green_amber | More on the Great Dr Who debate..

I thought it was superb - and broke every rule in the book. The way they used music and the acting put this in my top 20 who stories. The ref to oral sex was hilarious (and a little naughty for a kid's show).

I just found it insulting and cringeworthy, and I don't think I'm a precious fan by any means. I don't think the stuff you've said about class and gender helps at all, it's just that I can't stand watching farce. And I certainly didn't see any emotional development - we've had some of that with the Doctor and even some of the soap opera characters that I dislike, but this ep seemed to be purely played for laughs without actually being funny.

Well, if you can't stand farce, then yes, it ain't gonna be your cup of tea. I love well done farce - which this had elements of, but was by no means all it was.

Why was it insulting?

I certainly didn't see any emotional development

What about Elton learning that he actually fancied Ursela and growing up enough to say screw-you to the Absorbabtron? Doesn't that count as emotional development?

And see my reply below to

lil_shepherd

me, I thought it was fab.

I don't think it was change per se that bothered me - and I am someone who was only a fan when a child and am not A Fan now.

I didn't think it was funny because I thought the humour was way too heavy-handed and a splendid cast was wasted in the process. As for the gender/class issues - one of the things I loved about Dr Who as a child was the element of escapism which would have been ruined for me if half of it had been set on an inner city council estate like the one where I lived. I was emphaticvally neither posh nor a boy, yet it was definitely for me, not least because it didn't have romance. It had characterisation by the bucketful and subtle inferences about relationships that were a lot more interesting to pick up on than the banality of the Dr/Rose romance - and were drawn out over several episodes.

The focus on the importance of lurv and family life/values smacks to me of the syrupy 'moral' endings of American sci fi series. The obsession with Rose's parent really irritates me as I think it would put children off, if anything.

The pop culture references are so numerous that the stories seem to rely on them - and will date very quickly as a result.

I thought it was tacky, boring, unimaginative and played to an adult/fanboy audience - genrally a bit of an egowank for RTD.

I take (and have previously taken) your point generally, that Dr Who was escapism from the normal for many of us when we were kids, and perhaps especially for girls, from the convention of all girl drama being about teen romance fixations.
But this was an ep that didn't have Rose in at all, practically, so most the above seems to be a coment on the RTD series generally, not this ep. Nor did this ep have a fixation on fathers or family values (which I am also fed up with, believe me, but not nearly as fed up as I am with the Doctor pontificating about how neat the human race is - for chrissakes he's a Time Lord that travels the universe - being this keen on humans is either akin to Aspergist zoo-keeping, or racism against all the OTHER intelligent races in the universe.. anyway..)
I think it did play to an adult fan audience, yes - and unashamedly being one, I enjoyed it, lots. I'm not surprised you didn't. But I don't think it was just for boys (whatever RTD said, he's gay innHE!) - indeed my straw poll is I think that more women than men have enjoyed it of the LJ-fan coterie (tho with some clear exceptions.)

We shoudl meet up some time and rant and frighten passers-by.

*chuckle* today I am so grumpy I might even win an argument - I have just bawled out Costa Rican e commerce slave..

One of the things I have always loved about Doctor Who is that it has a flexible format. However, when something uses that flexibility to tell a story that doesn't fit with preconceptions then I'me bemused at the fan reaction that says weill, it's not a Doctor Who story.

