attention spans have been destroyed by decades of flash cutting. Look at Tik-Tok. Most of the generation hooked on that now have attention spans less than a minute.
To be honest, Yak, most of the criticisms you throw at classic Who seem to come from a complete lack of understanding of the times in which it was made and the shows it was made alongside. These "flaws" are not flaws at all, just standard program making for the era that no one at the time would have raised an eyebrow at... I've yet to hear any real reason why that style is actually lesser than more modern ones, other than attention span issues on the part of the modern viewer. 

[Deleted]

No, you're right. The thing is, classic who was supposed to be consumed 25 minutes every week. The individual episodes themselves are very fast paced for the time. If you're watching a six parter all in one sitting then of course it's going to seem a bit long and slow.

[burrunjor]

Jan 31, 2024 14:45:12 GMT @theyakemperor said:

Jan 31, 2024 12:32:23 GMT burrunjor said:

At it's best it is some of the greatest drama of the 20th century.

With all due respect, give it a rest. In what world does a middling British science-fiction show contain some of the greatest drama of the 20th century? What about Proust's In Search of Lost Time, Joyce's Ulysses, Pynchon's V., the works of Samuel Beckett, Flannery O'Connor, Virginia Woolf, William Faulkner, Cormac McCarthy, et al. And that's only literary example. The films of Fellini, Truffaut, Tarkovsky, Welles, heck, even someone like Scorsese or Coppola or even Spielberg. Even other BBC dramas do it better, like I, Claudius. I enjoy Doctor Who a lot, but the idea that it constitutes some of the greatest drama of the 20th century is laughable.

Sorry but that is just snobbery about science fiction. I'll concede that I should have said tv drama, only because tv, film, and literature are obviously different mediums and therefore you can't really compare them. 

Speaking as a huge fan of I Claudius, I fail to see how it is automatically superior to the best DW? It has ham acting, cheap looking sets, could come over as slow paced to modern audiences (more so) and is unrealistic, arguably more so as it as about real life historical figures who are turned into caricatures (which DW only did a few times LOL.)

Caligula never even slept with any of his sisters. This incest rumour came about simply because he was close with one of them Drusilla, and the idea they were an item, was spread by his enemies to slander him, but most historians agree there was no truth in it. I Claudius meanwhile used that slander, to have him sleep with all three of his sisters, sexually assault his great grandmother on her death bed, marry Drusilla, impregnate her and cut the fetus from her stomach! 

I also personally think Ford Coppola and Martin Scorcese are overrated, pretentious, snobs. Apocalypse Now bored the shit out of me, his Dracula was utter bollocks (talk about DW being campy?) The Godfather meanwhile is not only up its own arse, pretentious and boring, but portrays some of the worst, most cowardly scum on earth in a romantic way. 

Meanwhile Classic Who holds its own at its best against any other tv classic, due to its sheer creativity, imagination, versatility and its ability to reinvent itself. Those don't count for nothing. I HATE this idea that only gritty dramas about crime or war are proper drama. Imagination should be valued every bit as much as grittiness. Hell you could argue that imaginative fiction has the longest life of all. The Odyessy for instance is regarded as one of the best stories ever made, and has outlived most other forms of fiction from its time, and it is completely imaginative and crazy. 

Why do we have to wait 10000 years to value the imaginative fiction of today? DW is possibly one of the most imaginative works ever conceived and deserves to be acknowledged as such rather than a middling sci fi show. Space 1999 is a middling sci fi show ffs, not one that endured for 26 years through its unique ability to reinvent itself, and its incredible format that allowed it to cover just about every  subgenre from alien invasions, to time paradox's, to vampires, to gothic horror, to cosmic horror, to spy and espionage, to ancient mythology etc. 

Meanwhile even if you want to talk about it touching on real and serious issues, well DW also managed to cover issues like race hatred, fascism, man's destructive effect on the environment, and it often did so when other shows weren't willing to talk about it. 

For instance in the 70s the British media was all in favour of the Apartheid regime. Similarly in the McCoy era we had stories like Curse of Fenric that tackled Britain's shady dealings during the war, and its attempts to f*ck over Russia after (something which is still not known to the general public.) Indeed I think there is some snobbery about tv in how DW is perceived. If Curse of Fenric were a book it would be praised as a classic that comments on a man losing his faith in the darkest times, the horror of war and facing childhood trauma and even women' sexual liberation all whilst being a weird mix of vampire and time travel fiction. As it's one episode of a tv show however it gets lost in the shuffle, but it's still an intelligent classic nonetheless. 

