Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
18 May 2015 at 21:06 #40183
I disagree. You seem to adopt a binary yes/no, off/on approach to canonicity. Frankly, that’s a dubious proposition and supported by… nothing much. My own view, which is at least as legitimate, is that it is a matter of weighting and evaluation.
No, I’m not a massive fan of canonicity anyway, which is why I applauded Moffat’s move to remove its sting in the 5oth anniversary. But as I said, while Delgado or Pertwee or whoever might have their own ideas about aspects of the show, it it’s not in a script and does not end up manifesting itself on screen, then it’s clearly not bloody canon. It’s side garnish for the geeks, nothing more. I mean, why stop there. Maybe Richard Franklin’s motivation for Yates was that he used to be the Doctor’s dog in a previous life. Why not bung that in too?
The question of how much aborted or unrealised plot points should colour our intepretation of the core text is an interesting one but the final answer must be ‘not much’ if we’re to approach it with any sense. To do otherwise is a bit like insisting that all drafts of a novel somehow have equal validity, even if an author excised characters and situation from the final draft. What is screened is the final draft of Who and the only authority for canon. And lobbing other stuff that maybe would have happened just because you quite fancy it doesn’t really wash, pal.
Hmmm. Was that a little drive by Jim? A bit of sticking the knife in? Was that the back of your hand? Is that a zinger there? Were you putting me in my place? Slapping me down? How amusing. Did I insult you Jim? Did I hurt your feelings? If so, please accept my apologies. It certainly wasn’t intentional.
No, that was me just pointing out that you’re displaying an attitude that is frankly kind of crappy. And there’s plenty that ‘s passive aggressive about your posts. Plenty.
If we look at 1970, we see a set of clearly delineated cultural and political lines – it was the era of the Vietnam War, the anti-war movement, the student rebellions, union activism, the environmentalist movement
And another straw man. Oh joy. No one’s saying that the times weren’t more simplistic politically but that how it is presented within the media and the narrative grammar used is considerably more simplistic. Because it has taken this amount of continual narrative development to get to this point. That goes for everything from news to SF to almost any kind of drama you can name. And it’s not simply a matter of technology. It’s also a matter of the expectations people had of their media.
By the way, on this score it’s you that’s continually leaping to the value judgements, not me. I can happily watch an episode of, say, Callan from the early 70s and find it just as interesting as, say, Homeland. But the faculties that one brings to watching each are necessarily different.
You argue that stage influenced television is somehow less worthy and interesting than cinema influenced television. That strikes me as a simple value judgement
Well, it would be, if that’s what I said. But I didn’t. What I said was that until say the late 80s, British TV production was essentially coming from a theatrical tradition and culture and that was the prevailing attitude in which drama was made. From the 90s onwards, programme-makers more influenced by the cinema became the norm and the culture began to change. I didn’t say sod all about one or the other being better or preferable.
I watched them with a certain degree of sophistication. I’m a published writer, I’ve got a bunch of short stories to my name, good reviews, written some novels, did a bit of journalism, collected a couple of university degrees, worked on some short films, even did an abortive book about the Lexx television series. I’d like to think I’m not a stupid man, and that I have some degree of insight.
Well I can also claim pretty much all of the above (not the Lexx thing. There are limits to even my geekdom) but it doesn’t suddenly give my opinion any more weight. And you’ll find that there’s lots of scarily talented and accomplished people on this site, from musicians to scientists to writers. And we all bring something to the party but no one gets special privileges.
RE. UNIT and Pertwee. I fail to see why this is relevant. As well as no one saying ‘all BG Doctor was shite’, no one has said ‘the 70s treatment of the Army was without on occasion nuance’. Of course it was. When it wasn’t descending into comedy blimp territory or just basically ripping off Nigel Kneale, of course. I’m actually getting kinda fucked off at this accusation that I think all of BG Who is rubbish btw — and all I have to do is point to mu posts in the rewatch sections of this site to prove that. Nor do I remember saying that Death in Heaven was a devastating critique of the modern military mind, on a par with Generation Kill.
Talking of which:
So, as I was saying, I actually went back and watched all these things, a lot of it I hadn’t seen in 20 or more years, or only dimly recalled. Quite a bit I’d never seen at all. I was surprised by the amount of nuance I’d missed
I don’t really need to do a marathon rewatch as I pretty much have rewatched them continually ever since the advent of the VCR etc. There’s almost nothing in Who I haven’t seen. Some recently, some not so much. I’m pretty familiar with most of it. And yeah, as the rewatches we do here show there are always thing you miss the first time around. And that’s as much to do with you not being the same person you were last time around. I’m delighted if you find it endlessly engrossing. I disagree. I find it interesting to watch and it means a lot to me personally but I can objectively see in terms of both modern and historical production values, rather a lot of the time it was winging it.
I seem to be basically repeating myself here so I think; we should just agree to disagree.
18 May 2015 at 17:05 #40178And how are yours not combative, aggressive and with a bit of ARSE
First of all, the use of ARSE on this site has a very specific meaning — A Raging Sense of Entitlement — used to describe a certain strata of fan,the key traits of which @burrunjor was clearly demonstrating. There’s a blog on it in the archives. I suggest you look it up.
the collateral evidence of actors or directors is often relevant to understanding characters and stories. Any good novel or movie or television series has a greater backstory than is shown on the screen. There’s always a background mythology. That mythology is relevant. It informs the Actors, their choices, the directors, the production processes. If Jon Pertwee and Roger Delgado saw their characters as estranged brothers, simultaneously murderous towards each other, but with ties they could never truly severe, then that informed their performance. Information, insight derived or driven like that is often relevant. You can’t dismiss it entirely.
And no one was. But in terms of canon, which is what was being originally discussed, it’s utterly irrelevant. If it ain’t on the page, it ain’t on the stage. It’s nothing more than trivia essentially and it doesn’t form any part of the overarching mythology of the show. Yes, it can be taken into account in discussions such as these, but, no, it has no real weight, unless it’s been made explicit on-screen. Certainly it’s not got enough weight that a user can come onto the boards and claim that the current directions of the show are somehow ‘wrong’ because they don’t accord with what they’ve decided is how the show should work (textbook case of ARSE).
