|
Post by magnusgreel on Jul 16, 2011 22:47:06 GMT
www.wired.com/magazine/2011/06/pl_player_doctorwho/This fits in nicely with some things jjpor said. I'll just bite my tongue, and let SM speak for himself. At least I now know he doesn't even particularly want or expect the old fans like me to like his DW. It's not for us.
|
|
|
Post by Maggadin on Jul 16, 2011 22:52:08 GMT
I'm afraid to even look.
|
|
|
Post by clocketpatch on Jul 16, 2011 23:31:47 GMT
I rather liked this actually: "I can outgeek anybody: I’m always sneaking little nods to the fans into my scripts. That’s fine, but it’s for a tiny percent of the audience. It’s a big fat mainstream hit in Britain, and if you’ve got a big hit, you have to keep romancing the casual viewer. Keeping people happy who watch it now and then—that’s the hard part."Because that is the hard part. Though I'm not sure that big, complex plot-lines which require lots of viewer investment and continuity knowledge to understand are the best way to go about doing that... I liked his comments on Tom Baker, because they were respectful and true. I liked how he acknowledged Matt Smith and Cumberbatch's insane cheek bones. And, while I'd like to point out to him that I'm technically part of that new generation of fans and am not particularly pleased with some of his decisions, he is honestly trying to do what's best for the show and spread the magic into the future. Whether I agree with or like his scripts is mote, because I'm not the one writing them. (The name for the next episode though, seriously, I want someone to pick his brain on that, because wtf)
|
|
leamichelle
Code/Graphics Moderator
Of the Cult of the Chicken of Rassilon (thanks LL!)
Posts: 157
|
Post by leamichelle on Jul 17, 2011 10:30:02 GMT
I'm always hesitant to share my true feelings about certain aspects of the show, as I do not wish to appear snooty or unable to adapt, especially on the internet where people can pick up on tones in text that aren't really there. I know I shouldn't feel this way here ... shouldn't ... but there you are. I will say this, though. I think that was a very good interview, if a little unnerving at points.
When he says " It’s a big fat mainstream hit in Britain, and if you’ve got a big hit, you have to keep romancing the casual viewer" I can't help but think ... more kissing? more romance? more vapid heroics? I'm probably wrong; I usually am about these things. I'm just wondering if anyone else has had the same thoughts.
Moffat is still the same writer, to me, who wrote "Blink." He can be exceedingly brilliant. But he also has his faults. I do, however, appreciate his honesty.
|
|
|
Post by Maggadin on Jul 17, 2011 17:25:28 GMT
LM, the show is pretty much all about romantic relationships at this point. Just like any other show.
|
|
|
Post by magnusgreel on Jul 17, 2011 18:02:56 GMT
I think his talk about nods to the old show is condescending. The references to things from original DW are cute winks, there for fun, not substantial links which are there because he wants to expand on the internal history. It's not a matter of challenging, creative, responsible storytelling for him, connecting new Who to events in old Who, to him, it's more like sprinkles on a sundae. The Tom Baker era is just enjoyable nostalgia to him.
|
|
leamichelle
Code/Graphics Moderator
Of the Cult of the Chicken of Rassilon (thanks LL!)
Posts: 157
|
Post by leamichelle on Jul 17, 2011 19:02:06 GMT
Mags - I'm not so much against relationships as I am against making them the focal point of a plotline. It is a bit of a tiresome practice, isn't it?
magnusgreel - It might be, or it might be the way the words look in the article that strikes an already-heightened emotion. I have no way of knowing as I wasn't in the vicinity of Moffat as he said them. It raised a concern, that's all. Current trends aside, I still have no idea what's going to happen in the next half of the series. I do no one any favours by being pessimistic, least of all myself. I appreciate the input, though!
|
|
|
Post by magnusgreel on Jul 17, 2011 21:04:19 GMT
Actually, I'm talking more about what he does with stories. The interview just makes his attitude a bit clearer. A lot clearer, actually. I'm not just going by this interview.