Name me 7 other British tv series from the year it was broadcast that are talked about as much? 

[Deleted]

I'm sorry but if you think Doctor Who is some of the 20th century's greatest drama, you haven't read or watched widely enough. It's definitely in the running for greatest sci-fi show, but its drama is often theatrical and inconsequential. You're right though, in the hands of a Wells or a Stoker I could see Fenric working quite well as legitimate Gothic fiction. I am also definitely not opposed to the fantastical, and you are right about the Iliad, Odyssey, etc. There are indeed some great fantastical books and films; Gormenghast, Lord of the Rings, even the old Arthurian tales and Shakespeare's plays contain fantastical elements and all constitute great drama. My aversion is not to fantasy, even though the modern genre of "Fantasy" is frankly a disastrous pursuit for one to take up. No, my point is simple: the drama within Doctor Who is just not on the level of other 20th century giants. I just think it's borderline arrogant for you to reckon it some of the greatest when you haven't even read or watched what is generally considered to be the 20th century's great drama; Beckett, Nabokov, Miller, et al. Also I thought we all decided during the Whittaker era that simply illuminating social issues is not enough to be considered praiseworthy, and that this overriding idea of "themes" within TV shows and movies is what's slowly destroying the filmmaking art, something which you fail to take into account when listing off the "real and serious issues" that are merely presented and rarely discussed tactfully in DW. That's just my take though so feel free to disagree with me.

Edit: Also, I highlighted Scorsese, Coppola and Spielberg as more poppy, less prestigious directors that nonetheless manage to create drama that exceeds Doctor Who.

[burrunjor]

Feb 1, 2024 13:22:23 GMT @theyakemperor said:

I'm sorry but if you think Doctor Who is some of the 20th century's greatest drama, you haven't read or watched widely enough. It's definitely in the running for greatest sci-fi show, but its drama is often theatrical and inconsequential. You're right though, in the hands of a Wells or a Stoker I could see Fenric working quite well as legitimate Gothic fiction. I am also definitely not opposed to the fantastical, and you are right about the Iliad, Odyssey, etc. There are indeed some great fantastical books and films; Gormenghast, Lord of the Rings, even the old Arthurian tales and Shakespeare's plays contain fantastical elements and all constitute great drama. My aversion is not to fantasy, even though the modern genre of "Fantasy" is frankly a disastrous pursuit for one to take up. No, my point is simple: the drama within Doctor Who is just not on the level of other 20th century giants. I just think it's borderline arrogant for you to reckon it some of the greatest when you haven't even read or watched what is generally considered to be the 20th century's great drama; Beckett, Nabokov, Miller, et al. Also I thought we all decided during the Whittaker era that simply illuminating social issues is not enough to be considered praiseworthy, and that this overriding idea of "themes" within TV shows and movies is what's slowly destroying the filmmaking art, something which you fail to take into account when listing off the "real and serious issues" that are merely presented and rarely discussed tactfully in DW. That's just my take though so feel free to disagree with me.

Edit: Also, I highlighted Scorsese, Coppola and Spielberg as more poppy, less prestigious directors that nonetheless manage to create drama that exceeds Doctor Who.

Again though I'm not comparing DW to literature or plays like Shakespeare which are a totally different mediums with different expectations. What works in one often cannot be replicated in another, hence why film adaptations of books are rarely completely faithful, like Dracula.

You've just admitted DW is possibly the best sci fi tv show ever made, or in the running for it, well that's good enough for me to say it's one of the best dramas, or works of the 20th century, as sci fi on television is a huge and important medium of that century, and if DW can stand out as the best in that medium then yes, I think it does deserve that moniker.

Meanwhile it can also I think hold its own in terms of its creativity with sci fi stories from other mediums. Again hard to compare as they are different mediums, but for instance you mentioned Spielberg succeeding where DW failed, again I honestly fail to see how say Jurassic Park, or Close Encounters of the Third Kind, or Jaws are any better drama than say Inferno, Genesis of the Daleks, Caves of Androazni or yes Fenric, other than having slicker production values and being obviously better directed? Are they not as over the top? Clever girl is as ridiculous as any death by Dalek? Those movies are certainly not objectively worse, but not objectively better either. All have their strengths and weaknesses. Again I feel people tend to look down on the television medium compare to films, theatre and literature. 

