|
|
Post by John Wall on Jun 14, 2019 14:58:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mattg on Jun 16, 2019 15:15:08 GMT
Alas, I heard about Gareth's recent 'tribulations' thus it's good to read about his righteous deposition from his perspective.
To neatly summarise then: Gareth laments the show's transition from liberal mainstream success to leftwing niche decline. Can't say I'd disagree with that sobering assessment of a formerly respected and venerable cultural institution tbh, though I'm sure many vehemently will....
Regardless, he, like me, like many, wistfully remember those halcyon days when Doctor Who was fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by timmunton on Jun 18, 2019 11:43:45 GMT
mattg : I don't think - & nor does he (GR) say - it's become a "leftwing" niche rather, as he puts it a "socially aware" niche;
ie. not the same thing, indeed as he remarks; even the Conservative party are often in blanket agreement with this branch of "socially aware".
To me it's more a sort of uber-liberalism rather than "left" as such.
In fact I'd much prefer it if modern DW was properly leftwing of shall we say the Bennite & non-coercive utopian varieties.
Haven't watched it for quite a while now - but that might draw me in!
And I disagree with GR that classic Who was just liberally-minded. Some in the 60s, especially the 70s & a bit in the 80s can be seen as quite leftwing.
It tended to reflect national dominant political mood - which in 60s/70s was quite left (especially in contrast to the 80s onwards).
One of the - many - problems of new Who was (& possibly is), it's to my mind almost explicit reflection/endorsement of the cementing of Thatcherism (via Thatcherism-lite) which was New Labour (new Labour/ new Who - even has the same ring!).
Plus New Labour's identity politics thing, as probably the programme's main thrust.
Even the one which criticized fairly explicitly the Iraq War was somewhat diluted by the series' more general subliminal pro-war-ish endorsement via the Doctor's far more frequently gung-ho behaviour compared to earlier decades.
Not to mention the Tennant Doctor's rather Tony Blair like narcissistic messiah complex! (1 or 2 of the other new Doctors probably also had some of that quality, though to a lesser extent IIRC).
|
|
|
|
Post by mattg on Jun 20, 2019 20:42:48 GMT
One of the - many - problems of new Who was (& possibly is), it's to my mind almost explicit reflection/endorsement of the cementing of Thatcherism (via Thatcherism-lite) which was New Labour (new Labour/ new Who - even has the same ring!). Plus New Labour's identity politics thing, as probably the programme's main thrust. ....Hmm, must admit that whilst watching an egregious cornucopia of farting aliens, trite pop culture references and an immortal omnisexual attempting to hump anything with a pulse (as well as a fair few vaguely corporeal manifestations without one) et al an "endorsement of the cementing of Thatcherism" wasn't immediately apparent to me! Perhaps I just wasn't looking hard enough for these purportedly subversive political influences.... Each to their own though. |
|
|
|
Post by lousingh on Aug 13, 2019 23:59:32 GMT
mattg : I don't think - & nor does he (GR) say - it's become a "leftwing" niche rather, as he puts it a "socially aware" niche; ie. not the same thing, indeed as he remarks; even the Conservative party are often in blanket agreement with this branch of "socially aware". To me it's more a sort of uber-liberalism rather than "left" as such. In fact I'd much prefer it if modern DW was properly leftwing of shall we say the Bennite & non-coercive utopian varieties. Haven't watched it for quite a while now - but that might draw me in! And I disagree with GR that classic Who was just liberally-minded. Some in the 60s, especially the 70s & a bit in the 80s can be seen as quite leftwing. It tended to reflect national dominant political mood - which in 60s/70s was quite left (especially in contrast to the 80s onwards). One of the - many - problems of new Who was (& possibly is), it's to my mind almost explicit reflection/endorsement of the cementing of Thatcherism (via Thatcherism-lite) which was New Labour (new Labour/ new Who - even has the same ring!). Plus New Labour's identity politics thing, as probably the programme's main thrust. Even the one which criticized fairly explicitly the Iraq War was somewhat diluted by the series' more general subliminal pro-war-ish endorsement via the Doctor's far more frequently gung-ho behaviour compared to earlier decades. Not to mention the Tennant Doctor's rather Tony Blair like narcissistic messiah complex! (1 or 2 of the other new Doctors probably also had some of that quality, though to a lesser extent IIRC). I apologise for being so late to this party, but I just got my mind in order for this.
