|
|
Post by burrunjor on Apr 29, 2024 6:22:21 GMT
I just shared this on Ian Levine's DW facebook page and some of the responses I'm getting are EXACTLY what's in the thread, including one about how I haven't seen classic who as The Green Death, Genesis of the Daleks, and Monster of Peladon where all extremely political showing it was always that way. It's not necessarily incorrect... it's just that those stories were much better written and didn't stop dead in their tracks to moralise. Even Pertwee's famous speeches are mostly just very general "don't be an idiot and pollute the planet" kind of stuff. It is completely incorrect. You cannot say two works are the same just because they are political. By that logic a Nazi propaganda film and Schindlers List are the same as they are both political. For the most part and this really is a tragic irony. Classic Who actually did political stories far more successfully than its contemporaries. (Star Trek for the most part was as bad as new who when it tried to get super political like The Omega Glory, whilst even the likes of The Twilight Zone and Quatermass could be too on the nose at times.) Classic Who however for stories like The Daleks, Genesis etc to start with usually made the politics into a metaphor, didn't overtly reference the modern day so as not to date it, made sure the stories still held up in their own right even without the politics, often made the politics comment on a particular human trait, like race hatred, fascism etc. They also were as you say written in a more natural way, where it didn't stop to become a lecture. IE the Daleks race hatred is their motivation so they can talk about it that way unlike Rosa where it is spelled out practically in crayons for the viewer. Even a story that's poor for other reasons like The Mutants still follows this template largely. Now admittedly a few stories did sometimes go into being too preachy like Invasion of the Dinosaurs, but overall I think it's fair to say Classic Who stuck to that template for the most part. New Who meanwhile never has, even its attempt at doing an anti Iraq war story with the Slitheen was too on the nose, but still it definitely got worse in the Capaldi era. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Apr 29, 2024 6:56:46 GMT
Modern "fans". The reason RTD are his ilk get away with their pissing on everything that made the show what it was. I don't know who's more pathetic to be honest. The most pathetic of them all are the elite of classic fandom who grew up with it in the 1970s and 80s and lived through the wilderness years. To be honest I don't mind new who fans at all. It's to be expected that they would prefer the version they grew up with. 50s-70s babies after all will often prefer Christopher Lee as Dracula to Bela Lugosi, 90s babies like me view Michael Keaton and Kevin Conroy as our versions of Batman above Adam West or Christian Bale etc. A lot of the time you can find common ground with new who fans this way, like Claudia who has always just said that RTD era is her era, and another new who fan girl I know named Annie. She's nice but we had a disagreement about DW for a bit on twitter, but she later said she has only seen new who and understands that my view is different to hers because mine's is a different era, with a totally different take on the Doctor. Honestly a lot of these fans would probably be fine if New Who was just one of many alternate sequels as much like most fans of other long running characters, they'd accept "I've had my version, I don't need to see every other version of the character." I mean how many of us here for instance who may love versions of characters like Batman, Dracula, Holmes etc can honestly say we've tracked down and watched them all either? That's why the only thing I disagree with here is Bob Holmes who, as hey I can't say I know everything about every version of Dracula either, despite loving the character. Not saying they wouldn't want more versions like theirs, same way I want another Dracula like Lee and might get a bit pompous over why his is the best, but still when there are cleaner breaks people by and large can accept that. It's these classic era fans however who have truly destroyed the show. They are such sell outs, so desperate to get what they think are the young crowd, and worse they are so f*cking out of touch, they still think RTD will be the man to do it, because he did for 4 years in the 00s that they can't get over. They're like f*cking Al Bundy with his Polk High t-shirt, going on about those 4 years when DW was so well respected, David Tennant could make an arse out of himself on Comic Relief and everybody squeeeed. Oh what great times those were. They are the ones who insist on it all being one canon, and are willing