|
|
Post by Maggadin on Jun 20, 2011 23:04:47 GMT
Well, see, I'm not a fan of either, so I'm not sure where that leaves me. I'm a total pariah, it seems.  |
|
|
|
Post by jjpor on Jun 20, 2011 23:16:38 GMT
I think the whole 9-10-11 run has lifted the bar for the entire series. I'd have to respectfully disagree there, kirkg - I think the new series has definitely had its moments and produced some very fine stories and runs of stories, but so did the original series, and over a much longer timespan. Sure, oldWho had its ups and its downs and it's not always easy to look past the generally ropy production values and sfx (I mean, I think it was at any given time getting much, much less money spent on it than things like Star Trek TOS, to mention Trek yet again on this thread), but you know, when it was good it was very very good. At its best, it had a lot of heart and a lot of brains; so does new Who, wrapped up in a somewhat shinier package, but I'm not sure even at its best nuWho has ever surpassed the best of the old series. I'm just an oldschooler at heart, I guess. I've seen reviews that take the opposite tack: that you're mentally deficient or intellectually unsophisticated if you like the show as it is now, because it means you've been fooled by Moffat's bag of threadbare plot devices and tawdry tricks. ;D. Like my personal hero Larry Miles, f'rinstance!  Well, I'd certainly be up for some hot Ten-on-Eleven action...  |
|
|
|
Post by clocketpatch on Jun 21, 2011 0:45:17 GMT
I don't know whether to be pleased or dismayed that my little thread has sparked such controversy and disucssion  It'll happen.  just count yourself lucky that no one's started throwing cake. Though, now that I've mentioned it... Well, I'd certainly be up for some hot Ten-on-Eleven action... With cake? ...it's a better mental image than Rusty/Moff/Larry Miles anyway. Ahem. Yes, if my mental eyes must be scarred by sudden unthinkable thoughts yours must be too. That's just the way I roll. I think the whole 9-10-11 run has lifted the bar for the entire series. I have to agree with JJ on this one. While the special effects bar has lifted in some cases - some of the Classic episodes actually had pretty spiffy effects for the time, even if they look a bit silly now, granted most didn't, but some did. They managed to reproduce effects from Hollywood movies on a fraction of a budget without visible compromise in some cases which is pretty damn cool. And then you've got your silly model dinosaurs which really have no excuse... Er, I'm tangent-ing aren't I? Anyway there are Classic episodes which are absolutely, for lack of a better word, classic in a sweeping way they you don't really see often in the new series. Granted, sometimes you didn't see it all that often in the old series either. Part of it might be the 50:50 hindsight. I get a kick out of all the social commentary they're sneaking in under the radar in some of those old episodes, but they were doing that in 2005 too. I didn't notice all of the Weapons of Mass Destruction comments in Nine era until several years on anyway. And the Classic stuff is paced very differently, again falling to the era when it was produced. I don't think I would've liked it right off the bat without prior nuWho indoctrination, but now I can't get enough of it. As it is, I'm still sticking with Moffat, but I think it's got to the point where he has to start paying off some of his narrative I.O.Us, sooner rather than later. Narrative I.O.U.s is a dashed fine way of explaining it. Thanks JJ. Johne, it's not letting me pressed the back button to grab you for a quote, I quite agree. Everyone shouts Nanananana SMARTER! So loud trying to drown out the other side that they get deaf to the fact that their side is shouting just as loud and angry, and so it intensifies... Lets ignore them and dance on the forest floor eating bananas shall we? Uh... I was watching Tarzan two minutes ago. It may be sneaking into me metaphors slightly. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Maggadin on Jun 21, 2011 12:27:15 GMT
And please keep in mind: Special effects in and of themselves do not a good story make, so I wouldn't say that ''but some of the episodes have good effects for their time period'' is not evidence of how good the stories are. So, yes, ''Classic'' Who had a few rubbish stories (it did last for twenty-six years, after all), but so does ''New'' Who, I'd argue. Again, I'm the pariah. |
|
leamichelle
Code/Graphics Moderator 
Of the Cult of the Chicken of Rassilon (thanks LL!)