Like it or not, Burrunjor’s argument was not illegitimate, particularly in a show like Doctor Who where it’s history is so massive. It warrants consideration. It’s a matter of weighting and sifting. I come to a different conclusion than him, but I come to it thoughtfully.
I consider my arguments against his stance just as thoughtful and argued out. They were considered and then rejected for the reasons outlined above. But can I just say, condescending much?
To suggest that the period between the sixties and eighties was ‘more innocent/less sophisticated’ back in the day is hardly accurate, and perhaps naïve.
No, it’s a fact. And can be see in all aspects of popular culture. Look at a political interview in 1970 compared to now. Or a soap opera. Or a medical drama. Or a cop show. People are much more media and narrative literate. Pretty much any show today has and needs a greater degree of sophistication. That really shouldn’t be in doubt. In terms of drama, British TV back then was also much more closely aligned to the theatre and this very much reflected production values and attitudes. These days, TV considers itself much more closely aligned to cinema and that has reflected a sea change in attitudes in how it is produced.
But the fact that it doesn’t grab me does not make it illegitimate or sub-par, it means that the standards and values, the likes of the era were different
Pretty much what I’ve just said above. But I’d still argue that even for the time a lot of Who stories were sub-par with what was still possible to create back then. There are extenuating circumstances — time, budget especially, but the fact remains the show barely winged it a lot of the time. Again, this is not controversial and these arguments were even being made at the time (the so-called wobbly set argument).
Your Streetcar/Transformers analogy doesn’t really work either. You’re comparing apples and oranges, basically. It would only work if you compared, say, Streetcar with Birdman or something else remotely in the same genre. And Transformers with, say, an action blockbuster of the time. Say Rio Bravo.
There’s a huge volume to select from, of course and you will find ‘shoddy and slapdash’ by any standards if you go looking for it. Is it legitimate to define the whole thing by its worst examples?
No, but then again no one was. But at the same time, pretending those examples don’t exist and that every week we got Genesis of the Daleks is pointless too. The original show did remarkable things. It occasionally made TV history. And that’s why it’s still here now. But 80% doesn’t really stand up to today. At least 50% didn’t really stand up to the rest of what the Beeb was outputting at the time. We watch it now while at the same time making allowances for its limitations. We forgive it much through nostalgia and affection. But on occasion it did work wonders. So, yes, there’s definitely storytelling in the original show that stands up to what’s produced now. But I’d argue far less in the way of characterisation (not none, but very little).
The characterization of the classic series as some lumpen caterpillar from which the glorious new show eventually sprang… I don’t buy it.
And again, just as well no one’s saying that.
Was Osgood’s death important to the narrative of the episode? Only in the sense that Moffet had fifty minutes to occupy, and Osgood’s death helped him get rid of two or three of those minutes. This was not a Whedonesque moment.
And again, no one’s saying that. Man, you just love your straw men, don’t you? No one’s saying that it was somehow earth-shattering but it was a significant narrative moment, not just ‘filler’ as you put it.
The character was created as a rather snide backhand to the show’s fans
Really? Is that why she’s proved so popular? I’d say she was created more with affection and that’s why she’s still around.
Does it shock the audience that Moffet disposed of a minor supporting character? No. Is it transgressive to bring her back? No.
Nobody’s talking about shock or transgression. But it was a significant character beat for both the Doctor and the Master. It emphasised that for all her whackiness, Missy is dangerous, lethal even. And it showed the Doctor that by not taking Missy seriously enough, he ended up getting someone killed. Of course, his battles with the Master lead to lots of collateral damage but it’s not that often that we see the Doctor forced to confront it in this way. It’s a significant moment because it changes our attitudes to both characters. And to roll back on it essentially undoes it. Or at the very least renders it less potent.
The internet is a strange place. Bereft of faces, posture, body language, stripped of the nuance of actual voices, there’s a weightless quality. We can go from casual conversation to full blown rage ons in no time at all. Does that stuff do any good? I don’t think so.
True. Some use forthright language on occasion. Some use passive-aggressive condescension, Muchacho. Neither is helpful.
My impression is that the ‘kool kids like to smack around the newbies’, that people who step out of line get shouted at pretty hard.’ Don’t bother me none. But I do notice.
I’d say that’s quite clearly not true. There are plenty of newer members who manage to get along on the site pretty well. The site’s etiquette rules are clearly laid out at the top of the page and most adhere to it. If someone steps ‘out of line’ as you put it then, yeah, they will be talked to by a Mod. Which is what happened here and was greeted by further rants and diatribe. @burrunjor pitched their initial posts in an aggressive and combative way and that’s set the tone for how people relate to them. That’s no one’s fault but their own. Although their later posts look as if they might be settling down a bit now.
18 May 2015 at 14:58 #40173@denvaldron — sorry, but no. What points @burrunjor had to make were done in a combative way from the start and aggressive towards long-standing members of this site. And, yes, I consider much of it trolling, with more than a bit of ARSE about it. What’s more, it’s clearly affected the level of discourse on this thread and to pander to it is to encourage it further. So, no, I don’t think I have to justify my posts in dealing or engaging with them in the slightest.
18 May 2015 at 12:33 #40171@purofilion — I totally get what you mean, but the more trademark Whedon playfulness does emerge. And it’s certainly true that more than one member of the crew has skeletons in their closet that they’re just not talking about yet. And, yeah, it’s definitely much more of a ‘blank slate’ than the Buffiverse. But I think you’ll see over the episodes that all three shows are largely concerned with the same themes.
Now if you want real, intense, adult SF, you’re probably going to have to go to BSG.
18 May 2015 at 12:23 #40170Ordinarily I’d have said please don’t feed the troll but on this occasion it has gleaned some decent discussion.
Leaving aside the idiocy of most of @Burrunjor’s post, I concur with most that it matters not a jot what Delgado or Pertwee or indeed the BBC canteen lady of the time thought was the relationship between the Doctor and the Master. If it didn’t come out of the mouths of either character on the screen at any point then it’s not canon (which is such a pointlessly limiting concept anyway). And I’m glad it never did too as it’s such a dull-wittedly prosaic interpretation of their relationship. There are far better, less toe-curlingly obvious directions to take.
