Doctor Who News (3)
This topic contains 1,028 replies, has 95 voices, and was last updated by Anonymous 4 years, 3 months ago.
24 January 2016 at 02:30 #50385
An ‘opinion’ is a conclusion or stance arrived at via evidence and argument.
It seems you have leapfrogged over the posts where I detailed my evidence and argument. No problem, it’s all there, just take a moment to review it, please.
The first is that a traditional DEM tends to be consequence free.
That is an opinion. And even if it were proven by a survey of literature – it would not be binding – since the standard definition of DEM does not include “no consequences”. You said it yourself – traditional, not required.
I read the rest of your post, but to be honest, it didn’t change anything that I already said, and I won’t respond further on this subject.
As I said to PIP – We’ve reached an impasse. We can argue until the end of time, but I’ve got Yoga class, so let’s move on.
But at the same time, despite all the accusations to the contrary, it’s a device that’s almost never made a significant appearance in the rebooted show.
And since I would like to end on an agreeable note, let me say – You’re absolutely right about that. We may disagree about which episode finale is a DEM and which isn’t, but we agree they are rare.24 January 2016 at 03:14 #50386
…in the rebooted show.
Just a minor technical point – the show hasn’t been rebooted. “Rebooted” implies jettisoning the past stories and starting over.24 January 2016 at 04:21 #50388Arbutus @arbutus
I’m not at all surprised to hear Moffat’s leaving finally given a time frame, we had to know it was coming fairly soon. He’s been at this for an awfully long time. I must say that the show under his direction has brought me pleasure, amusement, or joy (sometimes all three at once!) far more often than not. But I enjoyed the show under Russell T. Davies, and I wouldn’t have guessed that I would come to love the Moffat version even more. Just as I enjoyed David Tennant as the Doctor, and could never have guessed that Smith Doctor would eclipse him for me. So here’s hoping that I will continue to find something to love there; I’m pretty sure that I will!24 January 2016 at 08:33 #50394
No, I refuse to accept any of this. How can the BBC replace Moffat, who is brilliant, with a writer who wrote for that ridiculous second rate spinoff? The only episode I know of that he produced was the only episode I have ever listed on this forum as not worth watching. It can’t be just me, ’42’ was an embarrassment and the only episode I say to skip. This has to be a joke. Why not ask a writer who wrote a great episode like ‘Vincent and the Doctor’ or even beg Russel T. Davies back, or get creative and ask Orson Scott Card. I don’t know! What about the guy who wrote ‘City of Death’ or ‘Age of Steel’ or ‘Father’s Day’ or ‘The Doctor’s Wife’ or the episode about the Snowmen? Come on! Not a Torchwood writer; that show was just sex, drama and predictability. The writer who contributed ’42’ should only be asked for an apology for boring Who audiences everywhere. Sorry, I know I’m usually positive and polite, but I am disappointed and just plain shocked.
No Doctor in 2016? Seriously? I’m going to hibernate until 2017. I am just really unhappy right now.24 January 2016 at 09:08 #50395
It’s not nuclear power (and I know because I’ve worked in nuclear power).
Good. Now, imagine how you’d feel if I kept repeating the same, wrong, explanation of the way nuclear power works, using a dictionary definition, and consistently misapplying one of the technical terms.
I apologise if this is annoying you, but while you’ve worked in nuclear power, I’ve worked (and still sometimes work) in acting, theatre and film. Funnily enough, I do know what a DEM is. I also know what ‘suddenly’ and ‘unexpectedly’ means in dramatic terms. I have this strange suspicion that both RTD and Steven Moffat know, as well. 😉
It’s not that I’m trying to complicate something very simple, it’s just that my head keeps hitting the desk when you insist that a foreshadowed plot point turns up ‘suddenly’, and argue from that that Parting of the Ways contains a DEM. And that it doesn’t matter that Bad Wolf was mentioned a lot beforehand, it was still ‘unexpected’.
I will now go off and reverse the polarity of the neutron flow…
Hopefully, inner peace will be found by tonight. 🙂24 January 2016 at 10:15 #50396Anonymous @
Funnily enough, I do know what a DEM is. I also know what ‘suddenly’ and ‘unexpectedly’ means in dramatic terms. I have this strange suspicion that both RTD and Steven Moffat know, as well.
Goodness! Mum would say. And has!
She does (I mean Miss Squeak) know @ob-wan -a DEM isn’t foreshadowed -just; it isn’t ‘sprinkled around’ either in and amongst episodes -just. If it was, it would be just ‘foreshadowing’ innit?
On the other issue:
to quote Uncle Spike: “is everybody here stoned?”
Seriously? Chibnall. Oh nooooo.
Does anyone remember Broadchurch?
<hint: Glory and Ben were the same>
Any good bits of Ben were shorted-out by the bad bits of Glory.
Son of Puro24 January 2016 at 10:24 #50397Anonymous @
OK, Mum’s back now and is saying this: “the show has been rebooted. It has been called a re-boot This is fact. Moffat and others have referred to it as such”
OK. Off to play COD.
Puro and Son
PS: errm wot? No Doctor this year? Are we sure? We say again: “is everybody here stoned?”24 January 2016 at 12:28 #50400
I can just imagine how much RTD and SWM would be laughing at us for spending so much time discussing such a minor point.
On the contrary, I’d say they’d be chuffed that their work is continuing to engage and involve even more than 10 years after transmission. What writer wouldn’t.
