Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Doctor Who Season 11 [** Spoilers **]
Options
Comments
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59087
Ehhhh... Wut?Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »Still a better season than Christopher Ecclestons.
:D For a number of reasons. Yeah you had farting aliens, but you also had stuff like musings on death of a parent and some quality dialogue and actual human characters and it was coming at it newly minted and full of expectation to revive an old fave, but it didn't play safe or to the nostalgic and it set up the new universe that everything down to today flows from.
+1. It's small trying to be big. The Tardis is alive seems to be missing too and the connection with it.I do not like the new Tardis interior
One bit that does my head in with the new Who s how often it's (over)used. In the old days it only came out on occasion and was pretty much a literal screwdriver, not some all powerful probe. Eccleston used it the least, Tennant upped the ante and Smith went nuts with it. As the John Hurt Doc said, "why are you pointing your screwdrivers? What are you gonna do, assembly a cupboard at them?"or sonic screwdriver.
Then again it's a charm for the toy market, so... Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 34531
silverharp wrote: »it will also have lots of unhappy dr who fans, i doubt you would tend to overly score a show down if the fans actually like the show. its clear critics care more about a show or movie just being good entertainment, hence the difference in scores.
The exact same logic can also apply to the audience scores. How can you be sure FunkyMunky1989 even saw the show/film, or doesn't have an axe to grind (or hell, be an infatuated fanboy that can see no wrong?). Downvoting is one of the slacktivist's chief tool these days
All well & good curling ones lip at Johnny Contrarian at The Guardian, but at least odds are, they've actually watched the thing.0 -
Critics tend to be from a similar demographic and background. Male, nerdy, 25-40, middle class, university graduates, generally liberal in politics and social issues and really get the horn for iconoclasm. So you tend to get more agreement than not, particularly on more divisive subjects. Plus unless they're very high profile and established they tend to avoid bad critique as this will reduce their access to the media gravy train. You also see this with talk show hosts and the like. They give an easy time to guests and their projects. This hand that feeds stuff has gotten worse in the last few decades and especially since the interwebs kicked off.
One litmus test I apply regardless of the flic/TV show/product involved is if the reviewers are repeating the line of the studio/production company PR near verbatim, then take what they say with a large pinch of salt. Especially if viewers and/or fans have a very different take on something and especially if both sides are running atomic powered dismissal of any disagreement from the other. Whatever truth is to be found is likely somewhere in the middle.
When it comes to cultural sacred cows like Dr Who(or Star Wars, Ghostbusters etc) then all bets are off. Doubly so when so many things of late we see, read or hear is a little too laden with whatever agenda you're having yourself. Take Who for example. Yes in the old days™ it did tackle certain agendas of the day coming from a previous generation of writers from time to time. I can think of the environmental angle and one Baker outing that was all "up the workers". However it was overall much more low key and usually confined to an episode or two. In the last few years it's become more overt and constant. Like any good cultural thing that spans generations it reflects its current society and quite a bit of current society is increasingly bipartisan and divided.
It's not just Who and it's not just one agenda either. TBH though I may go WTF, I'm not that concerned personally, as I can see what angle is being angled, so long as the show is entertaining enough. Hell I know something like the flic Top Gun was a US navy/airforce recruitment flic, with some unintentionally gay stuff going on which is hilarious(or maybe it was intentional, in which case kudos), but I still enjoyed its daftness and action stuff. Ditto for the amusingly daft action flics featuring various Mr Steroid Users of the same era, or the usual stuff from Hollywood of Go America!!! If it's good, or even diverting enough to let me ignore the agenda then fair enough. I mean Casablanca is an out and out propaganda piece, but is still bloody brilliant.
The problem I have with season 11 of Who is that for me it's amateur and lumpen and obvious and the stories, what there is of them, have suffered. That I can't get past.
