Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2020 2:28:05 GMT
What's everyone's opinion on the Churchill range? I'm interested due to the Doctor, but due to real life Churchill being a genocidal colonizer I find it difficult to want to buy it morally. How involved is the Doctor in contrast to Churchill?
|
|
|
Post by Digi on Jun 24, 2020 2:55:06 GMT
They are very much Churchill's stories. It's told in a similar way to the Companion Chronicles, with Ian McNeice's Churchill as the narrator. And Churchill being Churchill, he makes the stories about himself. The Doctor's appearances vary in length, but as I remember them are fairly minimal.
Personally I think it's a little silly to get hung up on the details of the real Churchill when you're listening to stories about him fighting Daleks and dealing with magic rocks. I enjoyed the two volumes quite a bit, more than I was expecting even.
|
|
|
Post by iainmclaughlin on Jun 24, 2020 13:18:02 GMT
I found writing Churchill fascinating. I have always been intrigued by him. He was MP for a constituency here in Dundee for 14 years until the early 20s. He was eventually run out of town as defeat by a Temperance Party candidate, Ned Scrimgeaour - and that alone must have burned Churchill. Churchill was desperately unpopular here in Dundee, and the animosity was mutual. He hated the city and its people, and said he would watch the grass grow in the streets of Dundee before he did anything to help the place. He declined the freedom of the city in 1943, so time didn't mellow him. So, I was always intrigued by why he was considered a saint in some places but he was hated here. That led me to go and read about him, to read about his attitudes on race and colonialism, his actions in Africa, India and Ireland... but against that is the undeniable fact that he was absolutely the right man to be PM from 1940-45, and the public were right to bin him in 45. I think Churchill is a prime example of nothing ever neing simple and clear cut. The world and everyone in it exists in shades of grey. So, writing Churchill, I went for him as someone who could be witty and charming; someone who believed he was doing the right thing... but he was on the opposite side of the argument from the Doctor for the bulk of my story and was wrong for most of it. But all the while it had to be true to the McNiece Churchill, who I tend to see as a polished version of the man. A character rather than a docomentary representation. Ultimately I had to treat him as a character but I put in bits of the real man as I saw him. Whether I got it right or not... not for me to say.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jun 24, 2020 13:39:03 GMT
To be honest I find this countries obsession with Churchill really weird. So I don't really have any interest in films, TV shows, audio dramas etc that feature him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2020 17:12:19 GMT
I found writing Churchill fascinating. I have always been intrigued by him. He was MP for a constituency here in Dundee for 14 years until the early 20s. He was eventually run out of town as defeat by a Temperance Party candidate, Ned Scrimgeaour - and that alone must have burned Churchill. Churchill was desperately unpopular here in Dundee, and the animosity was mutual. He hated the city and its people, and said he would watch the grass grow in the streets of Dundee before he did anything to help the place. He declined the freedom of the city in 1943, so time didn't mellow him. So, I was always intrigued by why he was considered a saint in some places but he was hated here. That led me to go and read about him, to read about his attitudes on race and colonialism, his actions in Africa, India and Ireland... but against that is the undeniable fact that he was absolutely the right man to be PM from 1940-45, and the public were right to bin him in 45. I think Churchill is a prime example of nothing ever neing simple and clear cut. The world and everyone in it exists in shades of grey. So, writing Churchill, I went for him as someone who could be witty and charming; someone who believed he was doing the right thing... but he was on the opposite side of the argument from the Doctor for the bulk of my story and was wrong for most of it. But all the while it had to be true to the McNiece Churchill, who I tend to see as a polished version of the man. A character rather than a docomentary representation. Ultimately I had to treat him as a character but I put in bits of the real man as I saw him. Whether I got it right or not... not for me to say. Thank you for that, it actually is refreshing to hear that backstory. I have found it very weird that The Doctor would WANT to associate with the likes of Churchill to begin with, that's said the powers that be set that up, and I'm glad to hear that at least in your stories he isn't a saint.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2020 17:18:54 GMT
Truth is I picture The Doctor wanting to spend significant time with Stalin due to various reason, but perhaps significantly mostly because of how he rebuilt the Soviet Union post WW2 destruction, and set the stage for the advancements to follow. Put in a word to BF eh? Lol. Plus remember the Soviets defeated the Nazis.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Jun 24, 2020 17:59:51 GMT
Truth is I picture The Doctor wanting to spend significant time with Stalin due to various reason, but perhaps significantly mostly because of how he rebuilt the Soviet Union post WW2 destruction, and set the stage for the advancements to follow. Put in a word to BF eh? Lol. Plus remember the Soviets defeated the Nazis. True. The Soviet contribution to winning WWII really isn’t really taught at all in American classes. As for Churchill, like most people of consequence, hell like most people, he was seriously flawed. I do wish at times that Big Finish would take a more objective view of the man because it’s the flaws that make for interesting drama. Still, I guess they subscribe to, “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”
|
|
|
Post by Digi on Jun 24, 2020 18:08:32 GMT
I don’t think The Churchill Years seriously misrepresented him in any significant way though. Between the writing and Ian McNeice’s performance, it’s pretty clear that they wanted to play him as self-righteous and profoundly arrogant, which describes the historical Churchill to a T. He comes across as both charming, while leaving you with the distinct impression that he’s a monstrous a-hole — also exactly describing the real Churchill.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2020 18:15:24 GMT
I don’t think The Churchill Years seriously misrepresented him in any significant way though. Between the writing and Ian McNeice’s performance, it’s pretty clear that they wanted to play him as self-righteous and profoundly arrogant, which describes the historical Churchill to a T. He comes across as both charming, while leaving you with the distinct impression that he’s a monstrous a-hole — also exactly describing the real Churchill. I think it's just the connection that Churchill views the Doctor as a friend and vice versa that's the issue. If the Nazis won, Churchill would have been the Hitler of the times, and that's a issue that I personally struggle with. Churchill was a bad human being.