It seems you have leapfrogged over the posts where I detailed my evidence and argument. No problem, it’s all there, just take a moment to review it, please.
On the contrary, I read it all. No offence, it seemed more like entrenching of a position rather than argument. And as Pip says I think part of the problem is that some of which you consider to be the mechanics of a DEM is just wrong. Perhaps the issue is your dogged adherence to one single definition that I’d say gives a flavour of the concept but does not account for the depth and nuance of the concept. (E.g. as a nuclear scientist would you take Merriam-Webster’s definition of fission as the last word on the subject. Of course you wouldn’t.) The reason why Pip and I have possibly over-persisted with this one is that (apart from DEMs being a long-running bone of contention) is that we both felt you were mistaken in your assumptions and wished to outline the reasons why.)
Yes, my ‘no consequences’ aspect won’t appear in many two-line definitions but I’d still say most — possibly not all — real examples of contain this aspect. That’s what I mean by the limitation of sticking to a two-line definition is not good enough. (And I say that as someone who has both earned something of a living as wordsmith of sorts and has taught English Lit at undergrad level).
But in the end I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Just a minor technical point – the show hasn’t been rebooted. “Rebooted” implies jettisoning the past stories and starting over.
True, but a bit pedantic, don’t you think? Both RTD and SM have used the term on numerous occasions and the show did return after a significant hiatus and with significant new elements in place. I’d say that’s enough to justify the use of the term. Besides which it’s useful shorthand to differentiate the 2005+ version of the show from what came before.
@kharis — believe me, I’m less than thrilled by CC either but let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. True, there’s little in his back catalogue to inspire that much confidence but you never know. He might rise to the occasion. Quite apart from anything else we don’t want to become the Chibnall equivalents of the wailing anti-SM brigade. Let’s judge him on the work.24 January 2016 at 12:38 #50401Anonymous @
You’re absolutely right: we will wait to be happily surprised. And we probably will be: there’ll be writers a-plenty, a good break to create ideas, and in the mean time -lots of Doctor Who re-watches!
Neither one of us realised there was actually no Who in 2016!
Puro and Son24 January 2016 at 12:42 #50402Anonymous @
There was a movie I watched some years ago -I recall it was quite brilliant (in its way). One of the guys was dealing with the prediction of money markets and whilst being interviewed by his boss was asked:
“what’s your primary area?
“I’m in nuclear and astronaut science, actually”
“So, you’re a rocket scientist? As in it is rocket science?”
“er, yes, sir, that’s right”.
Puro24 January 2016 at 13:22 #50403
Regarding Chris Chibnall
I like his work. He’s an actor’s writer; he’s not a ‘brilliant ideas’ writer. Peter Capaldi might well be very willing to stay for at least Chris Chibnall’s first year, because Chris Chibnall writes brilliant, interesting, sometimes amazing parts. The plot’s usually pretty straightforward.
Which is why the argument that Broadchurch was saved by the amazing acting isn’t really valid. Broadchurch was written in a way that allowed a group of very talented actors to show off their best work. It gave them backstory, situation and lines full of subtext; it also went for emotional logic rather than strict real-world logic. It doesn’t stack up as a police or legal procedural; that’s because it isn’t a police or legal procedural. It’s a character study.
If you look at ’42’, you’ll see that talent for characterisation. There’s the Doctor’s genuine fear when he realises he’s been taken over, there’s Martha realising she could die out here, and her family would never know what happened to her. There’s the Captain’s relationship with her husband. The real-time experiment didn’t work too well; but by Cold Blood, Dinosaurs and Power of Three, Chris Chibnall’s scripts are consistently hitting the ‘Excellent’ rating on the Audience Appreciation Index. We may prefer Moffat’s brilliant ideas, but there are a lot of people out there who are very happy to watch well acted, interesting characters (think the sheer nastiness of Soloman, and the emotional gamut that Nefertiti had to run in Dinosaurs) in a plot whose big questions are the ones about human nature.
So Chibnall has the producing experience, the wider audience likes his work, and he has one big hit (and several reasonable successes) under his belt. I’d imagine that he also has an idea of where he wants to take Who, and that it’s going to be in a different direction from Steven Moffat, because that’s how Who works.
So … don’t write him off too soon. As Jim says, we don’t want to become the anti-Chibnall brigade, just as there was an anti-Moffat brigade that never forgave Steven Moffat for not being RTD Mk 2. He isn’t Steven Moffat. He doesn’t have the same strengths as Steven Moffat.
But he does have an entirely different set of strengths.24 January 2016 at 13:25 #50404
Quite apart from anything else we don’t want to become the Chibnall equivalents of wailing anti-SM brigade. Let’s judge him on the work.
I think this is a point that cannot be made often enough.24 January 2016 at 13:45 #50406
Which is why the argument that Broadchurch was saved by the amazing acting isn’t really valid.
It is also a straw man.
Broadchurch was brilliant, character-centred drama, which the fairly slight plot supported well.
Broadchurch 2 was a train wreck that never hit its stride because it relied on too many absurdities to sustain willing suspension of disbelief – and all storytelling relies on that..
Nobody here – or anywhere else that I’ve seen – has complained about the strong female characters (another straw man from upthread). The problems is the fundamental flaws of structure and execution of the story. We we never allowed to give a stuff about the victims and it had 2 new characters who were both introduced as brilliant, who then behaved in a quite incredible (as in, lacking in credibility) stupidity.