Also not sure where we get to ‘the Master loves the Doctor’ comes from. The Master is the Doctor’s stalker. Always has been, ever since he rocked up in Terror of the Autons. That suggests there’s a clear element of sex but not really love. Most stalkers are romantically obsessed with their victims and they imagine this to be love but in reality it’s the last thing it is. However, the through-line that RTD put in between the Simm and Tennant characters and Moffatt between the Capaldi and Gomez ones can easily be found to have its roots in Pertwee/Delgado one. That it was possibly not intended in more innocent/less sophisticated times is neither here nor there. I think @purofilion and @janetteb and others have hit the nail on the head that the Missy relationship. It’s a power trip. It’s all about control in a vaguely S&M kind of way.
On the idea that having a female Doctor being ‘ill thought out’. That’s just the kind of kneejerk reactionism that I’d expect. It hasn’t been thought out at all yet because it has yet to happen. But there’s no reason — no reason whatsoever — that it can’t be done successfully and move the show into whole new areas (as @denvaldron illustrated in some of the fanfilm blogs.)
On Osgood returning. To be honest, I vary between being indifferent to mildly annoyed that she’s returning. I get that she may well be a Zygon duplicate, or more likely, that it’s the Zygon duplicate who was offed by Missy but this to me is unsatisfactory. Osgood’s death was in an important moment in the narrative of Death in Heaven and in developing the character of this new Master (and Doctor for that matter). I’m not suggesting that Who should go down the Game of Thrones route of endless bloody shock but sometimes you do have to have character deaths that are irrevocable and do actually mean something. If Moffatt has any failings, it’s that he’s too reluctant to bring real, lasting death into the show.
And on the old vs the new show, I do feel it’s a kind of pointless argument. The old show was adequate (for a time) but eventually it was being outstripped in terms of technology and narrative sophistication of the world around it. And it generally does not stand up well to the modern show. I’d concur with SM that the majority of it is shoddy and slapdash, even by the standards of the time. But its core format was still incredibly pliable and allowed to the occasional moment of absolute inspiration that periodically rekindled our love for it. And for a show that ran for 30-odd years in its original version, its misses far outweigh its hits (the new version has a far more favourable ratio). But that doesn’t mean we don’t still think of it with affection for all that.
Good to see @scaryb back in the fold. But where on earth is @bluesqueakpip?
18 May 2015 at 11:17 #40167Welcome back @scaryb — you’ve been much missed….
17 May 2015 at 11:43 #40141@purofilion — yes, it’s a big cast and I think that’s part of the problem that the network had with it. Similarly, like you, they felt there was no obviously heroic central figure. Thus the second episode The Train Job you’ll find is like a second ‘mini pilot’ and is tonally lightened up considerably. Mal is a lot less dark and brooding and becomes a more heroic and roguish figure and there’s a higher bantering ratio. Plus more obviously rough n tumble action.
Serenity (the pilot) is slow and leisurely and essentially takes its time unfolding the characters to you. From The Train Job onwards, the dialogue is lighter and the pace more frenetic as it adopts a ‘caper of the week’ format, held together with the ongoing River arc. And you get a flat-out higher number of humour-centric episodes than either Angel or late Buffy managed, by the time you get to the likes of Our Mrs Reynolds and Jaynestown. I think Boy-llion could well get to enjoy it.
It’s certainly true that compared to Buffy and Angel, Firefly is creating its own world rather than operating on the tropes already established by popular and horror culture. But there are are more pop cultural reference points than you normally get in SF shows like say BSG and Star Trek. The obvious ones are Westerns, especially later revisionist and spaghetti ones. Jayne is essentially Western staple usually played by Eli Wallach or Warren Oates. Mal is more Gary Cooper and quite a bit of James Garner than he is John Wayne or Clint Eastwood. But he’s also essentially Han Solo too. As will be revealed in the commentaries, there’s quite a bit of Firefly that’s actually a commentary on some of the established tropes of both Star Wars and Star Trek.
However, I’d also say that while visually and tonally they’re very different, there are similarities between Buffy/Angel and Firefly. You can (loosely) tie together member of the respective ensemble casts in the function they perform in the narrative:
Mal – Buffy/Angel – the hero
Wash – Xander/Lorne – the humour/heart/conscience
Kaylee – Willow/Fred – the lovable, unlucky-in-love nerd
Book – Giles/Wesley – the keeper of the word, the voice of learning
Zoe – Angel/later Wes – the fighter, the loyal back-up
Inara – Joyce/Tara/Cordelia – the nurturer, the ‘mother’
Jayne – Cordelia/Spike – secondary muscle, the voice of discord within the groupIt’s interesting that you have some of the same reservations that Fox had. Perhaps that suggests there might have been something to these complaints. But it’s also worth bearing in mind that the format of Firefly slightly works against it in this regard. There are probably as many central characters introduced here as in Buffy’s Welcome to the Hellmouth but they can just flit in and out, show up at their locker in Sunnydale High, pop into the Bronze and then off again. In Firefly they’re all confined to Serenity and that means we have to know why with most of them straight from the off — and even at that we’re held off from really getting the back stories of Jayne, Wash and Kaylee until later in the series.
And, yes, the movie Serenity takes place after series as an interesting but I’d argue not wholly successful coda, although I do know people who like it as much as the series.
17 May 2015 at 00:29 #40136@thekrynoidman–
Also, sorry if my posts come off as “sound bite criticisms” as you call them, when it comes to writing about things I like or dislike, I can write a lot about them, but I’m always worried that I’ll ramble on incoherently and bore people so I try to limit myself.
Just to say if there’s somewhere you can ramble on, it’s here. It’s never stopped me, for example. And I think you’ll find most people are interested. I think our views on the show diverge slightly on occasion but I’m always very interested to read them.
16 May 2015 at 18:17 #40131@phaseshift — I also wonder if there’s a case for a series of blogs on the various producer eras of the show, or whether the Faces of the Doctor thread does the job of covering that….
16 May 2015 at 18:14 #40130@phaseshift — I think a blog is an excellent idea. Both Holmes and Hulke — and Dicks, I’d argue — deserve a bit of serious examination.