|
|
|
Post by Maggadin on Jul 17, 2011 21:27:43 GMT
Mags - I'm not so much against relationships as I am against making them the focal point of a plotline. It is a bit of a tiresome practice, isn't it? Yes, I agree with this. The problem is that I think that the relationships in the show are just that, ATM. There's a hyperfocus on romantic love to the near exclusion of every other type of love. magnusgreel - It might be, or it might be the way the words look in the article that strikes an already-heightened emotion. I have no way of knowing as I wasn't in the vicinity of Moffat as he said them. It raised a concern, that's all. Current trends aside, I still have no idea what's going to happen in the next half of the series. I do no one any favours by being pessimistic, least of all myself. I appreciate the input, though! Well, that's all a matter of opinion. Personally, I think that there are good reasons for me to be pessimistic, given that most of my ''fears'' have come true, so far.
|
|
|
Post by jjpor on Jul 18, 2011 21:32:01 GMT
Hmm, yeah. I've just read it a second time trying to see what the "secrets" are. ;D I think it highlights that whatever cosmetic differences or differences in storytelling styles may exist, Moffat is pretty much straight-down-the-line following the Russell T Davies book of how to make popular (indeed populist!) television. Don't scare the "casual viewer" by letting on that they're watching a forty-seven year old television programme, the first twenty-six years of which are now regarded in mainstream pop culture pretty much as fodder for bad one-liners on panel shows etc. You know, pretend it's something young and cool and modern and if you're going to acknowledge the old stuff, put it in as "easter eggs" that attempt to appease the old series fans while going unnoticed by the casual viewers. So I agree, the new series at best treats the old series as something quaint and nostalgic - not really as something substantive and worthy of respect. Which is a crying shame, as both Moffat and RTD before him have made very heartening remarks in the past correcting stupid journalists who make belittling or reductive comments about the old series. It's clear they're fans and they love the old series, to me, but when they're wearing their television writer-producer hats all of that goes out of the window. I do think modern mainstream television is fundamentally superficial most of the time, terrified of actually challenging or unsettling the viewers, but that's the way the game seems to be played. I think it's not so much an old Who-vs-NuWho thing as a difference between television in the 60s-80s and television in the modern information age. I think pre-1990 television treated its viewers with far more respect and less condescencion than modern day tv does. I think it assumed viewers could comprehend substantive stories and plots and could relate to characters and their emotions without being spoonfed soapy dialogue or manipulated by almost Pavlovian incidental music. The world has changed a great deal even in my own shortish lifetime and not necessarily for the better. Certainly, there are good televisual reasons for taking the approach that NuWho does, from a ratings, marketing, audience share point of view, but I can fully sympathise with those old school fans who don't regard it as the same show that existed before 1989 and aren't really interested in following it. I don't happen to share that viewpoint, but I respect it, and I certainly don't have the same place in my heart for NuWho, even the parts I've enjoyed, that I do for the stuff I first came into contact with as a kid in the good old days. Regarding Moffat himself, I think the thing is Rusty kind of revelled in the flashy, empty spectacle and excessive emotionalism. Dare I say, without wanting to sound like some sort of homophobe, that he has that sort of camp sensibility and wears it on his sleeve, and good for him. Moffat, on the other hand (described by Larry Miles as "the most heterosexual man in the world", not that that's probably strictly relevant) is clearly a very intelligent and capable writer, but is sometimes too clever for his own good. I think he sees TV writing as a kind of game and he wins if he manages to outwit/surprise/otherwise get a rise out of the viewer. Hence talking about not losing the casual viewers while constructing intricate, seemingly never-ending story arcs that surely must be losing some of those casual viewers somewhere along the way. Here's another interview of his I came across a while ago - it's from a few years ago, I think, and isn't even about Who but about some other show I've never seen, a sitcom that he wrote in the early nineties (in fact the bit with Moffat is only the middle part of a bigger article). But it's very revealing in some ways, in regard to the way he sees television and viewers, maybe moreso than the article linked to above: www.offthetelly.co.uk/?page_id=332
|
|
|
Post by Maggadin on Jul 18, 2011 22:17:30 GMT
The thing is, I've never been able to see the ''intricate'' part, as it's been pretty paint-by-numbers to me... I'm not sure if that's because I'm good at spotting patterns or if I'm too thick to understand True Genius. I'm one of those people who annoys her friends by predicting how movies will turn out. ;D
I don't really respect people just for being honest for the sake of it. People don't become less wanky just because they're honest about it. ;D
|
|
|
Post by jjpor on Jul 18, 2011 22:52:13 GMT
I don't necessarily mean "intricate" as a compliment in this particular instance. I think the word I was looking for was probably "convoluted". ;D Things can be complicated, or at least hard to understand, without necessarily being clever. Or as clever as the author thinks he's being, anyway. I still like much of what Moffat's doing, entertainment wise, while broadly being with Magnus on the subject of Doctor Who as an institution and the attitude the new series takes to it. However, I think Moffat showed signs in the last run of episodes of mistaking cheating the audience for twisty plotting, and I sort of want him to give me some answers, like, now. Another thing I meant to say above, but forgot - one reason I really liked the Neil Gaiman-scripted episode from the recent run was that I think it was respectful of Doctor Who the cultural and fictional entity. The whole story was about Doctor Who and what it means and what makes it special, and was generally a love letter to the show. It warmed the cockles of my heart, and currently I'm scoring it the best of S6a or whatever we're calling it, mainly for that reason.