And then there’s the fastest recovery from heart surgery ever. Lancet articles will be written about it.
But it was sustained by the main leads giving it everything.
We can only hope that he pulls a Highlander and airbrushes 2 out of history.
My hope comes from the fact that I have liked his Who episodes. 42 was fun for what it was (a knowing spoof of 24), DOAS was a hoot and the Silurian 2 parter intelligent and thoughtful – and, as you say, he writes strong characters. What I haven’t seen yet (because no opportunity within Who, and severe doubts outwith) is enough evidence that he can maintain a character in a credible way.
But he’s got the gig now, so back him and let’s have fun finding out.24 January 2016 at 14:22 #50407
(E.g. as a nuclear scientist would you take Merriam-Webster’s definition of fission as the last word on the subject. Of course you wouldn’t.)
Whoa. Never said I was a scientist. I worked as a technician in a plant. But I had six months of school from 9-5 studying thermodynamics, metallurgy, nuclear physics, radiation calculations, etc. They don’t let you flip a switch without making sure you know what can happen when you flip that switch.
Fission – the splitting of an atomic nucleus resulting in the release of large amounts of energy
Why wouldn’t I accept that? – It’s a perfectly fine explanation of the word. Sure I know a lot more of the details surrounding fission, but in terms of what is it – yeah, that’s it.
Words have meanings attached to them and even if you want to spend 20 hours beating your dead horse over them, that doesn’t change their meaning.
Just as, I don’t care who says that Doctor Who has been rebooted – if they don’t jettison the past, then it’s not a reboot – that’s the meaning of the word. You can call Doctor Who a zucchini for all I care but that wouldn’t make it a zucchini. And I really wouldn’t bother to read a blog that tried to convince me it was a zucchini.
Funny thing is, the father of my best friend in high school WAS a rocket scientist. He worked at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.
And on another note – the pronunciation of Diana Goddard’s name in “Dalek” just drives me up a wall. It reminds me that it was a bunch of British actors standing around with no one to tell them – “Hey, they don’t pronounce Goddard that way in the US.” (or else they just didn’t care)
It’s an unnecessary jarring distraction that constantly reminds me that it’s a show while I’m trying to enjoy the story.24 January 2016 at 14:26 #50408
We’re just going to have to agree to disagree about Broadchurch 2, okay? I agree that there are some things that jerk you right out of ‘suspension of disbelief’, but they often differ for different people. Or even different novels. I was once utterly unable to carry on reading an Arthurian fantasy novel series after the author had his Brits feasting on potatoes.
And yet I had no trouble with Sam Gamgee’s signature dish of fried fish and potatoes.
Shall we have a moratorium on mentioning Broadchurch 2? Perhaps we could call it The Series We Do Not Mention, to go with The Movie We Do Not Mention. 😈24 January 2016 at 16:31 #50410
Words have meanings attached to them
Yes, they do but once again it’s a great deal more nuanced and complicated than that. In almost every case it’s not a one-to-one correlation (and let’s not open the can of worms of signifier and signified and to the relative instablity of the relationships between them). Let’s just say that there’s nothing wrong with using ‘reboot’ in this context and that it’s pointless to insist on such a literal interpretation. That’s not really how language works.
@bluesqueakpip and @pedant — Leaving aside the TV show that must not be named for a moment to look at the first series. There’s no doubt that CC can write character and all his work has great character beats to it. But I’m not sure you can write off the procedural aspect as being not important. And I’d still argue that it was the work of Tennant, Colman and Bradley that helped paper over the cracks of what was flying by the seat of its pants writing.
However, I think CC is on surer ground with crime/RL drama because it doesn’t show up his weaknesses quite so much. (Same goes, I think, for RTD actually.) He clearly likes the big emotional moments, the jaw-dropping exposes, the moments of spectacle, but unlike, say Joss Whedon, he doesn’t have the patience to earn them. This leads to fatal flaws in logic. Even in his best story, the Silurian two-parter, it raises its head. Look at the Silurian scientist. Portrayed as a Mengele figure solely to create a good cliff-hanger and then instantly transformed into a kindly pacifist, because the second part needs to go in that direction. Similarly, what you say about Solomon in Dinosaurs is true but consider how much controversy his demise caused. I think there was probably enough precedent for it to be OK but the fact that it unsettled so many suggests to me that it the way it was played out didn’t quite make its case as wholly satisfying drama.
But this tendency to steam ahead for the big moments without laying the groundwork for them is at its worst in Torchwood — Cyberwoman a case in point in how not to write an episode. So much so that it holes the first two seasons below the water line until RTD pulled it back with Children of Earth. However, I’m looking at Torchwood as a good thing and almost as a ‘dummy run’ for his tenure as Who showrunner. He’s hopefully going to be able to learn from previous mistakes.
