|
|
Post by John Wall on Jul 20, 2021 17:28:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by rebeccajansen on Jul 20, 2021 20:24:56 GMT
This wouldn't be said if they'd gotten Peter Dinklage for the role.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ronnie McDevitt on Jul 20, 2021 20:48:41 GMT
I have always been of the belief that Dr Who really died when Hinchcliffe left.
Just a personal view of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Jul 21, 2021 4:42:38 GMT
Haven't seen an episode since the Tennant days when I gave up on it and never liked the reboot much to start with. There are still a few classic episodes I have yet to see,. Some of which I taped in the 80s! So they're a bit of a treat.
Having grown up with it, it's very sad what it has become. But that applies to BBC, ITV and Channel 4 as a whole!
|
|
|
|
Post by mattg on Jul 21, 2021 10:28:08 GMT
Given the noxious, audience-shedding ideology that now permeates the show I’d be very surprised if the BBC permitted it to die during the first female Doctor’s tenure. After all the copious amounts of spin they’d have to engage in to try and explain/mitigate/obfuscate that one away…  In truth though the rot set in long before Jodie Whittaker turned up as was clear to those who endured Capaldi’s preceding run. Chris Chibnall’s myopic sense of priorities combined with some dubious writer hiring criteria has only exacerbated matters however, causing the show to tragically plunge ever further into the guttural depths of creative ossification. It’s painfully obvious what remedial measures are now needed to revitalise and save Doctor Who. That the BBC can’t and/or won’t even countenance them is but another tragic indictment of modernity… |
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Jul 21, 2021 18:23:35 GMT
I’m afraid I’ve never been able to get into the new series - there are whole doctors I’ve never watched.
Over the years the programme survived - such as during the Troughton-Pertwee transition - because there was a slot - in those days c. 5-30 on Saturdays - that needed filling for six months and Dr Who was the best answer. It successfully reinvented itself several times and stayed relevant and popular.
With catch up and streaming the TV ecosystem is completely different.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jaspal Cheema on Jul 21, 2021 19:09:02 GMT
You know,I wish I were a 7 year old now watching this series,it would have blown my mind!At various points both wierd,scary and and downright imaginative,why the hell I'm pandering to the Classic series hype that somehow a season 24 blu-ray is worth me spending 40-odd quid on when I knew damn well I had vowed never ever to watch Dragonfire again,Jodie Wittaker's is fantastic and well-worth savouring.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardwoods on Jul 21, 2021 20:39:27 GMT
Haven't seen an episode since the Tennant days when I gave up on it and never liked the reboot much to start with. There are still a few classic episodes I have yet to see,. Some of which I taped in the 80s! So they're a bit of a treat. Having grown up with it, it's very sad what it has become. But that applies to BBC, ITV and Channel 4 as a whole! Pretty much sums it all up. |
|
|
|
Post by timmunton on Jul 21, 2021 21:53:54 GMT
I have always been of the belief that Dr Who really died when Hinchcliffe left. Just a personal view of course. Fair enough though personally I'd say when Graham Williams left. ie. JNT struck the death knell for many reasons - including poor casting (P.D. & S.McC) & good casting but poor costume (C.B.). |
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Jul 22, 2021 16:47:54 GMT
Given the noxious, audience-shedding ideology that now permeates the show I’d be very surprised if the BBC permitted it to die during the first female Doctor’s tenure. After all the copious amounts of spin they’d have to engage in to try and explain/mitigate/obfuscate that one away… In truth though the rot set in long before Jodie Whittaker turned up as was clear to those who endured Capaldi’s preceding run. Chris Chibnall’s myopic sense of priorities combined with some dubious writer hiring criteria has only exacerbated matters however, causing the show to tragically plunge ever further into the guttural depths of creative ossification. It’s painfully obvious what remedial measures are now needed to revitalise and save Doctor Who. That the BBC can’t and/or won’t even countenance them is but another tragic indictment of modernity… It was a mistake to let fans make it and from the start RTD shifted it into soapy territory. It was too shouty and downmarket, with the Doctor being slapped across the face in the first episode if I remember? It was treated cheaply, almost as a joke sometimes. The Scooby Doo chase was one moment that made me feel I should give up on it. Like Coronation Street, which Granada used to claim was a social drama rather than a soap, it's about grinding the format into the ground until one day there's no value left. In a way I think TV has made a rod for its own back by encouraging audiences to expect everything to be hyper "realistic." Growing up, we went to the theatre and watched studio drama and were able to suspend disbelief. The BBC should have continued with studio drama and could have relaunched Doctor Who that way. People would have watched and it would have been cheap to make. To naysayers who say that audiences won't accept studio drama anymore I point out they still watch soaps that are made that way. Perhaps I shouldn't even comment. I haven't seen Capaldi, Whittaker and maybe not Matt Smith. I don't have live TV or a TV licence, so I don't fund it (and I really don't watch any of it). If the people who fund it enjoy it then I suppose that's fine. I just think TV could be so much better than it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Marple on Jul 22, 2021 20:54:25 GMT