Posts: 157
|
Post by leamichelle on Jun 21, 2011 16:24:10 GMT
...it's a better mental image than Rusty/Moff/Larry Miles anyway. Ahem. Yes, if my mental eyes must be scarred by sudden unthinkable thoughts yours must be too. That's just the way I roll. Rusty/Moff/Larry Miles? Wasn't that a Terrance Dicks compilation? ;D I hesitate when people try to judge intelligence based on matters of opinion. It simply cannot be done. (Well, it can, but it isn't a very accurate method, is it?) I'd prefer to think about Ten/Eleven, personally. xD |
|
|
|
Post by Maggadin on Jun 21, 2011 22:15:33 GMT
To be fair to Larry Miles, he wasn't to happy with RTD, either. Just like m- Oh.My.God. |
|
|
|
Post by clocketpatch on Jun 22, 2011 2:07:24 GMT
And please keep in mind: Special effects in and of themselves do not a good story make, so I wouldn't say that ''but some of the episodes have good effects for their time period'' is not evidence of how good the stories are. So, yes, ''Classic'' Who had a few rubbish stories (it did last for twenty-six years, after all), but so does ''New'' Who, I'd argue. Nah, I wasn't trying to make that comparison. I think that the best Classic stories are the ones with the strong plots, witty dialogue, great guest stars, and well-rounded companions - just as I do with the nuWho stories. Mostly I was aiming at people who dismiss all of Classic Who based on the effects looking dodgy - I mean, sure they do, most of the time, but not all of the time, so even that judgment is refuted. Ha! Or...er... there are still the bad dinosaurs that one time so maybe not... (I love that episode to pieces though) |
|
|
|
Post by magnusgreel on Jul 1, 2011 22:26:56 GMT
Regarding everything I'm about to say, I may be wrong. I may be painfully, totally wrong, on some things. Still, I'm doing my best, and if I make mistakes, I want to be told so I can learn from them...
Maggadin, I generally agree with you, and perhaps it will help to hear that at this point... I thought well of Moffat for a long time, based just on Empty Child. I'm over that now. All the stories are emptier each year, and when something starts to be interesting, too often it turns out it's been lifted from classic Who, without any original twist. They get away with this because so many viewers haven't seen the original series. I think the CGI (plus frequent edits) serves as a sort of smoke-and-mirrors display, which distracts from uncompelling stories.
As for Moffatt as a genius who writes in a challenging, complex way... well, he has twists and surprises, but ones which don't interest me. Convoluted plot points can be worthwhile, or just convoluted. Note please that I mean the following with respect, and that I'm trying to word it so that this comes across: It can happen, I think, that intelligent fans can view a stretch of DW that is perhaps not up to their standards, and then raise up those stories in their imaginations, validating them, reading more into them than perhaps is there. In our enthusiasm to have DW be great, we all have tried to make certain stories better than they probably are.
Moffatt has stated that he makes DW primarily for a young audience, and that he makes apocalyptic, saving-the-whole-universe stories specifically because kids like that sort of thing. I think that it's implied in that statement that he feels adults grow out of that sort of thing. (I think he's very wrong... in a sense, every WW2 film or documentary ever made has the same saving-the-world quality) So, I don't think Moffatt writes and produces for himself, unless it's for his much younger self. I think it's a problem, if you're not a part of the audience you're writing for. He may in fact be writing/producing "down" to us.
So, instead of being drawn into the big earth-shaking hyperdrama of current DW, partly on faith in Moffat's "genius" and ambition based on the scale of these stories, I'm going to suggest we hold off on all that, and be more skeptical. We actually may be taking his stories more seriously than he does....
|
|
kirkg
Auton Daisy
"Hello, Sweetie!"
Posts: 442
|
Post by kirkg on Jul 2, 2011 3:01:51 GMT
You didn't by any chance submit your last posting as a class assignment to write a critical review, did you?  |
|
|
|
Post by magnusgreel on Jul 2, 2011 4:45:15 GMT
You didn't by any chance submit your last posting as a class assignment to write a critical review, did you? Funny, I just thought I was making a point. And no, I haven't been in school for about 30 years. |
|
|
|
Post by clocketpatch on Jul 2, 2011 6:34:35 GMT
I very much enjoyed reading Magnus - especially the point about the Moff writing down to his audience based on his belief of what they want. In my (not particularly broad or relevant) experience, what you think the people want is rarely what they actually want, and if you yourself don't enjoy what you're creating or find it simulating then, odds are it's going to turn out a bit crap.