You’re right though that his work, if pedestrian, is crowd-pleasing. And possibly that’s what the Beeb is wanting for the moment after the inspired but sometimes risky approach of the Moffat years. I suspect that our theorising will become a lot tamer though.24 January 2016 at 17:13 #50411DoctorDani @doctordani
So many reservations about Chibnall, but I sure as hell won’t be declaring him the anti-Christ just because he’s not Moffat. A lot of the hate the Moff got was irrationally directed at him because RTD and Tennant had the ‘audacity’ to leave, and he dared to take the show in a different direction. It was nauseating. So if Chibs isn’t my cup of tea, then so be it. I’ll express an opinion, but my voodoo doll will stay in the drawer. I’m sure some people will love his era anyway. That’s how it’s always worked. I do, however, think that many will look back extremely favourably on Moffat’s tenure pretty damn soon. Hindsight etc.24 January 2016 at 17:44 #50412
Silurian two-parter, it raises its head. Look at the Silurian scientist. Portrayed as a Mengele figure solely to create a good cliff-hanger and then instantly transformed into a kindly pacifist,
This is my main concern. I was unable to watch more the 10-12 episode of the Battlestar Galactica reboot (despite loving the mini-series) for exactly this problem: Moore was arbitrarily change characterisation to make whatever didactic point he wanted to get across this week. I can’t recall exactly when I bailed, but it was when I realised I didn’t give a stuff about any of the characters because they would vary so much from week-to-week, with no sense of causality.
(It occurs to me, btw, that Chibnall might have wanted to move back to Spring and that’s why it is delayed, since I presume he has to finish Broadchurch first.)24 January 2016 at 18:12 #50415
Thank you for a positive spin @jimthefish
After some sleep and reading all the people who have confidence in Chibnall’s ability I feel a little better. Maybe this is just the acceptance stage.
My nagging fear is I AM judging HIS work, and ’42’ and that movie they called Doctor Who have always stood out to me as beneath Doctor Who, I know he didn’t write the movie, but 42 was always right up there on my just skip that episode speech to new fans.
Also, Torchwood is unreasonable, bombastic and boring, plus Broadchurch put me to sleep. This is my fear, the fear he hasn’t produced anything that held my interest, except the episodes during Amy and Rory’s time, which gives me hope. His run may be wonderful, but I doubt I will have something to personally look forward to. It simply doesn’t sound my cup of tea, but it may be a brew that meets most fan’s needs and standards. Maybe it will even attract a new fan base to our wonderful show? That would be a lovely outcome. I just fear that the one show I look forward to will become like every other show. I spent a decade not watching TV because nothing really interested me. Then all of a sudden there was Doctor Who, Sherlock, Firefly and even Downton Abbey and Big Bang for certain moods. But even the other shows I just listed, even though they could hold me, could not get me excited enough to wait for each episode like Christmas, and I certainly would not have got on the internet to write about the others.
It’s just so disappointing. At my age little things that feel like Christmas are few and far between. On the subject of Christmas, who is going to make the Christmas Specials so magical? My whole family young and old love the last four, they are up there with ‘A Christmas Story’ and ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ for all of us. Even my family who never watched Who makes us watch ‘The Doctor, Widow and Wardrobe’ ‘The Time of the Doctor’ and ‘Christmas Carol’ every holiday at least twice. I’m sure ‘Husband’s of River Song’ will now be added. I’m just bummed, it’s like the BBC announced that there will not be Christmas in 2016.
I will strive to be more positive after this. I’m just still in the unhappy stage of acceptance.24 January 2016 at 18:35 #50417
Words have meanings attached to them
jimthefish: Yes, they do but once again it’s a great deal more nuanced and complicated than that.
No, it’s not. You just want to make it complicated so you can pretend that the way you use the words (“reboot” for instance) is correct, when it’s not. And it will never be correct no matter how much you may rationalize it to yourself. The definition of words aren’t going to change to suit your musings.
That’s not really how language works.
Yes, it is. There are right words and wrong words to suit every occasion. If you continue to insist on using words incorrectly then you will sow confusion among your audience. Unless they are privy to your own personalized jimthefish glossary.
You see, if I had said “your own personalized jimthefish diary” that would have been the wrong word. Then I would have to start a blog just so I could try to explain how a diary is the same thing as a glossary, when it’s not and it never will be.
If we want to communicate clearly we have to learn the definition of words and use those words correctly.
And THAT’S the way it works.24 January 2016 at 19:10 #50418winston @winston
My complaint is purely selfish………I hate waiting. But of course I will , rewatching old series while I wait, not so patiently.
As far as a new show runner I will wait and see what he does, but I am sure I will like some a lot and some not so much and I will keep on watching. Why? Because I love The Doctor and I can’t think how bad it would have to be to stop me watching. I look forward to seeing what direction Chibnall takes the show in. I will be there for the ride so I hope it’s a good one.24 January 2016 at 21:18 #50419
There are right words and wrong words to suit every occasion.
True, but this is not one of those occasions. You’re being painfully literal. Again. And to repeat, there’s nothing actually incorrect with the usage of the word, for the reasons outlined above.
But since you live and die by dictionary defintions, here’s the OED on the subject:
There’s nothing in that definition to contradict describing AG Who as a reboot.
With all due respect, you’re being needlessly pedantic (and we already have one of ’em around here…. 🙂 )24 January 2016 at 21:23 #50420
The definition of words aren’t going to change to suit your musings.
I think ‘reboot’ as a film and TV term really only dates back slightly over a decade. I seem to remember the new Battlestar Galactica being described as a ‘reboot’, and then Batman Begins picked it up. But what they were doing was nicking a computer term to describe shutting down the old franchise and starting up the new one.
Batman Begins really should have used ‘factory reset’. It would be a bloody awful computer reboot that destroyed all your data.24 January 2016 at 22:37 #50421
Then we’ll have to agree to disagree about the definition of “reboot”.
