|
|
Post by cyberhat on May 3, 2021 15:12:33 GMT
The idea that lots of back story = great character does not bare the slightest scrutiny. If so, then Ken Barlow from Coronation Street would be the greatest fictional creation of all time. Whereas any ambiguous character in a Harold Pinter play would be the worst. Outside RTD’s sassy one liners, Rose’s only characterisation was being a deeply unpleasant stalker. The idea she can teach Leela or the Romanas or even Adric a thing or two is contemptibly laughable. Oh and hello everyone. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 15:22:21 GMT
This an old article, but I remember reading it before and thinking it was a big pile of shite. www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/5-reasons-why-rose-tyler-is-the-shows-best-companion-ever/"Whereas most classic Who companions’ big red “This is Your Life” books would be virtually empty, RTD ensured that Rose Tyler would have a life before The Doctor came into it; complete with job, boyfriend, and amorous mother. Yet again RTD gets credit for something 80s Who did. Up yours. Fokk it all. The idea that lots of back story = great character does not bare the slightest scrutiny. If so, then Ken Barlow from Coronation Street would be the greatest fictional creation of all time. Whereas any ambiguous character in a Harold Pinter play would be the worst. Outside RTD’s sassy one liners, Rose’s only characterisation was being a deeply unpleasant stalker. The idea she can teach Leela or the Romanas or even Adric a thing or two is contemptibly laughable. Oh and hello everyone. Welcome to the forum! |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on May 3, 2021 19:38:17 GMT
The idea that lots of back story = great character does not bare the slightest scrutiny. If so, then Ken Barlow from Coronation Street would be the greatest fictional creation of all time. Whereas any ambiguous character in a Harold Pinter play would be the worst. Outside RTD’s sassy one liners, Rose’s only characterisation was being a deeply unpleasant stalker. The idea she can teach Leela or the Romanas or even Adric a thing or two is contemptibly laughable. Oh and hello everyone. Great points. Also Rose was just a retread of Gabrielle from Xena. Lets see, little blonde girl who leads a mediocre life and is whisked away by a brooding, sarcastic anti hero who has done heinous things and wants redemption. Little blonde joins him/her to escape their mediocre life, but she holds them back from doing horrible things and going dark again. There's also elements of this in Buffy/Angel too obvs, but it's a little different as Buffy is already a hero before she meets Angel. I'm not saying Rose was a rip off, but the point is that Rose wasn't anything particularly new or ground breaking tbh. In fact I think she wasn't as likable as Gabrielle or as good a female role model. Gabrielle was intelligent, interested in mythology, loved writing and we saw he gradually grow into a hero rather than just be gifted magic super powers. Buffy meanwhile was the central hero in her own show. Rose was just a retread of better characters in my opinion. Barbara, Leela, Liz and Romana were actually fairly ahead of their time in terms of female television heroes. Also welcome to the Hive! Are you a new Hiver or an old one under a new name. |
|
|
|
Post by iank on May 3, 2021 20:52:31 GMT
Welcome cyberhat!
|
|
|
|
Post by cyberhat on May 3, 2021 21:55:08 GMT
Cheers folks
Another thought about back story, lots of great dramatic writing relies on the actors and directors to do the bulk of the back story. Hence all the wildly different interpretations of Shakespeare. In one production, Iago is a bigot, in others a jilted lover. You don’t have Shakespeare or Chekhov scripts with endless childhood anecdotes in the stage direction. “THIS FELLA THAT WALKS ON STAGE WITH THE GOBLET, BEFORE HE WENT TO WAR, HELPED RUN HIS DADS CHIP SHOP, AND DID I TELL YOU ABOUT THAT COW OF A SISTER OF HIS. ANYWAY HE DROPS DEAD BEFORE HE DELIVERS HIS FIRST LINE. THIS IS DEEP INNIT!!!”
Remember director Ken Russell saying he was handed a script with everything described down to the finest detail. He responded, “well what’s the point of me then?”. A lot of great classic Who had actors given space to fill in the gaps themselves. The exits of both Sarah Jane and Leela being fine examples.