I’d imagine there is group think for sure. What’s annoying is you would swear there was no “diversity” in the past yet and what is being made now is powerful and brave but Sifi shows have always been willing to be diverse but the story came first. I can pretty much guarantee that the people being very critical of Dr Who recently are the same people that would rank Janeway and Sisko as among their favourite show leaders in past other shows, yet the show makers want to dismiss all criticism and blame the fans. It’s a pity that the Beeb is virtually immune to financial pressures, the market cant tell them they are wrong.A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
The exact same logic can also apply to the audience scores. How can you be sure FunkyMunky1989 even saw the show/film, or doesn't have an axe to grind (or hell, be an infatuated fanboy that can see no wrong?). Downvoting is one of the slacktivist's chief tool these days
All well & good curling ones lip at Johnny Contrarian at The Guardian, but at least odds are, they've actually watched the thing.
Numbers I guess. Take the movie Bohemian Rhapsody , much higher audience score than the critics. Of the people I talked to in work everyone including myself gave it top marks, so just had the vibe that the general public had a blast at the movie and the scores reflect it.A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 34531
silverharp wrote: »Numbers I guess. Take the movie Bohemian Rhapsody , much higher audience score than the critics. Of the people I talked to in work everyone including myself gave it top marks, so just had the vibe that the general public had a blast at the movie and the scores reflect it.
Ok, but the numbers with Dr. Who show viewing figures have been pretty steady throughout the season (the drop from episode 1 no less remarkable than other years), while the market share has actually increased in some cases. That doesn't tally with this apparent condemnation of the show on the Holy Aggregators of Truth.
Besides, you've kinda hit on my point: "people I talked to"
Notwithstanding the obvious anecdotal quality there (everyone I've talked to has broadly enjoyed Season 11, including people generally sniffy about the show, which surprised me), at least you're speaking to actual human beings you know watched.
The same can't be said at all of those on metacritic etc ; no more than online petitions, there's literally no way of knowing if BigWhoppa11 watched the show, or is just trolling - or a plant. Even studios / their marketing depts. are rigging the system now, using sock-puppet accounts to hype up films to counter any negative press. As with most things in life, aggregators are a theoretically solid system - but completely ruined by people.
Besides ... hmm. Taking your peers as gospel, then reading the broad truth from certain quarters on the internet? Sounds suspiciously like an Echo Chamber to me.
:P 0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
+1. It's an interesting convo PB. I take little to no notice of audience scores, because they're so easily twisted(and I would be contrarian anyway so if I'm told something's good/bad I tend to approach it from the minority position). Audiences can be very partisan too when it comes to much loved franchises. I take little notice of critics either TBH. As Behan remarked critics are like eunuchs in a harem, they see how it's done, they know how it's done, but they can't do it themselves. And on top of that the industry - and it goes for damn near every industry - is very incestuous and critics often do little more than regurgitate industry PR. Something which can in turn get audiences who spot that even more exaggeratedly polarised in opinion. Opinions from those within the industry, especially actors I would usually ignore too. Actors have a very tenuous career and won't say anything against the group or industry line in case it affects that(even when gits like Weinstein and many others were being predatory, and still are). They also by virtue of their trade, talent and skill tend to be like water and fill whatever vessel they're put in. It's what makes them good as actors. So in 1950's America they were pretty much all anti "Commie", today they're most likely to be "right on", at least on the surface. Look at the static Gatiss got when he questioned the choice of a Black lad in the 19th century British army in one Who episode. And he'd be usually very much on the "inside".The exact same logic can also apply to the audience scores. How can you be sure FunkyMunky1989 even saw the show/film, or doesn't have an axe to grind (or hell, be an infatuated fanboy that can see no wrong?). Downvoting is one of the slacktivist's chief tool these days
All well & good curling ones lip at Johnny Contrarian at The Guardian, but at least odds are, they've actually watched the thing.
The levels of reaction and overreaction feed each other and both sides have easy loudly shouted fallbacks of "political correctness" or "sexist broflakes ". We saw this with Star Wars, that Ghostbusters flic(that got really bloody nasty too) and now Who.silverharp wrote: »I can pretty much guarantee that the people being very critical of Dr Who recently are the same people that would rank Janeway and Sisko as among their favourite show leaders in past other shows, yet the show makers want to dismiss all criticism and blame the fans.
