Or his bloody years in the Tupac Amaru
Doctor Who... Page 989
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 20 2013, 3:57 PM BSTI'm comfortable because it doesn't matter. I don't know you; to get truly upset about something that has no actual effect on my life would be a little absurd and insecure of me. I have enough real things to be absurd and insecure about.
You do know me. You've known me for years. We don't go bowling together but we do know each other. I know your personality well. I could easily advise someone programming an android...
Quote: Lazzard @ May 20 2013, 6:09 PM BSTMmm.
I think I'm just generally bored with the current obsession with "origin' stories.
It seems who ever takes over a franchise, here or in Hollywood, wants to trump everyone else who's ever written before by 'solving' the enigma that is Batman/Sherlock/Superman/The Doctor et etc.
It's a peculiar sort of vanity.
I want characters to grow and stories to move forward - not spend series after series trying to 'find' themselves.
Which, I reckon, is what the writers are trying to do for themselves.
It's all a bit "me, me, me".
Which is very current and the disease of our times, so I guess it's to be expected.
You'll be interested to learn (if you don't know already) that the obsession with backstory and internal continuity has been identified in academic studies as the principal reason the show declined and was cancelled in the mid 80s. Of course Neither Moffat nor RTD has shown any awareness of any of this material - of which there is a lot - or a wish to avoid the mistakes of the past.
On the commentary of the Nightmare of Eden DVD Bob Baker recounts that he wrote to RTD offering his services but was rebuffed. Sad. The show has a history and cultural significance that means it belongs to the nation and is not Moffat or RTD's plaything.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ May 20 2013, 6:31 PM BST... it belongs to the nation and is not Moffat or RTD's plaything.
Succinctly put and bang on the money.
And, no, I had not heard that theory about the series' original decline.
Interesting.
Quote: Lazzard @ May 20 2013, 6:37 PM BSTSuccinctly put and bang on the money.
If so, how do you suggest a showrunner approach such a show? If you put someone in charge of a world and show like this you would expect them to bend and reshape it to their own style to some degree, no? Just like a new actor infuses the role of The Doctor with their own personality, the showrunner infuses the show with theirs.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ May 20 2013, 6:31 PM BSTYou do know me. You've known me for years. We don't go bowling together but we do know each other. I know your personality well. I could easily advise someone programming an android...
Android or personal sex robot?
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 20 2013, 6:45 PM BSTIf so, how do you suggest a showrunner approach such a show? If you put someone in charge of a world and show like this you would expect them to bend and reshape it to their own style to some degree, no?
Huge question, that.
Personally I would not have a show-runner that provides an arc over disparate episodes.
In fact I would not have disparate episodes.
I would revert to the 'serial' format and allow a writer to create a self-contained story over several episodes - allow him to bring his own touches and 'foibles' to the world of that story - but not re-invent he wheel.
Have a producer in charge of 'house-style' - ideally not a writer , but a great producer.
No-one felt the need to re-shape Morse's world - just lots of great writers and producers keeping a consistent tone
About the decline in viewers in the eighties, I think becoming more interested in looking back did have some effect, but when it was initially taken off air for 18 months in the mid-eighties, the viewing figures were actually still strong. When it returned, about three million or so viewers didn't. From episode one. They didn't even come back to see what the show was then like. The figures never recovered, despite the actual upswing in quality in it's final couple of series. The BBC gave it no support, would barely advertise, if at all, and put it up against huge shows like Corrie. They didn't care about the show and let it quietly die.
Up until that pause in the mid-eighties, the show was still pulling in the viewers.
Quote: Lazzard @ May 20 2013, 6:55 PM BSTHuge question, that.
Personally I would not have a show-runner that provides an arc over disparate episodes.
In fact I would not have disparate episodes.
I would revert to the 'serial' format and allow a writer to create a self-contained story over several episodes - allow him to bring his own touches and 'foibles' to the world of that story - but not re-invent he wheel.
Have a producer in charge of 'house-style' - ideally not a writer , but a great producer.No-one felt the need to re-shape Morse's world - just lots of great writers and producers keeping a consistent tone
Isn't the problem that they're trying to ape the American showrunner style? When RTD brought Who back he was very open about being heavily indebted to shows like Buffy etc. Which might work with a show you've conceived yourself, but slightly more problematic when you're trying to impose it on a show with as much baggage and history as Who.
Quote: Lazzard @ May 20 2013, 6:55 PM BSTHuge question, that.
Personally I would not have a show-runner that provides an arc over disparate episodes.
In fact I would not have disparate episodes.
I would revert to the 'serial' format and allow a writer to create a self-contained story over several episodes - allow him to bring his own touches and 'foibles' to the world of that story - but not re-invent he wheel.
Have a producer in charge of 'house-style' - ideally not a writer , but a great producer.
It's good idea, basically close to how it used to be done, but I think the channel would worry about keeping casual viewers. If you tune in and see it's episode three, why stick around? Obviously you shouldn't just run the show thinking about those sort of viewers, but I know it's one reason why when the show returned they chose to have mainly stand-alone episodes, and would even give part 2 of two part stories their own unique title to try and stop people turning over.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 20 2013, 7:06 PM BSTIt's good idea, basically close to how it used to be done, but I think the channel would worry about keeping casual viewers. If you tune in and see it's episode three, why stick around? Obviously you shouldn't just run the show thinking about those sort of viewers, but I know it's one reason why when the show returned they chose to have mainly stand-alone episodes, and would even give part 2 of two part stories their own unique title to try and stop people turning over.
Your analysis is, I suspect, correct.
But that doesn't make it laudable.
Time was the BBC didn't worry about such things.
And anyway, in these days of catch-up TV, isn't that argument increasingly irrelevant?
And look at successes like Broadchurch....
We underestimate the audience at our peril
Why has it become usual for Who to have dozens of different writers? Didn't one man write all/almost all of The Sopranos? It's not like it's an impossible task for one person to write a series.
Quote: zooo @ May 20 2013, 7:45 PM BSTWhy has it become usual for Who to have dozens of different writers? Didn't one man write all/almost all of The Sopranos? It's not like it's an impossible task for one person to write a series.
Terry Nation did all of the first series of Blake's 7 but it nearly did his head in. It's a lot of pressure to put on a writer, especially in a science-fiction show where each episode can and often does introduce a new world.
Nah, they're just lazy. 
No, Sarah-Jane's the ultimate companion!
Quote: Godot Taxis @ May 20 2013, 3:38 PM BSTIf you're comfortable with someone constantly ridiculing you then you have impressed me. I wouldn't be. I wouldn't take the rubbish I fling at you from you. Fortunately you don't seem to be able to give it.
Stott: Um, if you say so.
Just remember, Godot, young Stott once went to boxing lessons.
Quote: Tim Azure @ May 20 2013, 9:09 PM BSTNo, Sarah-Jane's the ultimate companion!
She's the ultimate something. 
Or, at least, she was. 
Quote: Tim Azure @ May 20 2013, 9:09 PM BSTNo, Sarah-Jane's the ultimate companion!
No Jo Grant 