Back story in the hands of idiots just ends up like the overtly expositional dialogue in Acorn Antiques. Of the “Ah Bertha, I thought you’d been killed by the mafia after your secret lover sold a Picasso to the local milkman who turned out to be Martin Boorman” type.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on May 4, 2021 8:11:48 GMT
Cheers folks Another thought about back story, lots of great dramatic writing relies on the actors and directors to do the bulk of the back story. Hence all the wildly different interpretations of Shakespeare. In one production, Iago is a bigot, in others a jilted lover. You don’t have Shakespeare or Chekhov scripts with endless childhood anecdotes in the stage direction. “THIS FELLA THAT WALKS ON STAGE WITH THE GOBLET, BEFORE HE WENT TO WAR, HELPED RUN HIS DADS CHIP SHOP, AND DID I TELL YOU ABOUT THAT COW OF A SISTER OF HIS. ANYWAY HE DROPS DEAD BEFORE HE DELIVERS HIS FIRST LINE. THIS IS DEEP INNIT!!!” Remember director Ken Russell saying he was handed a script with everything described down to the finest detail. He responded, “well what’s the point of me then?”. A lot of great classic Who had actors given space to fill in the gaps themselves. The exits of both Sarah Jane and Leela being fine examples. Back story in the hands of idiots just ends up like the overtly expositional dialogue in Acorn Antiques. Of the “Ah Bertha, I thought you’d been killed by the mafia after your secret lover sold a Picasso to the local milkman who turned out to be Martin Boorman” type. Spot on. Depth is all about subtext, not surface level exposition dumps. The best playwrights and scriptwriters communicate far more with spontaneity and ambiguity as opposed to shouting at the audience. This is why the argument of NuWho having supposed “emotional depth” is so weak. It implies that “depth” equates to “not trusting the audience’s intelligence” and “enunciating each and every emotional beat”. It’s all about the surface- the antithesis of “depth” in any and every way. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on May 4, 2021 8:59:34 GMT
To be honest I always thought that RTD and his fans thought that New Who had more depth simply because it had romance.
RTD complained about the lack of depth in True Who, saying the end of The Green Death was the only example of true emotional content in it. (The only reason for that was because he read into it that the Third Doctor wanted to shag Jo Grant, something which Pertwee btw found gross and inappropriate. He said as much when a horny fan asked him that in an interview.)
The fact is there is a lot of emotional content in True Who, from the first Doctor and Susan's goodbye, to Troughton and Victoria's talk in Tomb, Lawrence trying to win round his brother etc. Hell even one off characters like the Controller in Day, Magnus Greel, Sorin etc are all complex and interesting characters.
None of them matter however because their stories aren't about sex. Apparently had Tomb revolved around Troughton and Jamie arguing about whose penis is bigger to impress Victoria then that would have made it more adult and nuanced. (You think I'm joking but Moffat said that's what The Empty Child was about in regards to Jack and 9 arguing.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2021 15:10:52 GMT
To be honest I always thought that RTD and his fans thought that New Who had more depth simply because it had romance. RTD complained about the lack of depth in True Who, saying the end of The Green Death was the only example of true emotional content in it. (The only reason for that was because he read into it that the Third Doctor wanted to shag Jo Grant, something which Pertwee btw found gross and inappropriate. He said as much when a horny fan asked him that in an interview.) The fact is there is a lot of emotional content in True Who, from the first Doctor and Susan's goodbye, to Troughton and Victoria's talk in Tomb, Lawrence trying to win round his brother etc. Hell even one off characters like the Controller in Day, Magnus Greel, Sorin etc are all complex and interesting characters. None of them matter however because their stories aren't about sex. Apparently had Tomb revolved around Troughton and Jamie arguing about whose penis is bigger to impress Victoria then that would have made it more adult and nuanced. (You think I'm joking but Moffat said that's what The Empty Child was about in regards to Jack and 9 arguing.) Look no further then Torchwood to get an idea of what RTD, and the rest of the muppets in charge of the show, think more mature entertainment is. The shows an utter embarrassment. Look at all the characters in it and you will see tons of ( inconsistent) backstory yet each feels about as deep as a puddle. I lad into the team pretty hard on the old site before and I stand by it. There all a bunch of unlikeable cardboard cut outs with pages of backstory stapled to them yet will act out of character when the plot demands. All the swearing and sex in the show just make it feel more immature. Hell I just fokking hate torchwood in general these days. UNIT, now there was a proper group you could get behind. They acted like professionals and felt like them to. They were soliders but had subtle character to them that let you care. Benton is a great supporting character and Mike Yates had a proper character arc. Why is it that I care more fo these two, supposedly shallow, side characters from truwho more then the wankers in torchwood? Because they were actually well written and acted characters. |
|
|
|
Post by mott1 on May 4, 2021 15:20:38 GMT
To be honest I always thought that RTD and his fans thought that New Who had more depth simply because it had romance. RTD complained about the lack of depth in True Who, saying the end of The Green Death was the only example of true emotional content in it. (The only reason for that was because he read into it that the Third Doctor wanted to shag Jo Grant, something which Pertwee btw found gross and inappropriate. He said as much when a horny fan asked him that in an interview.) The fact is there is a lot of emotional content in True Who, from the first Doctor and Susan's goodbye, to Troughton and Victoria's talk in Tomb, Lawrence trying to win round his brother etc. Hell even one off characters like the Controller in Day, Magnus Greel, Sorin etc are all complex and interesting characters. None of them matter however because their stories aren't about sex. Apparently had Tomb revolved around Troughton and Jamie arguing about whose penis is bigger to impress Victoria then that would have made it more adult and nuanced. (You think I'm joking but Moffat said that's what The Empty Child was about in regards to Jack and 9 arguing.) Look no further then Torchwood to get an idea of what RTD, and the rest of the muppets in charge of the show, think more mature entertainment is. The shows an utter embarrassment. Look at all the characters in it and you will see tons of ( inconsistent) backstory yet each feels about as deep as a puddle. I lad into the team pretty hard on the old site before and I stand by it. There all a bunch of unlikeable cardboard cut outs with pages of backstory stapled to them yet will act out of character when the plot demands. All the swearing and sex in the show just make it feel more immature. Hell I just fokking hate torchwood in general these days. UNIT, now there was a proper group you could get behind. They acted like professionals and felt like them to. They were doodlers but had subtle character to them that let you care. Benton is a great supporting character and Mike Yates had a proper character arc. Why is it that I care more fo these two, supposedly shallow, side characters from truwho more then the wankers in torchwood? Because they were actually well written and acted characters. I think the shallowness of the new era came thru even more irritatingly in Torchwood because it solely equates people 'doing things' with their personality. More sex scenes = more sex appeal. More snogging random people of either gender = more diversity. More shouting = more drama. More unexpected death scenes = more consequences. More clunky backstory = more pathos etc. I still think Children Of Earth is easily the high point of TW but that was partly because it stopped copying Buffy/Angel and told a simple season 7 style 'Earth under attack' tale. A shame Capaldi wasn't allowed to play the Doctor similarly to his turn in CoE, too. |
|
|
|
Post by iank on May 4, 2021 20:52:19 GMT
It's like I always said about The Avengers - I know everything I need to know about John Steed by what he does and the way he conducts himself on his adventures. I don't need to know about his relationship with his mum.