I also can’t believe we’ve not covered The Ark in Space in a BG gap rewatch yet. That’s surely something of an oversight.
16 May 2015 at 15:36 #40128@phaseshift — good point about Holmes’s ‘second tier’ villains. They were always well-written, as were his ‘lovable rogues’ like Glitz, Garron etc. I think Holmes was always influenced by pulp tales/movies in his Who work and so his ultimate villains were somewhat in the moustache-twirling tradition and he wasn’t that interested in delving too deep for character motivation. Personally I don’t really have a problem with that but it’s definitely the case that in my mind he did veer towards the cliched — Pow-ahh, Dok-tor — camp of BG villainy.
I do like the idea of a Holmes retrospective. He’s a major, major figure in Who lore. Possibly the most important one, after Verity Lambert herself. I do wonder if we’ve, er, shot our bolt though with it as we’ve already looked at a couple of his most important stories in Talons and Androzani. Should still be possible though. And I can’t off the top of my head think of such another era-spanning writer as him. Terrance Dicks did form the show to what it is now as much as Holmes did, but he didn’t actually write that many full stories. And Saward, Boucher etc are all pretty much confined to one Doctor/era.
16 May 2015 at 14:15 #40125@purofilion–
W1A is a kind of mockumentary comedy series about the inner workings of the BBC. As an Aussie, your best reference point is probably The Games, except it’s about the Beeb. It’s rather hit and miss, but worth it for the hit bits.
Yay. You’re Fireflied up. Shiny. Yes, I think loss of faith is a definite thing with Mal. There’ll be more than a few call-backs to the battle in Serenity Valley over the episodes. It’s a defining moment for Mal and the show is as much about the people in his life now helping Mal reconnect with his faith in people at least.
First episode is a double-length job and was actually only first shown by the network after the show had been cancelled — no, seriously. The whole backstory of Firefly is a tale of woe that you won’t actually believe.
Notice that the Fed Dobson is played by Carlos Jacott, doing a Whedon triple here, appearing of episodes of Buffy, Angel and Firefly. As is the Fed in the Alliance starship in the opening of the episode. Nice Who link with Mark ‘Canton’ Sheppard playing Badger — in a part originally intended to be played by Joss himself.
And, yes, the production values are high. The CGI of the space shots still stands up to this day — and the docu-handheld style pioneered here has been pretty much ripped off from every SF show that followed.
14 May 2015 at 09:53 #40118@thekrynoidman — yes, indeed. There’s that at least. But aside from that I don’t think there’s really anything that differentiate this Master from a number of other disfigured villains of especially this period of Who. And the Master should always be in a league of his/her own. There’s not much you can fault Robert Holmes on, but his villains do rather tend to be on the one-note and melodramatic side.
13 May 2015 at 19:36 #40113@thekrynoidman — maybe I came on a little strong saying I ‘hate’ him. I think the costume design is brilliant — really scary and still gives me the wiggins even now. I just don’t see anything of the previously established character of the Master in there. He’s just generic, evil villain skulking in the shadows to me.
13 May 2015 at 10:46 #40111@janetteb–
I don’t think monster/master is convincing as the final act of Rodger Delgado’s master
Absolutely. I don’t think the story would have lost anything if the villain had been revealed to be Morbius. Who was a villain in more recent memory, was temperamentally more like the Pratt’s Master and was equally in need of new regenerations.
I think Tom Baker was at his best at about this time. He has had time to fit into the role and mould it to his own idiosyncratic personality. His wish to be without a companion reflects this and though I too much prefer there to be a companion I think he manages very well without.
It was an interesting experiment and it does work but I don’t think it would have worked in the long term. A companion is a necessary part of the dynamic. (Although I do think that Capaldi’s doc would work with a rotating set of alternating companions rather than one permanent one.)
12 May 2015 at 23:13 #40096Anyone been watching W1A by any chance? By rights I should hate it for being so smug and self-referential but the script is so tight and the performances so spot on that I can’t help but enjoy it.
12 May 2015 at 23:07 #40095I thought I’d wait until we reached episode four for this one and talk about it all in one hit. It’s a great story and works surprisingly well. I remember at the time being slightly discomfited by the absolute lack of any female presence whatsoever and it still bugs me to this day. And I’m not sure Doctor sans companion really works.
But this is such a pivotal story. There’s so much stuff here. Regeneration cycles. The Master. The Eye of Harmony. All the Rassilon guff. And the Time Lord costumes are great. Truly iconic. It’s just a shame that not as much thought was put into Gallifrey itself. The only thing you can say about the set design is at least it’s not as awful as the Gallifrey we see in The Invasion of Time.
But there’s lots that doesn’t work here too. I’ve always found the Matrix sequences a bit rubbish really. That train!! (Which makes me think, haven’t we talked about this before somewhere?) They do go on too long and are actually a pretty shameless example of story filler. But at least it’s more inventive than the usual escape/recapture trope.
I also hate The Master in this story. It’s basically not The Master. There’s not the slightest suggestion of Delgado’s characterisation present at all, or of any future version of the character either. He’s generic phantom lurking in the shadows. Is there any difference between this version of the Master and, say, Magnus Greel? Or The Shadow from The Armageddon Factor. I’ve always felt it was pointless bringing back the Master in this half-arsed way. I’d have preferred they’d gone ahead and done a proper re-cast, or just made the villain someone else entirely.
On a final positive note, I do like the dynamic that Baker’s Doctor had on Gallifrey. Borusa and the others treat him like a precocious but undisciplined undergraduate and something of a fondly considered disappointment. And I think it work and Baker really carries it off. His is about the only incarnation of the Doctor I can imagine working on Gallifrey. Davison’s Doctor, the only other one we see there really, always seemed a bit uncomfortable.
My personal feeling is the AG show should stay the hell away from Gallifrey for as long as possible and ideally forever. I’ve argued before that the introduction of the Time Lords and of Gallifrey rendered the Whoniverse a bit more parochial than it used to be when it was just the Doctor, his companions, a mysterious past and an infinite future. The baggage of the Time Lords has been successfully cut away and it would be a shame to re-burden the show with it.
