Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2021 8:09:29 GMT
What who myths annoy or intrigue you the most?
The McCoy era being the nadir of the series (this is obviously bollocks)
Destiny of the Daleks being badly directed (the story has great camerawork and direction. It's just an empty criticism)
|
|
|
|
Post by iank on Dec 14, 2021 20:44:34 GMT
Tentwat is the bestest Doctor evah!
You can tell who the plebs are by this alone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2021 22:43:44 GMT
The Twin Dilemma is the worst of all time.
Not even close. It's not even the worst of that season or even of the Colin Baker era.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Jan 12, 2022 11:51:35 GMT
Colin Baker being derided as the worst Doctor of the lot. I've always failed to understand this, even in the context of people divorcing his Doctor from his era and decrying the "poor scripts", because Season 22, bar Timelash, is one of the most varied and daring seasons of the Classic Series, and I don't even think Season 23 is that bad these days.
Stories like Revelation of the Daleks put all of NuWho to shame, and the fact that many polls even go as far as to place Whittaker above Colin is absolutely bloody baffling. One is eloquent, verbose and appropriately in character with the professorial archetype exhibited by the Doctor, whilst the other is an abject caricature blessed with gems like "Are ya Ed Sheeran?".
"I never knew such precognitions of my own death could be so disturbing..."
"Earf is protected ba me and mea mates!"
The sheer chasm between both lines speaks volumes...
|
|
|
|
Post by iank on Jan 12, 2022 21:16:18 GMT
I'm fairly sure Pisstaker has secured that crown now in all non-fiddled polls (right, Radio Times?  ) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2022 2:16:43 GMT
That the classic show was devoid of developed character, becuase they aren't emotionally incontinent.
|
|
|
|
Post by UncleDeadly on Jan 13, 2022 8:37:52 GMT
I'm fairly sure Pisstaker has secured that crown now in all non-fiddled polls (right, Radio Times?  ) Which would be fine if, pre-Whittaker, they had rightfully bestowed that dubious "honour" upon the most deserving claimant; one David McDonald.
|
|
|
|
Post by RobFilth on Jan 13, 2022 9:04:56 GMT
Where to start?
That Daleks could not climb stairs and were thwarted by them, that without exception all the special effects were rubbish when given the small budget some were very respectable indeed, that the programme was rubbish in the 80's when it admittedly wasn't at it's peak like in the mid 70's but was still highly watchable stuff, that regeneration was "shapeshifting" and there were no limits attached to the convention, that none of the companions had back stories and were just ciphers to ask the Doctor questions, that there were no positive female role models in the programme, all the special effects were cardboard boxes, empty washing up bottles and tinsil, that the Doctor was an establishment figure whilst working for UNIT, there was never any romance portrayed in the Classic Series or scenes of emotional resonance.
The list goes on and on...
|
|
|
|
Post by UncleDeadly on Jan 13, 2022 9:13:28 GMT
Colin Baker being derided as the worst Doctor of the lot. I've always failed to understand this, even in the context of people divorcing his Doctor from his era and decrying the "poor scripts", because Season 22, bar Timelash, is one of the most varied and daring seasons of the Classic Series, and I don't even think Season 23 is that bad these days. Stories like Revelation of the Daleks put all of NuWho to shame, and the fact that many polls even go as far as to place Whittaker above Colin is absolutely bloody baffling. One is eloquent, verbose and appropriately in character with the professorial archetype exhibited by the Doctor, whilst the other is an abject caricature blessed with gems like "Are ya Ed Sheeran?". "I never knew such precognitions of my own death could be so disturbing..." "Earf is protected ba me and mea mates!" The sheer chasm between both lines speaks volumes... Yes, yes and yes. I've always found this equally baffling. The oft-parroted criticisms of Colin Baker's performance and the quality of the scripts of the era (these seem to be interchangeable) simply don't align with reality when one watches the actual shows. There's many a time i've read posts by some poor sod of a gallifrey base member, who after years of avoiding Colin Baker due to the peer pressure of other fans (and, consequently, obediently downvoting Colin in every available poll) has finally got around to actually watching the stories and, guess what? Finally concluding that there's "Nothing wrong with him". The truth of the matter is, of course, pretty obvious; hello, Colin Baker was the Doctor when the show got axed and they've simply never forgiven him for it, heedless of the fact that it was nothing to do with him and the series was cancelled by a Tory bean-counter who has since admitted in print to having "Never got science fiction". Predictably, if one peruses the profiles of the more vociferous members of the Colin Baker-hating brigade on gallifrey base, one always finds the same thing; they were all snot-nosed Doctor Who-obsessed teenagers at the time of the cancellation (Hi Chris!), they've never got over it and, almost to a man, they are now staunch defenders of Jodie. As such, finally revealing themselves as the indiscriminate charlatans they really always were. It's instructive to note, i think, that said criticisms of Colin Baker and his era only began to emerge after the cancellation and not before. Until then, he was fine, apparently... |
|
|
|
Post by UncleDeadly on Jan 13, 2022 9:25:48 GMT
...which leads me neatly in to my own personal least-favourite bugbear; no, the Doctor doesn't push the guards into the acid bath in Varos!!!