It's understandable in a way as tv obviously is more mass produced than any other. You have to churn out about 40 DW episodes a year back in the 60s, so its no surprise that some of them will be rushed, boring, dull, just to make up numbers, unlike a film, which in the hands of a good director he will be able to focus all his attention on. Still at the same time as tv does give the actor, writers, producer more practice then it can lead to other advantages too, like stories being built up naturally over years, an actor really getting to know a character in a way that you can't even in a series of films.

I only brought up the real issues classic who tackled meanwhile, to show that when people dismiss something for being a silly sci fi show, that it can tackle real world issues too, and often be bolder in its approach due to the fact that it's wrapped up in a clever, sci fi metaphor. Meanwhile I do not think that sci fi and fantasy can never tackle real world issues, or be political. It's more how it's done that bugs me. 

I think it can absolutely work as long as the following requirements are met. 

1/ The story still stands on its own two feet as an imaginative piece of fiction that anyone can enjoy. 

2/ It's done more as a metaphor than referencing current events, as obviously depending on the events you reference it can become dated. Ie reference Trump's tweets and it'll be dated in 3 years, reference the Vietnam war and obviously not. 

3/ This is going to sound cheesy but I also think it is better if you tackle a failing human beings have, like fascism, racism etc, as then it can have more of a far reaching appeal. 

4/ That you are brave in the targets you go after. Tackle genuine sacred cows, don't just jump on bandwagons and say what everybody else is saying like "Trump is orange." 

5/ Make it part of the story, so that when it's talked about it feels like a natural conversation and isn't the heroes just standing on a soap box. 

Now classic who ironically, and tragically given its successor, did this better than any other sci fi tv show. 

The Daleks fits all those requirements for instance. As a story it still holds up as an imaginative piece of fiction filled with a well thought out alien planet, imaginative monsters, plenty of deering do etc, the Daleks themselves meanwhile whilst a metaphor for the Nazis, also comment on hating others for being different in general, mans destructive effect on the environment, and therefore are still relevant 60 years on, it also was fairly bold back then to tackle the recent horrors of WW2 in a family show, as well as race hatred in a country suffering from racial tensions, and finally it was all a natural part of the story. The characters talk about it because that's why the Daleks hate the Thals. It feels less like a lecture and more like them naturally working it out. 

The same also applies for Remembrance of the Daleks, Genesis of the Daleks, Curse of Fenric, Inferno, even a crappier story like The Mutants, whilst it may be long, plodding and dull, is still written as a sci fi story, was still brave in the target it went after, the Apartheid regime and still tackled the idea of the banality of evil quite well. Its villain isn't a Davros, Lex Luthor, Roger Delgado supervillain. He's just a little career oriented, moral vaccum like Blair, or Sunak, or Starmer. Indeed as Bernard Marx pointed out, Jon Pertwee's line "genocide as a side effect! You ought to write a paper on that professor." Is something that could apply to the situation in Palestine and the pathetic attempts to justify it with "Israel is just doing what it has too, to be safe, and it's unfortunate that some civilians have died, but it's necessary." 

A new who story like say Rosa however fails spectacularly in all these requirements. 

1/ Its plot is paper thin and only designed to get us to the big virtue signalling bit. The villain, though played by a good actor, has no motivation, no backstory, or world building. He is literally just "space racist" and is defeated in the easiest way where they flip a switch. The sci fi takes a complete back seat to the political aspect, rather than both working together.

2/ It tackles real people rather than metaphors. Sometimes this can work, but not the way this does it, where it presents every white person as a psycho racist, has the Doctor gush like a fangirl over the historical figure and worse references events today as being the same. PS the modern references date it too. Making out Obama was such a great guy and a step forward for black people? That is sooooo 2017-2019 as back then when anti Trump hysteria was at its peak, he was seen as the sane alternative. However since then his reputation among leftists has actually become worse than f*cking Donald Trump! The likes of Jimmy Dore view him as a bigger war monger (and he was) whilst others like Claudia Boleyn tend to see Obama as being more of a traitor, who promised good things, but then went back on them, didn't do much to help black people and again was a more acceptable front piece for American imperialism than the buffoonish Trump. Furthermore genocide Joe was also part of his cabinet too. 