Having said that, there is part of that would like to see Gallifrey done properly with modern resources. Maybe there’s a way around it. A Gallifrey story set in the past but which keeps it lost in the show’s ‘present’.
11 May 2015 at 13:58 #40074I believe British elections are held on a Thursday so theoretically a new Government can be in place for the following Monday and thus not spooking the markets too much. It’s a historical anachronism these days though but personally I don’t think it makes that much of a difference.
10 May 2015 at 23:14 #40062@purofilion — You’ll not be surprised to learn that I think the Angel finale is far superior to the Buffy one. It’s very much a Wild Bunch-esque ending in my opinion. Everyone goes down but goes down fighting. Again, I think it goes back the speech in s2’s Epiphany — the winning of the battle is not the point. The battle will never be won. It’s the continuing to fight that’s the point. All of s5 was just to illustrate that point.
Top of the Lake is fab and well worth sticking with. The Scotsman in question is the mighty Peter Mullan, a writer/director/actor from Glasgow, who does a nice line in psycho-nutters.
10 May 2015 at 22:44 #40060@purofilion — well done. It’s quite the achievement. Yes, shame about Wes. But really how else was it really going to go for Unluckiest Man In The Buffiverse (TM)….
10 May 2015 at 19:05 #40056@arbutus — to be honest, my fears are more for those in England who didn’t want this Government (of which there are plenty) and now have little or no defence against it. Here in Scotland, the SNP now have a pretty remarkable position of strength and while they won’t be able to block austerity legislation, they can certainly shout and scream about it and hopefully make life as difficult as possible for the Tories. Just how much will depend on how which way Labour now jump as the official opposition.
But with 56 MPs and a strong position in Holyrood, where much of the domestic legislation happens anyway — for example, the Bedroom Tax didn’t impact on Scotland as badly because the SNP took steps locally to offset the worst effects. The issue north of the border now is neutering the negative effects of the new Government as much as possible, horse-trading for the sensible implementation of more devolved powers and possibly securing a second independence referendum. But there’s the small matter of the Holyrood elections next year (looking pretty good for the SNP who are likely to increase their majority) and then the EU referendum the following year.
Interesting times.
10 May 2015 at 10:40 #40042@purofilion — good point about Wes being obsessed about ‘what’s real’ and ‘what’s illusory’. That’s definitely going to be ‘a thing’ in these last few episodes.
Also good point about the Fell Brethern and Amanda’s choice. And, yes, Time Bomb was quite timey-wimey in its own way, wasn’t it? And yeah, we’re definitely in ‘tying up loose ends’ mode here now before the finale.
9 May 2015 at 22:15 #40026@whisht et al–
My election reaction song. The mighty Mr Cocker and possibly not suitable for those who dislike the sweary words….
9 May 2015 at 11:49 #40021@purofilion et al — not quite a clean sweep for the Conservatives but enough for them to get into power. The truly striking thing is the landslide towards the SNP in Scotland, who got 56 out of the 59 seats available. They’re centre-left, relatively progressive, by no means perfect but the probably the lesser of all the various evils on offer. The Westminster parties now only have one MP each in Scotland now and this represents a real political faultline in the UK now. I honestly don’t know what that’s going to mean but I wouldn’t say that a second independence referendum, in addition to the EU one, is an entirely unlikely possibility now.
As far as the UK goes over the next five years, it’s going to be an odd, and possibly horrible, time. The Tories are now free to do whatever the hell they like and all their national and natural opposition has effectively been nobbled — both the Lib Dems and Labour will be solely fixed on rebuilding themselves to be anything like a viable opposition.
9 May 2015 at 11:33 #40020@purofilion — aw, you’re being a little hard on poor Amy, don’t you think? You’re talking about one my big Buffi-Crushes there. I think Acker’s contribution to this show has been pretty huge. Fred brought something to the mix that really cemented the show’s whole dynamic. But as a character, she had probably run her course and she’s gone on to be just as great as Illyria. She’s kind of a Seven-of-Nine of the Buffiverse and clearly taking her cues a little from Dark Willow too maybe. And I’ve often wondered if she somehow represents something of what would have been intended for Cordy’s character if RL hadn’t spiralled out of control in s4.
But A Hole in the World is without a doubt one of my favourite episodes of either show and one of the s5 ones that Spike is integral to, rather than seemingly tacked onto the end (Damage being another one, of course.) His ‘No. Not this girl.’ is great and is the moment he becomes committed to life in LA.
And Acker and Densiof really knock this out the park. Wesley’s helplessness is heartbreaking and Fred’s plaintive ‘why can’t I stay?’ never fails to tear me up. And then we’ve got the more damaged, bad-ass Wesley back. His stabbing of Gunn an interesting reversal of s3, where Gunn was not exactly understanding of Wesley’s betrayal. It’s like a long-delayed payback, or at least evening of the scales.
Should probably point out that it’s not only Fred who’s getting hollowed out and destroyed by these events. Look at where Lorne is going these days. I never fail to find him punching Eve a shocking character beat.
Yes, Hamilton the new liaison is quite formidable. Adam Baldwin is another refugee from Firefly, where he’s brilliant as Jayne, and again I feel he’s slightly miscast here but he does give it his all.
End game now, Puro. Just half a dozen or so eps to go….
8 May 2015 at 11:14 #39976@purofilion — I must admit I’m not as massively in love with Smile Time as most others seem to be. I think it’s often in danger of veering into that s7 Buffy ‘trying a bit too hard to be wacky’ camp. But it’s got some great moments. And it’s serving to hammer home the ‘Angel as puppet’ trope of the season.
Plus it serves the purpose of a bit of light relief before the game-changer that’s coming right atcha….
And I think it’s a great skirt.
8 May 2015 at 11:10 #39975Well, to quote Irvine Welsh ‘delighted for Scotland, gutted for England.’ Genuinely surprised at the drubbing Labour took south of the border and feel sorry for Ed Miliband, who I kind of like, but he clearly made some bad calls throughout the campaign. (That ‘EdStone’, I mean, what now?) All in all, depressing though. God knows what this country is going to look like five years from now.