This is from the show that's done the Doctor and companions materialising only inches high on modern earth (Planet of the Giants), a visit to the land of fiction where the threat is the Doctor's companions might get trapped in a book (The Mind Robber); an episode featuring only the central cast set in a TARDIS out of control sending cryptic messages to a dressing gown cladd Ian Chesterton and scissor wielding Susan (Edge of Destruction); fantasy (the celestial Toymaker where the Doctor is rendered invisible and his companions threatened by games and toys they must play); pure historicals (many early stories - The Aztecs, Marco Polo, The Massacre of St Bartholomew's Eve); pseudo-historicals (in The Time Meddler the meddling monk - played by Peter Butterworth, stalwart of the Carry On series - plans to give bazookas to King Harold in order that he win the Battle of Hastings); space opera; quest stories (the fifth story was The Keys of Marinus which involved hunting for a different key every week); one episode without the Doctor or any companions at all (Mission to the Unknown in 1965); horror stories; comedies (three stories in particular stand out: The Myth Makers set in the Trojan war which included one episode called IIRC Is there a Doctor in the horse?; The Gunfighters (gunfight at the OK Corral with a ballad sang throughout each episode updating you on plot developments); and The Romans (The Doctor in Nero's Rome)) as well as rip offs (homages?) to lots of things (Hammer Horror, sci-fi films, Bond &c).

It's notable that most of these types of story (but not really the homages) were found in the 1960s when the creators were well aware of the flexible format, and despite budgetary constraints not tied to any one type of story. As time went on the production team of each era favoured one type of story over others (base under siege stories in Troughton's second season); Hammer and other film homages in Tom Baker stories produced by Philip Hinchcliffe.

In the flexible format no one style of story should dominate. It's perhaps no coincidence that the fans rate Hartnell lower than other Doctors. It's not just that many of his episodes have vanished from the BBC archive or that those that survive are in black and white. It's that they play with the format. The production team thrilled in transcending audience expectations. Love and Monsters is well within the tradition, written out of necessity (because the Beeb wanted an extra episode this year but with the same filming block) but undeniably a Doctor Who story, and a comment on how viewers perceive Doctor Who. This is RTD's best script by far. I wouldn't want it like this every week, but this once it was great.

None of your reasons listed above apply to my dislike for this episode.

We have had so many different types of episode on 'Dr Who' over the years that practically anything can be included. Even the dreadful TV movie has to be included in canon somehow.

I don't like Rose. I'm not particularly fond of Tennant's doctor. So their absence didn't bother me. I disliked the bits where they did appear because they were totally out of character.

I don't know what you mean by 'confounds expectations'. It confirmed mine - unfortunately.

It wasn't like a soap opera - I could have coped with that, and there are elements of the soap opera in current continuity anyway. (Jackie, Mickey, the Doctor/Rose romance.) What it was was a sitcom, and not a very funny one at that. What annoyed me about this was that it was played as sitcom, which is completely at odds with the way 'Who' is normally played. They might just have got away with it if the continuing characters had played their roles straight. Unfortunately, the Doctor, Rose and Jackie were also playing as sitcom - or even farce. The result is to downgrade the rest of the season, because when you are watching high drama - if we get any amid the camp - this episode will be at the back of your mind. If it had been hilarious or moving this might have been justified, but it was funny only in odd moments, and not at all engaging.

It is not original. The outsider view has been used many times - the most familiar will, I think, be its various appearances in 'Babylon 5'. Fannishness as send up sitcom is the whole purpose of the dreadful 'Kinwig'. And us nerds are being sent-up all the time.

Finally, over the other side of the fence, apparently RTD was heard to say that it was aimed at males because women don't watch 'sci-fi'... This has caused much hilarity in Trek fandom, apparently.

What annoyed me about this was that it was played as sitcom, which is completely at odds with the way 'Who' is normally played. </>

But this is *exactly* what I meant about confounding expectations - and it beinga good thing. We expect Who to be played as portentous drama/horror with a bit of sly humour on the side. So an ep that is done like an episode of Peep Show is a wonderful change. What did you think of the Buffy musical? Of Green Wing? Of Moonlighting? these are all series which have delighted in playing with format and expectations , which is the thing I love most.

I haven't seen either B5 or Kinwig so can't comment on them.

I think this comes down really to whether you're the kind of genre viewer who mostly wants to be reassured with more of the same, or surprised by disconcerting playing with the genre - and I'm always of the latter camp. Onviously you need a norm before you can deconstruct it - so I quite agree with the (substantial number ) of people who've said "I liked it, but I'm glad it's a one off." I'm with them, certainly.