I think ‘reboot’ as a film and TV term really only dates back slightly over a decade…. But what they were doing was nicking a computer term to describe shutting down the old franchise and starting up the new one.
Exactly. There are plenty of words (most beginning with “re-“) to describe a returning show – returning, restart, revive, relaunch, regeneration, etc.
Why did they need to invent a new one? To indicate that a reboot is different is some way from the words already in usage.
Wiki – In serial fiction, to reboot means to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning.
There’s a lot of other sources – just look for “define show reboot”. OED is good, but they tend to be a little behind the times. For instance, they just added the words auto-tune, Blu-ray and birdhouse a few months ago. (Birdhouse? Really?) – New words list June 2015, OED
It would be a bloody awful computer reboot that destroyed all your data.
But why do you do a reboot? – To clear out your PC memory, your RAM. Whatever information was stored in RAM is gone after a reboot. Hence it’s a VERY appropriate word to use for a show reboot since it “deletes” information about the show that you currently have in memory.
On a side note – I used to work with a brilliant attorney who had to be briefed before each witness because he had so much going on in his head he couldn’t retain all the details over the long term. We used to compare him to a computer with a small amount of RAM who had to be rebooted and reprogrammed before each cross-examination.24 January 2016 at 23:07 #50422AlexWho @alexwho
Sorry to see Moffat leave and even sorrier that season 10 won’t be on til spring 2017!
But lots of time now to catch up on classic Who like the Key to Time.24 January 2016 at 23:41 #50423Anonymous @
Hi Mr P,
I love your posts. I like Miss Pip’s posts too but I don’t think I know what a straw man argument is?
Are you saying that the acting sort of saved Broadchurch because the plot was pretty poor -this is B’church no. two? So that Miss Pip saying the acting was amazing and therefore saved it, is the straw man because that isn’t what you meant?
Son of P25 January 2016 at 00:06 #50424Anonymous @
@pedant gosh, I had a reply and then I needed to add something and then the computer crashed again.
I was going to ask you to explain, if you can, what a straw man is?
I see that you were saying that Miss Pip claiming that the “amazing” acting saving the story was not what you had said and was therefore a straw man? I think.
@ob-wan you had said this And on another note – the pronunciation of Diana Goddard’s name in “Dalek” just drives me up a wall. It reminds me that it was a bunch of British actors standing around with no one to tell them – “Hey, they don’t pronounce Goddard that way in the US.” (or else they just didn’t care)
I don’t know if you were tagging me or others on the matter of pronunciation. I think mistakes happen though -its not about not caring. Same with the DEM -I think that it’s difficult to have such a large concept defined in two lines. It’s just wrong. I spent a whole week in English class (several 70 mins lessons) so that means the concept DEM is more complex than “zucchini.” As for re-boot, that’s a mistake too because the word has been used by Mr MOffat and I know that Russell used the word in an interview. I think people are being pedantic. BUt that’s an opinion.
Son of Puro25 January 2016 at 00:20 #50425
Straw man = misrepresentation of another’s argument in order to make it easier to attack.
You do not that reboot actually means restart, don’t you? It is imported from computing and is what happens when you shut off a computer and then restart it. Nothing is jettisoned, although it can be a good way of clearing cruft out of caches. I would have thought an engineer like you would know that.
The term you are thinking of is “reimagined” (as with Battlestar Galactica and JJ Abraham’s Star Trek). In fact the only thing that RTD did that could be considered radical was to pull the 1996 movie into canon (and even there, McCoy’s cameo made it easy, with the need only to hand wave away the half human thing).25 January 2016 at 00:50 #50426nerys @nerys
Cautiously dipping a toe into the heated waters of this debate: I remember the “reboot” debate circling around Daniel Craig’s entry into the Bond franchise, and all that entailed in terms of adapting the Bond canon into a contemporary setting. I vaguely remember the term “retcon” being bandied about as the more appropriate term. Yes or no? I won’t tread any farther than that.25 January 2016 at 01:12 #50427Anonymous @
On a side note – I used to work with a brilliant attorney who had to be briefed before each witness because he had so much going on in his head he couldn’t retain all the details over the long term. We used to compare him to a computer with a small amount of RAM who had to be rebooted and reprogrammed before each cross-examination.
OK, so to be specific you are not happy with anything other than ‘correct’ uses of words. These words come only from a recognised dictionary or glossary (and your dig about the blog to do with DEM was not unnoticed by Mum or Puro -us the hybrid). Yet you then discuss a brain, comparing it to a computer when a brain is nothing like a computer: it’s an organic creation. You wouldn’t re-boot a brain -even if you could, and if you did, it would end up as a tabula rasa (I think that’s the correct expression or concept). But its OK to use this expression, if you are using it and yet you will not accept a common usage- expression like re-boot nor a complex term like DEM.
When this happens communication completely breaks down and sentences like “we will have to disagree to agree” happen which isn’t correct either but may as well be. See?
The point of these pages is to debate in a lively manner using literary features to assist the process of understanding. In using one de-coder ring (a dictionary like M-Webster) no progress will ever be made.
This is from Son of Puro and my Dad (for help). Puro is down.25 January 2016 at 01:39 #50428
I don’t know if you were tagging me or others on the matter of pronunciation. I think mistakes happen though -its not about not caring.