Admittedly, i must be reasonable; i mean, the thing's only been consistently available on home video since the f*cking early '90s. Doctor Who fans clearly need reasonable time to catch up. After all, they're not the kind of people who'd rush to download a story on the dot of midnight because they simply can't control themselves and then go on to obediently buy the same damn thing over and over again in different packaging, are they...?
The only thing i can ultimately conclude is that these people love collecting Doctor Who stories. They just don't watch them. Which probably explains the popularity of nuwho.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Jan 13, 2022 11:03:44 GMT
Where to start? That Daleks could not climb stairs and were thwarted by them, that without exception all the special effects were rubbish when given the small budget some were very respectable indeed, that the programme was rubbish in the 80's when it admittedly wasn't at it's peak like in the mid 70's but was still highly watchable stuff, that regeneration was "shapeshifting" and there were no limits attached to the convention, that none of the companions had back stories and were just ciphers to ask the Doctor questions, that there were no positive female role models in the programme, all the special effects were cardboard boxes, empty washing up bottles and tinsil, that the Doctor was an establishment figure whilst working for UNIT, there was never any romance portrayed in the Classic Series or scenes of emotional resonance. The list goes on and on... Yeah, let's go through some of these, because these are all bugbears of mine as well. "...without exception all the special effects were rubbish when given the small budget some were very respectable indeed..." Yes, this has always perplexed me too. Prior to delving into the Classic Series, I wasn't aware of its unwarranted reputation as an exclusively crap looking series and had no expectation of such, yet amusingly, my parents initially thought I'd dislike it purely because of its age and perceived tattiness. The first story I watched was The Invasion, which immediately undermined that myth. How someone can say with a straight face that stories like that, An Unearthly Child, Web of Fear, Spearhead from Space, Inferno, Terror of the Zygons (excluding the Skarasen), Seeds of Doom etc all look crap is baffling to me. Yes, some lesser stories did look shit, but the average story didn't look any worse than any other studio bound BBC production of the period. "...that the programme was rubbish in the 80's when it admittedly wasn't at it's peak like in the mid 70's but was still highly watchable stuff..." Yeah, I'd take Full Circle, Warriors' Gate, Kinda, Earthshock, Mawdryn Undead, Enlightenment, Caves of Androzani, Attack of the Cybermen, Vengeance on Varos, Revelation of the Daleks, Remembrance of the Daleks, Greatest Show and Curse of Fenric (as much as we differ on that score) over the bulk of the new series. Yes, there were low points during the 80s, but I'd argue that they only take up about a single year of the decade (two at best), and the decade is easily the most varied both stylistically and conceptually for Doctor Who. "...that none of the companions had back stories and were just ciphers to ask the Doctor questions...there was never any romance portrayed in the Classic Series or scenes of emotional resonance." Oh, God. Even relatives of mine have espoused this narrative before, and it doesn't hold up to scrutiny amidst actually viewing the stories. The only reason this idea gained traction is because the New Series has often received PR declaring it to display "real emotion" and because the narratives are accommodated around soap opera archetypes rather than science fiction ideas. On these grounds, you could make the shallow argument that a film like "Metropolis" or "Blade Runner" lacked fleshed out characters on the grounds that the films are centred around a specific set of science fiction ideas as opposed to soap opera conventions, but it's still blatantly untrue. Both films are masterpieces yet continue to exhibit complex characterisation, albeit in a comparatively underplayed manner whereby the narrative dominated, in much the same manner that Who often did. Take that moment in "The Crusade" whereby Barbara is briefly coerced into deciding between either murdering a child with her Father's knife, or seeing her sold into sex slavery (and The Aztecs speaks for itself when it comes to characterisation), or the previously discussed heartfelt moments on here: Victoria's conversation with Troughton's Doctor in "Tomb of the Cybermen", the quiet albeit devastating conclusion of "The War Games", etc. It's such a lazy generalisation that compartmentalises "character drama" into the trope of mawkishness. "...that the Doctor was an establishment figure whilst working for UNIT..." Yep, purely because he just happens to work for them. Despite the fact that he's predominantly desperate to escape Earth and bugger off away into the cosmos, despite his blatant disdain for the "military mind", despite his equal disdain for British Imperialism "England for the English- good heavens, man!", despite the fact that he's described as a friend of Mao, and despite the fact that almost every single human antagonist (primary or secondary) in a Pertwee era story happens to be an establishment bureaucrat who lionises corporate interests and/or hegemonic systems. Ah- I suppose the Third Doctor must be a Conservative! Who else would spend their time scoffing at corporate and hierarchal influences as frequently as that...  |
