Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 21:19:47 GMT
Hmm true. It would be kind of a waste to avoid setting a story around public domain characters (or licenses the Beeb could attain for a one-off episode). Besides, if they were to do superheroes in the land of fiction, I would want it to be centered around the gritty reboot version of Karkus. Maybe the Hourly Telepress later leased the rights to 2000 A.D? I'm not going to lie, I'm very skeptical of The Return of Doctor Mysterio myself. Not to say that the notion of a costumed vigilante couldn't work in Doctor Who. Hell, Ace was basically playing the Equaliser on her timebike and there's someone who resembles Stephen Strange floating around according to Millennial Rites, but this feels to me like another "Rule of Cool" idea that is going to fall apart as soon as anyone starts scrutinising it. I've never been a particular fan of superheroes to begin with (with maybe a few exceptions depending on whether you think the Swamp Thing or the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen qualify), so I think I'll be giving this a miss like I did The Husbands of River Song. It just doesn't appeal to me personally.
|
|
|
Post by acousticwolf on Oct 11, 2016 7:59:21 GMT
Perhaps next year we can have a proper festive story ... like the Poseidon Adventure Cheers Tony
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Oct 11, 2016 8:11:42 GMT
Perhaps next year we can have a proper festive story ... like the Poseidon Adventure Cheers Tony or The Titanic?
|
|
|
Post by constonks on Oct 11, 2016 13:14:22 GMT
Besides, if they were to do superheroes in the land of fiction, I would want it to be centered around the gritty reboot version of Karkus. Maybe the Hourly Telepress later leased the rights to 2000 A.D? I'm not going to lie, I'm very skeptical of The Return of Doctor Mysterio myself. Not to say that the notion of a costumed vigilante couldn't work in Doctor Who. Hell, Ace was basically playing the Equaliser on her timebike and there's someone who resembles Stephen Strange floating around according to Millennial Rites, but this feels to me like another "Rule of Cool" idea that is going to fall apart as soon as anyone starts scrutinising it. I've never been a particular fan of superheroes to begin with (with maybe a few exceptions depending on whether you think the Swamp Thing or the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen qualify), so I think I'll be giving this a miss like I did The Husbands of River Song. It just doesn't appeal to me personally. See Husbands looked a bit grating to me from the previews (although it had the hook of River-Capaldi) but I ended up loving it to the extent that some of my optimism for this is leftover goodwill from that one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 18:36:44 GMT
As a writer, this is a bad idea. From a marketing perspective, this is a bad idea. Why? Because having the most camp superhero ever in an episode is more likely to put off viewers. Also, this is a Moffat episode with a cliche gimmick and we all know how Moffat cliche gimmick episodes work out, when they aren't taken seriously...
|
|
|
Post by icecreamdf on Oct 11, 2016 19:08:47 GMT
As a writer, this is a bad idea. From a marketing perspective, this is a bad idea. Why? Because having the most camp superhero ever in an episode is more likely to put off viewers. Also, this is a Moffat episode with a cliche gimmick and we all know how Moffat cliche gimmick episodes work out, when they aren't taken seriously... Who says he's camp? We haven't actually seen the superhero do anything yet. Besides, the most camp superhero ever just got his own animated movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 19:29:56 GMT
As a writer, this is a bad idea. From a marketing perspective, this is a bad idea. Why? Because having the most camp superhero ever in an episode is more likely to put off viewers. Also, this is a Moffat episode with a cliche gimmick and we all know how Moffat cliche gimmick episodes work out, when they aren't taken seriously... Who says he's camp? We haven't actually seen the superhero do anything yet. Besides, the most camp superhero ever just got his own animated movie. I was referring to the design.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 22:14:15 GMT
Maybe the Hourly Telepress later leased the rights to 2000 A.D? I'm not going to lie, I'm very skeptical of The Return of Doctor Mysterio myself. Not to say that the notion of a costumed vigilante couldn't work in Doctor Who. Hell, Ace was basically playing the Equaliser on her timebike and there's someone who resembles Stephen Strange floating around according to Millennial Rites, but this feels to me like another "Rule of Cool" idea that is going to fall apart as soon as anyone starts scrutinising it. I've never been a particular fan of superheroes to begin with (with maybe a few exceptions depending on whether you think the Swamp Thing or the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen qualify), so I think I'll be giving this a miss like I did The Husbands of River Song. It just doesn't appeal to me personally. See Husbands looked a bit grating to me from the previews (although it had the hook of River-Capaldi) but I ended up loving it to the extent that some of my optimism for this is leftover goodwill from that one. Good point, that's very nearly changed my mind... Hmm... I'm wary about being burned by another gimmick episode or something like Time Heist where the source material was actually a whole lot better.