It just seems strange to me that during writing, editing, rehearsals and filming that NO ONE realized that they were pronouncing Goddard in a very un-American way even though most of them were portraying Americans. I guess I just figure with so many smart people working there and people that are well-traveled that someone should have caught it. But that’s the way it goes.
My real problem with that episode is that the title “Dalek” will continue to be a spoiler until the end of time. I showed that episode to a friend who had a passing familiarity with Classic Doctor Who. I wouldn’t let him see the show title. When the Dalek was revealed he actually *gasped*. I’ve never heard a person in real life gasp before, but he did.
I’m NOT going to be drawn into another discussion of the DEM in “The Parting of the Ways”.
As for reboot – sorry, Davies and Moffat are both using the word incorrectly.
You do not that reboot actually means restart, don’t you?… Nothing is jettisoned, although it can be a good way of clearing cruft out of caches.
Yes, reboot means restart but you’re mistaken in your characterization. Information is jettisoned when the RAM is cleared. RAM is your computer’s memory – memory being the key word.
That’s why a “reboot of a show” is forgetting the old canon and starting a new one – you need to “clear your memory” of the previous show as a part of the restart – an approach that Doctor Who did not take.25 January 2016 at 03:14 #50432
I thought I was tiresome going on about the future of Doctor Who being one of predictability, trite drama and bombastic yawn moments under Chibnall, but honestly the trivial discussions over your DEM and the use of “reboot” is far worse. I will stop beating myself up now for the most eye rolling portions of this thread, the honour is clearly not mine.
Oh my stars! I am cranky over this news. Maybe I should get some sleep and some wine before I post again.25 January 2016 at 03:36 #50433
Yet you then discuss a brain, comparing it to a computer when a brain is nothing like a computer…
NOTHING like a computer? Really? Are you sure?
Besides comparing a brain to a computer is no different than saying that your voice is like chalk on a blackboard, for example.
Metaphor – a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
@puroandson: The point of these pages is to debate in a lively manner using literary features to assist the process of understanding.
As politely as I can say this – you are not the boss of me. I don’t have to tailor my posts to please you and obviously you don’t have to do what I tell you to do (not that I would be so presumptuous).
Cautiously dipping a toe into the heated waters of this debate: I remember the “reboot” debate circling around Daniel Craig…. I vaguely remember the term “retcon” being bandied about as the more appropriate term. Yes or no? I won’t tread any farther than that.
Oh, don’t be scared nerys, we don’t bite. It’s just a spirited give-and-take. I certainly don’t have any animosity towards anyone here despite some lively discussions.
Now retcon is not quite a reboot. And I’m not sure it applies to a complete re-imagining like the new James Bond stories. (Besides I grew up with the original “Casino Royale”. And even though it’s crazy silly I still love it. It was on one of the HBO channels this afternoon. Peter Sellers is my favorite James Bond.)
retcon: (in a film, television series, or other fictional work) a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency.
Let me hazard an example.
Let’s say that instead of ignoring the Timelord-human hybrid theory from Paul McGann’s Doctor, that they wrote an episode that revealed that The Doctor had somehow fooled The Master and he really wasn’t part human. He just did that to throw The Master off.
That would be a retcon – a new explanation for a scene that would change the way we look at it in the future.
That’s probably not the best example but it is an example.25 January 2016 at 03:47 #50434
I know, let’s talk about Doctor Who news! 🙂25 January 2016 at 04:03 #50435
I know, let’s talk about Doctor Who news!
LOL. Good point, K. Sorry for the OTPs. Just kind of got caught up in the give-and-take.
Thanks for the gentle reminder.25 January 2016 at 05:20 #50436Anonymous @
@ob-wan OK. I can sort of see this:
As politely as I can say this – you are not the boss of me. I don’t have to tailor my posts to please you and obviously you don’t have to do what I tell you to do (not that I would be so presumptuous).
No of course not I understand. I am fourteen. I shouldn’t be doing that. I guess I was pointing out a way where it would be good not to be rude. I think in reading things like “lawyer’s with lying eyes” compared with @jimthefish polite “no offence but” was better: they were trying a lively debate and you, and again, my opinion, were being a bit rude. But that’s OK, adults are rude quite a bit. Water off a duck’s back and no harm done my friend.
Thank you for reading. I appreciate it.
From Son of Puro.25 January 2016 at 05:31 #50437Anonymous @
Sorry about that: I was trying to help and I didn’t end up helping. That’s OK though as I’ve learned a valuable lesson. Sometimes the help does not help and that is OK. You shouldn’t be beating yourself up at all.
I think if the mods saw these pages (and they are) they’d give us (not you) a swift kicking.
But anyway, Mum (Puro) is down today and I was looking for a good debate -a friendly one with some give and take? And that didn’t happen.
That’s totally OK and youre quite correct.
Yes, Doctor Who News: better stay on topic. At school Miss @kharis, If we don’t stay on topic we get into some trouble (two days to go for me!!). Then I won’t have time and erm, neither will Puro as generally I have to type for her. You may not know that @ob-wan and that’s OK too. You’re not aware of the situation here.
Having read the really good update from both Mr @pedant and Mr @jimthefish that Chris Chibnall is someone we will look forward to: I actually liked 42? I saw it as a sad episode -lots of character developments in that one episode. I thought the production was very good too. I also liked the 2-parter which he wrote called Cold Earth (?). I didn’t get that the scientist was so bad but he did actually experiment on the child’s father, I think and I had forgotten that. This means the 2nd episode had to change the antagonist (I think I’m getting that right?) and that means it became confused. No worries: it was a good two-parter and I will give the gentleman a right chance.
