![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Doctor Who Episodes 9.1.5-9.2 or rather "Meditation for the Doctor", "Magician's Apprentice", and "The Witch's Familiar".
The problem I had with these was the damn commercial interruptions. Can't help but wonder what it would be like if I wasn't constantly fast-forwarding through commercials every 15 or 10 minutes. As a result of the commercials, some of which were flash-forward previews regarding what will happen next in between commercials, so you don't give up, I found it hard to follow. Not to mention jarring.
Note to television writers producing shows for "commercial" television - out of order narratives or jumpy narratives are hard to follow when you are interrupted by commercials. It interrupts the flow.
I felt I should get that out of the way first. My main issue with Doctor Who, and probably the reason I was never "fannish" about it - is it is geared more towards "horror" than really speculative science fiction/fantasy/adventure. Basically the writer is interested in examining what scares us. This has never had a great deal of appeal for me. I'm not a big fan of horror. I like it, but sparingly. If you aren't a horror fan -- you probably don't like Doctor Who all that much.
Ignoring both of those quibbles? (Because one, let's face isn't the writers fault, he wrote the series for non-commercial television, and two, it's a horror series. Hello. Sort of know that going into it.) It was an interesting series of episodes. Playing around once again with the idea of mercy and war. And enemies vs. friends. The Doctor at the end of it, chooses to save the child who will one day become he's most dreaded enemy, to show mercy, as opposed to the more tempting choice - to kill him.
Hmmm...this seems to be an on-going theme in the items that I've been reading lately. The protagonist is given a chance to kill a horrible enemy who is responsible for mass genocide prior to it happening, or the enemy either rising to power, or making that choice. In both cases, the protagonist makes the choice to either kill the enemy or abandon them to certain death. But it doesn't work. So, in the end they don't give in, and either save the enemy, or don't cause their death.
There's a rather long scene, made longer by commercial interruptions, where the Doctor and Davros (sp?), the creator of the Daleks or Father of the Daleks, chat. Davros is apparently dying and wants to see the sunrise one last time. He wonders if at the end of the day, is he a good man? Did he do the best he could for his people? His people had so many invasions and so many battles that they eventually encased themselves in tanks or machines of warfare as protection. The Doctor wonders much the same thing - is he a good man? Then, in a moment of compassion, the Doctor decides to share his life force with his enemy, so that his enemy can see the sunrise. That moment - gives his enemy the upper hand and the enemy attempts to steal the Doctor's energy, turning himself into a hybrid.
The Master/Missy stops it in time (although that's not exactly clear...), and the Doctor hunts down Clara, only to find a Dalek, which Missy claims killed Clara. (It is in reality, Clara - which is reminiscent of Clara's first appearance on the series, where she was in fact a Darlek. Except this time around she can escape the casing of the Darlek, it's not permanent.) The Doctor figures out that it is Clara, when the Dalek she's inside interrupts her pleas as "Mercy".
"Would you kill me?" The Doctor asks.
"Mercy. Do not kill. Mercy." Clara, the Darlek, responds.
Which gives him pause. How did it learn mercy? And that enables him to find Clara, and motivates him to go back in time to save the child who is to become Davros. To show the child mercy, in the hope that he will somehow remember it and instill it in his creations.
Davros tells the Doctor that his weakness, his fatal flaw is his compassion. Yet in reality it is his compassion that saves Clara and himself.
Overall not bad. Just difficult to follow and bit dull in spaces, partly due to the commercials.
2. New American Television Series
* Scream Queens -- I gave up halfway through, around the 30 minute mark. I'd read good reviews of it. But here's the thing, Ryan Murphy's unique and rather flamboyant (read over the top) brand of cultural satire/parody either works for you or it really doesn't. Don't get me wrong, I didn't find it offensive so much as boring. I didn't care about any of the characters. And I kept wondering why all these rich entitled college kids weren't using smartphones 24/7 like their real life counterparts? In short, I was taken out of the story intermittently by the thought - why aren't they taking pictures of that with their cell phones? Why don't they have their cell phones on them? Clearly Murphy and Falchuck are of my generation and don't seem to realize that everyone under the age of 30, with few exceptions, has a cell phone as a third appendage.
But my main difficulty, was none of the characters was relateable, interesting, charming, or compelling. Not one. I need at least someone to care about and root for. In Glee, I had five people, plus nifty musical numbers. This...I don't even have the musical numbers, just gory death scenes, and seriously who wants that?
* Blindspot --- has potential. My co-worker loves it. I find it a bit boiler-plate, but I admittedly have watched too many tv shows in my life-time. It feels a bit like Orphan Black meets the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. A woman has her memory completely wiped, and her skin covered with tattoos, then she's dumped naked in a duffel bag in the middle of Times Square. The duffel has a tag stating that they should "CAll the FBI". Oh and on her back is the name of a top level FBI agent, Kurt Weller. Apparently each of her tattoos holds a clue to her identity and to various terrorist attacks around the city or country. It's a treasure map of sorts.
So, each episode will be unraveling the mystery behind each individual tattoo. The case of the week is the terrorist or criminal action that the tattoo is a clue to, and the back plot is who is this woman and what does the tattoo and the case reveal about her.
She's clearly a trained fighter, with awesome shooting and kung fu skills. (And has a Navy Seals Special Ops Tattoo hidden under a new tattoo.) We're also shown the man who trained her and did this to her - but no clue if he is a villain or what exactly.
Like I said, it has potential, but it's nothing new or that we haven't seen before, exactly.