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,677
|
Post by shutupbanks on Oct 12, 2016 9:05:03 GMT
As a writer, this is a bad idea. From a marketing perspective, this is a bad idea. Why? Because having the most camp superhero ever in an episode is more likely to put off viewers. Also, this is a Moffat episode with a cliche gimmick and we all know how Moffat cliche gimmick episodes work out, when they aren't taken seriously... As another writer, there are no bad ideas, only bad executions of ideas. Do you reckon that there just might be a reason that the costume is the way it is? It could be a part of the story that he looks the way he does. How about we wait and see how the episode turns out before we start reviewing it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2016 10:27:45 GMT
As a writer, this is a bad idea. From a marketing perspective, this is a bad idea. Why? Because having the most camp superhero ever in an episode is more likely to put off viewers. Also, this is a Moffat episode with a cliche gimmick and we all know how Moffat cliche gimmick episodes work out, when they aren't taken seriously... As another writer, there are no bad ideas, only bad executions of ideas. Do you reckon that there just might be a reason that the costume is the way it is? It could be a part of the story that he looks the way he does. How about we wait and see how the episode turns out before we start reviewing it? As someone who was flabbergasted by a Thunderbirds comic called The Hawaiian Lobster Menace that featured a plot to use radioactive lobsters to blow up an island of mutants or The Antarctic Menace which had killer robot penguins and was deeply serious (we're talking Captain Scarlet dark here), I can safely say that even the most ludicrous of ideas can genuinely surprise you by how well they're executed. Never underestimate the sheer fun factor. Yeah, I'd say let's see how this goes...
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Oct 12, 2016 10:38:07 GMT
As someone who was flabbergasted by a Thunderbirds comic called The Hawaiian Lobster Menace that featured a plot to use radioactive lobsters to blow up an island of mutants or The Antarctic Menace which had killer robot penguins and was deeply serious (we're talking Captain Scarlet dark here), I can safely say that even the most ludicrous of ideas can genuinely surprise you by how well they're executed. Never underestimate the sheer fun factor. Yeah, I'd say let's see how this goes... I'm interested in your use of the words "fun factor"! I think that's a key problem with Moffats Who. It says to me that "fun" takes over script sense! That the Writer/Producer is more interested in having fun in his job, rather than having the script make sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2016 11:10:18 GMT
As someone who was flabbergasted by a Thunderbirds comic called The Hawaiian Lobster Menace that featured a plot to use radioactive lobsters to blow up an island of mutants or The Antarctic Menace which had killer robot penguins and was deeply serious (we're talking Captain Scarlet dark here), I can safely say that even the most ludicrous of ideas can genuinely surprise you by how well they're executed. Never underestimate the sheer fun factor. Yeah, I'd say let's see how this goes... I'm interested in your use of the words "fun factor"! I think that's a key problem with Moffats Who. It says to me that "fun" takes over script sense! That the Writer/Producer is more interested in having fun in his job, rather than having the script make sense. Ah, see, I don't think it's so much fun factor as "Rule of Cool", ideas rather than substance. The spectacle takes precedence over things like character or even internal story logic, which can be fine in measured doses (see Goldfinger for a really good example), but when taken too far can hollow out a story and make it silly or even dull. The Russell T. Davies era had stories which were beautifully characterised and structured, but in many ways, they weren't particularly groundbreaking and that's coming from someone who thoroughly enjoyed that era. In contrast, the Steven Moffat era has some really damn good ideas at the centre of it that lack the finesse required to make them feasible. Kill the Moon would have been fine as a concept had it not been a satellite above Earth, Hide would have worked perfectly if not for that "Monster needs love" ending, I even rewrote Nightmare in Silver (posted on a subforum here on DU) because I thought the idea of a Cyber-infested theme park was too good to go to waste. Fun is fine. In fact, fun can be amazing, just look at anything written by Craig Hinton where his enthusiasm peppers over whatever flaws his stories might have, but Moffat I think needed a wingman or a writer's room after his second year. There just wasn't enough versatility to apply what were often quite ingenious ideas. As a writer, he does quite well with someone to smooth out the rough edges, but as a script editor, I don't think he was particularly well-suited to the role.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Oct 12, 2016 11:33:59 GMT
I'm interested in your use of the words "fun factor"! I think that's a key problem with Moffats Who. It says to me that "fun" takes over script sense! That the Writer/Producer is more interested in having fun in his job, rather than having the script make sense. Ah, see, I don't think it's so much fun factor as "Rule of Cool", ideas rather than substance. The spectacle takes precedence over things like character or even internal story logic, which can be fine in measured doses (see Goldfinger for a really good example), but when taken too far can hollow out a story and make it silly or even dull. The Russell T. Davies era had stories which were beautifully characterised and structured, but in many ways, they weren't particularly groundbreaking and that's coming from someone who thoroughly enjoyed that era. In contrast, the Steven Moffat era has some really damn good ideas at the centre of it that lack the finesse required to make them feasible. Kill the Moon would have been fine as a concept had it not been a satellite above Earth, Hide would have worked perfectly if not for that "Monster needs love" ending, I even rewrote Nightmare in Silver (posted on a subforum here on DU) because I thought the idea of a Cyber-infested theme park was too good to go to waste. Fun is fine. In fact, fun can be amazing, just look at anything written by Craig Hinton where his enthusiasm peppers over whatever flaws his stories might have, but Moffat I think needed a wingman or a writer's room after his second year. There just wasn't enough versatility to apply what were often quite ingenious ideas. As a writer, he does quite well with someone to smooth out the rough edges, but as a script editor, I don't think he was particularly well-suited to the role. Steven Moffat is NOT a Script Editor!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2016 12:39:52 GMT
Ah, see, I don't think it's so much fun factor as "Rule of Cool", ideas rather than substance. The spectacle takes precedence over things like character or even internal story logic, which can be fine in measured doses (see Goldfinger for a really good example), but when taken too far can hollow out a story and make it silly or even dull. The Russell T. Davies era had stories which were beautifully characterised and structured, but in many ways, they weren't particularly groundbreaking and that's coming from someone who thoroughly enjoyed that era. In contrast, the Steven Moffat era has some really damn good ideas at the centre of it that lack the finesse required to make them feasible. Kill the Moon would have been fine as a concept had it not been a satellite above Earth, Hide would have worked perfectly if not for that "Monster needs love" ending, I even rewrote Nightmare in Silver (posted on a subforum here on DU) because I thought the idea of a Cyber-infested theme park was too good to go to waste. Fun is fine. In fact, fun can be amazing, just look at anything written by Craig Hinton where his enthusiasm peppers over whatever flaws his stories might have, but Moffat I think needed a wingman or a writer's room after his second year. There just wasn't enough versatility to apply what were often quite ingenious ideas. As a writer, he does quite well with someone to smooth out the rough edges, but as a script editor, I don't think he was particularly well-suited to the role. Steven Moffat is NOT a Script Editor! Well, certainly not by 2018. By then we'll have Chibnall and whatever his time on the programme brings.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Oct 12, 2016 12:43:00 GMT
Steven Moffat is NOT a Script Editor! Well, certainly not by 2018. By then we'll have Chibnall and whatever his time on the programme brings. Steven Moffat has NEVER been a Script Editor for Doctor Who!
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Oct 12, 2016 14:39:51 GMT
Well, certainly not by 2018. By then we'll have Chibnall and whatever his time on the programme brings. Steven Moffat has NEVER been a Script Editor for Doctor Who! Calm down.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Oct 12, 2016 15:20:53 GMT
I hope that still of someone in a 'superhero' outfit is misdirection. I really need that to not be an actual "superhero" plonked down into Who. Maybe he accidentally lands in a costume party on Halloween or something. Otherwise, blech
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Oct 12, 2016 15:22:11 GMT
I shall wait to see the episode before I make judgement, but the mere idea of a Superhero in Doctor Who makes my heart sink, I'm hoping Moffat is somehow bluffing, but the idea leaves me dismayed right now. Well, Santa himself was in a Christmas episode a couple of years ago so anything is possible! Specifically, as a construct generated by the people while they were dreaming so that they could help themselves within the dream architecture.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Oct 12, 2016 19:05:11 GMT
Well, Santa himself was in a Christmas episode a couple of years ago so anything is possible! Specifically, as a construct generated by the people while they were dreaming so that they could help themselves within the dream architecture. Pardon?
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,677
|
Post by shutupbanks on Oct 12, 2016 21:38:24 GMT
"The beauty of Doctor Who is that it can tell every kind of story (except this one)." Fandom, for as long as I can remember.
|
|