Doctor Who... Page 1,077

I blame SEVEN. There is a point when slasher horror movies (Texas chain saw etc) hid themselves in the mask of thriller genres with a detective etc. but these are all basically horror slasher movies or shows now. The masking is as intentional and obvious as the hockey mask whatsisface wears. Not seeing it is very odd and the marketing men's and studio bosses laugh and crack their bony knuckles all the way to the bank. Who needs screenwriters and stories and superfluous notions of intelligence and creativity. Let's just torture and mutilate people. It's a damn sight easier and cheaper. Vote with your brains. They photograph a turd beautifully and then give you the original and a spoon. Enjoy!

I actually prefer this thread when people go off topic. Saves me worrying about spoilers, or the need to jump in and defend Colin Baker from slanderous folk.

So I won't tell you that the Doctor turns out to be the Antichrist?

This thread sees the finest intellects on the forum engaging in important discussions about art and narrative and what makes for Classic TV. There are others posting of course too.

Quote: Marc P @ 8th June 2014, 6:47 PM BST

This thread sees the finest intellects on the forum engaging in important discussions about art and narrative and what makes for Classic TV. There are others posting of course too.

View original

Blimey, it's changed a lot since I was last here.

QED Lucy P

Welcome back Kevin Murphy.

Quote: Godot Taxis @ 8th June 2014, 12:06 PM BST

If you can't see that this isn't entertainment but some form of dysfunctional middle-class fascist hero-worship then you've got less brains than Liotta had when the coffees came round.

View original

Your analysis and somewhat 'loose' moral compass is incredibly myopic. You are attempting to stamp your moral authority on art, defining it in only the most narrow, Mumsnet, nanny state type way whilst hypocritically ignoring all of the books, films and television shows that carry the exact same sentiments of which you apparently detest but dressed up in different clothes.

'Oh no Hannibal ate someone!' - is that more or less morally reprehensible than wiping out an entire race of beings in a galactic genocide?

Save your Daily Mail alarmist approach to critiquing fine television shows at the door...or stick to Pixar movies, they have the pre-requisite amount of morally acceptable story telling.

How can a moral compass be 'loose'? It might be wrong or broken but 'loose'? I use a moral GPS anyway, which is far more accurate.

Sadly you appear to not understand either what you're watching or what I'm saying. Hannibal Lecter is the hero of the films and books he appears in - he's not even an anti-hero. We are invited to admire him and enjoy his behaviour. He kills people, but they're either cowards or liars like Krendler or Pazzi or 'real' perverts like the paedophile Mason Verger. He is frequently shown as more intelligent and sensitive than his captors.

His ability to follow his own desires as selfishly as possible is constantly celebrated and his depravity is presented as sophistication, with references to music, art and food. It is also suggested that we only find some aspects of his behaviour abhorrent (principally cannibalism) because we haven't attained his high level of personal development.

Back in the real world cannibalism and ritualistic murder exist, but their causes are far more mundane - starvation usually, in the case of cannibalism and social exclusion, parental violence and mental illness in the case of ritual murder.

Peter Sutcliffe was a long-distance lorry driver, not a professor of psychology. He didn't speak Italian, French or German. Robert Napper didn't know about art or play in an orchestra. Fred West could hardly read and write.

The Hannibal franchise is essentially bollocks.

I haven't seen the show for these reasons and agree. Many many years ago I submitted a proposal of a 'vampire Hunter' show. Long before current popularity. The twist was that he was a vampire hunter in the sense he was a vampire and a hunter of evil people. Half human half vampire he needed living blood to survive, to kill people essentially. The trouble was he had a working moral compass. So he sought out those people upon whom to 'feed' that would not be missed in the sense they were the worst kind of degenerate murderers etc. his humanity was at stake but he had to do this or die. He took no pleasure from his actions and at the heart of the concept the overriding themes is 'what is it that makes us human and not monsters?' Where are the lines drawn and by whom?

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/07/steven-moffat-ignores-canon-insists-that-the-doctor-could-be-human

Our good friend Mr. Muffwit is suggesting that The Doctor is not an alien, but in fact, human. He is asking where specifically The Doctor refers to himself as definitely alien in Classic Who.

Doing my usual 3 second Google search, I came across some Doc Who quotes -

'I'm not only from another culture but another planet. I am in your terms an alien.'

'Listen, there are no measurements in infinity. You humans have got such limited little minds. I don't know why I like you so much.'

'The Doctor: I thought I recognized the stars.

Sarah: You've been here before?

The Doctor: I was born in these parts.

Sarah: Near here?

The Doctor: Well, within a couple of billion miles, yes.'

In the Movie they made it adundantly clear he's half human so there.

Quote: Godot Taxis @ 26th June 2014, 2:59 AM BST

Sadly you appear to not understand either what you're watching or what I'm saying. Hannibal Lecter is the hero of the films and books he appears in - he's not even an anti-hero. We are invited to admire him and enjoy his behaviour. He kills people, but they're either cowards or liars like Krendler or Pazzi or 'real' perverts like the paedophile Mason Verger. He is frequently shown as more intelligent and sensitive than his captors.

His ability to follow his own desires as selfishly as possible is constantly celebrated and his depravity is presented as sophistication, with references to music, art and food. It is also suggested that we only find some aspects of his behaviour abhorrent (principally cannibalism) because we haven't attained his high level of personal development.

The Hannibal franchise is essentially bollocks.

View original

Change the names and you have James Bond or any other sophisticated, intelligent, anti-hero that dispenses violence to solve problems. Get this, in real life, spies cowardly poison Russian dissidents with radioactive sushi or are found dead in their own bathtubs after bondage sex games have gone awry.

Your argument is built on sand and your Moral GPS bought down the market from a dodgy Bulgarian.

Quote: sootyj @ 8th July 2014, 5:39 PM BST

In the Movie they made it adundantly clear he's half human so there.

View original

So's Spock, but he was born on another planet, has pointy ears and green blood - he ams an aliens.

Which is why James Bond is such a crappy character and if you shake the films to hard they fall apart. As opposed to complex, conflicted Harry Palmer or poor cuckolded George Smiley comforting himself with a cup of luke warm tea.

But Godot in the first 2 films and certainly in the books, Lecter is amoral and unsympathetic a cracked reflection to the heroes. It's depressing that so many people don't get Clarice Starling is absolutely the heroine.

Quote: sootyj @ 8th July 2014, 5:45 PM BST

But Godot in the first 2 films and certainly in the books, Lecter is amoral and unsympathetic a cracked reflection to the heroes. It's depressing that so many people don't get Clarice Starling is absolutely the heroine.

View original

Dracula is another classic example, in all of the Hammer Films he was portrayed as the baddy, yet he returned time after time because women like evil charming seducers and overtones of rape.