3/ It doesn't have anything original to say about racism, and again rather than comment on something that evidently all humans are capable of, ironically it is very insular in terms of the west. In fact it makes out that America is the centre of the f*cking universe as apparently the civil rights movement in America was the single most important in the history of the universe for tackling racism, hence why this guy from the 85th century is travelling back to make sure it doesn't happen? 

4/ It certainly isn't brave to do a story about how Rosa Parks was in the right in 2018 in the west. It was absolutely jumping on the SJW bandwagon at the time. Also it's analysis of Rosa Park's place in history was shallow. Pointing out how special she was because she had an asteroid named after her. Who hasn't LOL. Sheldon Cooper had an asteroid named after him LMAO. Also showing how accepted she was by Bill Clinton, a right wing, blood stained war criminal, member of the elite, betrays Chibnall's own neo liberal leanings too. 

5/ Even though the villains motives were race hatred, it still didn't manage to integrate itself into the story naturally. The ending had Jodie literally lecture her companions and the audience, with video footage, making it seem like an after school special. 

Big difference between them, which is why it always annoys me when cowards like Mr Tardis try and say that DW was always political. It's just a way of trying to avoid defending shit by linking it to stories that people like without any of the nuances involved. 

Meanwhile in all fairness to New Who. I honestly don't think politics is something many sci fi tv shows apart from classic who have done well. Star Trek had a few great political stories like Balance of Terror and Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, but other attempts at bringing politics into star trek where awful and clumsy like The Omega Glory and that Nazi episode, or the Abe Lincoln episode. Same with Quatermass and the Pit. By trying to link Martian dna to human prejudice it could come over as undermining the fact that it is caused by humans and it has Quatermass actually lecture people at the end and compare it to modern day events. 

That's not to say a few classic who stories however couldn't be too preachy. The 7th Doctors infamous speech in Battlefield about how there is no honour in launching bombs, and personally Invasion of the Dinosaurs I've always felt was too preachy with Pertwee's lecture at the end. 

(Incidentally another issue with how modern shows tackle politics is the way they portray minority characters not as people, but as trophies for the writers ego with no personality traits beyond being minorities, and the way they will often have them just shit on white men for no reason. Again classic who, whilst not always having the best track record for female characters, generally didn't do that with characters like Ace, Leela, etc.)

[Deleted]

I hate to say, but the current generation (of which I'm apart of) tend to blame their own fidgeting and Goldfish-like attention span on the production itself.

[rushy]

People who grumble about shortening attention spans come across like bitter old men a la Grandpa Simpson to me.

I watched all of 60s Who - recons included - on my own volition when I was like 15, and that was in the early 2010s. Didn't have an issue.

Every generation has its morons, but it's dumb to generalise based on what they say or do. Classic Doctor Who REMAINS popular. Hell, Youtube is full of people reacting to it.

[Deleted]

Why do you think they made the Daleks in Colour then? People from our generation will watch old stuff, but most need to have it polished, trimmed and dumbed down in order to connect with it.

[Deleted]

I'm also not an old man rocking back and forth on a chair telling kids to get off the grass. I have grown up with a bunch of people from the same generation over the years. There's a consistency to how some people think.

[Deleted]

I have to agree with Maxil here. I am consistently frustrated by my fellow Gen-Zers. Sometimes I fantasise about being a teenager in the 90s or 2000s and how I'd probably fit in better with the young people back then. I find it concerning that I feel like an old man when I'm barely into my 20s. The world moves so quickly these days, it's a different place from when I was a teenager. As Captain Jack Sparrow so wisely espoused; the world's no smaller, there's just less in it. Ah, maybe that's just what growing up feels like. Still, being totally estranged from my peers is a worrying development.

[rushy]

Feb 1, 2024 23:45:27 GMT @kengrubshaw said:

Why do you think they made the Daleks in Colour then? People from our generation will watch old stuff, but most need to have it polished, trimmed and dumbed down in order to connect with it.

No, they don't. RTD thinks they do. There is a difference. 