|
|
|
Post by Digi on Jun 24, 2020 18:24:48 GMT
Churchill was, as with many of his contemporaries, a deeply flawed man. Particularly when viewed with 2020 sensibilities. But comparable to Hitler, he absolutely is not.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Jun 24, 2020 18:53:18 GMT
Coming soon from Big Finish Productions, The Churchill Chronicles v.3: Not As Bad As Hitler!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2020 18:56:10 GMT
Churchill was, as with many of his contemporaries, a deeply flawed man. Particularly when viewed with 2020 sensibilities. But comparable to Hitler, he absolutely is not. I think you need to look more into Churchill and his beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Jun 24, 2020 19:02:16 GMT
Churchill was, as with many of his contemporaries, a deeply flawed man. Particularly when viewed with 2020 sensibilities. But comparable to Hitler, he absolutely is not. I would agree.
|
|
|
Post by Digi on Jun 24, 2020 19:05:10 GMT
Churchill was, as with many of his contemporaries, a deeply flawed man. Particularly when viewed with 2020 sensibilities. But comparable to Hitler, he absolutely is not. I think you need to look more into Churchill and his beliefs. My uni degree is in history, mate. I've read plenty. Churchill holding racist views and engaging in imperialist oppression is not comparable to organizing ethnic genocide on a first-world industrial scale. Not remotely. That's like calling a bicycle a transport truck because they both have wheels.
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Jun 24, 2020 19:06:26 GMT
Churchill was, as with many of his contemporaries, a deeply flawed man. Particularly when viewed with 2020 sensibilities. But comparable to Hitler, he absolutely is not. I think you need to look more into Churchill and his beliefs. He might have had despicable views and has said and done horrific things... but honestly, he won't be playing in the same league like Hitler and Stalin who perfected the industrial genocide and destruction of anybody different. Also- instilling fear in the own people and instating secret police and having a reign of terror in their own country.
|
|
|
Post by pawntake on Jun 24, 2020 19:37:31 GMT
I feel a song coming on!!!
Adolf and Joe were pretty looking people! But!i can tell you people! they were the Devils children!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2020 19:47:44 GMT
I feel a song coming on!!! Adolf and Joe were pretty looking people! But!i can tell you people! they were the Devils children!! A Musical: "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Firing Squad"* * Red, mostly
|
|
|
Post by fitzoliverj on Jun 24, 2020 19:51:44 GMT
I think, perhaps, thesegastoner, your views on history are a trifle unusual. You pass over Stalin with a brief and approving nod, but both of the things you accused Churchill of can be more convicingly said of Uncle Joe.
As for whether one can enjoy Churchill as a character, I rather get the impression he was more personable than Stalin. He didn't terrify any of his friends into thinking he was going to have them executed, and none of his children defected to his worst enemy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2020 20:08:46 GMT
I think, perhaps, thesegastoner, your views on history are a trifle unusual. You pass over Stalin with a brief and approving nod, but both of the things you accused Churchill of can be more convicingly said of Uncle Joe. As for whether one can enjoy Churchill as a character, I rather get the impression he was more personable than Stalin. He didn't terrify any of his friends into thinking he was going to have them executed, and none of his children defected to his worst enemy. I gave a "pass over" because this thread was a question pertaining to the Churchill audios. If one wants to get into history/politics, then this is a question about racial superiority (Churchill) vs. political beliefs/resistance (Stalin). Stalin united countries under a common goal, Churchill enslaved and "conquered" countries and let their indigenous people suffer and die for the pure benefit of his nation.
|
|
|
Post by Digi on Jun 24, 2020 20:15:09 GMT
If one wants to get into history/politics, then this is a question about racial superiority (Churchill) vs. political beliefs/resistance (Stalin). Stalin united countries under a common goal, Churchill enslaved and "conquered" countries and let their indigenous people suffer and die for the pure benefit of his nation. Oh, wow. Wow. Please go do some more reading. Yikes.
|
|