"What did you think of the Buffy musical? Of Green Wing? Of Moonlighting? these are all series which have delighted in playing with format and expectations , which is the thing I love most."

Loved the 'Buffy' musical, which was superbly written, very funny, and was in character and played in the puzzled fashion that would have affected real people who found themselves in that position.

Hated 'Moonlighting' because I found the premise totally illogical and sexist, and, besides, I hate Brosnan. The only decent character was the receptionist, and when they focused on her it was great.

'Green Wing' is fun.

As it happens, I usually know why I like or dislike a TV programme - or a book, comic or film, come to that. I love episodes that break the mould, so long as they do it within genuine series continuity. B5 did this continually. It followed the characters with a TV crew, it spent a whole episode with two original (and very minor) characters and saw everything through their eyes, it even put in subliminal recruiting ads for the Psicorps. Most of those episodes were excelllent.

However, none of these did what 'Love and Monsters' did. Searching for an exact parallel, I went to comic books, and came up with the Giffen/de Mattis 'Justice League', where DC's iconic team of superheroes were catapulted into pure sitcom. Now, I've been a fan of, say, Batman, for far longer and loved him far more than I ever loved 'Dr Who', but the Giffen/deMattis period is one of my favourite run of a comic book of all time, and I adored the sight of Batman desperately reversing the Batmobile to get away from a JLA barbie, with the Joker racing after him yelling, "Save me, my not-so-dark knight in shinning armour..." So why should I love this so much, and dislike 'Love and Monsters' so much? Well, for a start, the Justice League stuff was done from a vast knowledge of the characters and a deep love for them. This made the send-ups spot on, yet kept the whole thing anchored in the DC Universe, because everyone in the stories acted within DC universe continuity and also like vaguely normal people. (They made 'Star Trek' jokes. They invested in unwise financial projects. They held barbies...) In 'Love and Monsters' it was the fans who were being sent up and, to be frank, RTD plainly knows very little about fans - he thinks, after all, that women don't watch sci-fi. (I say again, in 'Dr Who Confidential' he apparently remarks that 'Love and Monsters' was aimed at male fans and that woman don't often watch 'sci-fi'.) I found neither accuracy nor affection in his script - nor come to that, wit. (And there was a lot of wit around the Justice League.)

Personally, I think the writing was lazy. RTD was hoping that people would add to the characters from their own experience rather than see what was actually there, which was very little, if you analyse it. Apart from Elton, I don't think anyone had more than twenty lines. What did we actually learn about any of them? About their background? About their motivation?

They are fans viewed with slight condescension through the eyes of a pro writer/producer, with little understanding and not much affection. This episode is not a satire on 'Dr Who' but a satire on its fans - and not a particularly well-informed one.

(I am not and have never been active in 'Dr Who' fandom.)

I found neither accuracy nor affection in
his script - nor come to that, wit.

Whereas I found all 3. I think we'll have to agree to differ :-)

Yeah, guess so. [Grin] The one thing you can't predict is what people will find funny.

'S been interesting.

Oops!

Got 'Moonlighting' mixed up with 'Remington Steele' - not difficult when they are both sexist and I hate both lead males. I should have said Bruce Willis, though.

Not to be a pedant but it's Kinvig, and that at least had Prunella Gee in a sort of sub-Sibyl Danning bacofoil outfit, and the rather droll Tony Haygarth and Colin Jeavons.

Nigel Kneale should stick to the grim stuff though.

L&M was rather like an episode of Kinvig turning up halfway through Quatermass. Doesn't fit. Destroys the tempo, destroys the flow.

"not to be a pedant but it's Kinvig"

Be a pedant as much as you like [grin]. As you can see from later posts, I have a tendency to type first and consider afterwards. And I never have been able to spell...

... do you really think that's the full list of reasons people didn't like this episode?

Actually, I might go along with the first ... maybe!

