|
Post by tuigirl on Mar 6, 2020 18:01:15 GMT
Apparently the BBC got enough complaints they felt the need to release a statement. Oh dear god. I can imagine the avalanche of angry rant emails they must have received. I feel sorry for the person who had to delete them all.
Some people take this waaaayyyy too serious...
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Mar 6, 2020 18:46:07 GMT
Apparently the BBC got enough complaints they felt the need to release a statement. Looks like I can retire my DVDs-on-ebay joke, because this subsection of fandom just gave me a brand new cudgel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2020 19:01:04 GMT
Apparently the BBC got enough complaints they felt the need to release a statement. Oh dear god. I can imagine the avalanche of angry rant emails they must have received. I feel sorry for the person who had to delete them all.
Some people take this waaaayyyy too serious...
Not impressed by fans taking this all so seriously - the statement is quite right. Like it or leave it really. Without being snidey about Chris Chibnall's appearance in the 80's with Pip & Jane Baker, but RTD and Moffatt were very sussed in engaging with fans, so that a constructive dialogue always emerged on top. I may not be in favour of the developments if it was my choice (which it isn't anyway), but many, many fans are and some discussion would be good PR rather than leaving it, for the second time in recent weeks for the BBC to put out a statement, does not seem right. Take control of the debate, stop it being a civil war between keyboard warriors. It does, as has been said, allow for story development and does not cancel out the past. I have read enough coherent arguments in favour of how continuity has not been rewritten, on this forum this past week and at the end of the day 'so what?' - its someone else's creative decision and younger or casual viewers don't have it fixed in their minds the classic series canon that older fans do. As it has been reiterated, Hartnell's Doctor was still the rebellious one who did not do well in the academy and went 'renegade' with his Granddaughter because he was bored. Past incarnations, such as the Morbuis 'doctor's' were, like the Ruth incarnation, perhaps working for the Time Lords and he has no memories of this past life, as several of you have theorised. These aspects seem quite good to me, if not having the Doctor so old or central to the Time Lord's genesis, but that at least provides a break away from the politics of Gallifrey. I can live with that - it opens up the possibilities for some fresh drama for future show runners too.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Mar 6, 2020 19:09:52 GMT
6 out of 5. Brilliant! Fantastic from beginning to end! A great finale to the best season of Who since it came back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2020 19:17:11 GMT
6 out of 5. Brilliant! Fantastic from beginning to end! A great finale to the best season of Who since it came back. .....welcome back!
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Mar 6, 2020 19:31:44 GMT
6 out of 5. Brilliant! Fantastic from beginning to end! A great finale to the best season of Who since it came back. Yay he is back!!!
|
|
|
Post by scriptortempore on Mar 6, 2020 19:49:03 GMT
Apparently the BBC got enough complaints they felt the need to release a statement. Oh dear god. I can imagine the avalanche of angry rant emails they must have received. I feel sorry for the person who had to delete them all.
Some people take this waaaayyyy too serious...
True. Hopefully people weren't too mean and there was some constructive feedback there. Because honestly, if you're upset with what's happened, emailing in so those in charge can at least consider your view is probably better than the millionth DR WHO IS DEAD FIRE CHIBNALL petition with 3 signatures being sent around.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2020 19:59:17 GMT
At least the BBC haven't felt the need to apologise. I'm not sure how I feel about an organisation like the Beeb publically replying to people who disagree with the creative decisions made by their program makers. Should they respond every time a group of people don't agree with the voting on Strictly Come Dancing, for example? 'Haters gonna hate', and all that. Don't give them a platform.
|
|
|
Post by glynnlondon on Mar 6, 2020 21:50:11 GMT
At least the BBC haven't felt the need to apologise. I'm not sure how I feel about an organisation like the Beeb publically replying to people who disagree with the creative decisions made by their program makers. Should they respond every time a group of people don't agree with the voting on Strictly Come Dancing, for example? 'Haters gonna hate', and all that. Don't give them a platform. Tbf the BBC have often engaged with viewership in the past with programs like points of view.