I might be the most politically conservative person on this board, so I don't see how the new series is an endorsement of Thatcherism-lite. In comparison to the early run of the original series, OK, I can see that. But the italicised part above is what is going on now: the series reflects its current national mood.
I want to go to some points that Gareth brings up. First, I agree with him about not being beholden to the loudest, most passionate fans. IMHO, we know what this looks like already: consider the influence that Ian Levine had on the early JN-T era and how many pains JN-T took to listen to what the fans wanted. IMHO, that led to compilation stories like "Earthshock" and "Resurrection of the Daleks" plus very derivative ideas like "Warriors of the Deep" and every way the Master dies.
If we merge these two points, we can see the greater extremes that the culture is heading towards in politics, ideals, etc.; the BBC catering to these fans is just a variation of this. It is easy to fall into that mindset when it is happening all around.
The other point be brings up is that Doctor Who can not bear the weight of exploring deep moral and ethical issues. I would give that a massive qualification: it should not do that all the time. But it has often taken on moral, ethical, political, philosophical, etc. issues head on, albeit in quieter fashion. Indeed, it has taken on the greatest flaw of the JN-T / Eric Saward management: it takes itself way too seriously. Yet even they managed to slip some fun into the often portentous stories they commissioned.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattg on Aug 14, 2019 11:08:03 GMT
The other point be brings up is that Doctor Who can not bear the weight of exploring deep moral and ethical issues. I would give that a massive qualification: it should not do that all the time. But it has often taken on moral, ethical, political, philosophical, etc. issues head on, albeit in quieter fashion. Indeed, it has taken on the greatest flaw of the JN-T / Eric Saward management: it takes itself way too seriously. Yet even they managed to slip some fun into the often portentous stories they commissioned.
For what it's worth I agree but to expand upon "in quieter fashion' I'd proffer that, like satire before it, subtlety too seems pretty much dead in the 21st century. Nowehere is that more soberingly apparent these days than in television (particularly drama and comedy) - and especially Doctor Who. Indeed, even at its subjective best, Nu Who and subtlety were very much of a 'never the twain shall meet' disposition given the show's dubious penchant for maladroit in your face/lowest common denominator style characters, plots and humour. After all, even in this day and age a show need not treat its audience like utter cretins to retain their attention and approval... For all it's perceived faults though at least RTD's tenure (along with Moffat's Season 5) was accessible, innocuous and largely enjoyable; garnering critical acclaim and a large mainstream audience in the process. By sobering contrast Chibnall's era seems singularly determined to place itself at the vanguard of the so-called 'culture war' and thus divest itself of as much of its audience in the process, because reasons... Regardless, one suspects that the show's current panoply of viewer-shedding shortcomings could at least be partly ameliorated by embracing the subtlety that the Classic incarnation often (but by no means always) employed! |
|
|
|
Post by Ronnie McDevitt on Aug 14, 2019 11:59:35 GMT
I remember Gary Downie being quoted in a DWM interview. He said that if the series were ever to return it should definitely NOT be produced by a fan.
I agreed with this and in my personal view this has been proved correct with the path the new series has taken.
However I cannot deny the popularity the RTD and beyond series has enjoyed so I guess Downie and I were wrong.
Doesn't mean I have to like it though.
|
|
|
|
Post by lousingh on Aug 17, 2019 19:15:51 GMT
The other point be brings up is that Doctor Who can not bear the weight of exploring deep moral and ethical issues. I would give that a massive qualification: it should not do that all the time. But it has often taken on moral, ethical, political, philosophical, etc. issues head on, albeit in quieter fashion. Indeed, it has taken on the greatest flaw of the JN-T / Eric Saward management: it takes itself way too seriously. Yet even they managed to slip some fun into the often portentous stories they commissioned.