Given the noxious, audience-shedding ideology that now permeates the show I’d be very surprised if the BBC permitted it to die during the first female Doctor’s tenure. After all the copious amounts of spin they’d have to engage in to try and explain/mitigate/obfuscate that one away… In truth though the rot set in long before Jodie Whittaker turned up as was clear to those who endured Capaldi’s preceding run. Chris Chibnall’s myopic sense of priorities combined with some dubious writer hiring criteria has only exacerbated matters however, causing the show to tragically plunge ever further into the guttural depths of creative ossification. It’s painfully obvious what remedial measures are now needed to revitalise and save Doctor Who. That the BBC can’t and/or won’t even countenance them is but another tragic indictment of modernity… It was a mistake to let fans make it and from the start RTD shifted it into soapy territory. It was too shouty and downmarket, with the Doctor being slapped across the face in the first episode if I remember? It was treated cheaply, almost as a joke sometimes. The Scooby Doo chase was one moment that made me feel I should give up on it. Like Coronation Street, which Granada used to claim was a social drama rather than a soap, it's about grinding the format into the ground until one day there's no value left. In a way I think TV has made a rod for its own back by encouraging audiences to expect everything to be hyper "realistic." Growing up, we went to the theatre and watched studio drama and were able to suspend disbelief. The BBC should have continued with studio drama and could have relaunched Doctor Who that way. People would have watched and it would have been cheap to make. To naysayers who say that audiences won't accept studio drama anymore I point out they still watch soaps that are made that way. Perhaps I shouldn't even comment. I haven't seen Capaldi, Whittaker and maybe not Matt Smith. I don't have live TV or a TV licence, so I don't fund it (and I really don't watch any of it). If the people who fund it enjoy it then I suppose that's fine. I just think TV could be so much better than it is. Doesn't not even having & TV not watching years worth of episodes undermine your argument!? The production style of original series was in some ways a relic in it's last few years, & wouldn't have helped the pitch for a new series. DWM once had a feature about bringing the series back, which correctly predicted it would have to be shot the way is has been since 2005, & mentions only the established soaps by that point were using multiple VT cameras without a film effect. |
|
|
|
Post by timmunton on Jul 23, 2021 2:24:58 GMT
I think or hope we've been through this before on this forum & indeed everywhere on the net one would hope: The BBC is politically-economically very right wing & conservative but is liberal on social issues. This social liberalism is in part used as a facade to mask how generally right wing it is Tim, if that really was the case then why are the BBC’s detractors almost universally comprised of Conservatives, former employees (often boasting careers spanning decades), the proverbial ‘man on the street‘ and disillusioned classical liberals whilst its proponents ardent leftists? Do they all labour under a total misapprehension of the ideological culture pervading our state broadcaster? This seems unlikely on balance. Matt, in general a lot of them do labour under a lot of misapprehension. After all this is a public who've masochistically voted in neo-liberal (Thatcherite) governments for over 40 years. Propaganda and lies by the BBC & others have contributed significantly to this state of affairs. Specific to the BBC; a lot of conservative/ "person on the street" type people don't like it because of the social liberalism I mentioned. Not sure what you mean by the term "classical liberals" so I won't mention them. Others realise it's at the same time politically-economically right-wing but claim it isn't in an attempt to force the political-economic nature of the BBC to be still more right wing. Still others are so right wing that anything less than total sturm und drang seems left-ish to them, so also want to make it even more right wing (they'd probably only be really happy if the newsreaders were all wearing swastika armbands). Most of the social liberal-approving members of the public to which most on the political-economic left also belong to, like & defend the BBC because of its social liberalism. A lot of them then think perhaps the BBC must be fair in other areas because why would such mainly nice social liberal presenters be otherwise than democratic & evenhanded? Some know they are in no way evenhanded etc but fear that without the BBC as we know it things will be even worse; which is certainly possible although last time I looked BBC news seems to be actually more right wing than Murdoch's Sky. Then there's quite a few on