Now, someone pass the aspirin…
7 May 2015 at 11:37 #39939And just to echo@Craig — do go out and vote if you haven’t done so already. Myself, I will be spending this evening toasting every SNP win with a double Laphroaig — if the polls are remotely accurate, I may be dead in the morning…. 🙂
@bluesqueakpip — grew up not a hop, skip and a jump from Dunoon and I’m not sure I’d describe it as being in the Highlands. I think it probably just about qualifies as still being in the Lowlands myself….
Cameron is certainly Doc 6. Blustering. Blowhard. Annoying.
Miliband is Troughton, I suspect. Bumbling but hopefully going to pull victory from the jaws of defeat tonight.
Clegg certainly does seem a bit 8 but I think I’d go for him having the ineffectualness of 5.
Leanne Wood — smiley but with good bit of moralistic fire in there. I’d go for her being 11, or possibly even 9.
Natalie Bennett — yeah, touchy feely, probably 10.
Farage — I’m not even going to dignify him with a Doctor. He’s Hepesh from the Curse of Peladon.
Sturgeon — could be any of the Scottish docs but I think I’d probably put her as McCoy if I had to choose. She’s not grumpy enough to be Capaldi.
7 May 2015 at 11:13 #39938@purofilion–
Yes, I’m quite glad that Cordy got one last great send-off (and interestingly the only one of the original Scoobies who doesn’t make it through to the end of the TV tenure). There were still some tensions behind the scenes but they didn’t show onscreen and the episode also serves to ramp up the stakes for the second half of the season.
RE. Soul Purpose. There are lots of little clues in this episode for what’s to come. A great many of them are rather oblique, some not so much. The growl probably falls into the latter category. Let’s just say that Gunn is not heading to a good place.
But, yes, s5 definitely has a drive that was missing from Buffy s7. You’ve got a couple more slightly water-tready eps and then the sparks are going to start flying….
4 May 2015 at 18:25 #39835@burrunjor — It looks like you’ve been successfully put right but just to add my tuppence.–
First of all, what makes you think that Delgado and the 3rd Doc didn’t want to shag each other? I think you could make (and some have) a pretty good case that they do. Personally, I have no problem believing the Delgado and Gomez Masters are one and the same. Frankly, I’m increasingly of the opinion we should have a female Doctor sooner rather than later solely because it force some elements of fandom to grow the hell up.
And Moffatt is quite right in that ALL the writers of the original series were hacks. They were jobbing writers who were contracted to write X episodes of a children’s teatime TV drama. That’s the very essence of being a hack, whether it be in journalism, writing pulp quickie novels or in TV scriptwriting. That they often produced something rather wonderful in the process doesn’t mean that they weren’t hacks.
And you can’t steam in with insults to regular contributors to the site and then moan when they kick your ass in return. The most cursory look through the site would have told you that, even if basic common sense or politeness did not.
@pedant and @phaseshift — nice to see you both. Wonderful weather for a(n un)pleasant troll….
29 April 2015 at 17:03 #39721@denvaldron — New topic functionality is not available to all members. Best thing to do is PM your copy to one of the Mods or our esteemed leader and they’ll put it up for you….
29 April 2015 at 14:44 #39719@denvaldron — yeah, I’d like to read that. Definitely worth doing….
27 April 2015 at 13:20 #39702A rather spiffy Disney take on Who among quite a few others:
16 April 2015 at 09:39 #39615Just to say that Local Hero is not yet forgotten, there’s a nice little profile in the National today….
Apparently the phone box is in urgent need of some TLC though…..
14 April 2015 at 16:47 #39593This is a belter of an episode and a deserved all-time classic. @bluesqueakpip pointed out last week that although the plot is pretty basic, there’s not much in the way of interminable padding that all too often bollockses up BG stories. The leisurely running around is to a purpose and gives us all these nice character moments between the Doctor and the Brigadier and Miss Hawthorne, the Master and his henchmen and various heavies.
Apart from the ‘five rounds rapid’ stuff, this episode also enters Who lore as the one where the couple of outraged old biddies wrote furiously into Points of View complaining about that lovely church being blown to smithereens just for an episode of Doctor Who. Aw, bless.
It’s actually very Nu Who (plot being a hook to hang the interesting character stuff onto) and as Pip points out, the ‘love saves the day’ message is also very much of the new show.
(And it’s not surprise that Azal, last of the all-powerful Daemons rendered gibbering and useless when confronted by a pretty blonde girl in a miniskirt, is a character that your average geekboy can relate to.)
Having said that, the Daemons are a classic Who villain I’ve always wanted to see make a return. Not sure where you’d go with them though.
14 April 2015 at 16:39 #39592@bluesqueakpip — a bit like Emma Caulfield then. And I’ve no complaints. I like Andrew as a character. Mostly. However, it does make a mockery of the whole ‘killing a human is a line you cannot cross’ thing. It probably has to be amended to ‘unless you happen to be terribly amusing in which case it’s probably OK’.
14 April 2015 at 11:06 #39586@purofilion — I think Andrew is about to take up the role that Xander vacated as the comedic dweeb, now that Xander is a bit burdened by his own baggage and has also become a bit more on the cool side. But Andrew is a problematic character. He’s a killer and yet this is not taken as seriously as with just about every other character. But having said that, I can’t help but like him a little.
RE. Buffy and Faith. I think my issue with Buffy by season 7 is that she does seem to have a bit of ARSE about her herself. Since her return from Heaven and the understandable bit of angst over that, as a character she kind of stands still. As a character that is — she still ‘does’ stuff like fight the First and so on. And the same is true with Giles too. He has a great comeback at the end of s6 — one of the best moments in the show — but after that he really has nowhere to go. He should have died. (And does in s9 of the graphic novels.)
Compare this with both Angel and Faith. I think I said in one of the Angel blogs that Angel doesn’t stick around in the Buffy finale because he’s essentially outgrown Sunnydale. He doesn’t fit anymore. He’s not the devoted lover anymore — both Darla and Cordelia have complicated that role utterly now. (When you think about it, what did Buffy and Angel’s relationship actually amount to? A lot of mooning about in graveyards and one bout of sex that ended, well, badly. Angel and Darla had a history that went back centuries, Cordelia has experienced every moment of his evil and Faith took a trip right into his psyche to save his soul. For me, it puts that whole cookie dough nonsense into perspective.)