|
|
|
Post by glynnlondon on Mar 6, 2020 21:50:29 GMT
At least the BBC haven't felt the need to apologise. I'm not sure how I feel about an organisation like the Beeb publically replying to people who disagree with the creative decisions made by their program makers. Should they respond every time a group of people don't agree with the voting on Strictly Come Dancing, for example? 'Haters gonna hate', and all that. Don't give them a platform. Tbf the BBC have often engaged with viewership in the past with programs like points of view.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2020 22:32:41 GMT
At least the BBC haven't felt the need to apologise. I'm not sure how I feel about an organisation like the Beeb publically replying to people who disagree with the creative decisions made by their program makers. Should they respond every time a group of people don't agree with the voting on Strictly Come Dancing, for example? 'Haters gonna hate', and all that. Don't give them a platform. Tbf the BBC have often engaged with viewership in the past with programs like points of view. Fair point.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Mar 7, 2020 2:08:00 GMT
At least the BBC haven't felt the need to apologise. I'm not sure how I feel about an organisation like the Beeb publically replying to people who disagree with the creative decisions made by their program makers. Should they respond every time a group of people don't agree with the voting on Strictly Come Dancing, for example? 'Haters gonna hate', and all that. Don't give them a platform. Tbf the BBC have often engaged with viewership in the past with programs like points of view. While that's broadly true, it's not quite the same thing here. Points of View was more about appropriateness and content that could be viewed as problematic e.g. nudity or violence or swearing in pre-watershed programming and news - it wasn't about telling creators what stories they could tell in terms of the show's own lore/world like seems to have happened here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2020 9:44:21 GMT
Tbf the BBC have often engaged with viewership in the past with programs like points of view. While that's broadly true, it's not quite the same thing here. Points of View was more about appropriateness and content that could be viewed as problematic e.g. nudity or violence or swearing in pre-watershed programming and news - it wasn't about telling creators what stories they could tell in terms of the show's own lore/world like seems to have happened here. Points of View Right to Reply Biteback Three programmes which allowed viewers to give feedback on BBC programming as part of its charter as a publicly funded body. I am afraid your description of Points of View is confined to the likes of Mary Whitehouse & her National Viewers & Listeners Association. POV was entertaining because of the range of its contributions, some being off the wall whilst others quite recently showed that quite a few viewers were put off by the low lighting and mumbled dialogue requiring subtitles in SS-GB. The following was a spoof from 1980 which played upon the emphasis on positive feedback: Edit: embedded the video correctly - it is a classic sketch from Not the Nine o'clock News
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Mar 7, 2020 10:13:19 GMT
While that's broadly true, it's not quite the same thing here. Points of View was more about appropriateness and content that could be viewed as problematic e.g. nudity or violence or swearing in pre-watershed programming and news - it wasn't about telling creators what stories they could tell in terms of the show's own lore/world like seems to have happened here. Points of View Right to Reply Biteback Three programmes which allowed viewers to give feedback on BBC programming as part of its charter as a publicly funded body. I am afraid your description of Points of View is confined to the likes of Mary Whitehouse & her National Viewers & Listeners Association. POV was entertaining because of the range of its contributions, some being off the wall whilst others quite recently showed that quite a few viewers were put off by the low lighting and mumbled dialogue requiring subtitles in SS-GB. The following was a spoof from 1980 which played upon the emphasis on positive feedback: youtu.be/4lzS8yW8INAWhile that's fair, you're still describing more technical complaints, while I'm talking about this specific brand of fan lore complaint i.e. someone complaining that this episode can't do X because prior episode or book said Y and it can only be that way because their headcanon said so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2020 10:24:04 GMT
Points of View Right to Reply Biteback Three programmes which allowed viewers to give feedback on BBC programming as part of its charter as a publicly funded body. I am afraid your description of Points of View is confined to the likes of Mary Whitehouse & her National Viewers & Listeners Association. POV was entertaining because of the range of its contributions, some being off the wall whilst others quite recently showed that quite a few viewers were put off by the low lighting and mumbled dialogue requiring subtitles in SS-GB. The following was a spoof from 1980 which played upon the emphasis on positive feedback: youtu.be/4lzS8yW8INAWhile that's fair, you're still describing more technical complaints, while I'm talking about this specific brand of fan lore complaint i.e. someone complaining that this episode can't do X because prior episode or book said Y and it can only be that way because their headcanon said so. Lets just agree that the programme/programmes allowed for a wide range of feedback, time allowing (it is a 10 minute programme). Others allowed for a more detailed discussion and critique by fans, such as this from Did You See....? in 1987 where Ian Levine and Jeremy Bentham got to criticise season 24, plus the negative press coverage. youtu.be/nhmDtETW2kU
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Mar 7, 2020 10:44:56 GMT
While that's fair, you're still describing more technical complaints, while I'm talking about this specific brand of fan lore complaint i.e. someone complaining that this episode can't do X because prior episode or book said Y and it can only be that way because their headcanon said so. Lets just agree that the programme/programmes allowed for a wide range of feedback, time allowing (it is a 10 minute programme). Others allowed for a more detailed discussion and critique by fans, such as this from Did You See....? in 1987 where Ian Levine and Jeremy Bentham got to criticise season 24, plus the negative press coverage. youtu.be/nhmDtETW2kUAnd in 1986 there was an Open Air episode where one particular fan gave their feedback on the last season, wonder what became of Chris Chibnall...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2020 10:51:14 GMT
And in 1986 there was an Open Air episode where one particular fan gave their feedback on the last season, wonder what became of Chris Chibnall... He doesn't like that kind of thing anymore, apparently....
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,666
|
Post by shutupbanks on Mar 7, 2020 12:01:08 GMT
Apparently the BBC got enough complaints they felt the need to release a statement. Oh dear god. I can imagine the avalanche of angry rant emails they must have received. I feel sorry for the person who had to delete them all.
Some people take this waaaayyyy too serious...
I have yet to see a link to the original statement so if this is real, it acknowledges that toxic fandom can have a legitimate voice. Which sucks. Apologising in advance to anyone who has disliked the last two seasons because of "the writing."
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,666
|
Post by shutupbanks on Mar 7, 2020 12:02:48 GMT
Lets just agree that the programme/programmes allowed for a wide range of feedback, time allowing (it is a 10 minute programme). Others allowed for a more detailed discussion and critique by fans, such as this from Did You See....? in 1987 where Ian Levine and Jeremy Bentham got to criticise season 24, plus the negative press coverage. youtu.be/nhmDtETW2kUAnd in 1986 there was an Open Air episode where one particular fan gave their feedback on the last season, wonder what became of Chris Chibnall... While it's become an albatross around Mr Chibnall's neck, he was in the right on that day.
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,666
|
Post by shutupbanks on Mar 7, 2020 12:07:43 GMT
6 out of 5. Brilliant! Fantastic from beginning to end! A great finale to the best season of Who since it came back. Welcome back, jhd... if you are the real jhd...
|
|