I'm not a massive Who fan (I watched Pertwee, hated Tom Baker and didn't watch it again except for a couple of McCoy episodes until the TV movie came along, which was NOT Who (half human? That's Mr.SPOCK you fools!)) and still I didn't like this episode.

In any long running series, there's a chance to play with conventions and doing something from a different angle (musical episodes of Buffy, The Drew Carey Show, Moonlighting and even something similar in X-Files) and sometimes they work and sometimes they don't (Buffy was brilliant because it was great music *and* advanced the plot)

I think the problem, for me, was that it *was* a Supergran/Rentaghost episode. It was a sitcom, aimed at kids (and not very bright kids either). It was CITV at its worst.

Now I can understand that a lot of the comedy was from the memories of Elton (and so any change in characterisation of Jackie, Rose, the Doctor etc. were based on his memories/interpretation rather than "reality"!), and yes, I did like the ELO references (grin!).

And then you say that the problem the BOYS have is that we want it to have monsters, aliens, no characterisation and no emotional development which is almost exactly what that episode was, and my problem with it was that it was that way. Everyone was cardboard characters being pushed around (it *was* an animated storyboard of a bad cartoon version of Dr.Who)

Sure there were good bits, but Peter Kay was annoying (particularly his Mike Myers/Fat Bastard impression). LI'n'DA were great, and I'm sorry they were killed off ... they could have got together with Sarah Jane and K9, bought a big green transit van, and gone investigating!

a, I never said it was a full list! b, it was somewhat tongue in cheek!
But yes , actually, I do think there is an issue here about boys and characterisation - a lot of the responses seem to indicate that character = must be about Doctor and Rose (or other regulars) because these are the people we know well enough to have got into their characters - whereas I thought these unknown people we met for one week only, were brilliantly fleshed out with great concision and equally great affection - come on , haven't we all MET people like Elton, Ursula etc? And it made you realise how off on his own planet (ha) the Doctor is for all his "oh I love humans" speeches.

The fact that in one sense (ie looking at the Doctor as the inevitable focus) the episode did indeed have monsters, aliens, no characterisation and no emotional development is what makes it such brilliant satire..

"whereas I thought these unknown people we met for one week only, were brilliantly fleshed out with great concision and equally great affection - come on , haven't we all MET people like Elton, Ursula etc?"

Well, no, though I have met people who shared an odd superficial characteristic with the stereotypes represented by Elton, Ursula etc.

Whereas every other fictional haracter you encounter in a 45 minutes TV show slot is a fully worked out original and completely comvincing character?
Come on. It's serial, relatively low budget, pre watershed TV. We're all working within certain limitations, both watcher and writer. To give an example: after Dr Who, I was channel hoping and I got the first episode of some dreadful new US Friends-lite comedy, but I watched it through, because it had Alyson Hannigan in it. Every single character in it was a complete cipher, distinguishable only by gender, occupation and haircut (and perhaps not even then), their only purpose being to be manoeuvred into certain situations which might enable the delivery of supposedly funny lines. Now that's what I call standard TV lack of characterisation.

Whereas at the end of 45 minutes here, I felt I had a good idea who Elton fundamentally was, hiow he'd behave in certain scenarios, and had seen him go through subtstantial character development - as said above, realising he had feelings that had gone from friendship to love, becoming acclimatised to the fact his whole life had been altered/destroyed, his acceptance that sometimes danger and thrils were wonderful even if they were also awful. That's just about as much as you can hope for from a one off character in 45 minutes. (It is also, incidentally, far more than I felt I learnt about Mme de Pompadour in a very well received episode - all I knew of her was that she was cute and inexplicably fond of the Doctor.)

Indeed of all the eps of New Who so far you've *liked*, can you name any one-ep character (ie not Rose, Jackie, Cpn Jack or Mickey) you feel has been better characterised than Elton?

(I'm getting tired of this one, as you can tell - this is a reply to others , not just you. I can see lots of reasons why people wouldn't like this ep, but plot and chacracterisation are just not acceptable reasons compared to the rest of the oevre.)