Faith too has constantly evolved. By the time we see her in Season 7, we’ve seen her go through a lot. Prison. Defeating Angelus. And Wes has rather ruthlessly shown her what a Watcher — and what a Slayer — really is. It makes me far more sympathetic to Faith than it does to Buffy when they butt heads in s7. Because she’s earned my respect by that time. Buffy hasn’t. She’s just been demanding it as her right.
14 April 2015 at 10:51 #39584@janetteb and @ichabod — I’ve always seen the Time Lords as having the potential to be a fusion between Oxbridge, Whitehall and the Vatican, with a bit of Le Carre’s Circus thrown in but the BG series obviously never had the wherewithal to realise this on screen. (And now that we’re having this conversation I think I’ve changed my mind and that Deadly Assassin should probably head our Baker list. There’s so much fertile ground for discussion that ties directly into where the show is now.)
I agree that with the resources the show has now it could probably do Gallifrey quite well and some stories set there could throw up some interesting stuff. But I’m still inclined that they shouldn’t even try. The introduction of the Time Lords, to my mind, had nothing but a limiting effect on the original show. Part of the enduring strength of the Hartnell and Troughton eras was just how vast the universe was to them. Every race was new, very few were aware of the existence of the others and there was always something new to see or experience.
The War Games changed all that and while I’ll admit I loved the finally seeing a bit of the Doctor’s past and seeing the Time Lords at last, I could still see that it diminished the Whoniverse a bit. I think Terrance Dicks and Robert Holmes realised this and they deliberately limited the Time Lords to very small appearances. But by the time we get to the Deadly Assassin and beyond — especially the JNT era — all of time and space has become incredibly parochial, with the TLs as artisocratic overlords and everyone else knowing them, the Daleks at war with them, the Cybermen knowing all about them. They essentially stripped a big part of the sense of wonder away from Who and were, I think, much more effective when they were just invoked by name, an irritating, high-handed presence to shake fists at in impotent fury.
But it seems like an inevitable process in SF shows. The ongoing wonder of the original Trek series was lost when the Starfleet hierarchy made the Next Gen more parochial and mired in politics than it needed to be. And the Reavers in Firefly were positively terrifying when you only saw glimpses of them and had to gauge them by the sheer terror they invoked in people. But once the Reaver storyline was explored in Serenity, they overnight became a bit rubbish.
13 April 2015 at 11:31 #39574@purofilion — no worries. Just wondering. In Angel, you’ve got a few more standalones and then it really kicks up a gear for the finale. (Which is an interesting comparison to the pretty arc-centric final season of Buffy. Oh, and you will cry. There will be much crying, I predict.)
Yes, Giles is kind of a spare part in this season, isn’t he? As I said on the blog, it would have worked so much better if they’d had the courage to kill him off in this season. It would have given Buffy a stronger motive, emotional drive.
My problem with the Turok Hahn (aside from sounding a bit Star Trekky for my liking) is that they start off being well-nigh unkillable to becoming easily dustable by the likes of Giles or even Andrew. I found that irritating.
It will be interesting to see if your take on Faith is different now that you’ve seen what she was up to immediately beforehand in Angel s4. For me anyway, it made me far more sympathetic to Faith and far less to Buffy. And that’s surely a funny situation to be in.
13 April 2015 at 09:56 #39572@purofilion — how’s the Angel-fest coming along?
13 April 2015 at 09:55 #39571@ichabod — yes, I’m always bemused when people say that Smith’s Doc is a light and fluffy take. It really isn’t. And for my money, he’s still given the most nuanced layered Doctor of them all. I’m also surprised when Capaldi is said to have taken a turn towards a darker Doc. He’s certainly showing the potential but I don’t think there’s really that much evidence of it yet. He’s a more subdued and laconic Doc, sure, but I’m not convinced by ‘darker’ yet.
On Gallifrey, I do tend to think that physically introducing the Time Lords was in the long-term a bad move in the show. Ultimately it made them a far less impressive force and it made whole Whoniverse a consderably smaller place. Which is why RTD took them out of the equation, I think. And why I think Moffatt won’t be in any hurry to bring them back.
12 April 2015 at 16:58 #39556@craig and @bluesqueakpip — as I said, cool with whatever but bearing in mind that we’ve just had a revitalised Master and there is a renewed focus on Gallifrey and the Time Lords then maybe Assassin is actually a timely choice.
And agree with Pip that if our esteemed Emperor’s inclinations turn that way then he should definitely get the final veto…
11 April 2015 at 20:38 #39546@bluesqueakpip — yes, I had to think for a moment to wonder if we had in fact done it. I was sure we had. But maybe the the newer members of the forum might have something new to bring to that party. Personally, I think I’d struggle to find anything new to say about it. I had the same sensation slightly during the Daemons too.
11 April 2015 at 20:13 #39544@craig — any of those is fine by me but as @bluesqueakpip points out a lot of them fall into the same general vibe as we had last time. I like the idea of doing one from the fag end of Baker’s reign though as it tends to get overlooked quite a lot. The disadvantage being Adric, of course. Out of the ones mentioned above my choice would be Morbius, Mars, Rock, Logopolis, Ark or Assassin. Genesis is fine too but I can’t help but feel it’s been done to death.
Part of me wonders if we should go for second tier Baker stories that don’t get the same attention. Off the top of my head, Image of the Fendahl might be interesting as it ploughs a similiar-ish furrow to the Daemons. Or Masque of Mandragora. Or State of Decay.
7 April 2015 at 10:53 #39466I’ve been watching but finding it actually quite hard to come up with anything new to say, it’s so familiar now.
But can I just say that Jo is one of my all-time favourite companions and that I think this is one of her best stories. I get the ‘not exactly emancipated’ line but there’s a strength of character to Jo and a determination that it’s easy to overlook. Plus, she’s a babe.
Have to disagree with @bluesqueakpip though. I’ve always hated the ep3 cliffhanger. Oh noes, is this the end for the Master, or will evil eventually triumph? Oh, and @purofilion, morris dancers are always evil. Always.