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Jan 13, 2022 11:15:15 GMT
...which leads me neatly in to my own personal least-favourite bugbear; no, the Doctor doesn't push the guards into the acid bath in Varos!!!Admittedly, i must be reasonable; i mean, the thing's only been consistently available on home video since the fokking early '90s. Doctor Who fans clearly need reasonable time to catch up. After all, they're not the kind of people who'd rush to download a story on the dot of midnight because they simply can't control themselves and then go on to obediently buy the same damn thing over and over again in different packaging, are they...? The only thing i can ultimately conclude is that these people love collecting Doctor Who stories. They just don't watch them. Which probably explains the popularity of nuwho. I remember reading in Mark Campbell's "The Complete Guide to Doctor Who" a description of this calibre: "The infamous acid bath scene, in which the Doctor makes a flippant comment after watching two men die, is deeply problematic". Are we seriously ruling out the possibility of Tom Baker making a flippant remark after such a moment of abject black comedy? Because that's precisely what he *would* do. I fail to understand how it's remotely out of character, and as you remark, he never pushes anyone into the bath. He announces his presence, causing one of the guards to fall in inadvertently, and is subsequently forced to defend himself against the other guard in close-quarters combat before he is himself pulled in by the other. Where did this misconception originate from? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2022 14:29:23 GMT
How about the idea that that the Doctor wanted to shag Joe. Now there’s some bullshit that’s stuck around longer then it ever should have.
As I said in my thoughts on Green Death, there’s pretty much no indication the Doctor is romantically interested in her and people who say otherwise are the kind who boil down down every interaction in a show as sexual tension or attraction. Which is very emotionally immature.
Then you have his supposed friendship with the Master. A friendship which we see deteriorate, the brake all while with Pertwee and Delgado, and would become more hostile from Tom onward.
I don’t know why the Third Doctor became the source for some of the biggest nuwho myth making but there it is.
Why do people want to boil everything down to sex? Last time I checked the human mind was a complex thing, capable of nuanced thoughts and feelings. By these peoples metrics you can’t have a relationship with anyone without wanting to shag them?!
|
|
|
|
Post by iank on Jan 13, 2022 20:48:24 GMT
Because these people have the emotional maturity of a blueberry muffin. I have oft-spoken of being aware of the profound belief that Colin was a bad Doctor and had rubbish stories when I became a fan in the late 80s. Then I got Attack from a new fan friend, and was blown away by both. In fact I vastly preferred the story to several of the others I got from him, such as The Daleks, The Mind Robber and The Daemons... My first lesson in "Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone's got one, and everyone else's stink..."  |
|
|
|
Post by UncleDeadly on Jan 14, 2022 18:02:54 GMT
I remember reading in Mark Campbell's "The Complete Guide to Doctor Who" a description of this calibre: "The infamous acid bath scene, in which the Doctor makes a flippant comment after watching two men die, is deeply problematic". Oh don't get me started on that lousy book. A towering work of idiocy that i've had the misfortune to receive as a gift twice. The prick actually gives Paradise Towers 9/10....  Of course he would. It's a total case of double standards, as usual. When the Sixth Doctor poisons Shockeye, it's murder, when the Fourth Doctor poisons Solon no-one says a fokking word. When the Sixth Doctor shoots the Cybermen, it's a sadistic massacre, when the supposedly pacifistic Fith Doctor straddles the prostrate Cyber leader, firing death bolts into his chest at point blank range, no-one ever talks about it. And so on and so on....
But then, they don't watch it. Which is why Peter Davidson is so famous.
|
|
)
)