I had to look up those two names. *hands in nerd badge
Didn't;t care much for the Sisko lad TBH, but yeah Janeway would be my fave captain in Star Trek after Jimmy Kirk. She nailed that IMH. Again she had that authority and it didn't require posturing. Bloody good and watchable actress in anything she's in to be fair. Ripley was brilliant, as was Connor. There's a fair list. And they happen to be of the lady persuasion. Where I had the ah here with Who was the dropping in of the often hamfisted gender switching thing over the last few seasons was its obviousness.
Now it did work for Missy, but Gomez could pull it off(and the master had little enough traction beyond Whovians), but I thought the Doc character should have remained male. And I make no apologies for saying I still do. If they rejigged Buffy the vampire slayer(who I enjoyed too) and made it I dunno Bertie the vampire slayer I'd be equally WTF? They could explain it away as an honorary title with no gender and if the lead actor claimed he was standing up for "men's rights" and young lads and anyone who had questions was anti men, I'd be thinking nope with knobs on and would further be thinking what buying demographic they were purposely aiming at and/or "controversy" were they trying to rile up to get viewing figures and/or what "political" statement they were trying to make? Now such a switch would have caused ructions and rightfully so, but swap out Who for the above and that's pretty much what we got.
Even so, I'd still watch a few episodes. I'd not regard it as "Buffy" anymore, but would see it as a spin off reboot and would see if it worked for me. If it did, then cool. If not then bring back the Buffster, or another woman. Which is pretty much how I felt watching Whittaker and the rest of it. She's the natural focus, but it's not just her. It's pretty much with few exceptions a half formed mess, from production design, music, pacing, scripting and supporting cast. Even if viewed as a new standalone show. And if it was a new standalone show I really doubt it would make it past a one season outing, maybe two, which I suspect is how it'll play out, or "creative differences" will hit it during the year long hiatus(what were they thinking on that score? Maybe hoping memories were short? Odd.).
Full disclosure: I watched three eps in their entirety, the rest I drifted off to one degree or other. There's only so much rubbernecking I can do at the scene of a car crashRejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
The exact same logic can also apply to the audience scores. How can you be sure FunkyMunky1989 even saw the show/film, or doesn't have an axe to grind (or hell, be an infatuated fanboy that can see no wrong?). Downvoting is one of the slacktivist's chief tool these days
All well & good curling ones lip at Johnny Contrarian at The Guardian, but at least odds are, they've actually watched the thing.
Talking of the guardian. The comment section didn’t like it either.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/dec/10/too-touchy-feely-our-panel-on-jodie-whittakers-first-series-of-doctor-who
Scroll down for comments.
They loved it above the line of course, one exception permitted0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
Indeed. I'd agree with much of what the one dissenting voice said. That lack of what he called psychopathy. That hint of something much deeper behind the eyes. There's zero depth to Whittaker. No sense of intelligence. No sense of experience. All gurning and zaniness, with her comfort blanket screwdriver out all the time to move what plot there is along. She feels like just another one of the companions gang. When she does give any sort of mini speech it's hide behind the couch alright, from embarrassment for her. TBH even watching just three in their entirety and dipping into the rest to varying degrees I found it hard going when she was on screen. Now we can blame the scripts as many seem to be doing, including her fervent supporters, but any of the previous incumbents could have got something more from the page.Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »Talking of the guardian.
To be fair my overriding vibe when watching this season is that it has been much more aimed at little kids. Like I said more Cbeebees than early evening wider family viewing. Famous Five drive Timmy the Tardis. There's little of the adult nods within it, which one tends to get with the best kids shows and flics. It's all obvious exposition with morality tales dropped in. In some ways it is a return to the very early classic Who in that regard. Which is fine by the by, but it's a big departure from the rest of the new Who.
And yer wan from the Time Ladies blog.. Was she watching the same programme? "Episodes have been beautifully crafted, fun, rewatchable and thought-provoking" and then notes that it wasn't exactly great in the crafted score. One does suspect so long as the Doc was of the lady persuasion she'd be effusive.
