Quote: Renegade Carpark @ August 2 2012, 3:24 PM BSTIt's a statue Matt,
If you honestly think they're a bad monster, then I don't think we're going to agree on Who, RC. Because they're brilliant.
Doctor Who... Page 833
I'm not sure anything would satisfy you, RC. I think you're too nostalgic about Classic Who, and too jaded for New Who.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ August 2 2012, 3:24 PM BSTThe villains in the classic series were often very well written and had decent motivations for their actions.
And they often weren't. I love old Who more than current Who, but I'm not going to pretend there wasn't a lot of dull old cack produced, with crappy baddies and stories that filled six episodes with twenty five minutes of material.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ August 2 2012, 3:17 PM BSTDefinitely one of the all time classic Who monsters now; and if we're honest, much better than 90% of the classic series monsters.
The weeping angels (along with the sontaran forced to serve as a battle nurse) are Moffat's best creations. As his special blend of convoluted, timey-wimey brain-sodomy becomes increasingly more and more unpopular expect to see them wheeled out more often.
They are a lot better than some of the classic foes, for sure - everything from the JNT era for example and I would say they are probably as frightening to kids today as Magnus Greel, Sutekh, The Krynoid were back in the 70s.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ August 2 2012, 3:15 PM BSTIf it did happen, it would no longer be the family show it's supposed to be, it would be a grown ups show that kids happened to turn on as well.
So, you're saying it's a show for babies? Because if you look at some of the kids sci-fi shows, especially from the past, they were much more frightening then any recent episode of Doctor Who.
Ironically, we live in an Internet age where all sorts of atrocities are screened almost non-stop and that being a child now is seemingly more dangerous then what it used to be - I said seemingly, it's probably no more or less dangerous. Why Doctor Who doesn't reflect this is beyond me.
Quote: Harridan @ August 2 2012, 3:16 PM BSTHave we all forgotten what 'grown up' Doctor Who looks like?
Torchwank! I'd forgotten about that. Now that was shite. I know it was RTD's baby, but surely Moffat must have changed the nappies a few times on that one - it was as smug and ridiculous as anything he's ever written.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ August 2 2012, 3:28 PM BSTSo, you're saying it's a show for babies?
I'm saying it's a family show; a show where the people who make it are not only asking how it will play to a fifty year old, but also to a six year old. It has to try and be for both.
Ooh, dinosaurs.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ August 2 2012, 3:28 PM BSTSo, you're saying it's a show for babies? Because if you look at some of the kids sci-fi shows, especially from the past, they were much more frightening then any recent episode of Doctor Who.
Ironically, we live in an Internet age where all sorts of atrocities are screened almost non-stop and that being a child now is seemingly more dangerous then what it used to be - I said seemingly, it's probably no more or less dangerous. Why Doctor Who doesn't reflect this is beyond me.
Because children's television, books, films, toys etc. are made by adults with an idea of what contemporary childhood is based on their memories of childhood, their outside observations of children, and their idealised hopes of what childhood should be, not by children themselves. Most adults want to shield children from harsh realities and so dead parents are brought back to life at the end of Christmas specials because we don't want children to have to deal with mortality.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ August 2 2012, 3:28 PM BSTSo, you're saying it's a show for babies? Because if you look at some of the kids sci-fi shows, especially from the past, they were much more frightening then any recent episode of Doctor Who.
Ironically, we live in an Internet age where all sorts of atrocities are screened almost non-stop and that being a child now is seemingly more dangerous then what it used to be - I said seemingly, it's probably no more or less dangerous. Why Doctor Who doesn't reflect this is beyond me.
Scripts sent to the BBC by Renegade
"Paedophile spearhead from Space"
"The yoots invasion of Hackney"
"Daleks with clahmydia."
Quote: Harridan @ August 2 2012, 3:27 PM BSTI'm not sure anything would satisfy you, RC. I think you're too nostalgic about Classic Who, and too jaded for New Who.
There are loads of sci-fi shows that I think are brilliant. From Firefly to Stargate to ST:TNG to Farscape. All of them vastly superior in terms of characterisation, dialogue and plots.
The New Who, which has a wealth of acting talent and special effectsm should have been a shining new dawn in the genre, instead it's a load of camp, unbelieveable fluffy nonsense aimed at kids - and pretty undemanding kids at that.
For you and Matthew, this might make it charming and fun, to me, it's an embarrassing mess and a missed opportunity at making something great.
FIREFLY!!
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ August 2 2012, 3:36 PM BSTThere are loads of sci-fi shows that I think are brilliant. From Firefly to Stargate to ST:TNG to Farscape. All of them vastly superior in terms of characterisation, dialogue and plots.
The New Who, which has a wealth of acting talent and special effectsm should have been a shining new dawn in the genre, instead it's a load of camp, unbelieveable fluffy nonsense aimed at kids - and pretty undemanding kids at that.
For you and Matthew, this might make it charming and fun, to me, it's an embarrassing mess and a missed opportunity at making something great.
Don't get me wrong - I want it to be a better show than it is, but I also appreciate that it is very hard to make a show that is good for adults and children. I just don't think they have completely failed with every episode of New Who.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ August 2 2012, 3:36 PM BSTThere are loads of sci-fi shows that I think are brilliant. From Firefly to Stargate to ST:TNG to Farscape. All of them vastly superior in terms of characterisation, dialogue and plots..
First of all, I'd disagree that they're all vastly superior in any of those aspects; secondly, they're not aimed at the same audience. Approach Who with the knowledge that part of its remit is to appeal to six year olds, and maybe you'll understand some of the choices more and they won't annoy you so much.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ August 2 2012, 3:36 PM BSTunbelieveable fluffy
Only it's not all fluffy, is it. Considering what I've just said about it being a family show, there are some really quite dark moments and scary ideas amongst the bright colours and jokes. I mean, whatever anyone made of the Van Gogh episode, it still dealt with mental illness and suicide. As well as a stupid turkey monster thingy.
New Who may have impressive acting talents.
It's effects budget is buttons compared to the US. That it produces some hugely convincing and well realised new worlds each episode.
Is one area in which it is hugely impressive.
It suffers from being a confused BBC pudding. With pressures on it from all directions.