Or to sum it up: I think you put a finger on it with "we may be taking this more seriously than he is"
|
|
|
|
Post by magnusgreel on Jul 2, 2011 7:57:59 GMT
I like the fact, Clocket, that you managed to get to where I was headed, even though I didn't fully get there myself! If you're not a part of your target audience, there's going to be something dishonest, possibly patronizing in your writing. I think you have to look your audience straight in the eye, as equals.
We never know a group we're not part of nearly as well as we like to think we do. "I'm not crazy about this, but you people will like it, I'm sure" is a terrible, unworkable policy, I think. This seems to invalidate, say, children's literature, but I didn't read much of it apart from "The Hobbit"... which was great of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by jjpor on Jul 2, 2011 16:04:18 GMT
You didn't by any chance submit your last posting as a class assignment to write a critical review, did you? Kirk, if you disagree with Magnus, maybe argue some of the points he's made here instead of throwing jibes from the sidelines? So, instead of being drawn into the big earth-shaking hyperdrama of current DW, partly on faith in Moffat's "genius" and ambition based on the scale of these stories, I'm going to suggest we hold off on all that, and be more skeptical. We actually may be taking his stories more seriously than he does....I think this might cut to the heart of the matter, Magnus. I think it's something that's been said on here before with regard to the new series generally, but it's undoubtedly the case that a good deal of the general tone and preoccupations of NuWho has always been defined by demographics and who the perceived audience were. This isn't a problem that the producers of the old series ever faced, for while Bob Holmes might indeed have been pitching his stories at the "intelligent fourteen year old" or whatever it was he actually said, they in fact knew that they were writing for the entire audience. In the 60s or 70s, something like Doctor Who would be consumed by the entire television-watching public; it was the days before demographics and market research theory got a foothold in the business of making television. I honestly don't know about Moffat; I continue to hold my hands up (and I'm increasingly coming to feel like some sort of apologist every time I do ;D) and say that I generally like his writing and prefer it to RTD's tenure. Now whether being a good writer of fantasy-tinged television makes him a good sf writer or a good Doctor Who writer...that's an entirely different question, and a good one to raise, Magnus. I think it's true that he fails as a purveyor of science-based science fiction, inasmuch as old Who managed most of the time to keep things with at least some sort of scientific basis even if it was only technobabble. In those terms, NuWho is outright fantasy in the style of things like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and I guess it all depends on whether the individual fan is prepared to tolerate that. I do think Moffat's a cynical writer at times; RTD arguably was too, but you got the impression that he at least thought that the emotional payoffs he offered were genuinely emotional. Moffat by contrast seems to enjoy pushing audience's buttons in a quite calculated way. I think that shows in the whole what-the-heck-is-really-going-on story arc thing. I think Moffat likes to create effects in the audience, and confusion/suspense/whatever is just another effect. I think that's more important to him than actually tying the story up in a way that makes sense; this is a conclusion I've come to in the past weeks, thinking about the end of the last half-season and the ending of the last one. Now, when the effect you're creating in the audience is one that makes them want to keep watching or instead ends up p****ing off the very part of the audience who are the most engaged in the plotting and counter-plotting...well, I think that's something Mr Moffat needs to think about good and hard (yes, I'm still a bit bitter about the complete non-ending to the first half of S6 ). But yeah, as I say, I'm still enjoying Moffat's tenure, still greatly liking Matt Smith as Eleven, but at the risk of sounding like some sort of naive fool, I'm starting to want something a bit more straightforward and classical and a bit less divisive. I guess fandom's always been the same, but all of this for/anti Ten/Eleven RTD/Moffat argument going on at the moment, it sort of gets me down sometimes. So yes, Magnus, in future I'm going to try to take it all as seriously as it deserves, which is...not very, really. ;D Now, oldschool Who - that's where the conceptual action is! |
|
|
|
Post by jjpor on Jul 2, 2011 16:08:01 GMT
...it's a better mental image than Rusty/Moff/Larry Miles anyway. Ahem. Yes, if my mental eyes must be scarred by sudden unthinkable thoughts yours must be too. NNNOOO - MY BRAIN! MY BRAIN!! All the Brainbleach in the world will never erase that... |
|
kirkg
Auton Daisy
"Hello, Sweetie!"