the left who like myself are generally (though not neccessarily completely) happy with social liberalism but recognise the true nature of the BBC's other dampeningly & fairly brazen rightwing agenda - amongst news at 10 & all the rest Marr and Kuennsberg (yes & Wark & the others) I'm thinking of you. Don't worry though I do think 2005+ new Who is terrible for many reasons including the ones Gary Graham gives on this thread. In terms of social liberalism; 2005+ Who aesthetically seems to crowbar it in heavy handidly at every opportunity & it seems their main concern rather than a supportive aspect. It was like this in 2005 and onwards, including the last times I've seen it (I saw a few of the Capaldis & one of the Whittakers). Where's Malcolm Hulke when you need him, eh? A couple of examples re. the BBC; someone I knew was watching BBC TV news recently when I walked into the room. The recent space attempts to do with Branson & his fellow obscenely wealthy billionaires was reported in glowing terms as a great schoolboy type adventure for these marvellous chaps. No word about how they've hoovered up the world's wealth & avoided paying tax/helped manipulate tax systems to favour their obscene wealth, in part so they can indulge in such japes, & how that's played a huge part in keeping many others very poor. No; the report was just one big uncritical thumbs-up to them. This is in general true of the BBC's approach, though usually they'll do a bit of hand wringing & have some sort of minimal counter argument which they then do their best to marginalise. And of course (I'm being ironic here of course) they were completely fair & evenhanded to Corbyn through his tenure & the 2019 election. Back to reality; eg. just repeating & amplifying the slurs of anti-semitism against him, when a small bit of truth about all that would have comprehensively demolished the smears - but as an establishment organisation they didn't do that. And of course no investigative reporting was done into the easily available statistics showing actual anti-semitimism is genuinely quite large in the Conservative party (as opposed to Labour where the amount is very tiny). That's not whatabboutery by myself; it's evidence of a gross lack of even handedness. One final point; actually the BBC was not fair exactly but certainly a lot fairer to Corbyn in the 2017 election - but they expected him to lose badly so it wouldn't matter. Because he only lost by a little, for the 2019 election they then threw for the most part the special broadcasting rules for election periods, into the bin. Which helped him to suffer a much bigger defeat. I should add that even if they had been actually fair in 2019 he would probably still have lost, but by a lot smaller margin. That's because as he's reasonably democratic quite a bit (though not always) he had no real choice but to eventually campaign on the disastrous 2nd referendum pledge because about 70 percent of labour members wanted this. This pretty much guaranteed electoral defeat. |
|
|
|
Post by stevehoare61 on Jul 23, 2021 8:42:53 GMT
I dont agree with the assumption that the BBC is Right Wing, they certainly have a bizarre way of showing it. My basic intention was really to say, NO...Doctor Who does not need to die...its always had periods like this, the problem isnt the programme , its the people making it and in the time we live in, which will go Full Circle as things usually do.I remember as a very small child only appearing in front of Hartnell when the monsters appeared as it was to my mind then, very boring..Troughton thrilled me but towards the end it became very silly. Personally i found when JNT took over, it changed and never really recovered. Todays DR WHO can recover,,it only requires some work, some excellent writers, directors and cast. There have been too many big changes far too quickly. It doesnt matter whether its a Soap, Top of the Pops, Dr Who or whatever, if you change it too much, then its viewers will stop watching...just look at todays Soaps viewing figures. Soo...Get a good Production Team, some good writers, a first class Doctor and not so many assistants and do the job...others have.How many times have we been here?
|
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Jul 23, 2021 9:25:00 GMT
Uncle Terrance always said that there were three things needed to make good Who:
The script
The script
The script
|
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Jul 23, 2021 10:58:19 GMT
I've tried the newish Who, but I prefer serials to galloping through an hour with someone Who is a smug Super-Super-Duper-Special Time Lord.
Generally, Class has for decades been of less and less interest to 'radicals', who themselves seem more inclined, if anything, than before to be ex-Public School. Perhaps that's one reason identity-politics is so popular.
I first became aware of the idea of 'continual disruption' and divisiveness through inter-sectionalism in the 70's. It's like Marlon Brando's "What am I rebelling against? Whatya got?" (I paraphrase) being refined. Like Space/time, areas of potential grievance and divisiveness continually expand.
Fair enough about the BBC. They're hardly likely to advocate "Socialism in one country" and the sending of numbers from their own ranks to work in coal mines to make us self-sufficient in energy, but you will see unseen-elsewhere numbers of their employees identifying as members of the opposite sex.
|
|