|
|
|
|
Post by mott1 on May 4, 2021 21:52:58 GMT
It's like I always said about The Avengers - I know everything I need to know about John Steed by what he does and the way he conducts himself on his adventures. I don't need to know about his relationship with his mum. It also reminds me of what Mark Kermode said about why Alien (and Aliens) works better than the recent films in the franchise. Keep the threat simple - we're food, it's hungry. Also Jaws compared to Jaws The Revenge. Who needs a damn backstory!? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2021 22:11:54 GMT
It's like I always said about The Avengers - I know everything I need to know about John Steed by what he does and the way he conducts himself on his adventures. I don't need to know about his relationship with his mum. It also reminds me of what Mark Kermode said about why Alien (and Aliens) works better than the recent films in the franchise. Keep the threat simple - we're food, it's hungry. Also Jaws compared to Jaws The Revenge. Who needs a damn backstory!? This is very true... though I wonder if you have ever heard about the Jaw The Revenge Novel. It has a moment in it that a trope was named after. The Voodoo Shark. In the novel it's suggest that the Brody family is being hounded by sharks because of a voodoo curse. And thats it. No further explanation, no statements of how, when or why. It's an answer that doesn't really answer the question while simultaneously raising more. I wonder if nuwho has any? |
|
|
|
Post by cyberhat on Jun 14, 2022 18:44:20 GMT
It's like I always said about The Avengers - I know everything I need to know about John Steed by what he does and the way he conducts himself on his adventures. I don't need to know about his relationship with his mum. It also reminds me of what Mark Kermode said about why Alien (and Aliens) works better than the recent films in the franchise. Keep the threat simple - we're food, it's hungry. Also Jaws compared to Jaws The Revenge. Who needs a damn backstory!? Kermode also said that the greatest DW story ever made was 'Last of The Time Lords'. The Jesus Doctor scene coming in for particular praise. What I'm saying in short is, he's an idiot. |
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Jun 14, 2022 18:51:52 GMT
It also reminds me of what Mark Kermode said about why Alien (and Aliens) works better than the recent films in the franchise. Keep the threat simple - we're food, it's hungry. Also Jaws compared to Jaws The Revenge. Who needs a damn backstory!? Kermode also said that the greatest DW story ever made was 'Last of The Time Lords'. The Jesus Doctor scene coming in for particular praise. What I'm saying in short is, he's an idiot. Kermode's an odd one, because he's OK when discussing grindhouse/exploitation films and 70s cinema (broadly), but his take on Doctor Who is bloody awful. I think he described the original series as a "hokey TV show" in that same interview (whilst also hyperbolically lauding David Tennant's Doctor as "beautiful"). I assumed he was taking the piss initially, but alas, every word was sincere. Again, he's one of those figures who paints himself as a maverick, but is actually completely susceptible to establishment influences. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2022 21:20:28 GMT
It also reminds me of what Mark Kermode said about why Alien (and Aliens) works better than the recent films in the franchise. Keep the threat simple - we're food, it's hungry. Also Jaws compared to Jaws The Revenge. Who needs a damn backstory!? This is very true... though I wonder if you have ever heard about the Jaw The Revenge Novel. It has a moment in it that a trope was named after. The Voodoo Shark. In the novel it's suggest that the Brody family is being hounded by sharks because of a voodoo curse. And thats it. No further explanation, no statements of how, when or why. It's an answer that doesn't really answer the question while simultaneously raising more. I wonder if nuwho has any? Someone in the novel puts a curse on the Brody film because Michael Brody disrespected him or something. It's a strange novel mainly because half of it is about Hoagie and his run ins with a drug dealer. To be honest, I'm glad none of that made it into the movie. I like it as it is. |
|