to change the original canon to do make it fit with any bastardisation. They are the ones who have so little confidence in the original, they are happy for it to be changed in any way so that it is proper tv, from pandering to shallow reality tv, to shallow political statements. They write in that Delgado wanted to shag Pertwee in Delgado's biography, they are the ones who created ALL of the myths you see above in the 90s and 00s, they are the ones who have become the little commandants on forums that ban people and abuse them for daring to criticise the revival (and as seen with Claudia's firing, even woke fans are not safe if they have wrong think.) They also bring out the worst in new who fans, because they are the ones that do insist on it all being one thing, which makes new who fans feel as though they aren't real fans, as rather than it just being their version that they grew up with that they enjoy like Michael Keaton, now they are seen as only liking one small bit of a huge thing so they can get over defensive and also be pushed into trying to make classic who that they might not even have seen fit in with their version. Finally they are the absolute worst when it comes to being woke. As a lot of them are former trendy Rik style students from the 1980s, they are terrified of being seen as having become more right wing as they get older, they will go insane if you make ANY criticism of the politics in New Who. Worse they will often be the worst hypocrites, as they often will be out of touch and have sexist attitudes and only like feminists as long as they make them look good. They are simply put the worst generation of fans there has ever been in every way. In terms of cliqueness, fandom pecking orders, neurosis and insecurity, arrogance etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Apr 29, 2024 8:36:29 GMT
I mean how many of us here for instance who may love versions of characters like Batman, Dracula, Holmes etc can honestly say we've tracked down and watched them all either? Me.  (Well almost every on screen version of Stoker's novel, bar a couple of non-English versions) Nosferatu. 1922. (F.W. Murnau/Max Schreck) Dracula. 1931. (Universal/Bela Lugosi) Dracula. 1958. (Hammer/Christopher Lee) Jess Franco's: Count Dracula. 1970. (Christopher Lee) Dan Curtis': Dracula. 1973. (Jack Palance) Count Dracula. 1977. (BBCTV/Louis Jourdan) Nosferatu the Vampyre. 1979. (Werner Herzog/Klaus Kinski) Dracula. 1979. (Universal/Frank Langella) Bram Stoker's Dracula. 1992. (Fracis Ford Coppola/Gary Oldman) Dracula. 2006. (BBC/Marc Warren) Dracula. 2020. (Gattis/Moffat)  (No prizes for guessing which is the worst one)  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2024 8:47:36 GMT
I thought the Gatiss/Moffat one was quite well-received, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by iank on Apr 29, 2024 8:57:19 GMT
I turned off in the opening scene when Harker was talking about having sex with Dracula...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Apr 29, 2024 9:01:53 GMT
I thought the Gatiss/Moffat one was quite well-received, no? Not sure how well received it was by others, but it certainly wasn't by me. |
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Apr 29, 2024 9:02:39 GMT
I turned off in the opening scene when Harker was talking about having sex with Dracula... I wish I'd been as sensible as you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2024 9:03:19 GMT
I never saw it, now I know to steer clear
|
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Apr 29, 2024 9:06:47 GMT
Nosferatu. 1922. (F.W. Murnau/Max Schreck) Dracula. 1931. (Universal/Bela Lugosi) Dracula. 1958. (Hammer/Christopher Lee) Jess Franco's: Count Dracula. 1970. (Christopher Lee) Dan Curtis': Dracula. 1973. (Jack Palance) Count Dracula. 1977. (BBCTV/Louis Jourdan) Nosferatu the Vampyre. 1979. (Werner Herzog/Klaus Kinski) Dracula. 1979. (Universal/Frank Langella) Bram Stoker's Dracula. 1992. (Fracis Ford Coppola/Gary Oldman) Dracula. 2006. (BBC/Marc Warren) Dracula. 2020. (Gattis/Moffat) I've seen three of those - 1931, 1958, 1970. I really want to see the old Nosferatu, and Coppola's version. Of the three I've seen, Jesus Franco's is probably the best. It's not a good film by any means (in fact it's quite crap), but it gave Dracula some great character and dialogue. Dracula is an immensely proud man with a great warrior heritage. He should be presented as an erudite, coldly calculating villain in the style of Tywin Lannister. The 1931 version with Lugosi nails his more exotic qualities and eerie presence, but otherwise falls short. The Hammer version is only entertainment and doesn't delve into the character at all, which ironically was the main reason Christopher Lee agreed to do the Jesus Franco film at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Apr 29, 2024 9:07:10 GMT