The bit about "intersecting identities". One couldn't get more Guardian.
Me. Earlier. Finding Guardian hacks in the wild.
Yes I might make a good Dalek. Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
I personally find the musing around the gender thing regarding lead characters very interesting on a few levels RC. Take the "Hero's Journey" as a narrative. It's damned near everywhere in all the world's cultures and has been for literally many thousands of years. All the way back to the Epic of Gilgamesh of Uruk. Hunter gatherer folks have similar narrative arcs, so it could go back tens of thousands of years. For men. Women don't really have one like that in the history of story, or it's vanishingly rare. Their narrative arc(s) is different and a little more varied. Mostly boiling down to the princess, or the queen, or the queen mother. Mixed in with patience and stoicism at their lot at the start of the narrative. Now they can be and often were/are warrior princesses, queens or queen mothers, who command armies and nations and kick arse themselves. Game of Thrones plugs into this stuff a lot. Highly popular chord striking cultural tales almost always plug into ancient narratives(I'd nearly say always). Doesn't mean we can't come up with our own of course, or twists on same, as some have.You're really hitting the stereotypes hard. Women can be lead characters, as long as they are like Ripley. Or Sarah Connors.
Shite, where was I...
But anyway RC, you seem to have missed Missy and Song and yer wan from Star Trek. Are they stereotypes too? Connors is the most gung ho of them, but she also plays the "hysterical female" angle and shows she's not the hysterical one and she went full Rambo in the second outing and that was bloody unusual for the time, so there's that.
But let's take Ripley. She isn't gung ho. She's very measured, shows a range of emotions and weaknesses and strengths and growth and intelligence and takes control without any macho guff, only going 80's action hero towards the end of Aliens and even then cleverly uses the tech around her to augment that, rather than the usual unbelievable superhuman strength(and no just in women). Doesn't pull any of the romance thing either, beyond a hint of mutual attraction with one of the marines in her second outing. Even the alien is of the lady persuasion, as is the pilot of the drop ship, as is one of the marines. The little girl has survived on the colony using her wits where all the others pegged it. It's a story where the men are mostly kinda bloody useless and believably so rather than it being a beaten over your head with a little girls saying men are stupid plot device. It also passes the Bechdel test with flying colours. And Weaver walks away with it. Even more impressively as the original concept and script was originally written as a man, and they changed little of the Alien 1 script to accommodate that. That such a flic was produced in the middle of the height of 80's steroid pumped high concept musclemen and in a science fiction flic with it always makes me think fair bloody play. So yeah RC, if she's a stereotype of a woman as lead, then sign me up.
Actually is Sigourney available? As well as all the above, she can play for laughs too and she'd have the mature gravitas vibe with it. I'd crowdfund that for Dr Who. (no really)
I'd love to see her not be as wooden as a plank delivering lines(with extra gurning and screwdriver). And not just her. The am dram vibe is strong. That Bradley Walsh is a fan and critic fave and even naysayers like him as a "good actor" says much. Nothing agin Bradley, he's treaded the boards and did soaps so can act as a near automatic thing and that comes across. He's still, he sounds like he's reacting to what people are saying rather than waiting for his cue. He can act. Now look at the companions...I think Whittaker has been given less to work with this season, but I'm open to seeing where she can go with the character, beyond "can be threatening".
***The Word count and wandering nonsense in this post where brought to you by Wibbs©™ from 2009. A fine if overly dense vintage. A bit acidy too if I'm honest. And don't get me started on the nose. No really***Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
Take the "Hero's Journey" as a narrative. It's damned near everywhere in all the world's cultures and has been for literally many thousands of years. All the way back to the Epic of Gilgamesh of Uruk. Hunter gatherer folks have similar narrative arcs, so it could go back tens of thousands of years. For men. Women don't really have one like that in the history of story, or it's vanishingly rare.
The vague story outline of the Hero's Journey contains nothing ineluctably masculine. Call to adventure/meeting mentor/dark night of the soul etc - doesn't have to be a man going through it (or an action-figure female either).