Thank you again –
Son of Puro25 January 2016 at 06:00 #50438ichabod @ichabod
@jimthefish Re CC as Moffat’s successor Show runner: He might rise to the occasion. Quite apart from anything else we don’t want to become the Chibnall equivalents of the wailing anti-SM brigade. Let’s judge him on the work.
Sounds good to me. Even if his writing skills aren’t that great, he might come up with some good arcs and find excellent writers to fill them out.
But, if you’re right about this, too — . . . his work, if pedestrian, is crowd-pleasing. And possibly that’s what the Beeb is wanting for the moment after the inspired but sometimes risky approach of the Moffat years. I suspect that our theorising will become a lot tamer though — then some of the natives used to high-octane Moffat are going to get pretty restless pretty fast. If so, I hope CC’s “character” strengths will be strengths enough.
@kharis Torchwood is unreasonable, bombastic and boring, plus Broadchurch put me to sleep. This is my fear, the fear he hasn’t produced anything that held my interest, except the episodes during Amy and Rory’s time, which gives me hope. His run may be wonderful, but I doubt I will have something to personally look forward to.
Yeh; I’m pretty much where you are with this, but damned if I’ll allow the downer of future unknowability to spoil S10 for me! I guess I look at it (taking a broader view) this way: Moffat + Capaldi = three seasons of blade-running, out there on the edge and taking positively acrobatic risks, not always successfully but always a thrill. I’ll have ’em boxed on my shelf to look at whenever I need to. After that, maybe it’s time to turn and please the much less risky, less exciting, less rewarding (for me and people like me, in this at any rate) viewers who want something more solid and consistent, particularly those who’ve stuck with the show through the wilder ride we’ve had with CapDoc. Hardly anybody can *live* out on the edge for long periods of time, so change isn’t just inevitable: it’s necessary and good. Some of us may not stay on board; but the ship needs to sail new seas (or maybe old ones, but just not the one we’ve so enjoyed, for a while).
@puroandson Son of Puro This is from Son of Puro and my Dad (for help). Puro is down.
I hope you mean her computer is down — but if she’s out of action for now, give her best regards and good thoughts from Ichi, will you? Well, same if it’s just the computer of course, though on a different level of concern . . .
@kharis Oh my stars! I am cranky over this news. Maybe I should get some sleep and some wine before I post again.
Gods, yes — luckily some kind DEM has furnished me with a fresh bottle of table red, which I too will use in an effort to reboot my older, happier, pre-Chibnall mood! Cheers, chum — although I too am a bit to old to regard a possible years’-long reign of mediocrity over S11 ++++ with anything but dismay. Still; thanks to re-watch tech, we’ll always have the Grand the Grand Moff and his CapDoc!25 January 2016 at 06:13 #50441
Here is a good article on the oncoming Chibnall. http://www.cnet.com/news/steven-moffat-final-season-of-doctor-who-showrunner-in-2017/ It’s good to hear he is a true fan, understands it’s a family show and respects the work that came before him. Maybe there is hope.
I still find it hard to believe we have a whole year without Doctor Who. Maybe the BBC will be kind and give us a summer special, maybe a past journey of the eighth Doctor? That really is wide open, plus without having to ask Moffat or Capaldi to do a thing. They have a great actor for the part and can simply tell a tale from his regeneration. It’s only fair that Mcgann gets a chance at good writing, especially since he was put through THAT movie. The BBC owes the eighth Doctor at least a special and that would hold us over.
Or how about releasing all of the old lost episodes on BBC and PBS? In ORDER.
The hardest part about the news is thinking there will never be another Moffat Doctor Who Christmas Special. All of the Christmas episodes during his time were pure magic. It does feel like the BBC announced that Christmas is cancelled for 2016.
It’s going to be a long year.25 January 2016 at 06:20 #50442
@ichabod Well said as usual: “After that, maybe it’s time to turn and please the much less risky, less exciting, less rewarding (for me and people like me, in this at any rate) viewers who want something more solid and consistent, particularly those who’ve stuck with the show through the wilder ride we’ve had with CapDoc. Hardly anybody can *live* out on the edge for long periods of time, so change isn’t just inevitable: it’s necessary and good. Some of us may not stay on board; but the ship needs to sail new seas (or maybe old ones, but just not the one we’ve so enjoyed, for a while”
So true, “times change, we all change” and “we have to keep moving” and we may not be aboard this run, but we have season 9 and all of the Christmas Specials on the shelf, no matter what season 11 turns out to be. 🙂 I like that.25 January 2016 at 06:26 #50443
@puroandson Please give my love to your mother. 💛25 January 2016 at 08:28 #5044625 January 2016 at 08:32 #50447
“I suppose a related issue is, Will Peter Capaldi choose to stand down at the same time as SM?”
Wash your mouth out! Don’t even think about it. *shudders*
Missy25 January 2016 at 08:43 #50448
I agree. CC should be judged on his writing to come.
His contribution to DW in the past has been enjoyable and Broadfchurch wasn’t that bad, it did have it’s moments.
Lets give him a chance and see – if only Peter Capaldi will stay.
