shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,661 
|
Post by shutupbanks on Apr 2, 2021 14:14:27 GMT
bad writing is one of those things folks make a fuss about (i never do because if i was writing for dr who it's would be very very bad writing indeed ) Unfortunately the current era is littered with inconsistent and bad writing So the criticism is valid Every era is littered with inconsistent and bad writing. There is no season of classic or revived Who that has consistently excellent writing for every story. I love series 10, but I could easily live without the Monk trilogy. Series 2 is great except for the dewy eyes being made between our two leads or the constant use of slang, the sonic screwdriver and the railing against weaponry by the Doctor as he leaves a trail of bodies behind him. Likewise, I adore the Williams era but I could easily avoid The Horns Of Nimon for a long time. Singling out the current era as being unique in its bad writing seems a little silly. |
|
|
|
Post by timegirl on Apr 2, 2021 14:35:50 GMT
Unfortunately the current era is littered with inconsistent and bad writing So the criticism is valid Every era is littered with inconsistent and bad writing. There is no season of classic or revived Who that has consistently excellent writing for every story. I love series 10, but I could easily live without the Monk trilogy. Series 2 is great except for the dewy eyes being made between our two leads or the constant use of slang, the sonic screwdriver and the railing against weaponry by the Doctor as he leaves a trail of bodies behind him. Likewise, I adore the Williams era but I could easily avoid The Horns Of Nimon for a long time. Singling out the current era as being unique in its bad writing seems a little silly. To add to this all bad and good writing is subjective to different people. For example I really like dewy eyes made between the two leads on DW but disliking that aspect is equally valid. I think it comes down to personal preference. For example my favorite era is the Capaldi era for its introspective character development and the relationship between 12 and Clara. Some people prefer different eras for different reasons and dislike the Capaldi era for the same reason I love it. It’s all perfectly valid as long as people are respectful about their opinions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2021 14:51:44 GMT
Unfortunately the current era is littered with inconsistent and bad writing So the criticism is valid Originally I was going to respond to daver's comment on the Revolution thread about a similar subject, but I think the response is as apt here: okay, but what about the people here who don't agree with that criticism? What about those who see the Chibnall era as having good writing? Are you saying that they're all wrong, including people on here?
Or if, to take this a little deeper, you're implying there's 'an objective measure' for discussing good and bad writing: that's a rabbit hole because who is the actual arbiter or factual/empirical objective truth we go by? Speaking as someone who does this professionally and hangs around a lot in these circles, writers can't agree if 3 act structure, which you'd think would be about as cut-and-dry as it cuts, is real or not. There's an entire cottage industry of alternate models (22 steps, 8 sequences, 4 acts, 5 acts, seven phases) - who has the right/objectively correct one? Sorkin's expansive and verbose dialogue is regularly praised, yet by 'the rules', it completely violates visual storytelling norms. So again, who is right here? Taste is highly subjective and informs our belief to what is good or bad a lot more than some would give credit for or concede.
You will have to jog my memory as to what my original comments where. Do you have a quote/link? |
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Apr 2, 2021 15:37:04 GMT
Originally I was going to respond to daver's comment on the Revolution thread about a similar subject, but I think the response is as apt here: okay, but what about the people here who don't agree with that criticism? What about those who see the Chibnall era as having good writing? Are you saying that they're all wrong, including people on here?
Or if, to take this a little deeper, you're implying there's 'an objective measure' for discussing good and bad writing: that's a rabbit hole because who is the actual arbiter or factual/empirical objective truth we go by? Speaking as someone who does this professionally and hangs around a lot in these circles, writers can't agree if 3 act structure, which you'd think would be about as cut-and-dry as it cuts, is real or not. There's an entire cottage industry of alternate models (22 steps, 8 sequences, 4 acts, 5 acts, seven phases) - who has the right/objectively correct one? Sorkin's expansive and verbose dialogue is regularly praised, yet by 'the rules', it completely violates visual storytelling norms. So again, who is right here? Taste is highly subjective and informs our belief to what is good or bad a lot more than some would give credit for or concede.
You will have to jog my memory as to what my original comments where. Do you have a quote/link? It was a while ago, and illusive happened to jog me. I think it was you discussing something about critical consensus on the episode and how, citing your academic experience, one could do some kind of empirical collation on whether or not the era was seen as good or bad. Other things got in the way of me responding at the time, which would've been a version of the above, adding on that art, not being a science, is difficult to have those kinds of parameters, with art academia being closer to philosophy than say, the harder sciences. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2021 9:38:02 GMT
You will have to jog my memory as to what my original comments where. Do you have a quote/link? It was a while ago, and illusive happened to jog me. I think it was you discussing something about critical consensus on the episode and how, citing your academic experience, one could do some kind of empirical collation on whether or not the era was seen as good or bad. Other things got in the way of me responding at the time, which would've been a version of the above, adding on that art, not being a science, is difficult to have those kinds of parameters, with art academia being closer to philosophy than say, the harder sciences. I agree that with Art everything is subjective. There is no hard fact or benchmark that can be measured against as to whether something is Bad or Good, whereas personal judgement and like for like comparison with selective influences confirms ones preferences or biases. Essentially where someone says that there is poor writing it is in their opinion, just as those who find grounds for praise. Given reasons and extrapolation both may be deemed equally valid. |
|
|
|
Post by timegirl on Apr 3, 2021 18:42:14 GMT
The criticism: I stopped watching after David Tennant left, everything else is no good.
I never understood this outlook. Yes, David Tennant is brilliant and his era is very good in a lot of ways but to not even give a chance to the Doctors after him, you are missing so much!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2021 9:30:19 GMT
That Tom Baker stayed too long in the role. I could never understand that. Do any of these people think Doctor Who would be improved had another actor come along to play the title role in Series 18? 17? Even 16? All these many years later, fans are clamouring for, and are overjoyed with, more Tom Baker audios, and quite rightly too! I say this partly because Series 18 is my favourite time for Doctor Who and, although visibly older, Tom was magnificent right to 'the moment has been prepared for.' He was excellent in Meglos as Meglos and terrific as the centuries old Fourth Doctor in The Leisure Hive; scary in State of Decay and magnificently melancholy in Logopolis.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Apr 17, 2021 10:23:04 GMT
The whole Timeless Doctors shebang, specifically that it “demeans William Hartnell”. I mean... how?! He’s still the man who played the character first. He’s still the man who laid the foundation of the character. It’s like saying Patrick Troughton demeans Hartnell, or Hurt demeans Eccelston.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Apr 17, 2021 11:22:09 GMT
The whole Timeless Doctors shebang, specifically that it “demeans William Hartnell”. I mean... how?! He’s still the man who played the character first. He’s still the man who laid the foundation of the character. It’s like saying Patrick Troughton demeans Hartnell, or Hurt demeans Eccelston. Agree 100% |
|
|
|
Post by timegirl on Apr 17, 2021 15:10:20 GMT
The Criticism: That it’s bad that Clara was treated like the most important person in the universe.
I disagree! She was entirely deserving of this status having jumped into the Doctor’s timeline and protecting every incarnation of the Doctor. She has this status because of her importance to the Doctor, she is their sole mate (and in particular 12’s). She is basically a human Doctor in her own right, with all the intelligence, risk taking, heroics and deep personal flaws that entails. She also helped 12 grow and develop a lot as person helping him to show the him to her, open up and start expressing himself more, and show more kindness. 12 wouldn’t have gone through the trouble of all he went through in Heaven Sent and Hell Bent for anyone that was was entirely because of the love he had specifically for Clara. Clara is very much a badass and entirely deserving of the way the show treats her.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2021 21:42:14 GMT
That Tom Baker stayed too long in the role. I could never understand that. Do any of these people think Doctor Who would be improved had another actor come along to play the title role in Series 18? 17? Even 16? All these many years later, fans are clamouring for, and are overjoyed with, more Tom Baker audios, and quite rightly too! I say this partly because Series 18 is my favourite time for Doctor Who and, although visibly older, Tom was magnificent right to 'the moment has been prepared for.' He was excellent in Meglos as Meglos and terrific as the centuries old Fourth Doctor in The Leisure Hive; scary in State of Decay and magnificently melancholy in Logopolis. I think myself that, taking into perspective the effect of 'Star Wars', which reignited US TV interest in Sci-Fi, with the likes of Battlestar Gallactica and Buck Rogers, plus Logan's Run (anyone remember that spin-off?), poor Doctor Who, suffering from the inflation of late 70's Britain, really struggled to do anything similar on its diminishing budget. Blake's 7 managed to be harder edged within the same 'play pen sets' (as Starbust summarised both in a review of Blakes' 7 back in issue 2) due to its later time slot. I think that what maintained Doctor Who as a relevant concern, was the appeal of Tom Baker. 'T he Tom Baker Show' as it was dismissively summarised as being/becoming. But that was no bad thing. Even as a primary school pupil, I saw that the show was not what it was when in infants school during the Hinchcliffe seasons, but it was still more rewarding than the competition. But the fact was that I no longer watched every episode or story. I remember when The Leisure Hive came on, one dark evening and my Father called us in from the street. I was not that fussed, but the revamped format worked and it held out attention far more than it had since Destiny of the Daleks and City of Death. That upgrade of the series did wonders to my interest in the show and really set me on the path to long term fandom. So in summary, I suspect that without Tom Baker staying in the role so long, it may not have weathered the downturn of the late 1970's. It was his star performance that gave us a reason to tune in. Without that happening, we may never have arrived at Peter Davison's Fifth Doctor and Season 19, which really gave it a kick start... |
|
|
|
Post by timegirl on Apr 25, 2021 14:54:55 GMT
I’ve never quite understood how people can call 12 and Clara’s relationship toxic, when despite the fact that he’s a 2,000 year old alien and she is a young human woman, they are unambiguously each other’s equals, soulmates even and would literally do anything for each other. Yes, they had a few major roadblocks and a tragic end, but they had a mature equal relationship. That doesn’t sound unhealthy to me?
|
|
|
|
Post by theillusiveman on Apr 25, 2021 16:04:11 GMT
I’ve never quite understood how people can call 12 and Clara’s relationship toxic, when despite the fact that he’s a 2,000 year old alien and she is a young human woman, they are unambiguously each other’s equals, soulmates even and would literally do anything for each other. Yes, they had a few major roadblocks and a tragic end, but they had a mature equal relationship. That doesn’t sound unhealthy to me? I Thought when she threatened physical violence to him was pretty toxic.... |
|
|
|
Post by theillusiveman on Apr 25, 2021 16:17:24 GMT
The whole Timeless Doctors shebang, specifically that it “demeans William Hartnell”. I mean... how?! He’s still the man who played the character first. He’s still the man who laid the foundation of the character. It’s like saying Patrick Troughton demeans Hartnell, or Hurt demeans Eccelston. I Think when people say it demeans William hartnell it has to do with how The Timeless Doctors/Pre-Hartnell Doctors make the character development of The First Doctor seem less special and meaningful Hartnell's Doctor didn't choose the name of The Doctor as The Ruth Doctor already had the name Doctor Hartnell's Doctor wasn't the one who ended up with The TARDIS Shell being a Police Box as Ruth already had The Police box shell in Fugitive of The Judoon
i think trying to understand how it goes from Ruth/Timeless Children To Hartnell Doctors makes the whole thing so utterly convoluted
|
|
|
|
Post by timegirl on Apr 25, 2021 16:23:03 GMT
I’ve never quite understood how people can call 12 and Clara’s relationship toxic, when despite the fact that he’s a 2,000 year old alien and she is a young human woman, they are unambiguously each other’s equals, soulmates even and would literally do anything for each other. Yes, they had a few major roadblocks and a tragic end, but they had a mature equal relationship. That doesn’t sound unhealthy to me? I Thought when she threatened physical violence to him was pretty toxic.... You mean the “I’ll slap you so hard you’ll regenerate.” line? I thought that was more of an ill advised sitcomy joke line about how upset Clara was with 12 Moffat made than something to be taken as Clara literally wanting to physically hurt 12. Yes it was in very bad taste to make light of something like that but I don’t think it was meant to be taken as a literal threat of physical abuse. I love Moffat’s writing overall but like any writer he sometimes missteps how certain lines will be taken. |
|
|
|
Post by Chakoteya on Apr 25, 2021 16:24:44 GMT
The Criticism: That it’s bad that Clara was treated like the most important person in the universe. I disagree! She was entirely deserving of this status having jumped into the Doctor’s timeline and protecting every incarnation of the Doctor. She has this status because of her importance to the Doctor, she is their sole mate (and in particular 12’s). She is basically a human Doctor in her own right, with all the intelligence, risk taking, heroics and deep personal flaws that entails. She also helped 12 grow and develop a lot as person helping him to show the him to her, open up and start expressing himself more, and show more kindness. 12 wouldn’t have gone through the trouble of all he went through in Heaven Sent and Hell Bent for anyone that was was entirely because of the love he had specifically for Clara. Clara is very much a badass and entirely deserving of the way the show treats her.
Well, once upon a time the companions were people with ordinary (if sometimes tragic) backstories - orphaned Victorian girl, a pair of teachers, journalist, air hostess, highlander...
I think the rot sort of started with the wonderful Ace when she was the girl from Perivale with a skill for making explosives, who'd been snatched up by a time storm.
But Clara was the most extreme example for me, and the most annoying. I never took to the character because there was nothing there to relate to.
|
|
|
|
Post by timegirl on Apr 25, 2021 16:38:21 GMT
The Criticism: That it’s bad that Clara was treated like the most important person in the universe. I disagree! She was entirely deserving of this status having jumped into the Doctor’s timeline and protecting every incarnation of the Doctor. She has this status because of her importance to the Doctor, she is their sole mate (and in particular 12’s). She is basically a human Doctor in her own right, with all the intelligence, risk taking, heroics and deep personal flaws that entails. She also helped 12 grow and develop a lot as person helping him to show the him to her, open up and start expressing himself more, and show more kindness. 12 wouldn’t have gone through the trouble of all he went through in Heaven Sent and Hell Bent for anyone that was was entirely because of the love he had specifically for Clara. Clara is very much a badass and entirely deserving of the way the show treats her.
Well, once upon a time the companions were people with ordinary (if sometimes tragic) backstories - orphaned Victorian girl, a pair of teachers, journalist, air hostess, highlander...
I think the rot sort of started with the wonderful Ace when she was the girl from Perivale with a skill for making explosives, who'd been snatched up by a time storm.
But Clara was the most extreme example for me, and the most annoying. I never took to the character because there was nothing there to relate to.
I know it’s not the same for everyone, but I really relate to her as someone who pre-covid lived a very similar life style to her. I lived a sort of split life working with kids (not as a teacher though) and traveling and going on all sorts of sometimes even admittedly daredevil adventures like her(obviously without the space and time travel). I also have her daydreamer, head in a book, wanting to be more mentality. So I don’t really think she is annoying. Plus I think it’s actually really unique and cool that her arch is becoming a basically a human Doctor. Sidenote: At the same job where I worked with kids, one of my coworkers was basically a real life version of Ace, a tomboy who regularly makes her own homemade explosives as science experiments for fun and tried them out in her backyard. Sidenote: Also bizarrely, at the same job I had a coworker was who our science advisor and insisted on only being referred to as “Doc”. When anyone went to say his full first name they would all instantly forget how to say it and even what his name actually was. Now that I think about it he did one time seamlessly switch to a posh English accent.... |
|
|
|
Post by timegirl on Apr 26, 2021 19:24:07 GMT
This :  No matter what your opinion of Clara herself is how could anyone think this badass suit is frumpy?! It’s one of her best and most stylish and dare I say it Doctory outfits and fits the tone of “Time Heist” perfectly! |
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Apr 26, 2021 19:43:35 GMT
This : No matter what your opinion of Clara herself is how could anyone think this badass suit is frumpy?! It’s one of her best and most stylish and dare I say it Doctory outfits and fits the tone of “Time Heist” perfectly! Well it "Works" for me  Regards mark687 |
|
|
|
Post by timegirl on Apr 26, 2021 20:05:34 GMT
This : No matter what your opinion of Clara herself is how could anyone think this badass suit is frumpy?! It’s one of her best and most stylish and dare I say it Doctory outfits and fits the tone of “Time Heist” perfectly! Well it "Works" for me Regards mark687 Exactly 😊 To be honest I think 12 and Clara are one of the most stylish TARDIS teams! |
|