I thought the Gatiss/Moffat one was quite well-received, no? Not sure how well received it was by others, but it certainly wasn't by me. The family watched it. I indicated quite strongly that it was going to be shit before it started, but they stuck around and tried enjoying it. They pissed themselves laughing after Dracula emerged in the present day at the start of episode 3, somehow capable of seamlessly using a phone after being asleep for over a century. I think I actually walked out of the room halfway through the last one- shortly after Gatiss himself turned up in the flesh. |
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Apr 29, 2024 9:11:22 GMT
Gatiss himself is generally quite reasonable as a writer, so I feel like Moffat brings out that side of him. I think that on his own, he would've just made a straight-up Victorian adaptation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Apr 29, 2024 9:14:35 GMT
Nosferatu. 1922. (F.W. Murnau/Max Schreck) Dracula. 1931. (Universal/Bela Lugosi) Dracula. 1958. (Hammer/Christopher Lee) Jess Franco's: Count Dracula. 1970. (Christopher Lee) Dan Curtis': Dracula. 1973. (Jack Palance) Count Dracula. 1977. (BBCTV/Louis Jourdan) Nosferatu the Vampyre. 1979. (Werner Herzog/Klaus Kinski) Dracula. 1979. (Universal/Frank Langella) Bram Stoker's Dracula. 1992. (Fracis Ford Coppola/Gary Oldman) Dracula. 2006. (BBC/Marc Warren) Dracula. 2020. (Gattis/Moffat) I've seen three of those - 1931, 1958, 1970. I really want to see the old Nosferatu, and Coppola's version. Of the three I've seen, Jesus Franco's is probably the best. It's not a good film by any means (in fact it's quite crap), but it gave Dracula some great character and dialogue. Dracula is an immensely proud man with a great warrior heritage. He should be presented as an erudite, coldly calculating villain in the style of Tywin Lannister. The 1931 version with Lugosi nails his more exotic qualities and eerie presence, but otherwise falls short. The Hammer version is only entertainment and doesn't delve into the character at all, which ironically was the main reason Christopher Lee agreed to do the Jesus Franco film at all. Yes, Lee was keen on it because it used a lot of Stoker's passages, which he delivered really well, and for me are by far the best scenes in an otherwise leaden production. I was surprised though that Franco kept sex entirely out of it. Something I've only encountered in two of his films.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2024 9:15:37 GMT
Nosferatu. 1922. (F.W. Murnau/Max Schreck) Dracula. 1931. (Universal/Bela Lugosi) Dracula. 1958. (Hammer/Christopher Lee) Jess Franco's: Count Dracula. 1970. (Christopher Lee) Dan Curtis': Dracula. 1973. (Jack Palance) Count Dracula. 1977. (BBCTV/Louis Jourdan) Nosferatu the Vampyre. 1979. (Werner Herzog/Klaus Kinski) Dracula. 1979. (Universal/Frank Langella) Bram Stoker's Dracula. 1992. (Fracis Ford Coppola/Gary Oldman) Dracula. 2006. (BBC/Marc Warren) Dracula. 2020. (Gattis/Moffat) I've seen three of those - 1931, 1958, 1970. I really want to see the old Nosferatu, and Coppola's version. Of the three I've seen, Jesus Franco's is probably the best. It's not a good film by any means (in fact it's quite crap), but it gave Dracula some great character and dialogue. Dracula is an immensely proud man with a great warrior heritage. He should be presented as an erudite, coldly calculating villain in the style of Tywin Lannister. The 1931 version with Lugosi nails his more exotic qualities and eerie presence, but otherwise falls short. The Hammer version is only entertainment and doesn't delve into the character at all, which ironically was the main reason Christopher Lee agreed to do the Jesus Franco film at all. The '79 Nosferatu is a trip and probably my favourite |
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Apr 29, 2024 9:17:15 GMT
Yes, Lee was keen on it because it used a lot of Stoker's passages, which he delivered really well, and for me are by far the best scenes in an otherwise leaden production. I was surprised though that Franco kept sex entirely out of it. Something I've only encountered in two of his films. This reminds me, my dad absolutely loved this film, because he thought the cinematography was world class. I thought it was quite pedestrian myself, but what do I know? |
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Apr 29, 2024 9:17:54 GMT
Gatiss himself is generally quite reasonable as a writer, so I feel like Moffat out that side of him. I think that on his own, he would've just made a straight-up Victorian adaptation. Yes, his trio of horror documentaries was really good, and he purports to be a huge fan. I expected better from him. |
|