But how can you talk about women and the history of story without acknowledging that women's stories were not privileged - and so not preserved - in the same way as men's stories?
I mean you're basically saying women can't be heroes because the central figures in the old stories we know were men, as if this was something to do with the nature of story and nothing to do with the nature of society.Their narrative arc(s) is different and a little more varied. Mostly boiling down to the princess, or the queen, or the queen mother. Mixed in with patience and stoicism at their lot at the start of the narrative.
Gosh, it's almost as if there was some reason why storytellers didn't make women the central characters, or depicted them without agency?But anyway RC, you seem to have missed Missy and Song and yer wan from Star Trek. Are they stereotypes too?
Missy was a scenery-chewing panto character, Song was a space pirate. Fun, and well-played, but Missy wouldn't work as the central character at all, and Song would have to be in a very different show.....Even more impressively as the original concept and script was originally written as a man, and they changed little of the Alien 1 script to accommodate that.
I'm just going to let that sit there so we can all have a think about it 0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
Actually they were. I know it doesn't fit the current gender identity stuff but female archetypes and narratives are just as pervasive throughout history. And prehistory with it. There is far more early art depicting women than men for example. How they're viewed as negatives or positives is down to culture. Look at European fairy tales as one example. Just as many women, if not more at times. Ditto for the Greek pantheon(and they were astoundingly sexist cultures). And that's just European cultures.But how can you talk about women and the history of story without acknowledging that women's stories were not privileged - and so not preserved - in the same way as men's stories?
Again they did. Indeed many narratives about men depict them without agency put upon by gods and forces beyond their control. That's extremely common, but if one has already decided who the victims are it could easily be missed.Gosh, it's almost as if there was some reason why storytellers didn't make women the central characters, or depicted them without agency?
They took out the macho gung ho stuff to make it a "female" role.I'm just going to let that sit there so we can all have a think about it
True. My fault TBH.fritzelly wrote:TBH I'm not really sure what thread I'm following anymore I'll bugger off now. Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
That said she was extremely popular with the public PB. Topped the polls of "best companion" for years after she left(wouldn't surprise if she was still close to the top even today). It's one major diff between the more "nerdy" hardcore fans and the usual couch TV remote surfers.Man, nothing from the 2005+ era has disappointed or annoyed me more than Rose's entire arc; Season 11 had its flaws, but nothing on a par with the whole "companion falls madly in love with the Doctor" angle from the past.
I liked RTD's choice of a "chav" blonde in a council flat, rather than the more generally cast received accent middle class type. I thought it might have been an interesting angle and sometimes it was and not necessarily in a positive way(there was a hint of grooming going on). That someone like her in a dead end life might run away and fall for the guy who took her away made perfect sense. Especially if he looked like Dave Tennant. But yeah they really overcooked it and the clone doctor happy ending was really daft. If they'd left it at the emotional goodbye on the beach then OK* Again they knew she was mad popular as was this "love story" so they brought her back. Twice. For the ratings.
Catherine Tate was a breath of fresh air that way. And in a natural way. She just didn't fancy skinny spaceboy. Personally I liked their dynamic. Her "you wot mate?" when he went a bit daft, mixed with genuine affection. Of the new bunch she's about the only one I could imagine being a companion in the classic Who. Her and Tom Baker's Doc would have been funny.
*which got me in the feels at the time I have to admit. Then again I was madly in lurve at the time too and that renders one daft anyway. Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 34531
Rose as a character was fine if I'm honest, but only when she wasn't aggressively pining for the Doc (IIRC she hassled Sarah Jane Smith to her face over being an "ex"). It was kinda bit Twilight with the grooming all right, dunno, maybe that was just the zeitgeist. That and the Docs midlife crisis stringing along a young blonde with daddy issues those early series haven't aged that we'll have they.
The chav angle was fine, and made a good change but even with that they gilded the lily way too much. Honestly, latterly I've wondered if RTD was a bit of a terrible writer coasting on goodwill and a vaguely decent ear for dialogue0 -
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement