|
|
Post by ClockworkOcean on May 2, 2024 20:02:30 GMT
No. It's dead. It's been dead for at least seven years. There's no coming back from this. Ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by rushy on May 2, 2024 20:10:12 GMT
Any successful reboot would rely on RTD/Moffat/Chibnall not being there. It desperately needs to be more sincere and unpredictable again. Not this weird bubblegum show it's become.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2024 20:28:58 GMT
No. It's dead. It's been dead for at least seven years. There's no coming back from this. Ever. But it came back from the pits of the Colin Baker years, and we got some of the most creative and interesting stories just after the disastrous season 24. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2024 20:36:33 GMT
The only problem is that it could never thrive under the modern-day BBC, which is by all accounts a sinking ship. It needs an A24 sort of treatment, where different writers and directors can have a crack at each episode, a bit like a modern-day Twilight Zone. Go the whole hog with the anthology format. I never cared for season arcs, they've never really worked for a reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by iank on May 2, 2024 21:38:30 GMT
Er, no and I'm baffled at those of you who still are. I don't have Disney+, am not getting it and even if I did I wouldn't. I watched no more than 10 minutes of the entire Pisstaker era, and I won't be watching any of this tripe.
It is dead, and it is unrecoverable.
|
|
|
|
Post by zarius on May 7, 2024 7:37:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on May 7, 2024 9:14:30 GMT
No. It's dead. It's been dead for at least seven years. There's no coming back from this. Ever. But it came back from the pits of the Colin Baker years, and we got some of the most creative and interesting stories just after the disastrous season 24. Not the same thing at all. To start with Colin was a good Doctor and season 22 is fine. (An opinion that was shared by the general public who didn't contrary to popular belief abandon the show at that point.) Second of all whilst I completely agree with you that season 23 and 24 are the worst of the classic era, they didn't do the damage that the revival seasons have done. They were just crap stories. It's easy to get over crap stories, or seasons. Just do good ones LOL. New Who's crap however is quite unique in that it's not just bad in the present. It has to drag down the entire history with it. The reason I have such a hatred of Missy (you may have noticed) isn't simply because she's a crap version. It's because the history of the Master has to be rewritten to make her fit. Big Finish stories, that are performed by actors from the original, now have to have the burned Master as wanting to shag the Doctor, official biographies of Delgado have to actively leave out important behind the scenes details and lie that he wanted the Master to shag Pertwee. Factual articles on tv tropes and wikipedia have to rewrite history (and ban you for life if you try and edit it in as it was like I did on tv tropes. Hilariously they told me I'm editing with an agenda!) Beyond simply the Master this line of thinking has sadly crept its way into the show and character. Now it's received wisdom that the Doctor can be absolutely anyone, destroying him as a character, that the show has no canon, so nothing matters, there are no stakes etc. As an entire generation of fans have grown up with this shit as the dominant mantra, then ironically any attempt at doing actual DW will be seen as limiting it, or not understanding it by them. Whilst they don't represent even the majority of fandom, sadly as they are the most vocal and as tv execs are slave to the young audience, they can end up having more of an influence than even fans my age. Worse than that however, as politics has been dragged into it now you dare not disagree with a lot of the modern shit revisions without being called a bigot as well. Not to sound egocentric, but when a guy like me gets told frequently that he has a problem with women in leading roles what chance does anyone have? (Even on the Hive I got told that, by our former member Penny.) That would be me, the leading insufferable bore on unconventional female singers in the 00s on any forum LOL, the guy who spoke out against misogynistic treatment of female singers when he was a teenager in the 00s, who has created female led series on his channel that star actresses from genre shows! Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying this makes me Sylvia f*cking Pankhurst. I'm not even saying that means I'm not a misogynist in my personal life. I'm not for the record LOL, but still obviously just writing female heroes wouldn't mean that. I'm still a total nobody, but yeah I don't think you can say I'm someone who just isn't used to seeing women in leading roles or I'm a misogynist based on can I accept them leading a genre show. Here actual quotes from Gallifrey Base to me. “Whiny little bigot, when we see women or non-whites promoted to primary hero figures, that’s enough for manbabies like you to bitch and moan about how oppressed they are.”“It would seem burronjor finds the Thirteenth Doctor a sexually dominating figure and that makes him uncomfortable. I’d suggest his anxiety about that is more a matter for himself and a professional working in confidence, rather than for the BBC to make changes to accommodate. I mean they don’t even take strobe lighting off shows to accommodate people with photo-sensitive epilepsy – they just give a warning. Accommodating people who have fringe sexual hang ups they’re uncomfortable with, so they’re not triggered, isn’t very practical.”“You sound awfully threatened by inclusive casting. I genuinely think this is where a lot of this anger towards Jodie’s casting comes from – loss of privilege feels awfully like discrimination don’t you think?”
Meanwhile Sophie Aldred didn't seem to think I was so bad? Again however the simple fact that you don't think a female Doctor flows as well as the previous men, because you want them to be believable as the same person, and it's hard to imagine it's still Hartnell under a woman's face (same way it was hard to imagine him kissing Billie Piper and I called that out as being wrong without any backlash.) That must automatically mean that I hate the very idea of women playing leading roles despite the evidence to the contrary. With this in mind what old school fans are going to want to defend the show and get the same kind of abuse that I did? Guys who haven't made their own female led series to use as back up when smeared, who the sexist label might stick to as a result? Like Clever Dick Films for instance? Then on top of this we have RTD trying to make the show an LGBT only club, and trying to rewrite history to say that the Doctor was always gay, so again any attempt to simply have the Doctor be an asexual professor will similarly be seen as homophobic? With this in mind, what producer or writer will want to take it on? If they actually try and do a proper version of the show they will be called homophobic/transphobic/misogynistic by its fandom with the show then being placed in the centre of the culture wars. Said producer could then end up being Gina Carano'd no matter how mild and reasonable they try to be (like Gina herself LOL) Alternatively if they try and make it to suit the commandants of fandom's tastes and carry on as it is now, it will tank among mainstream viewers and the other 95 percent of fandom. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I'm not saying it's completely impossible. An alternate sequel made by someone outside the BBC bubble that quickly wins a new audience could just about evade these problems, but it would have to be some of the best sci fi ever seen. I mean it would have to make the Hinchcliff era look like season 23 to win round a new audience that fast LOL. It's a task of absolutely Herculian proportion to say the least. My greatest fear is it dragging Classic Who down with it. These toxic myths like no continuity, no characterisation will drive away potential new viewers. Furthermore can you imagine a new fan reading DW wiki and looking at the turgid mess the lore is and not being turned away? Then there is the fandom where any dissenting voices, well look above. When you compare it what the show was like for me in the 90s, when it was just an innocent bit of escapism, to go back to that again is a Herculian task.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on May 7, 2024 13:10:03 GMT
"I wanted it to feel like 2024 on screen" Why does that not reassure me?  |
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on May 7, 2024 15:07:54 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2024 13:21:20 GMT
Doctor Who is a gay black man...10 years ago that would've been a punchline to a joke. How did we let this happen? This is why gatekeeping is so necessary. If you enjoyed anything after 2017, you're not a real Doctor Who fan, and I totally stand by that.
|
|
|
|
Post by rushy on May 8, 2024 14:51:56 GMT
Doctor Who is a gay black man...10 years ago that would've been a punchline to a joke. How did we let this happen? This is why gatekeeping is so necessary. If you enjoyed anything after 2017, you're not a real Doctor Who fan, and I totally stand by that. RIP my fandom. Cruelly executed in front of a firing squad of yaks |
|
|
|
Post by zarius on May 8, 2024 17:20:14 GMT
"I have the whole of the television history in my head...I don't count the other stuff"
|
|
|
|
Post by zarius on May 8, 2024 17:21:21 GMT
Doctor Who is a gay black man...10 years ago that would've been a punchline to a joke. How did we let this happen? This is why gatekeeping is so necessary. If you enjoyed anything after 2017, you're not a real Doctor Who fan, and I totally stand by that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2024 14:46:12 GMT
Something I hope we've all learned is that the showrunner role shouldn't go to a fan. The guys running it in the 60s and 70s weren't "fans" of the show, they were drama writers who took commissions. When people who had been fans in the 60s and 70s came in in the 80s, it all went to shit. You can be a fan of something and not understand what makes it good. I love Tom Baker, Peter Davison, Colin Baker, Sylvester McCoy, Katy Manning, Sophie Aldred, even David Tennant and Catherine Tate, et al. I don't ever wanna see them in the f*cking show again. The past 5 or so years have been bogged down with continuity and lore and dredging up the past and I just Do. Not. Care. It's a mad professor with a space-time machine who gets into scrapes with his plucky companions. Why is that so hard to do well? I've suggested before that it should embrace its anthology format with a different writer and director each week, but you don't even need to go to such extremes to wring good stories from a premise like that. I'm tired of hearing about the Master, the Rani, the Valeyard, Rassilon, Omega. Literally who could give a shit. Have the Doctor sleuthing around in ancient Troy or the distant future, I don't like that he has a rogues gallery. He's just not that kind of character. Was the Valeyard really that interesting anyway? The "I was the Doctor all along" twist feels like it was pulled out of Saward's arse last minute, and it doesn't go anywhere. Like I said about POTD, any hack writer could've written that in as a shock-horror moment, but it carries no weight because the character is such a boring bore who does nothing but bore the life out of me in those interminable courtroom scenes. Rassilon and Omega are just mustache-twirling villains. The Rani's overwrought science schtick is embarrassing, she appears in two embarrassing stories written by a pair of writers who were thoroughly out of their depth, and the people who want her back are embarrassing.
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on May 9, 2024 16:46:16 GMT
Something I hope we've all learned is that the showrunner role shouldn't go to a fan. The guys running it in the 60s and 70s weren't "fans" of the show, they were drama writers who took commissions. When people who had been fans in the 60s and 70s came in in the 80s, it all went to shit. You can be a fan of something and not understand what makes it good. I love Tom Baker, Peter Davison, Colin Baker, Sylvester McCoy, Katy Manning, Sophie Aldred, even David Tennant and Catherine Tate, et al. I don't ever wanna see them in the f*cking show again. The past 5 or so years have been bogged down with continuity and lore and dredging up the past and I just Do. Not. Care. It's a mad professor with a space-time machine who gets into scrapes with his plucky companions. Why is that so hard to do well? I've suggested before that it should embrace its anthology format with a different writer and director each week, but you don't even need to go to such extremes to wring good stories from a premise like that. I'm tired of hearing about the Master, the Rani, the Valeyard, Rassilon, Omega. Literally who could give a shit. Have the Doctor sleuthing around in ancient Troy or the distant future, I don't like that he has a rogues gallery. He's just not that kind of character. Was the Valeyard really that interesting anyway? The "I was the Doctor all along" twist feels like it was pulled out of Saward's arse last minute, and it doesn't go anywhere. Like I said about POTD, any hack writer could've written that in as a shock-horror moment, but it carries no weight because the character is such a boring bore who does nothing but bore the life out of me in those interminable courtroom scenes. Rassilon and Omega are just mustache-twirling villains. The Rani's overwrought science schtick is embarrassing, she appears in two embarrassing stories written by a pair of writers who were thoroughly out of their depth, and the people who want her back are embarrassing. Sorry but that's just throwing the baby out of the bathwater. First off, RTD, Moffat, Chibnall etc are not fans. They are guys who liked the show in the 60s and 70s when they were children, and never apart from maybe a few stories went back to it. (Chibnall openly admitted in a 2012 interview that he hadn't watched classic who since it finished in 1989.) They certainly had 0 respect for the show, its lore and its characters and very little knowledge, with Moffat coming out with crap like Pertwee and Delgado never once played it as enemies, the Cybermen from Telos had nothing to do with the ones from Mondas, the Doctor left Gallifrey to go on a mission to save the universe, the Doctor was never asexual and Tegan wanted to shag Peter Davison etc. Ask yourself if these guys were obsessed with the canon, why did they push the narrative that DW had no identity and that by not making it even remotely resemble DW, they were making it true to DW? Clearly that along with the I'm such a fan bullshit was just a way for them to cover their tracks. From the start DW was just something to launch the likes of RTD and Chibnall's careers into the stratosphere, hence why RTD originally wanted to do Torchwood but when no one would buy it, did DW (that he could get because he was in with the bricks and it was the only sci fi thing then they were willing to touch because of its history of success.) Then of course he launched Torchwood from DW. Meanwhile the only reason we've seen old Doctors and companions is because these so called fans trashed the lore and foundations of the show to such a miserable extent that no viewer felt it was like DW anymore and they started switching off in droves. They only way they could win people back was via member berries. I'm sure that it is just a coincidence that Chibnall only brought back Sophie Aldred, Janet Fielding, Colin Baker, Sylvester McCoy, Paul McGann etc after he did the Timeless Children that f*cked everybody from Tennant era fangirls to crusty old Hartnell fans off and saw his viewers literally fall to 2 million? The solution has NEVER been throw the shows lore out and ignore its past completely. Ironically that mindset is what led to New Who in the first place. As soon as you say "the past doesn't matter one bit" that will inevitably lead to "well it doesn't matter if I f*ck up the past to further refresh it." Instead a healthy attitude is "the past is important in letting us know what kind of character the Doctor is, what his limitations are, what the limitations on the lore are like let's not blow up earth in the 20th century etc, So let's just write some good, new stories within that which the wide format can allow, and every now and again when we have to we can follow up on an old story or character." THAT is the healthy attitude to have and it's what classic who had throughout most of its run, and even new who when it was successful. I DO admit that fans can sometimes f*ck things up. Sam Raimi with Spider-Man 3 is the prime example. He blew the chance to bring Venom, a fantastic, interesting villain to the big screen (a villain who was also almost tailor made for him in every way) because he was a stupid fanboy who wanted to recreate his childhood with the Sandman. Still other fans like Paul Dini and John Semper did among the best versions of characters like Batman and Spider-Man. Jeremy Brett and Peter Cushing similarly did fantastic versions of Sherlock Holmes, the guys who did the monsterverse Godzilla movies did a brilliant job of updating the Big G etc, in part at least because of their love and knowledge of the characters before hand. Take as you find with fan creators rather than just writing them all off. (I might add even non fans can still be subject to he same problems as fan writers. Bob Holmes for instance was just as much of a short sighted snob with the Cybermen as Raimi was with Venom and similarly botched the comeback for what were not only great villains, but again villains who would have been perfect for his style.) Meanwhile nothing wrong with a rogues gallery? It's a great plot device and the Doctor is exactly the type of character that can have one, given he is a larger than life hero. The villains have been part of the shows longevity and appeal for so many generations and in the original series anyway, other than Time Flight you'd be hard pushed to find any returning villain story that would be ranked as one of the worst stories in most viewers or fans eyes, whilst many such as Tomb, Genesis, Power, Remembrance, Deadly Assassin, Web of Fear, are among the best. You've kind of picked the worst recurring villains to demonstrate your point meanwhile. The Master? Well to be honest it's pointless bringing him up, as the revival has never even tried to write him. His last proper appearance as the Master and not a Joker expy/Moffat's wank fantasy dominatrix was in the 1996 movie, so who is to say if he would have worked in the 21st century or not? Meanwhile the Valeyard if you want to get technical isn't even a recurring villain LOL. He appears in one story, Trial of a Time Lord and that was it. Never appeared or was mentioned again, Rassilon meanwhile was never intended to be a villain and only actually appeared once in Classic Who in a heroic (if ruthless and still sinister) role in the Five Doctors. Once again much like the Master, his appearances in New Who don't actually reflect the character at all, because they have just written in a new character. Having Rassilon be alive in the Time War and a stupid old man the Doctor can beat by literally staring him down and suddenly be afraid of death to the point where he'll blow up every universe: completely flies in the face of him being this distant, mysterious, god like being from the Time Lords scary, dark, unseen past that we only see fleetingly, and also his you know setting up a trap to catch immortality seekers LOL. Omega I will agree his return appearance wasn't good, but it was only two stories. The Rani meanwhile I think had potential to be an interesting character in lots of ways, being a rare example of a female villain opposite a male hero who doesn't just become his love interest, her lack of personal vendetta against the Doctor, her love of Dinosaurs, and her cold and ruthless experiments were all things that could have been exploited to make good stories. Her first is okay, her second was crap, but that was because of other factors. Meanwhile again other recurring foes like the Daleks, Cybermen, Ice Warriors, Sontarans, Davros, Autons Yeti/Great Intelligence all had multiple great stories. I DO agree that we shouldn't overuse villains, and have periods where you give them a rest, but to turn against the idea of recurring foes in general, I'm sorry it's again throwing the baby out of the bathwater. I hate to say this is something I see a lot with sci fi fandom these days. A coupe of marvel movies overuse and do bad stories with the multiverse, so let's never do multiverse stuff again. Superheroes have been overexposed so lets try and bring about the end of the superhero genre and attack every mid (at worst) superhero film like Morbius as the worst film ever made and relish in its failure. Similarly I'm not saying you've said this, but I see people now going on about let's never bother with female led things in the genre ever again, because the recent wave of female led things like Supergirl and Madame Web were crap and flopped. Why can't people just take as they find with all these things? Snobs like Critical Drinker who are among the worst for superhero and multiverse backlash, and women don't like sci fi myth, will often bemoan how we need to see westerns again as they were real cinema, completely unaware that if he'd been around in the 50s and 60s he'd have become as sick of them through overexposure as he is of superhero films today. |
|