Missy25 January 2016 at 15:17 #50453
On reboots and language in general.
And it will never be correct no matter how much you may rationalize it to yourself. The definition of words aren’t going to change to suit your musings.
Not my musings, no, but with the musings of enough people then they do. Words change their meanings and even their spellings all the time and they’re not ‘wrong’ to do so. Impact becomes a verb. Flower becomes flour and so on. So, no, afraid you’re wrong there. Read some de Saussure and come back to it. It’s not possible to slavishly cling to one single definition because, basically, others won’t.
Davies and Moffat are both using the word incorrectly
No, they’re not. And leaving aside definitions and the like for the moment, there’s one fundamental reason why they’re not. When they use the word ‘reboot’ is there anyone left in the slightest doubt as to what they’re referring to? Even the tiniest smidge? No. Everyone knows that they’re referring to the version of Doctor Who broadcast post 2005. Many moons ago I had a night editor who would only countenance the bare minimum of punctuation of any kind on a page. You could point furiously to Fowler or Strunck and White all you liked and witter on about Oxford commas etc but his only criteria was ‘does leaving it out detrimentally change or destroy the meaning and/or legibility of what’s being said’? If it didn’t then that punctuation was ditched no matter what the books said. And you know what, he was dead right. The only thing — the only thing — that language is there for is the most transparent and straightforward method of communicating the meaning of that utterance. (Now there are complications and questions to be addressed in even the simplest utterance — de Saussure again, but the general point stands.)
So, no ‘reboot’ is right in this context. Remake wouldn’t be, of course, but reboot is fine because the meaning is absolutely clear, without the slightest ambiguity. It’s right because it’s a metaphor and they by their very definition (arf) are slippery sods. To insist on the rigid meaning as you seem to be is a bit like insisting that John Lee Hooker doesn’t have the blues because he isn’t actually ‘blue’.
Now it’s one of the things that I love about this site is that these kind of conversations can arise but other posters are correct and this is getting way off-topic. Let’s take it to Off The Sofa, if indeed, anywhere at all.25 January 2016 at 16:06 #50455
@missy I agree, the thought of Capaldi leaving is too much. Can’t even fully process the thought. Maybe he is enough of a true and deep fan to hold on through the new writer? Maybe he will have pity on us and soldier through it? Fingers crossed.25 January 2016 at 16:43 #50456
I’m not up on British politics, only because I spend my time focusing on my own country that has been digressing into a plutocracy (bordering on totalitarianism) police state for a few decades now. I saw this post from a comment on a news article, please help me to understand how much of this could be true?
“He did not quit. His contract was not renewed. As recently as November, he mentioned he was doing 13 episodes in 2016, and that he had top sci-fi writers lined up for the new series. Unfortunately, the BBC has huge austerity cuts, due to the current government.
Just five days after firing BBC2’s controller and placing BBC1,2, and iPlayer under one exec with “creative, editorial and strategic” control over all programming, it’s been announced that Doctor Who’s Steven Moffat will be let go after fulfilling his contract, and that there will be no 2016 season of Doctor Who. Expect Peter Capaldi’s contract to not be renewed after these final episodes are aired in 2017. This comes just months after Moffat announced there would be a full 2016 season, and that he was bringing in world-class sci-fi/fantasy writers whose names “would make your head explode”.Thank the Conservative Party’s short-sighted austerity for the BBC’s budget cuts. After all, why produce a world-class show for an international audience, when you can do “Simply Come Dancing” on the cheap?! No cuts for them, unfortunately…
Because if any of it is true I’m going to be sick.25 January 2016 at 17:00 #5045725 January 2016 at 17:18 #50458
@kharis — That post also cropped up on the Guardian announcement of Moffat’s departure (which quickly turned into the bile-fest you’d expect.) It’s a bit of political point-scoring by the poster and nothing more. Moffat’s going is little to do with austerity cuts. As he’s said himself, he was going anyway, has if anything stayed longer than he’d intended. He hasn’t been sacked or anything like. Let’s face it, he’s the man behind the Beeb’s two most successful drama shows of the moment. I’m pretty sure he’s staying at the Beeb in some capacity and probably a significant one. I wouldn’t be massively surprised if Armando Iannucci’s prediction about him having some sort of executive commissioning role came to pass.
And if you look at all the announcements around s10 you can see they were carefully vague on transmission dates etc. They’re very carefully worded to announce good news and bury the negative. This, I suspect, has all been decided for quite some time now. It’s not been suddenly thrust upon them by budget cuts. The timing, I suspect, will segue into some other announcement. A new project by Moffat, the casting of the new Doctor etc.
Because I think it’s almost definite that 2017 will be PC’s last series as the Doctor. I can’t see Chibnall wanting to inherit a Doctor and I think SM will want to go out with a bang and I’d expect that means a regeneration.
Having said that, the Beeb is definitely under the cosh at the moment. It’s charter renewal time and Who is expensive. It’s distinctly possible they wanted to keep it off the balance sheet for the year leading up to the charter. And they’re certainly tightening their belts in all kinds of areas — unifying channel controller jobs and the like.25 January 2016 at 19:09 #50462
Sorry all, here is were the original comment was: http://www.cnet.com/news/steven-moffat-final-season-of-doctor-who-showrunner-in-2017/
The link I included above in my earlier post was the one the commentator listed.
The topic ‘Doctor Who News (3)’ is closed to new replies.