Re: RTD collects his OBE

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 01:55:48 -0000, "john smith"
<the_johnsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Ignis Fatuus" <Ignis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2996j4thl42eellk656pbsfv7pqgknk34h@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:41:25 -0000, "john smith"
<the_johnsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Ignis Fatuus" <Ignis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1i66j45jgchrjvdit3gf547h6qoukdqgun@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:59:01 -0000, "john smith"
<the_johnsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Ignis Fatuus" <Ignis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:m6a5j4h8lqpt5osipaumdclkebek3b6kg4@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 06:32:08 -0800 (PST), "pbowles@xxxxxxx"
<pbowles@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On 30 Nov, 12:20, Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 03:45:39 -0800 (PST), "pbow...@xxxxxxx"

<pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 30 Nov, 10:39, Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:53:41 -0800 (PST), "pbow...@xxxxxxx"

<pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 29 Nov, 23:47, Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:25:42 -0800 (PST), "pbow...@xxxxxxx"

<pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 29 Nov, 22:21, Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:48:25 -0800 (PST), "pbow...@xxxxxxx"

<pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 29 Nov, 15:45, Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 12:16:33 -0000, "Stephen Wilson"

<stephen.wilson2004nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Ignis Fatuus" <Ig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:nab1j45k91cpmn4khne6bhgd3630nvvss0@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 01:24:30 +0000, Jimmy Zarbuck
<zarbyh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

imipak wrote:
On Nov 28, 2:41 pm, Jimmy Zarbuck
<zarbyh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7754540.stm

The OBE has nothing to do with Dr Who - it's to do with
"services
to
entertainment". RTD has created shows that, indeed, serve to
entertain
a large portion of the British population. That's what he's
being
honoured for, not the fact that the most successful of those
shows
just happens to be Dr Who. And creating series with the viewers
he
gets is his achievement, not Syndey Newman's.

What services to Entertainmen? There has to be something
outstanding
to merit an award..

He gets outstanding audience figures - in a business whose sole
function is to divert as many people as possible by getting them to
turn on the TV, what more is there?

N,they're good not outstanding even by today's standards,

A four-year run in which the show's been in the top-rating broadcasts
of the week pretty much every time it's aired is more than 'good',
unless you can point to many other non-soaps that achieve similar
success? Top Gear, probably - anything else?

and they've
been achieved using a format developed nearly 50 years ago.

I don't think Gene Roddenberry's eligible for an OBE, so I'm not sure
how relevant it is that Who uses a Star Trek-like episodic format
these days. Pretty much all genre shows do, after all.

The
original creators of the show deserve the credit for that 'success'
He's merely a custodian, recycling that idea.

Once again, who cares? The award was not given in recognition for
bringing back Doctor Who - I don't think the show was so much as
mentioned. RTD's got better ratings, proportionately, and higher
placement in rankings for show viewing figures than the original show
did even when there were only two channels and less than a full day's
worth of programming on each every day.

The show was getting ten million plus viewers in the days when there
were on fourteen million households wit (mostly one) television sets -
as opposed to twenty five million plus households with multiple sets
today. It was continually broadcast for twenty five years I don't
think it needs RTD's recycled version to make it a success.

He, Gardner, Collinson, and Young together with a
team of writers designers directors etc. have recycled Newman's
idea
and achieved a modest success.

That's somewhat stretching the definition of 'modest'. He's
consistently achieved the highest non-soap ratings on the days when
his show has aired over a four-year period, and in the process
brought
back 'teatime entertainment'. His show and writers he's
commissioned
for it have won more awards than the old show ever did. Torchwood
is
entirely his creation, and is BBC3's highest-rated show. And that's
on
top of the success of Queer as Folk.

I belong to the vast majority of the population who've never seen
QAF.

So do I, but so what? That doesn't imply it wasn't a success - the
ratings indicate that it was. The "vast majority of the population"
doesn't watch any given show; even the major soaps don't get more than
about 25% of the total viewership. I belong to the vast majority of
the population who've never seen Coronation Street, but that doesn't
mean Coronation Street is unsuccessful. Queer as Folk got high ratings
on Channel 4, enough for a sequel series to be planned, and was among
the highest-rated shows on US cable, leading to an American remake.

So another third division success. That doesn't put him in the same
league as Tony Jordan, Paul Abbot, Nigel McRery, Anthony Horowitz,
Lynda la Plante and other succesful contemporary writers with
mainstream successes.
QAF was seen by no more than a few hundred thousand in this country
and owed it's limited success to voyeurism and debauchery rather than
drama.



Hahaha!
What absolute drivel! Especially since you admit to never having seen
the
show... You sound like Yads or one of those mad pro-Mary Whitehouse
clean-up-TV nutcases!


The spectacle of a bunch of so-called actors rutting like dogs on a
street corner would seem like reason enough for giving Mary Whitehouse
a seat in The Lords. I'm afraid that the lives of the pathetic
individuals portrayed in QAF don't interest me as Drama,
Entertainment, or Social Documentary; and from the accounts that I've
read the whole sorry production was just an exercise in pornographic
sensationalism.

= IF




Riiiight...
So your opinion is based on hearsay. You're really fucking intelligent,
aren't you?

It's based on reports that I have no reason to question. Are you
saying that I'm wrong in believing that the series contained graphic
scenes of sexual acts, and detailed accounts of sexual practices?



Yes. It was a late night Channel 4 drama, not a piece of hardcore
pornography as you seem to believe it to be.

"so-called actors rutting like dogs on a street corner..."<<<

Ludicrous! You sound like Mr Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells!

Channel 4's entire remit was to present alternative voices and alternative
forms of drama in contrast to the mainstream channels.


Are you saying then that this account from Wikipedia is inaccurate?

QUOTE
The first series caused controversy in the UK because many
conservatives were shocked at the frank language as well as the
depiction of a 15-year-old engaging in illegal homosexual acts with an
older man (the age of consent for gay men in the UK at the time was
18, though it has since been reduced to 16). The explicit nature of
the sex scenes also caused controversy; in particular the first
episode featured an extensive sex scene involving masturbation,
rimming, and ejaculation. The series became a ratings success despite
its late-night timeslot and the withdrawal of its main sponsor,
Beck's.
UNQUOTE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_as_Folk_(UK_TV_series)


I
don't need to watch that kind of thing to know that I will find it
repellent.

= IF




Fair enough. But your overly-emotional slating - on high-handed moral
grounds, even! - of something you haven't seen still shows you up to be a
bit of a prudish reactionary idiot. (I'm loathe to play the homophobic card
but you're sailing close to the wind in that area too...) "Queer As Folk"
was certainly perceived as controversial among the smugger elements of the
tabloid press but that doesn't mean it didn't have a huge audience and a
huge effect on TV drama.

Point being, RTD's OBE has been awarded for more than him piggybacking on
the coat-tails of Syndey Newman's questionable "creation" career as you'd
have us believe...


= IF
.

Loading