|
|
|
Post by magnusgreel on Jul 19, 2011 2:01:51 GMT
Before I get into the early 90s Moffat interview, which I may not do tonight... I want to make sure I point out that jjpor, well, he's just the coolest. Specific reasons to be given at a later date, but he/you is/are making sense of a number of floating, disconnected impressions I've had for a long time. Whatever i'm trying to say, I'm sure I'll say it better next time...
|
|
kirkg
Auton Daisy
"Hello, Sweetie!"
Posts: 442
|
Post by kirkg on Jul 19, 2011 3:30:31 GMT
I just read it. No secrets revealed. Just a nice casual coversation about how he approaches the current show to keep it successful. Nothing to be feared here. Move on...
|
|
|
Post by magnusgreel on Jul 19, 2011 5:42:56 GMT
I just read it. No secrets revealed. Just a nice casual coversation about how he approaches the current show to keep it successful. Nothing to be feared here. Move on... We have different priorities. No need for you to be concerned, but reason for me to be.
|
|
|
Post by clocketpatch on Jul 19, 2011 6:23:33 GMT
I sort of skimmed that interview JJ. It makes me less than pleased that the first Moff-line my skimming eye landed up was:
“The gap in series killed it,” reckons Moffat. “Absolutely killed it. Precisely what it killed is a different question."
Ever have that sense that you're watching history run around in circle trying to eat its tail, but tripping and falling into a pool of acid and bad decision instead. Again and again and again?
|
|
|
Post by jjpor on Jul 21, 2011 19:49:49 GMT
Thanks Magnus - glad I made some sense to you. Hoping to hear your thoughts on some of the points I was trying to make when you're able to give them. Kirk, if you read some of Magnus's older posts, you'll see that as someone who's approaching the new show from the perspective of an old series fan, he has some (imho pretty well-founded) concerns about the approach taken by the new series since 2005. And to be honest, in the Wired interview Moffat pretty much confirms that many of Magnus's impressions are bang on the money. Clocket - all I can say is I was struck by the irony of that remark in particular. Maybe he's changed his mind on that since he became Who showrunner, but I think it's another confirmation that the split season this time and the expected delay before S7 are not voluntary on Moffat's part. Or at any rate, they're not for the creative/storytelling reasons he may have claimed when they split was first announced. Budgetary? A way of rescheduling permanently to the autumn in a hope of boosting the ratings? Because of the Olympics next year? Who knows, but I suspect it wasn't Moffat's choice, or at least not a choice he made alone...
|
|
|
Post by Maggadin on Jul 22, 2011 22:12:31 GMT
You know, every time I see the title of this thread I'm tempted to make some sort of below-the-belt joke because all I see it ''Moffat spills Se...''
|
|
|
Post by jjpor on Jul 22, 2011 22:50:44 GMT
You know, every time I see the title of this thread I'm tempted to make some sort of below-the-belt joke because all I see it ''Moffat spills Se...'' Ewwww...! But at the same time, yes, I can see that.
|
|
|
Post by Maggadin on Jul 23, 2011 0:19:56 GMT
Well, fine, I can see the ''C'' as well, but that just takes all the fun out of it. ;D Unless... ''Secretions''?
|
|