People would have watched The Daleks and been happy with it even if it was just a mere colourisation

[burrunjor]

Feb 2, 2024 0:21:56 GMT @theyakemperor said:

I have to agree with Maxil here. I am consistently frustrated by my fellow Gen-Zers. Sometimes I fantasise about being a teenager in the 90s or 2000s and how I'd probably fit in better with the young people back then. I find it concerning that I feel like an old man when I'm barely into my 20s. The world moves so quickly these days, it's a different place from when I was a teenager. As Captain Jack Sparrow so wisely espoused; the world's no smaller, there's just less in it. Ah, maybe that's just what growing up feels like. Still, being totally estranged from my peers is a worrying development.

Sorry  but Rushy is right here. We definitely do tend to romanticise the past and come down harder on the current generation. There have ALWAYS been stupid trends. 

Tik Tok isn't even the worst. The reality tv craze that reached its peak in the 2000s was horrible and brought out the absolute worst mob mentality, guilt free bullying from the general public I've ever seen. It not only similarly gave a lot of useless people fame, but it actively destroyed several young, vulnerable people's lives. Look at Katie Waissel? She was an X-Factor contestant who was bullied on a national scale for her looks, her sexuality, her mental health problems to such an extent that she was nearly pushed to suicide and is still recovering now 14 years on. Granted that was 2010, but that was kind of the tail end of the reality tv fad and was what happened regularly. It was just the worst. 

Meanwhile in the 60s and the 70s there was just as much junk. The most popular show in the 60s wasn't DW or Coronation Street. It was the black and white minstrels show that had white guys dancing around in black face! 

Time filters out all the shit and propaganda covers up the unpleasantness we'd like to forget from previous generations to younger folk. As a result, again to my generation in the 90s, the 60s was the age we all wanted to live in, because we thought it was all The Beatles, The Doors, Doctor Who, Star Trek and not the Black and White Minstrels Show, rampant homophobia and similarly even now to young folk the 00s was all Amy Winehouse, Lily Allen, Kate Nash, the Noisettes, RTD era DW, Primeval, Being Human, Merlin etc, when in actual fact, Eminem, panel show trash, let's all bully Katie Waissel show, AKA The X-Factor and vapid, nasty reality tv that makes Alan Partridge's ideas for tv shows look like the Prisoner in comparison, were actually far more popular. 

In some respects things are better now thanks to the younger generation being more aware, intelligent and sympathetic. I genuinely don't think something like Katie Waissel would happen today. If it did, you can bet my friend Claudia Boleyn and others like her would be the first to defend Katie from the misogyny in the media. Indeed I've often said Amy Winehouse was very unlucky, in that if she had come about ten years earlier or ten years later she'd probably have survived. In the 80s or 90s there wouldn't have been the internet scrutinizing her and the zeitgeist tended to not enjoy tearing people down as much, least of all for drinking and smoking. If she had risen to fame in the 2010s, then again the likes of Claudia Boleyn would have been around to defend her from misogyny, and more people would have understood she was suffering from depression, rather than just call her a waster or say "get over it." The 2010s and 2020s culture has many things wrong with it, but ultimately it has lost that vile lets call people freaks and laugh at them culture from the 2000s. The only example of mass guilt free bullying I've seen in the 2010s was honestly the treatment of Donald Trump. To be fair however, whilst a lot of it was absolutely pathetic, he wasn't quite such an innocent victim and that wasn't just the young folk.

To be honest a lot of older people like Ashley Judd, Joss Whedon, Eminiem, Mark Hamill, Michael Moore were by far the worst, most shallow, obnoxious and plain nasty in their take downs of Trump. Judd went on about him wanking over his daughter, Moore and Eminem went on about his physical appearance (seriously? They of all people are going to tug at that? Eminem is honestly one of the ugliest men I have ever seen. Absolutely repulsive inside and out,) Hamill meanwhile slut shamed his wife, and Joss made jokes about his supporters being raped by Rhino's and called Nicole Kidman an ugly puppet and a turd for saying let's get behind him. All of them clearly couldn't wait for the opportunity to be bullies, as well as being sheep or flip floppers like Eminem and Michael Moore. 

Indeed a lot of the things wrong with culture in the 2020s, actually come from older generations anyway. It's out of touch boomers and generation Xers like the Fitzroy Crowd, Kathleen Kennedy, Alex Kurtzman who just won't step aside, and want to get down with the kids who they view as morons that have destroyed cultural institutions that endured for decades like DW, Star Trek and Star Wars for instance. People tend to assume it's millennials and Gen Z, but actually we still don't know what their take on DW would have been because the boomers are still holding onto it.  

Ultimately Classic Who has endured to young people who like sci fi and will likely always do so.

The only obstacle in its way ironically is new who. As its so different and more recent, then it tends to muddy the waters and make people think that all of DW was like that, which ironically leads to DW's reputation falling among sci fi fans who see it as lightweight, badly thought out sci fi. This isn't helped by as Clockwork pointed out, Big Finish and DW wiki trying to crowbarr New Who revisions and crap into the old who story, so that now if you want to catch up on lore, you read that the Doctor was always gender neutral, that the Master always wanted to shag him, that the 5th Doctor fought the Slitheen, Madame Kovarian, that Susan fought in the Time War etc.

Just the other day I saw someone on a sci fi forum say they thought DW was bubblegum, badly thought out sci fi, having watched the revival for the first time. He only watched the revival however, as DW fans told him to start with that as it's easier to get into, (due to their own lack of confidence in the original) and he was also told by all of them when he said it was badly written, lazy, full of contradictions, that nothing ever matters in DW and he needs to get used to that to enjoy it, which ultimately made him see it as stupid, childish sci fi compared to other shows he likes. UGH how annoying, the original series that had actually some of the best, most well thought out sci fi on tv is flanked by this dogshit. Here's the post

https://www.reddit.com/r/scifi/comments/192bqr7/so_ive_been_watching_doctor_who_lately_and/

Still I hope that in time the two do become separated, like the Christopher Lee and Bela Lugosi Dracula's and you can enjoy one without having to look at the other. 

I'd also like to add that just because someone can't be bothered with classic who doesn't mean they have either a low attention span or are stupid. It is all just taste, and if you're not a fan of sci fi, or even just a casual fan of it, you probably won't be prepared to sit down and watch a two hour story either. I personally have little interest in crime fiction and often zone out when it's on, but again that doesn't mean it's badly paced or I'm stupid. (I hope.)

[Bernard Marx]

Jan 31, 2024 23:06:39 GMT burrunjor said:

The Godfather meanwhile is not only up its own arse, pretentious and boring, but portrays some of the worst, most cowardly scum on earth in a romantic way.

Is that all you got from it? The message I ascertained from that trilogy (or at least the first two films; the third is crap) wasn't "The Mob is brilliant and romantic". Instead, it's closer to: "The American Dream is superficially seductive, but also sordid, corrupt, and thoroughly destructive for the human soul".

Michael, ostensibly the trilogy's protagonist, is initially principled, shy and reasonably amicable, and wants nothing to do with the Mob. He makes it clear to Kay (herself one of the only innocent characters in the first film) that his father, Vito, threatened (via a henchman) to blow a bandleader's brains out, delineating that: "That's my family, Kay. It's not me". Indeed, Vito's mere refusal to trade in narcotics was enough to create a feud so strong that his other son, Sonny (himself hotheaded, thoughtless and prone to outburst), gets shot to pieces by Mob rivals, contributing to Vito eventually dropping dead in his garden. Is that "romantic"?

After Michael does become actively involved as the family Don- and hence the Mob- his initial principles evaporate and he becomes a monster. He lies to his wife on a regular basis, controls and neglects his sister Connie, assassinates his older brother (and knowingly times the assassination for after his Mother passes away to avoid family contention), and in turn, becomes isolated, mournful and bitter, upholding a failed family empire. And that's without mentioning the fact that most (if not all) political figures are portrayed in the second film (encapsulated most explicitly by Hyman Roth) as vacuous, corrupt, unprincipled liars.


Doesn't that sound wonderful? (!)

[Bernard Marx]

Feb 1, 2024 23:45:27 GMT @kengrubshaw said:

Why do you think they made the Daleks in Colour then? People from our generation will watch old stuff, but most need to have it polished, trimmed and dumbed down in order to connect with it.

You made a very different- and more accurate- point in the Daleks in Colour thread.

Davies didn't make it for younger audiences. He made it for himself. He assumes (or perhaps pretends to assume) that they're as uniformly imbecilic as he is. Don't fall into the same trap!