Re: Should Doctor Who have remained shelved?


Dahahn wrote:

> A cult tv nerd is someone who can't convince themselves that they are
> capable of enjoying the show? I don't think you though that one through,
> quite. Cult tv nerds think they are fans of "Lost" and "Mutant X", A grade
> and C grade, for nearly the same reasons.

I think they're both F-Grade, personally. Wow, you must be nerd to show
such a lack of discernment.

> They don't discern between the
> two. They don't get people who do. I think this is an honest blind spot for
> them, the way asperghers don't get body language... They're the ones who
> actually, geniunely, really aren't entirely sure just how different the
> starswars prequels are from the sequels.

I would have said that "cult nerds", as you describe them, are the very
people who were infuriated by the prequels; who thought they betrayed
everything the original series stood for; who decided they'd wasted
their life waiting for them; who burned all their Star Wars
memorabilia; who shouted maniacally at everyone that The Phantom Menace
was "just a jumped-up fireworks display of a toy advert."

Personally I thought the first one was cripplingly disappointing, the
second was appalling, and the third was a stonking great popcorn-fest
that overcome its dodgy performances and dialogue through sheer
exuberance. Don't know what that makes me though.

> They're the ones that aren't
> bothered too much by, say, the portrayal of Watson in Jeremy Bretts Holmes
> and the portrayal of Watson in Rathbone's movies.

Umm... no, I'm not bothered too much by these portrayals, because I
don't like Sherlock Holmes all that much so why would I care?

> I was once asked by a
> cult tv nerd friend what I thought was different about newWho. I boggled;
> "the actors doing it, the way they do it, the look of them, the look of the
> show, the way it sounds, the way if feels... are you kidding me with this
> question!"

Maybe s/he was honestly asking what you thought was the core difference
between both programmes, once you go beneath the surface and examine
the general thrust of the show. Or maybe the point was being made that
current Who might be totally different to the Tom Baker era, but no
more different than The Caves of Androzani is to The Sensorites. Maybe
s/he was looking for insight rather than handwaving. Oh well. I think
there are some interesting differences and would happily discuss them,
but of course I don't think "different" equates to "bad" and have a
weird desire to accept the new series on its own terms. Is that being a
cult TV nerd?

> I don't know exactly how much of it was unintentional (probably too
> much), but in it's heyday, drwho was not "tv as usual". It wasn't "the
> military in space" or "dashingly handsome captain in space" or "kung fu
> warriors in space" or "rocknrollers kickin arse in space"... Today it is
> "cockney Buffy" in space.

Could you back this up please (and actually really back it up, not the
usual "well it's so obvious I can't even answer the question)? There
are a few things the show takes Buffy in terms of how to convey a
story, but in terms of plot, characters, settings etc., they aren't
remotely similar. And is it cockney because it features London and
Londoners? Because if so it has always been a cockney programme.

In terms of what was on TV when new Doctor Who aired, it was incredibly
different. Before it aired, many people were broadcasting that it would
flop. The notion of "viewing by appointment" was considered dead. The
idea of the "family drama", which would appeal to multiple generations,
was thought to be old hat. Science fiction had stopped appealing to the
mainstream and was considered a niche product that would never have
true mass appeal. And the overriding flavour of television was for
navel-gazing, self-involved programmes that consisted of photogenic
twenty/thirty-somethings whining about their lack of a boy/girlfriend,
or how their neighbours thought they were a bit odd.

> Also, Britain is a smaller place than America and
> most other places, meaning it will be more lowest common denominator (like
> radio is compared to tv because radio has a smaller audience) and the BBC
> cranks out programming that is so awful that something just a little bit
> shiny is going to get stared at (get a high appreciation).

Unless the US is hiding all sorts of magnificent programming up its
sleeve, this is patently untrue. The overwhelming majority of US
imports are bloody appalling (and some of the better ones, such as Band
of Brothers, are co-produced with the BBC). The BBC, meanwhile, is
producing some of the best drama I've seen in years. Oh but sorry, I
forgot that you like Lost. Maybe I've chosen the wrong audience.

.

Quantcast