Posts: 442
|
Post by kirkg on Jul 2, 2011 18:12:27 GMT
You didn't by any chance submit your last posting as a class assignment to write a critical review, did you? Kirk, if you disagree with Magnus, maybe argue some of the points he's made here instead of throwing jibes from the sidelines? I KEED...I KEED.... I don't disagree or disparage Magnus nor any of the opinions here. It just struck me as being an extremely well-written review that would have been worthy of a class assignment. Guess I assumed that he too was in college, as we were discussing graduation just recently. I thought it was a very professional review. He's an effective writer. |
|
kirkg
Auton Daisy
"Hello, Sweetie!"
Posts: 442
|
Post by kirkg on Jul 2, 2011 18:14:01 GMT
You didn't by any chance submit your last posting as a class assignment to write a critical review, did you? Funny, I just thought I was making a point. And no, I haven't been in school for about 30 years. No, no, I thought it was very well written. I am impressed. I was kidding that perhaps you were getting double mileage out of it, that's all. I KEED...I KEED... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Maggadin on Jul 2, 2011 18:14:35 GMT
They get away with this because so many viewers haven't seen the original series. I think the CGI (plus frequent edits) serves as a sort of smoke-and-mirrors display, which distracts from uncompelling stories. Yes, I agree completely. And I wish that people would actually watch more than one or two episode of the classics before stating that the new stuff singlehandedly made the show cool. If it wasn't for the old stuff, the newer writers would never have the ideas that they do. Moffatt has stated that he makes DW primarily for a young audience, and that he makes apocalyptic, saving-the-whole-universe stories specifically because kids like that sort of thing. Well, I don't agree with him that that ''kids like that sort of thing'' only. They like it, sure, but they also like good stories, otherwise Doctor Who wouldn't have lasted 26 years before being cancelled. I don't mind the occasional saving-the-whole-universe finale, but they don't have to do it every single series, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by clocketpatch on Jul 3, 2011 0:45:03 GMT
This seems to invalidate, say, children's literature, but I didn't read much of it apart from "The Hobbit"... which was great of course. I've a feeling that's why so much children's literature is unreadable AND why they say that children's lit and YA (young adult) are the hardest genres to write. You need to have the talent and perseverance for writing that generally only comes with adulthood, while keeping away the adulthood cynicism that usually comes bundled with it. You need to still be a child at heart, spend time around children to know how they act, and not fall into the trap of trying be "down with the kids" by using slang that you don't entirely understand... Yeah, difficult. But good stories will out if they are written as good stories. |
|
|
|
Post by magnusgreel on Jul 3, 2011 8:25:14 GMT
I hate having to give I.O.U.s for substantive posts. I hope this thread will keep going, while I wait for the good neuro-transmitters to get flowing again. Anyway, thanks for clarifying, Kirk; I think the emoticon made me suspect something negative. I shouldn't be looking at anything that small anyway... Thanks jjpor for jumping in and saying what I was thinking about saying to Kirk... Thanks for your post also, Maggadin...
Jjpor, excellent post, and I'll go over it a few more times. All this starts to take reservations I've had, and tie them in with what you and others experience with the program. That sounds awfully vague, but I just mean that I've felt as if I've been dangling alone in mid-air, regarding all my criticisms of new DW. I've felt as if I don't dare mention them. Even if people may not agree though, or not agree entirely, apparently there's considerable overlap, enough that I can start feeling not so alien. Believe it or not, new-Who seeming to displace old Who, on different levels, has been hitting me hard.
I just finished Invasion of Time. I was afraid new DW had distorted my perceptions of DW so much that I couldn't get the feeling of it back, but at least partly, it's back!
Clocket, well said. Another reason for bad children's lit these days may be that every celebrity thinks they can write it! As for DW, I just want it kid-friendly but for adults primarily... anyone with a brain and an imagination and sense of adventure, things which were on their way out of the adult frame of mind, until the 60s/70s generation forced it back in... with programs like 70s DW!
Jjpor, you squeezed a lot of valuable ideas into that post. Thanks. "Now, oldschool Who - that's where the conceptual action is!" Yes!
|
|
|
|
Post by clocketpatch on Jul 3, 2011 14:06:24 GMT
Adding on to what I said before; children's lit is one of my favourite genres because when it's done well it's done so very well indeed (and generally doesn't have the obligatory awkward sex scene you find in adult novels...)
|
|