Having said that, I think the real charm of this episode and the reason it’s remembered so vividly is that the actual plot is so slight that it gives us the chance to get to know the characters. It’s not accident that a lot of what’s so fondly remembered about the Brigadier comes from this story. Similarly we get to see Benton and Yates forming a friendship of sorts. And much of the Doctor’s time is spent having to actually interact with the natives — to varying degrees of success. True, he does come across as a charmless, pompous walloper — and I actually think that both Dicks and Barry Letts in their novelisations managed to project more charm into the character than Pertwee manages to convey on screen.
But it’s quite usef;ul to rewatch Pertwee here. Because it really serves to highlight where Capaldi is going with the character. If Smith was riffing on Troughton, it’s clear that Capaldi is definitely basing part of his Doctor on this Daemons-era Doc.
7 April 2015 at 10:30 #39465@craig and @purofilion —
I’m looking forward to checking out I Zombie. Of all the supernatural standard tropes, zombies are my least favourite but I’ve heard good things about this and will definitely be checking it out.
I’m about three quarters through the first season of Grimm and I have to admit that while it’s choc full of great ideas, there’s something about it that’s just leaving me cold. It’s created by David Greenwalt and Jim Kouf so I would expect slightly better and I think it’s down to the rather flat characterisation and I’m not sure they got the casting quite right either. Lots of Buffy alumni showing up left, right and centre though. Including Amy Acker as a foxy seductress who transforms into a literally man-eating tarantula. (substitute that for preying mantis and it’s suddenly ‘hey, where have I seen this before’? And that’s essentially the problem with the show — lots of ideas recycled shamelessly from both Buffy and Angel. If you’re resorting to that in your first fifteen episodes then it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. It also lacks sufficient humour.
But Mrs Fish seems to like it, so I guess I’ll be seeing see it develops.
3 April 2015 at 13:15 #39412@purofilion — I do make the point about the Scoobies vs Angelettes in the s5 blog. Whereas the Scoobies seem to be, well, almost a bit pathetic compared to their fresher faced versions in seasons 1-4, the Angel Inc team do seem to grow, to have evolved and developed as characters, to have triumphed over what life has thrown at them rather than looking a little bit to have been beaten by it. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re necessarily better people than they were in earlier seasons. Because it wouldn’t be Angel if it were that simple.
RE. Spike. His delivery is different. I guess part of that is maybe that James Marsters might have been a bit out of practice as Spike when he joined Angel. But also that his character is fulfilling a different function here. He’s no longer the cool’n’sexy love interest. To anyone. He’s primarily there as a foil to Angel. He’s there to be annoying. And to be a slightly comedic second-fiddle character, not unlike the role Wesley played in s1 & 2.
RE. Mummy. Yes, I think as it settles into Who history, this is the episode that’s going to be remembered as the bona fide classic of Capaldi’s first season. And when I rewatched it, the other thing that struck me is that they put him in the perfect costume — much more Doctorish than his usual ensemble. If I were Moffat and Co, I would put him in that ensemble more often. They should just embrace the whole Pertwee of it.
3 April 2015 at 10:43 #39410@scaryb — did indeed watch it. Farage, same scumbag as usual. I’m hoping that that bollocks about ‘foreign AIDS-sufferers’ loses him a lot more of his dwindling support. I’m bemused by the ‘no clear winner’ narrative being pushed today as Sturgeon kicked ass last night and was the clear winner. I’m guessing they’re very keen to keep her name out of the headlines. If nothing else, it will have bolstered the SNP even further north of the border, if such a thing is possible.
2 April 2015 at 10:59 #39395@purofilion — and yeah, Eve is annoying. Not a character that I think totally worked. I think what is slightly lacking is that there should have been some real diehard Wolfram and Hart-ties in the style of Holland Manners or Linwood for them to come up against and no one really steps up to that mark. I believe the original plan was for Lilah to have been around for at least some of the season but the budget cuts meant that they could no longer afford Stephanie Romanov (well, those descendants of the tsars don’t come cheap, I guess)….
2 April 2015 at 10:51 #39394@purofilion — blimey, you’re really caning this one. Yes, this season is, I don’t know quite how to say it, less demanding on the viewer than seasons 2-4 were. By which I mean it’s less arc-heavy, more casual-viewer friendly. Which those season weren’t — when you think about it, it almost qualifiess as one four-season arc. But part of the stipulations by the suits for the renewal of s5 was standalone episodes and a significant budget cut, which is why it’s very reliant on the admittedly impressive Wolfram & Hart set for a lot of the time. So, possibly more simplistic (in a kind of Buffy way?) but not overly so, I’d argue. Besides which, be prepared for a serious game-changer about halfway through.
Yes, Spike is tricky in this show. I wasn’t sure if it was going to work — that Spike might detract from Angel, what with him having a soul and all. (There’s also the question of whether is resurrection devalues the Buffy finale.) But over all, I think it works. I don’t really have a problem with his nooner with Harmony. I think it was made clear that from Buffy s7 that there’s not much chance of a relationship between them so it’s not like he’s cheating or anything. But in general, I like this Spike who is, you’re right, more similar to the Buffy s2 version but just not evil.
But the big problem they had in bringing him back was, once again, Buffy. What’s to stop him from running off straight away back to her. His reluctance doesn’t strike me as parrticularly Spike-like. Which is I guess why they brought him back as a ghost initially, so he couldn’t just bugger off to find her. The whole Buffy/Angel/Spike triangle will be addressed later on but Spike does get sufficiently invested in LA to want to stay.
Lorne is great. I think Life of the Party is a great episode. And foregrounds one of this year’s arcs — that Lorne has an interior life too. He’s not just the happy joker there to fix everything for everyone else while his needs are ignored. It’s pretty clear, of instance, that he’s a wee bit over-reliant on the booze, for example. But yeah, being a Hollywood schmoozer is a great fit for him.
The first half of the season is a bit Gunn-lite, but don’t worry he’s stepping up very soon.
RE. Cordelia. I do kind of know what you mean. I always did miss the snarky Queen C of her Buffy days. But I think in seasons 1-2 of Angel, they got a really nice balance of that and of her growing as a person, discovering a sense of responsibility and of empathy. It’s just a shame that the resolution of s4 kind of undid all that good work.
-
AuthorPosts