3. ) I've finished Grant Morrison's New X-men - which overall, was quite good. Got a bit weak towards the end. And the art was uneven. Morrison, unfortunately, didn't get to choose or keep his pick of the artists, which caused problems. Graphic novels work best if the art remains consistent throughout, and there's a true collaboration between artist and writer. (Which is why the best graphic novels are either written and drawn by the same person or have a collaborative team.)
That said, even though Frank Quitely's run was most likely the best. My favorite part of the series was the Wolverine/Cyclops buddy trip, against Cyclops better judgment (Wolverine basically gets Cyke blind drunk, throws him over his shoulder and dumps him at the facility that he wants him to investigate at his side, as back-up.). This had some of the best character moments of the series.
I honestly don't think male comic book writers handle male/female romantic relationships that well.
Cyke and Wolverine have the best character arcs in this series. Although Wolverine is stretched a bit thin at this point (the character is in literally every single X-men comic book). Cyke hits rock bottom. He loses everything - his wife, his self-esteem, his world-view, his ideology, and his friends. He comes thisclose to permanently leaving the X-men. Actually he does, but 150 years later, a resurrected Jean Grey/Phoenix decides to send a thought message back in time to change his mind - because otherwise the world will blow apart in the distant future. So she pushes him into Emma Frost's arms. This whole story arc, entitled "Here Comes Tomorrow" feels rather contrived. The writer is clearly attempting to justify and sell Scott/Cyke's new love relationship with Emma, even though the love of his life and his wife just died, and keep him on the team. It's not surprising that Hank, Wolverine, Rachel and various other team mates take issue with this development.
I also found the death of Jean Grey rather contrived. I don't think the writers know what to do with the character. They keep killing her off. It's annoying because her relationship with Cyke had finally gotten interesting. Complicated, messy, and interesting. I would have liked to see if they could have worked it out, or worked through it a bit. Serial writers, particularly male serial writers, for some reason or other have problems writing long monogamous romantic relationships. I don't know why. For some reason they find writing battle scenes more interesting. (And we wonder why there are so many wars.)
Anyhow. Now re-reading Joss Whedon and John Cassiday's Astonishing X-men, which is much better than I remembered. Whedon apparently learned something from Grant Morrison's run and insisted on two things - the same artist and team collaborating with him all the way through, and a limited run of about 22 issues or thereabouts. Smart. I wish he was smart about the Buffy comics. (oh well). Whedon made it clear that writers and artists needed to collaborate, and switching the team up, was jarring to everyone involved including the readers.
I'm enjoying Whedon's take more this go-around than I did the last time. In part because I'm not shipping the same characters/relationships that I did back then, and because I'm fascinated by the same character arc and themes that Whedon is fascinated by -- at least when he was writing it.
It helps greatly if you are on the same page as the writer.
The first go-around, I was shipping Wolverine, who Whedon felt had been overdone and couldn't resist poking fun at. And Kitty Pryde with some guy, who I've since forgotten. I can only vaguely picture the character. And his name escapes me. (I think it was Peter something, which can't be right because that was also Colossus first name. I just know he shot knives out of his wrists and had a razor sharp wit and a long duster.) At the time this character, whose name I've forgotten, that I was shipping Shadowcat aka Kitty Pryde with, reminded me of Spike (probably the razor sharp wit and leather jacket), and Colossus reminded me of Angel (the brooding demeanor, thick body, dark hair, and the lack of a neck). And had decided like many other fans that this was evidence that Whedon shipped Bangle over Spuffy. (I've since come to the conclusion this isn't true. And Whedon like most male serial writers could not care less about romantic relationships...and does whatever he thinks will make the characters or plot intriguing or fit his theme. Also, they won't stay together anyhow, because he thinks that's boring. One or the other will be killed off, or something incredibly tragic and angsty. In short, he goes for the relationship that is bound to be the most tragic. The man has read too many Shakespearean tragedies.)
At any rate, these aren't problems now. I tend to agree with Whedon, Wolverine has been overdone and the character stretched far past his limit. (Serial writers have a tendency to do this - when they inherit the characters/story, they decide to re-interpret it to fit whatever theme or plot arc they've dreamed up. Often at the expense of the character. Wolverine is sort of easy to do this with, because there's built in loop-holes. He had memory implants and he's immortal, and dates back to the 1800s. So basically the skies the limit - as long as you write him as the tough badass thug with a heart of gold, you're okay. So to date they've managed to explore every possible cliche, stereotype and angle on that trope that exists.) Whedon kept poking fun at the trope, often with jokes at Wolverine's expense, which I'm finding hilarious now -- but didn't when I first read it. Mainly because I no longer care all that much about Wolverine.
Nor do I care who Kitty Pryde winds up with. For one thing, I already know she's not going to end up with Colossus. In 2015, she was dating Iceman. Whedon just put them together for maximum angst.
This is of course aided by the fact that I can't remember the romantic relationship she was in that I'd been shipping.
All of this just goes to show you how shipping characters/relationships can if you aren't careful get in the way of your overall enjoyment of story arc.
Whedon's take on the X-men is rather interesting. He's exploring the problematic nature of leadership.
And much like Morrison before him, focusing his attention of Cyclops. Actually, the characters who get the most attention during Whedon's arc are Kitty Pryde, Cyclops, Emma Frost, and Hank. And he does an adept job of psychologically breaking down the character of Cyclops then building him up again into a tough badass, take no prisoners, leader that others respect. And..Whedon is good at dialogue. Much better than a lot of comic book writers are, unfortunately.
So far so good.
The problem I had with these was the damn commercial interruptions. Can't help but wonder what it would be like if I wasn't constantly fast-forwarding through commercials every 15 or 10 minutes. As a result of the commercials, some of which were flash-forward previews regarding what will happen next in between commercials, so you don't give up, I found it hard to follow. Not to mention jarring.
Note to television writers producing shows for "commercial" television - out of order narratives or jumpy narratives are hard to follow when you are interrupted by commercials. It interrupts the flow.
I felt I should get that out of the way first. My main issue with Doctor Who, and probably the reason I was never "fannish" about it - is it is geared more towards "horror" than really speculative science fiction/fantasy/adventure. Basically the writer is interested in examining what scares us. This has never had a great deal of appeal for me. I'm not a big fan of horror. I like it, but sparingly. If you aren't a horror fan -- you probably don't like Doctor Who all that much.
Ignoring both of those quibbles? (Because one, let's face isn't the writers fault, he wrote the series for non-commercial television, and two, it's a horror series. Hello. Sort of know that going into it.) It was an interesting series of episodes. Playing around once again with the idea of mercy and war. And enemies vs. friends. The Doctor at the end of it, chooses to save the child who will one day become he's most dreaded enemy, to show mercy, as opposed to the more tempting choice - to kill him.
Hmmm...this seems to be an on-going theme in the items that I've been reading lately. The protagonist is given a chance to kill a horrible enemy who is responsible for mass genocide prior to it happening, or the enemy either rising to power, or making that choice. In both cases, the protagonist makes the choice to either kill the enemy or abandon them to certain death. But it doesn't work. So, in the end they don't give in, and either save the enemy, or don't cause their death.
There's a rather long scene, made longer by commercial interruptions, where the Doctor and Davros (sp?), the creator of the Daleks or Father of the Daleks, chat. Davros is apparently dying and wants to see the sunrise one last time. He wonders if at the end of the day, is he a good man? Did he do the best he could for his people? His people had so many invasions and so many battles that they eventually encased themselves in tanks or machines of warfare as protection. The Doctor wonders much the same thing - is he a good man? Then, in a moment of compassion, the Doctor decides to share his life force with his enemy, so that his enemy can see the sunrise. That moment - gives his enemy the upper hand and the enemy attempts to steal the Doctor's energy, turning himself into a hybrid.
The Master/Missy stops it in time (although that's not exactly clear...), and the Doctor hunts down Clara, only to find a Dalek, which Missy claims killed Clara. (It is in reality, Clara - which is reminiscent of Clara's first appearance on the series, where she was in fact a Darlek. Except this time around she can escape the casing of the Darlek, it's not permanent.) The Doctor figures out that it is Clara, when the Dalek she's inside interrupts her pleas as "Mercy".
"Would you kill me?" The Doctor asks.
"Mercy. Do not kill. Mercy." Clara, the Darlek, responds.
Which gives him pause. How did it learn mercy? And that enables him to find Clara, and motivates him to go back in time to save the child who is to become Davros. To show the child mercy, in the hope that he will somehow remember it and instill it in his creations.
Davros tells the Doctor that his weakness, his fatal flaw is his compassion. Yet in reality it is his compassion that saves Clara and himself.
Overall not bad. Just difficult to follow and bit dull in spaces, partly due to the commercials.
2. New American Television Series
* Scream Queens -- I gave up halfway through, around the 30 minute mark. I'd read good reviews of it. But here's the thing, Ryan Murphy's unique and rather flamboyant (read over the top) brand of cultural satire/parody either works for you or it really doesn't. Don't get me wrong, I didn't find it offensive so much as boring. I didn't care about any of the characters. And I kept wondering why all these rich entitled college kids weren't using smartphones 24/7 like their real life counterparts? In short, I was taken out of the story intermittently by the thought - why aren't they taking pictures of that with their cell phones? Why don't they have their cell phones on them? Clearly Murphy and Falchuck are of my generation and don't seem to realize that everyone under the age of 30, with few exceptions, has a cell phone as a third appendage.
But my main difficulty, was none of the characters was relateable, interesting, charming, or compelling. Not one. I need at least someone to care about and root for. In Glee, I had five people, plus nifty musical numbers. This...I don't even have the musical numbers, just gory death scenes, and seriously who wants that?
* Blindspot --- has potential. My co-worker loves it. I find it a bit boiler-plate, but I admittedly have watched too many tv shows in my life-time. It feels a bit like Orphan Black meets the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. A woman has her memory completely wiped, and her skin covered with tattoos, then she's dumped naked in a duffel bag in the middle of Times Square. The duffel has a tag stating that they should "CAll the FBI". Oh and on her back is the name of a top level FBI agent, Kurt Weller. Apparently each of her tattoos holds a clue to her identity and to various terrorist attacks around the city or country. It's a treasure map of sorts.
So, each episode will be unraveling the mystery behind each individual tattoo. The case of the week is the terrorist or criminal action that the tattoo is a clue to, and the back plot is who is this woman and what does the tattoo and the case reveal about her.
She's clearly a trained fighter, with awesome shooting and kung fu skills. (And has a Navy Seals Special Ops Tattoo hidden under a new tattoo.) We're also shown the man who trained her and did this to her - but no clue if he is a villain or what exactly.
Like I said, it has potential, but it's nothing new or that we haven't seen before, exactly.
3. ) I've finished Grant Morrison's New X-men - which overall, was quite good. Got a bit weak towards the end. And the art was uneven. Morrison, unfortunately, didn't get to choose or keep his pick of the artists, which caused problems. Graphic novels work best if the art remains consistent throughout, and there's a true collaboration between artist and writer. (Which is why the best graphic novels are either written and drawn by the same person or have a collaborative team.)
That said, even though Frank Quitely's run was most likely the best. My favorite part of the series was the Wolverine/Cyclops buddy trip, against Cyclops better judgment (Wolverine basically gets Cyke blind drunk, throws him over his shoulder and dumps him at the facility that he wants him to investigate at his side, as back-up.). This had some of the best character moments of the series.
I honestly don't think male comic book writers handle male/female romantic relationships that well.
Cyke and Wolverine have the best character arcs in this series. Although Wolverine is stretched a bit thin at this point (the character is in literally every single X-men comic book). Cyke hits rock bottom. He loses everything - his wife, his self-esteem, his world-view, his ideology, and his friends. He comes thisclose to permanently leaving the X-men. Actually he does, but 150 years later, a resurrected Jean Grey/Phoenix decides to send a thought message back in time to change his mind - because otherwise the world will blow apart in the distant future. So she pushes him into Emma Frost's arms. This whole story arc, entitled "Here Comes Tomorrow" feels rather contrived. The writer is clearly attempting to justify and sell Scott/Cyke's new love relationship with Emma, even though the love of his life and his wife just died, and keep him on the team. It's not surprising that Hank, Wolverine, Rachel and various other team mates take issue with this development.
I also found the death of Jean Grey rather contrived. I don't think the writers know what to do with the character. They keep killing her off. It's annoying because her relationship with Cyke had finally gotten interesting. Complicated, messy, and interesting. I would have liked to see if they could have worked it out, or worked through it a bit. Serial writers, particularly male serial writers, for some reason or other have problems writing long monogamous romantic relationships. I don't know why. For some reason they find writing battle scenes more interesting. (And we wonder why there are so many wars.)
Anyhow. Now re-reading Joss Whedon and John Cassiday's Astonishing X-men, which is much better than I remembered. Whedon apparently learned something from Grant Morrison's run and insisted on two things - the same artist and team collaborating with him all the way through, and a limited run of about 22 issues or thereabouts. Smart. I wish he was smart about the Buffy comics. (oh well). Whedon made it clear that writers and artists needed to collaborate, and switching the team up, was jarring to everyone involved including the readers.
I'm enjoying Whedon's take more this go-around than I did the last time. In part because I'm not shipping the same characters/relationships that I did back then, and because I'm fascinated by the same character arc and themes that Whedon is fascinated by -- at least when he was writing it.
It helps greatly if you are on the same page as the writer.
The first go-around, I was shipping Wolverine, who Whedon felt had been overdone and couldn't resist poking fun at. And Kitty Pryde with some guy, who I've since forgotten. I can only vaguely picture the character. And his name escapes me. (I think it was Peter something, which can't be right because that was also Colossus first name. I just know he shot knives out of his wrists and had a razor sharp wit and a long duster.) At the time this character, whose name I've forgotten, that I was shipping Shadowcat aka Kitty Pryde with, reminded me of Spike (probably the razor sharp wit and leather jacket), and Colossus reminded me of Angel (the brooding demeanor, thick body, dark hair, and the lack of a neck). And had decided like many other fans that this was evidence that Whedon shipped Bangle over Spuffy. (I've since come to the conclusion this isn't true. And Whedon like most male serial writers could not care less about romantic relationships...and does whatever he thinks will make the characters or plot intriguing or fit his theme. Also, they won't stay together anyhow, because he thinks that's boring. One or the other will be killed off, or something incredibly tragic and angsty. In short, he goes for the relationship that is bound to be the most tragic. The man has read too many Shakespearean tragedies.)
At any rate, these aren't problems now. I tend to agree with Whedon, Wolverine has been overdone and the character stretched far past his limit. (Serial writers have a tendency to do this - when they inherit the characters/story, they decide to re-interpret it to fit whatever theme or plot arc they've dreamed up. Often at the expense of the character. Wolverine is sort of easy to do this with, because there's built in loop-holes. He had memory implants and he's immortal, and dates back to the 1800s. So basically the skies the limit - as long as you write him as the tough badass thug with a heart of gold, you're okay. So to date they've managed to explore every possible cliche, stereotype and angle on that trope that exists.) Whedon kept poking fun at the trope, often with jokes at Wolverine's expense, which I'm finding hilarious now -- but didn't when I first read it. Mainly because I no longer care all that much about Wolverine.
Nor do I care who Kitty Pryde winds up with. For one thing, I already know she's not going to end up with Colossus. In 2015, she was dating Iceman. Whedon just put them together for maximum angst.
This is of course aided by the fact that I can't remember the romantic relationship she was in that I'd been shipping.
All of this just goes to show you how shipping characters/relationships can if you aren't careful get in the way of your overall enjoyment of story arc.
Whedon's take on the X-men is rather interesting. He's exploring the problematic nature of leadership.
And much like Morrison before him, focusing his attention of Cyclops. Actually, the characters who get the most attention during Whedon's arc are Kitty Pryde, Cyclops, Emma Frost, and Hank. And he does an adept job of psychologically breaking down the character of Cyclops then building him up again into a tough badass, take no prisoners, leader that others respect. And..Whedon is good at dialogue. Much better than a lot of comic book writers are, unfortunately.
So far so good.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-09-27 11:20 pm (UTC)And agree re Blindspot. I wanted to like it, but wasn't all that hooked. But think I'll try three or four episodes before totally giving up.
Tonight, Indian Summers. We'll see (far from fantasy or horror in one sense, but right there in another...)
no subject
Date: 2015-09-28 01:46 pm (UTC)Haven't seen Indian Summers yet.
no subject
Date: 2015-09-28 05:57 am (UTC)At the time, bringing her back to Piotr felt like they were trying to make her a kid again.
Once they got over writing her as a child, it no longer mattered whom she's shipped with.
no subject
Date: 2015-09-28 01:44 pm (UTC)I'd have to agree, the later relationship, much like Buffy's with Spike was in some respects the more mature one, in that Kitty was older. Although - rife with fighting, so maybe not.
They wrote her older in the arc...so it didn't matter. And now that I know where that arc goes...it's hard to care.
no subject
Date: 2015-09-28 05:57 pm (UTC)It never ceases to amaze me how differently things are viewed in different places/countries/cultures/contexts. Doctor Who is a childrens/family show, aimed at 8 year olds. Yes, it's scary, because kids like scary things. There have been a few instances of the show properly freaking my kids out, but generally they're very sturdy and take it all in their stride. If I told them people thought of it as 'horror' they wouldn't believe me. :)
turning himself into a hybrid.
The Master/Missy stops it in time (although that's not exactly clear...)
What happened was that the energy went into all the Daleks - including those in the sewer/graveyard, who then rose up and killed the other Daleks. Just like Missy had demonstrated earlier. The whole thing revolved around a pun! (The sewers are revolting!) <3
Davros tells the Doctor that his weakness, his fatal flaw is his compassion. Yet in reality it is his compassion that saves Clara and himself.
Indeed. And that is the best possible message. I love this show. (“Never cruel or cowardly. Never give up, never give in.”)
Mostly I can't imagine anyone being forced to watch it with adverts thrown in. It must kill the flow of everything completely dead. :(
no subject
Date: 2015-09-28 09:23 pm (UTC)So your kids don't think monsters, spiders, the stone angels, evil robots, hands with eyes grabbing people are horror? Or frightening? Interesting.
Hmmm...
Definition of horror:
Horror fiction, horror literature and also horror fantasy are genres of literature, which are intended to, or have the capacity to frighten, scare, or startle their readers or viewers by inducing feelings of horror and terror. Literary historian J. A. Cuddon has defined the horror story as "a piece of fiction in prose of variable length... which shocks or even frightens the reader, or perhaps induces a feeling of repulsion or loathing".[1] It creates an eerie and frightening atmosphere. Horror is usually supernatural, though it can be non-supernatural. Often the central menace of a work of horror fiction can be interpreted as a metaphor for the larger fears of a society.
Even Stephen Moffat coonsiders Doctor Who horror.
no subject
Date: 2015-09-29 06:04 am (UTC)"Maybe this isn't new but it is my view: Doctor Who is a fairy tale – not sci-fi, not fantasy but properly a fairy tale. And I don't mean Disney-style where the endings are changed and everyone lives. Doctor Who is how we warn our children that there are people in the world who want to eat them."
Steven Moffat
Indeed, if I had to think of a good tag line/summary for the show then I don't think I could do better than the one for the recent Cinderella movie: 'Have courage and be kind.'
The point isn't horror (although it's traditionally the show that 'makes kids hide behind the sofa' <3) - the point is how you respond to the scary thing. As Moffat once said:
"However dark, however scary it gets, you know the Doctor will come, will save the day, and will do it in a good, and kind, and brave way."
no subject
Date: 2015-09-29 10:29 pm (UTC)(Seriously, what does my nationality have to do with this? Or where I live? I have friends who are American who adore Doctor Who and are old school Who. Including a homosexual, Unitarian Universalist Minister.)
So, I'll rephrase... I personally don't tend to enjoy television shows where people are chasing and fighting monsters constantly. It's a thing. I'll watch them here and there, but they aren't really to my taste. Buffy, I managed to get past it, because I adored the characters and the story.
BTW: I categorize television shows about monsters (scarey is relative) as horror. By monsters, I mean supernatural or scientific things that are gross, gory, scarey, intended generally speaking to horrify people.
Methinks you are defining horror far too narrowly and placing a bizarre value judgement on the genre that I never intended.
no subject
Date: 2015-09-30 12:33 pm (UTC)Uh. We appear to operating on two different wave-lenths here. Because your responses are really bewildering. Actually all of these responses are bewildering.
(Seriously, what does my nationality have to do with this? Or where I live? I have friends who are American who adore Doctor Who and are old school Who. Including a homosexual, Unitarian Universalist Minister.)
The fact that you are bewildered sort of perfectly demonstrates my (our) point. To you (to audiences worldwide, generally) it’s just another TV show, and you categorise it as such. (It has scary monsters, ergo it is horror.) To people in Britain it is culture, and it is history - basically, it’s an institution. It’s people’s shared childhoods for three generations. Daleks, Police phone boxes – these are cultural icons, much like red post boxes or London cabs or bowler hats. It’s entirely possible that British children are born with a knowledge of Doctor Who somewhere in their DNA. Because they know. (I’m only half-joking here.) It’s not about being a fan (like you say, there are plenty of American fans), it’s about shared cultural history. I’m sure more kids would recognise a Dalek than a picture of Jesus, even if they’ve never watched the show in their lives. When we say it’s a fairy tale, we mean that quite literally. The story about the daft old man who stole a magic box and ran away is as familiar to British people as Snow White or Cinderella. Except it keeps regenerating, the story ever-evolving. (And do you categorise fairy tales as horror? They certainly qualify.)
I’m not quite sure what to compare it to in American terms. 4th of July celebrations maybe, or Thanksgiving? Something so deeply embedded that people don’t think about it. Maybe the Muppets could be a vaguely similar thing. Everyone knows Kermit, right? Even if they’re never watched any of the TV shows/movies.
The show itself is unashamedly left-wing, anti-war, etc. (See paratti’s comment) F.ex. ‘The Happiness Patrol’ (from 1988) was a direct (and very thinly veiled) criticism of Thatcher and her policies.
Craig Ferguson encapsulated the show perfectly with ‘Intellect and romance triumph over brute force and cynicism’. If you want to categorise it as ‘horror’ then that is your prerogative – but you are missing a vital component. (It’s almost like a British in-joke, and you don’t get it unless you live here – or go out of your way to study its cultural significance. Much like I know how there were parts of Doing Time on Planet Earth that fell just that bit outside my understanding/knowledge. Most things travel, but specific cultural markers often fail to make the transition completely.)
So, I'll rephrase... I personally don't tend to enjoy television shows where people are chasing and fighting monsters constantly. It's a thing.
Well, it *is* aimed at 8 year olds… Grown-ups are allowed to enjoy it, but the show belongs to the children. And no, it’s not too complicated. F.ex. this week, Darcy – about halfway through – said something about how he’d understood nothing so far. I had to physically stop my ten year old from explaining it to him (at great length), as he was quite simply being facetious, which she didn’t realise. (She knew what was happening.) I can still remember once when the girls watched an episode a few years ago – on replay – at my in-laws. Their grandfather came in and asked what was happening. To which the response was (and writing does in no way convey how dismissive it was): “Oh it's way too complicated for you granddad– you don’t even know who River Song is!”
It’s their show, and they know it. Until they grow up and can complain how it's not as good as it was, and nowhere near as scary. ;)
no subject
Date: 2015-10-02 03:11 am (UTC)So, will attempt to clarify?
What I was trying to explain in my post above, but clearly did a poor job of. Was that the reason I wasn't a huge fan of Doctor Who as a kid was partly because it had scary monsters. Now, the US equivalent of Doctor Who probably is Star Trek. A series that started in the 1960s, and even though the original series ended after three years, it continued in various forms all the way until now. It, like Doctor Who is for the Brits, is deeply connected to American culture, and there are things within it that most likely are lost on people who are not immersed in American culture. Much like James Bond is lost on Americans, or Star Wars is to a degree lost on the Brits.
But that's not why I wasn't a fan of Who or why I was a fan of Star Wars. In the 1970s, I didn't like Star Trek. A series that is big in the US. Why? It was too scary. I have a love/hate relationship with scarey. Some things that are scary bug me, some don't. For example? The Darlek's? Not scarey. But the cloud monster that devoured humans in an Tom Baker episode that aired in the 1970s, that I vaguely remember, did. I had nightmares about it - hence the memory. And there was an episode of Star Trek where a monster infected people and they got warped, which scared me. So I avoided both Doctor Who and Star Trek as a kid. Also the Twilight Zone (which I consider horror with scary monsters, and is possibly the best sci-fi anthology series ever.) Also, both were heavy mystery or monster of the week. Not my thing. I love serials.
When Doctor Who first aired in the US. It was the late 70s. Or that's when I first became aware of it. It aired on Public Broadcasting System (PBS). PBS is a government and subscriber funded channel. It was at that time the only channel that got British imports. And it depended where you lived - which programs you actually got. For instance, New York got Doctor Who, while Kansas City got Monty Python. Not all PBS stations across the US aired the same programs.
In 1978, two major things happened. I moved to Kansas City. And I saw the movie Star Wars. Which is most likely my equivalent of Doctor Who. And it is imbedded in American Culture, well along with the Loony Tunes. Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck are as American as Westerns. The importance of my move to Kansas City is that I could no longer access Doctor Who -- it didn't air in Kansas City. So I forgot it existed until I met people online in the Buffy fandom. I had British friends but they never mentioned it.
While, many of my New Yorker friends, who have never lived anywhere else, were huge Doctor Who fans in the 1970s. They saw all the imported episodes.
Star Wars is important - because, I didn't want to see it at first. I was convinced it would be scary like all science fiction shows. With monsters. But my parents talked me into it - and I fell in love. I was around 10 or 11. Finally a science fiction/fantasy show without scary monsters. Oh it had monsters, but they didn't scare me for some reason. It was just fun. Star Wars is my Doctor Who.
I don't tend to like case of the week series or episodic, I prefer operatic serials. I more of a Star Wars fan than a Star Trek fan. I like horror, but I don't like being scared.
I don't like nightmares. So tend to avoid anything that gives them. But I will obviously make allowances for series that are worth my time, like Doctor Who and Twilight Zone.
That said? I do like Doctor Who. Quite a bit. But I can't be a fan. Not the way I am of Buffy, Star Wars, Battle Star Galatica, and the X-men. That's not to say it's not excellent or amazing. It just doesn't connect to me in the same way.
no subject
Date: 2015-10-03 01:03 pm (UTC)Often the central menace of a work of horror fiction can be interpreted as a metaphor for the larger fears of a society.
Doctor Who is largely about posing monsters that can be interpreted as metaphors for psychological or sociological dangers--this is horror, and it is something that Doctor Who does reliably every single episode. Science fiction is about posing a speculative question and interpreting that in a scientifically realistic way through fiction, which Doctor Who dabbles in sometimes, but it is not really the point. Generally the sci-fi elements are a vehicle to get to the 'horror' core (Or at least they are in modern Who. I get the sense that Classic Who probably skewed a bit more to the scifi end, at least sometimes.) Likewise, Star Wars is not really science fiction (as hard-core scifi fans never tire of pointing out), but uses science fiction trappings to tell a fantasy/space opera/space western story.
So, yes, horror is supposed to be scary, but the measure of horror is not how scary it is, but what mechanisms it is using. And yes, by this measure, fairy tales are 'horror.'
Hi shadowkat! Sorry to butt in.
Thank you for butting in!
Date: 2015-10-03 05:43 pm (UTC)Doctor Who is largely about posing monsters that can be interpreted as metaphors for psychological or sociological dangers--this is horror, and it is something that Doctor Who does reliably every single episode. Science fiction is about posing a speculative question and interpreting that in a scientifically realistic way through fiction, which Doctor Who dabbles in sometimes, but it is not really the point.
Generally the sci-fi elements are a vehicle to get to the 'horror' core (Or at least they are in modern Who. I get the sense that Classic Who probably skewed a bit more to the scifi end, at least sometimes.)
This - is exactly what I was attempting to explain above. Thank you so much for articulating it so well. (Actually, everything you stated above is what I was trying to say.
No quibbles.)
And no worries. Feel free to butt in at any time!
Likewise, Star Wars is not really science fiction (as hard-core scifi fans never tire of pointing out), but uses science fiction trappings to tell a fantasy/space opera/space western story.
I'd agree. Certainly not hard sci-fi. Most science fiction on television and the movies doesn't really qualify as "science-fiction". It's more of a blend. I think "Star Trek" comes closest to speculative science fiction and possibly Battle Star Galatica?
Twilight Zone - at times fit the category of speculative science fiction, although quite a bit of it was horror similar to the modern Doctor Who.
I can't really say anything about old school Doctor Who, because I had no access to it.
I saw two or three episodes when I was 10 or 11 in Pennsylvania in the 1970s. We moved, it was not available.
Re: Thank you for butting in!
Date: 2015-10-04 07:58 am (UTC)And I think if we can agree that the show is fairy tale/horror for 8 year olds, we are probably good. :)
Re: Thank you for butting in!
Date: 2015-10-04 02:07 pm (UTC)For example:
Friend: You do realize that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is marketed to tween girls?
Me: Yes, but it contains adult material and is being analyzed by scholars.
Doctor Who much like BtVS has a fan base of people who are in their 40s, don't have kids, and didn't necessarily watch it as children. I deliberately avoided saying it was a show for children for that reason. A good show is one that is targeted at all demographics and ages not just one.
Compare for example: RL Stine's Goosebumps which is obviously marketed to and for 8 year olds. It's just kids dealing with scary monsters. Or Scooby Doo Where Are? - was a show just for kids. OR Frozen - just for kids.
But Doctor Who deals with broader more adult themes, with layers. It's targeted at everyone from 8-80, hence it's longevity. The television series, Grimm, which involves fairy tale monsters - is for adults, much too scary for kids, although they do watch. Once Upon a Time is marketed towards the whole family, also fairy tale series.
So no, we don't agree that Doctor Who is just a show for 8 year olds. That's Goosebumps. No more than the Muppet Show is for 8 year olds, it's actually very adult.
Re: Thank you for butting in!
Date: 2015-10-04 02:58 pm (UTC)If Doctor Who does not address kids then it’s not Doctor Who. That’s where the 1996 film [starring Paul McGann] went wrong. It was far too grown up and even had one scene of the Doctor at a cocktail party – how boringly dull! Doctor Who is supposed to be a fanatical hero who does amazing things!
-
I agree with absolutely everything you say - but that very first bit about "the children's own program that adults adore" that was a critic's quote on the back of the Doctor Who books. And to be honest, I'm not sure Doctor Who's particular place in the world as ever been summed up better.
Especially "own program" - children do seem to feel a real ownership of this show; that it's somehow theirs and adults are only allowed in if they promise to behave. My little boy gets hugely indignant if he catches me watching Doctor Who without him - never mind I'm making notes on an edit, he's furious. Cos it's HIS program and if it's being watched in HIS house, then he better be in the damn room.
Can't find it in my heart to argue.
-
If you like and enjoy Doctor Who, then Doctor Who is aimed squarely at YOU. Absolutely at YOU. Lovely, wonderful, great-taste-in-telly YOU. And what do YOU (and we love YOU) care about who else its aimed at?
Really, in a way, this whole discussion - about who Who is aimed - isn't FOR you lot. You lot ARE the audience, what could possibly interest YOU (and everyone in Wales sends their love to YOU) in any of this?
It's a discussion for people making the show. It's about a tone and taste - Doctor Who (whatever the composition of the audience) is absolutely a childrens show in terms of its strictures, limits and imperatives. All the talk at meetings is about what the eight-year-olds will think. Cos igniting the imaginations of eight-year-olds is pretty much - no, is EXACTLY - the mission statement.
A side benefit, of course, is that adults are in fact eight-year-olds with increased body-mass and frowning. So of course, THEY'LL watch! Of course they will. Get it right for the eight-year-olds and the adults will follow - nothing is more certain.
It's like - no really, it is - when you go into a restaurant, and you're looking at the menu, and you're being all adult, and you're thinking, ooh, maybe lettuce soup, or a carrot rissotto, or perhaps just a glass of water and slap from the Maitre D ... and your eye drifts (oh, how it drifts) to the children's menu!
Sausage and mash! Burger and fries!! Actual size chocolate pigs!!!
Doctor Who is the children's menu. Like you're ever gonna grow out of that.
PS. There will be people who argue the children's menu is actually the adults menu. Let them. They're not going to be around for long.
-
Calling Dr Who a children's show isn't a definition of the audience, it's a definition of the SHOW. In style, pace, tone, sensibility, Dr Who stories are children's stories. Like Harry Potter, Star Wars, The Hobbit, Narnia, Toy Story, The Incredibles and all gorgeous, magical stuff. Does that mean it's not for adults? Don't be daft, adults love children's stories - just look at that list. Some of the most famous creations in the human history! People who grow out of children's stories are people who never understood them in the first place.
Grown-ups are not excluded from this party. Grown-ups are specifically targetted and invited. There are are generally at least two grown-ups per family, and we want the whole of that family round that telly. And we want each of them secretly thinking this programme is really for THEM.
The children's own programme that adults adore. Never been said better. That's what it is. That's what it says on the tin.
Re: Thank you for butting in!
Date: 2015-10-04 06:34 pm (UTC)There are television series that are for children only, and adults do not want to watch.
(Sesame Street, RL Stine's Goosebumps, Scooby Doo, H&R PuffnStuff, Bear in the Big Blue House, Doria Builds Her Dream House...Spongebob Square Pants (although some adult apparently love that one, so mileage varies). ) And there are movies and television programs that while appropriate for children or written for them, are also written for adults - family programming. Examples include Doctor Who, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (although I'm not sure I'd want a kid under the age of 16 watching S2-6, but that's just me) the Muppet Show (although not so much the most recent iteration, that skews more adult), Star Wars, Star Trek, Once Upon a Time, The Flash...on the movie side Star Wars, The Hobbit (although I think it's too violent for kids under the age of 14), The Avengers (also too violent), The Hunger Games (ditto - far too violent, my brother got into trouble for letting my 10 year old niece see it ), UP (Pixar), Toy Story (1-4)...
I think somethings sort of fall into a gray area. I know people who watched Glee, Supernatural and The Walking Dead with their 6-8 year olds.
no subject
Date: 2015-09-28 10:13 pm (UTC)Exactly that. It cuts the story to ribbons. Worse - they keep putting spoilers for upcoming scenes in between commercials...so you get confused on what is happening.
The whole scene with Missy surrounded by Darleks, happened twice, once in between commercials, then again when it was supposed to happen.
I also think bits and pieces have been cut to make room for the commercials. The show is about 40 minutes in the US. With about 20 minutes of commercials mingled in between.
no subject
Date: 2015-10-03 01:17 pm (UTC)Oh my god, this! I watch online first, but I decided to catch the BBC America broadcast for this episode that evening and that Missy scene confused me something awful. When they aired it as a 'preview' I was like 'what the . . . they just cut out like five minutes!' Before realizing what they were doing.
I also think bits and pieces have been cut to make room for the commercials. The show is about 40 minutes in the US. With about 20 minutes of commercials mingled in between.
From what I understand, for the initial airing they do show the whole thing, but that longer episodes get cut for reruns.
no subject
Date: 2015-10-03 04:46 pm (UTC)Yeah, that's about right. I noticed they did that with Buffy episodes. The reruns have about fifteen minutes cut. American Broadcast Networks think nothing of cutting five to ten minutes off a scripted series. They do it to break in for news casts, weather reports, additional commercials, or previews for the next series. It's annoying.
I think they may have to consider changing their methodology eventually - since people are fleeing in droves to "streaming" . Streaming is so much easier. I watched several series on "streaming" this summer and wow. I didn't realize how disruptive commercials are.
British television doesn't have commercials like we do. The ones that do, appear to air them before or after the program, much like PBS does.
no subject
Date: 2015-10-04 08:00 am (UTC)The BBC does have commercials. In between programmes it will have trailers for other shows.
All the other channels have commercials, but they're every 10/15/20 minutes depending on what's showing. So a movie/Sunday night drama will probably have adverts every 15-20 minutes. Something like You've Been Framed it'll be every 10-15 minutes.
And we very rarely have that 'keep watching, this is next' thing.
no subject
Date: 2015-10-04 01:50 pm (UTC)BBCAmerica is the only channel that does the whole "keep watching, this is the next thing" - not sure why they do it.
We have commercials every 5/10/15/20 minutes depending. Some shows you get the first act, the credits, commercial, show for 20 minutes, commercial for 10 minutes, show for 10 minutes, commercial for 15 minutes, show for fifteen minutes, commercial for five minutes, show for five minutes, commercials for the show that follows it, preview for the next episode.
Depends on the show, depends on the network. Commercials though last long enough here to go to the bathroom, fix something to eat, and surf the net all in one sitting, before show picks up again. And we usually have about five to ten different commercials during the break.
My niece - who'd been watching everything via a streaming device - was visiting my parents and discovered commercials for the first time. She was riveted and found them hilarious.
There are stations with no commercials or only before and after the program - such as PBS. Or Premium subscriber channels.
no subject
Date: 2015-10-04 02:59 pm (UTC)Apologies.
no subject
Date: 2015-09-29 04:57 am (UTC)Exactly. Not horror imo and I suspect most 'real' horror fans over here would find the idea that Who was just a horror show very amusing. :)
But then maybe European kids have a higher threshold for fantasy stuff?
no subject
Date: 2015-09-29 12:13 pm (UTC)Must be cultural. Most adults in this country would go 'Well, it's for kids, isn't it? And scary? Why it's all wobbly sets and rubber monsters!' ;)
(Also see my response above.)
no subject
Date: 2015-09-29 05:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-09-29 05:40 pm (UTC)A modern fairy tale, told to a whole country for 50+ years.
(I almost added something above about how the parents/grandparents would grumble that it wasn't as good as when *they* were young... But then, it's made for today's 8 year olds. Mine will always consider Eleven 'their' Doctor...)
no subject
Date: 2015-09-29 06:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-09-30 12:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-09-29 10:43 pm (UTC)Just because I didn't like watching television series with cheesy rubber monsters as a child, does not mean all Americans don't.
And the horror genre does all those themes.
no subject
Date: 2015-10-03 04:48 pm (UTC)There's about 100 horror series on American television.
The US equivalent of Doctor Who is Star Trek.