For all it's perceived faults though at least RTD's tenure (along with Moffat's Season 5) was accessible, innocuous and largely enjoyable; garnering critical acclaim and a large mainstream audience in the process. By sobering contrast Chibnall's era seems singularly determined to place itself at the vanguard of the so-called 'culture war' and thus divest itself of as much of its audience in the process, because reasons... Regardless, one suspects that the show's current panoply of viewer-shedding shortcomings could at least be partly ameliorated by embracing the subtlety that the Classic incarnation often (but by no means always) employed! On the underlined: what is worse is that Doctor Who is far better about it than virtually every other show I have seen recently. Getting bludgeoned over the head with reductionist characters is far and away the norm nowadays.
I also have argued that the lack of subtlety and the maladroit characterisation of the guest characters is a function of the general brevity of the current stories. One of the advantages of a longer story is that a writer can delve into multiple viewpoints of the main themes being illustrated in the story, go more deeply into each individual character, develop the cultures of the characters, etc. Even the old 3 part stories handled their characters, themes, etc. better than most stories nowadays.
For the bolded, please see my response to Ronnie McDermott below.
|
|
|
|
Post by lousingh on Aug 17, 2019 20:25:13 GMT
I remember Gary Downie being quoted in a DWM interview. He said that if the series were ever to return it should definitely NOT be produced by a fan. I agreed with this and in my personal view this has been proved correct with the path the new series has taken. However I cannot deny the popularity the RTD and beyond series has enjoyed so I guess Downie and I were wrong. Doesn't mean I have to like it though. I think it was impossible not to have it produced by a fan. Doctor Who has been around so long that it is effectively impossible to keep a fan from being an actor, actress, producer, script editor, etc.
Having said that, I agree in the sense that RTD, SWM, and CC have all brought things to the programme that bother me. The "socially aware" parts of the series, the shorter stories, and the self-limiting of time periods, planets, aliens, cultures, etc. drives me nuts. The worst offence, from my point of view, is that they all promoted the exchange of incompatible gamete-laden microbiomes for the purpose of simulating the propagation of genomes with Rose Tyler, River Song, et al. (If you are not channeling Sir Humphrey Appleby, the term is bestiality.)
Why bring this up? Because these characters are Mary Sue / Gary Stu for the writers living out their fantasies. This is the biggest problem of a fan being a showrunner - if s/he believes things that the vast majority of the fandom do not, that stuff becomes canonical and turns off some. (IMHO, most unforgivably, NuWho has made Sarah Jane the Doctor's past romance - in spite of numerous writers, producers, etc. involved with the series at the time claiming that there was no romance between the Doctor and Sarah Jane.) This is the politics debate, except that it is even more important to the series' survival: the long-term credibility of the characters. Whatever your politics, if you undermine the fans' belief in the integrity of the characters, then the show is doomed. (Ask non--radical-feminists what they think of the later Darkover novels.)
Additionally, because I don't believe in "meant to be" romance, I am very upset with the Rose Tyler and River Song arcs. IMHO, because Doctor Who has legions of impressionable but less mature fans, regardless of age, then it needs to be more careful and have greater integrity when dealing with real issues. So the "Doctor-lite" episode of Series 3 should have been Rose's family and friends in the alternate universe telling her to stop wallowing in her tears and living in the past and then get over the Doctor and move on. It was irresponsible to have her hook-up with a Doctor clone. (The effects of a similarly influential show for some of these people in the US resulted in some terrible behaviour and attitudes among the next generation's friends.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Stuart Douglas on Jan 18, 2021 9:43:59 GMT
It has been mentioned before, but any tedious 'socially aware' references are just going to get deleted...
|
|