Is there a plot? Alien monster takes over fan group to absorb its members is hardly a strong or logical one. (Why?????) Or is it boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy sort of gets girl back?

One of my main objections is the characterisation of the on-going characters - Jackie's sudden longing for a toy boy, the Doctor and Rose playing Shaggy and Scooby.

I also noticed Madame de Pompadour's courage, her ability to face facts without flinching, her intelligence, her ability for leadership - and her ability to love several men and keep them from cutting each other's throats. And what about the girl in the two parter from last season -'The Lonely Ghost'(???) and 'The Doctor Dances'. May I respectfully suggest that her journey was more complex and painful than Elton's, and she had less screen time?

There are plenty of 45/50 minute shows where characters are drawn superbly within a single episode. They do it every week on 'House' - sometimes in less than five minutes with the clinic patients. It isn't 'Who''s strong point, agreed, but this one wasn't any better than most and worse than some.

Jackie's "sudden" longing for a toy-boy wasn't at all out of character for her - she shows interest in the Doctor the second she sees him, and I'm sure there's another man mentioned in passing at one point.

And I assumed the Dr/Rose/Monster playing Shaggy/Scooby/Ghost was a way of getting across that we were getting Elton's over the top, hand-waving "Wow, look how exciting things were" explanation of events, rather than The Truth.

Yeh. He's an unreliable narrator. Actually, the whole episode might be fanfic :-) (we never do know who he's filming it for, do we?)

And of course the whole ep IS fanfic! I love this!

> Actually, the whole episode might be fanfic :-)

Nah, fanfic that bad would be torn to pieces by other fans ;)

> makes it such brilliant satire..

Is this the same as the argument that Heinlein deliberately wrote a shite book (The Number of the Beast) which was so awful that only detailed analysis of it would reveal that he was taking the mick? ;)

Something else that occured to me - I *hated* Andrew in Buffy, but loved this. I don't know if it's a tone difference or I feel more like a Buffy fan than I do a Dr Who one.

I hated Andrew originally but grew to love him, and I thought Storyteller was the only genius episode of series 7.
But yes, I am probably more emotionally attached (in fact, definitely) to Buffy than the Who canon.

I couldn't get over Ursula being Moaning Myrtle in the Harry Potter films.

Also, I clearly need to return my geek card. When I see Shirley Henderson I always think of The Way We Live Now rather than HP.

I think of either Trainspotting or Intermission.

Isobel from Hamish Macbeth. And Katherine in the recent modern mini Taming of the Shrew. Very talented young woman.

I still think of Hamish Macbeth..... and 24 Hour Party People.... and Dirty Filthy Love. Great actress, she even made Hamish Macbeth watchable!

I recognised her but couldn't place here so it didn't bother me too much. Actually, I thought she was Susan Francis :-)

Now that could have been some very interesting casting! ;-)

That's seriously creepy.

Don't tell!

I did laugh out loud at several points. I love the Buffy musical. I thought L&M failed in its own terms.

Well my trouble with it was not the idea, but that it was badly done. Peter Kay just played Peter Kay, the rubber suit was just crap, and I have never found fart jokes funny. The idea of the absorbothon held no logic -- where were all his previous victims?

What could have been interesting, Elton's past encounter with the Doctor continuing to haunt him, was skipped over with a glib comment. 'A shadow came out of the howling walls' So much for character development there. I get the feeling that RTD started down a fertile line then got cold feet, which is worse than not going there at all.

Only the Jackie/Elton flirtation was really taken to a proper conclusion. Jackie's dabbling with the idea of seducing Elton as an expression of her loneliness and feeling of being left behind was in character for her and in keeping with one of this series themes.

More on the Great Dr Who debate..

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Interesting ...

Re: Interesting ...

Re: Interesting ...

Re: Interesting ...

Re: Interesting ...

Re: Interesting ...

Re: Interesting ...

Re: Interesting ...

Re: Interesting ...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject