The Master
William Purry - Trent Park
Do you think there's any way to bring him back again, or is he
thoroughly knackered?
William Louis Andrew Ingram
William Purry - Trent Park wrote:
>
> Do you think there's any way to bring him back again, or is he
> thoroughly knackered?
He lives on within the TARDIS (possibly).
Maybe he will be able to gain control of where it is going?
William LA Ingram
quic...@aol.com
William Purry asked:
<<Do you think there's any way to bring him back again, or is he
thoroughly knackered?>>
I certainly hope they bring him back (if they continue making Doctor Who),
if for no other reason than to have him explain how the hell he morphed
into a bad-f/x snakey thing after possibly being executed.
Nick
---------
Nicholas Kaufmann
Quic...@aol.com
R. Dan Henry
quic...@aol.com wrote:
> I certainly hope they bring him back (if they continue making Doctor
> Who), if for no other reason than to have him explain how the hell he
> morphed into a bad-f/x snakey thing after possibly being executed.
No! He must stay dead. Unless Delgado returns from the grave to play
him. Let somebody else explain how he turned into the jelly snake. I
still think he may have stolen some nifty biogadget from the Rani to do
it.
--
R. Dan Henry (danh...@inreach.com)
Jonathan Blum
In article <Pine.OSF.3.93.961203...@library.lvc.edu>,
Jefferies Eng <j_...@lvc.edu> wrote:
>Oh, come off it. The FOX movie was awful.
[SNIP]
Oh, come off it. The FOX movie was wonderful.
If you still want to bash it, at least try to come up with more original
and substantiated criticisms than "It contained the worst plot" or "It was
too American" -- we've heard those, and torn 'em down, over and over
again.
Regards,
Jon Blum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"All this time you two thought you were playing some twisted game of
chess... when it was just me playing solitaire!"
D O C T O R W H O : T I M E R I F T
Dennis McLaughlin
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, cybe...@user1.channel1.com
(William Cameron) led us all to believe:
>On 2 Dec 1996 12:53:03 GMT, will...@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk (William Purry
>- Trent Park) wrote:
>
>>Do you think there's any way to bring him back again, or is he
>>thoroughly knackered?
>
> Ofcourse. Just think, What's-Left-Of-The-Master +
>What's-Left-Of-Omega.......
= Noel Edmunds
[Exit pursued by a bear]
Dennis McLaughlin
den...@anet-chi.com
Tank
Jefferies Eng wrote:
> Oh, come off it. The FOX movie was awful. It contained the worst plot.
> It was too "American." Worst of all, the Master sucked (actor and
> character). Delgado was good and so was Ainley. There is no way in Heck
> will I commit my children (if I ever have any) to the fate of watching
> this LAME movie.
> I myself, prefer shaky props and bad special effects as long as there is a
> plot (i.e. "Twin Dilemma," lack of sartorial taste and strangulation--not
> pretty). That was an example of a bad story.
> I rest my case. What's done is done and basically, I hated the FOX movie.
> Sincerely,
> Jefferson Eng
Ya know, I really get sick of all the American bashing that happens on
this ng. These people seem to think that Americans are the root of all
evil. First off I would like to point out that the movie was both
written and directed by British people. So what is American about it?
The actors? Yes. The F/X? Yes. I personally think that these are the two
strengths of the film. And an American managed to return DW to
television, something that all the British fans have not been able to
do. As for the Master, if you didn't like Eric Roberts' performance
that's your problem. Personally I think he did an excellent job. As
someone else pointed out, he managed to scare me, something the other
Masters failed to do. He may not have had a clever take over the world
scheme, but I think saving his own existence sort of took presidence
over that for the time. Paul McGann was excellent in the role and
figured out who the Doctor was for him much faster than any other actor
to take the part. Granted, he had to, but some actors wouldn't have been
able to do it. Grace was still just a token screamer and someone for the
Doctor to explain things to, but at least she understood most of what he
was saying unlike other companions who would say things like "What does
that mean?" and "I don't understand, could you explain it again?". The
TV movie had oposition from its start, mostly from British fans who were
afraid their Doctor would be too American. Well if you expect it, you
usually find what you are looking for. First Contact has the same
problem. People went expecting to be disappointed in it and nitpicked at
it until they found some way to be upset with it. I think you need to
try watching the TVM again but this time have an open mind!
Jonathan Blum
In article <32A618...@sprynet.com>, Tank <SDem...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>Ya know, I really get sick of all the American bashing that happens on
>this ng. These people seem to think that Americans are the root of all
>evil. First off I would like to point out that the movie was both
>written and directed by British people. So what is American about it?
>The actors? Yes.
Not even that, actually. Most of the minor roles were Canadian. Were
there even any other American actors besides Daphne and Eric?
Luke Gutzwiller
> In article <585f1k$ng8$1...@nargun.cc.uq.oz.au>,
> Gary Johnson <s31...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> >I can't speak for anyone else, but there were elements of the movie that I
> >felt were very "American" in feel,> >
Of course there were American elements! American money paid for it, and
most of the people involved were American.
> >both the companions came back from the dead through an unnecessary > >plot device,
> >just to avoid an unhappy ending. Such a trite, pat solution to a
> >difficult situation ("The Master's killed them both, they're gone for
> >good!") reminds me very much of the Power Rangers TV series, where > >no-one
> >ever dies in those fights where downtown Angel Grove is destoyed.
First of all, I speak on behalf of all Americans everywhere when I say
that "Power Rangers" is certainly not our fault! Blame the Japanese!
We are just as disgusted with that collective insult to our
intelligences as you are. Secondly, if we had to put up with the
"American" characters in "Tomb of the Cybermen", "The Chase", and others
(let's not overlook Peri!), everyone else can get "Americanized" Who and
love it! ("Revenge is a dish best served cold.") At least we got an
actual British actor to play the Doctor. Finally, what's wrong with
bringing Grace and Lee back? The Eye is a naked singularity, so all the
laws of nature are screwed up when it's open. Besides, it was
established in "The Deadly Assassin" that the Eye could grant life. The
Master was using it to jump-start a new cycle of regenerations, so why
couldn't it bring two measly humans back from the dead?
> >artificial optimism and refusal to put the characters in a position > >of
> >having to deal with messy, realistic problems> >
Let's face it, when have realistic problems ever featured in Doctor Who?
The Earth's twin planet returning? Alien intelligences leaking over
from another universe? I don't think so. When has the Master ever
threatened to use his deadly tax audit on the Doctor? Did the Valeyard
prosecute the Doctor for littering? Did anyone ever have an exciting
adventure about the Doctor locking his keys in the TARDIS?
> >No doubt this is exacerbated by the sheer quantity of programs and movies
> >made in America: there are similarly bad shows in Australia and the United
> >Kingdom,> >
Thank you.
< <but you get so many more in America because of the number of new
> >productions there.> >
Hey, I'll have you know that the ENTIRE WORLD buys our crap! Even
Australia and Britain.
> >However, there were other aspects of the movie that
> >struck me as being American in feel: the party scenes seemed so much > >like an out-take of Power Rangers that I kept waiting for the food > >fight to start;
The party was a minor scene. There wasn't time to cram a tear-jerking
tale of love, betrayal, murder, and tragedy in. Was everyone supposed
to sit around re-enacting scenes from Shakespeare?
> >and the young
> >man's conversion to the side of the heroes, which felt forced because > >it
> >wasn't clear *why* he was changing sides. Sure, he had a reason to > >change
> >sides, but his characterisation up to that point had not, IMO, > >established
> >his willingness to join the angels at the end.
Chang Lee was never portrayed as an evil person. He called an ambulance
for the Doctor, didn't he? He was simply misled by the Master's lies
and hypnotic influence. He was helping the Master after he'd been told
that the Master was simply reclaiming his OWN body, TARDIS, and whatnot
from this diabolical fiend that'd stolen everything from him.
> >I have to say this: one of the things I didn't enjoy about the movie > >was
> >the way Paul looked so much like what I would expect a stereotype of > >the
> >Doctor to be. Long unkempt hair, funny-looking suit, very English > >accent,
> >very much a stereotypical English eccentric. He looks so much to me > >as if
> >they wanted someone *English* to be the Doctor, and it is his > >Englishness
> >that strikes me as one of his most distinctive characteristics. Of > >course
> >the Doctor *is* very English: what I regret is that Paul hasn't had
> >enough screen time to establish his Doctor's particular character > >traits.
The Doctor has always seemed like a stereotypical English eccentric!
His hair was just as long in his fourth, early fifth, and sixth
incarnations. ALL the Doctors have sounded very English (or at least
British). I'm not even going to start on the outfit. Take one single
look at Colin Baker's Doctor.
________________________________________________________________________
Luke Gutzwiller
e-mail: luc...@probe.net
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/7529
"As American as apple pie, or at least banana cream."
Gary Johnson
Tank <SDem...@sprynet.com> writes:
>Ya know, I really get sick of all the American bashing that happens on
>this ng. These people seem to think that Americans are the root of all
>evil.
I can't speak for anyone else, but there were elements of the movie that I
felt were very "American" in feel, and that reduced my satisfaction
with the movie as a whole. The one that struck me the most was that both
the companions came back from the dead through an unnecessary plot device,
just to avoid an unhappy ending. Such a trite, pat solution to a
difficult situation ("The Master's killed them both, they're gone for
good!") reminds me very much of the Power Rangers TV series, where no-one
ever dies in those fights where downtown Angel Grove is destoyed. That
artificial optimism and refusal to put the characters in a position of
having to deal with messy, realistic problems strikes me as very similar
to the presentation of many American television and movies.
No doubt this is exacerbated by the sheer quantity of programs and movies
made in America: there are similarly bad shows in Australia and the United
Kingdom, but you get so many more in America because of the number of new
productions there. However, there were other aspects of the movie that
struck me as being American in feel: the party scenes seemed so much like
an out-take of Power Rangers that I kept waiting for the food fight to
start; the "feel-good" trip around the galaxy at the end; and the young
man's conversion to the side of the heroes, which felt forced because it
wasn't clear *why* he was changing sides. Sure, he had a reason to change
sides, but his characterisation up to that point had not, IMO, established
his willingness to join the angels at the end. (N.B. I have not seen the
movie for months, and I may be mistaken on this point, as I saw it at 4 AM
on a plane flight from London to Singapore).
There were a number of things I liked about the movie, just as there were
a number of things I didn't like about the movie that had nothing to do
with the American feel of the story-line. (God, that music is so
unsatisfying! I want the old music back!)
> <snip!>
>Paul McGann was excellent in the role and figured out who the Doctor was
>for him much faster than any other actor to take the part.
I have to say this: one of the things I didn't enjoy about the movie was
the way Paul looked so much like what I would expect a stereotype of the
Doctor to be. Long unkempt hair, funny-looking suit, very English accent,
very much a stereotypical English eccentric. He looks so much to me as if
they wanted someone *English* to be the Doctor, and it is his Englishness
that strikes me as one of his most distinctive characteristics. Of course
the Doctor *is* very English: what I regret is that Paul hasn't had
enough screen time to establish his Doctor's particular character traits.
(BTW, the continuity in the Doctor's personality was vaguely unsettling,
because I'm used to the TV Doctors who are always very different
cosmetically from their predecessors. Watching Paul listen to the same
music and sip the same tea in the same chair as Sylvester made me uneasy.
Weird hey?)
This posting is far too long. I'm sorry for rambling at such length.
Yours,
Gary Johnson
Jonathan Blum
>felt were very "American" in feel, and that reduced my satisfaction
>with the movie as a whole. The one that struck me the most was that both
>the companions came back from the dead through an unnecessary plot device,
>just to avoid an unhappy ending. Such a trite, pat solution to a
>difficult situation ("The Master's killed them both, they're gone for
>good!") reminds me very much of the Power Rangers TV series, where no-one
>ever dies in those fights where downtown Angel Grove is destoyed. That
>artificial optimism and refusal to put the characters in a position of
>having to deal with messy, realistic problems strikes me as very similar
>to the presentation of many American television and movies.
One word: Peri.
Can't blame the Americans for that. :-)
In addition, I think thematically at least it works that Grace and Lee are
resurrected. After all, this is a movie about dreams and magic and that
childlike way of looking at the world -- anything less than a happy ending
would be a betrayal of that, and "magical" means would seem to fit right
in.
>No doubt this is exacerbated by the sheer quantity of programs and movies
>made in America: there are similarly bad shows in Australia and the United
>Kingdom, but you get so many more in America because of the number of new
>productions there. However, there were other aspects of the movie that
>struck me as being American in feel: the party scenes seemed so much like
>an out-take of Power Rangers that I kept waiting for the food fight to
>start;
You know, it worries me a bit that you know so much about "Power Rangers"
that things remind you of it. :-) I really don't see what's American
about it.
>the "feel-good" trip around the galaxy at the end;
What makes this more American than, say, the "There are worlds out there
where the sky is burning..." speech?
>and the young
>man's conversion to the side of the heroes, which felt forced because it
>wasn't clear *why* he was changing sides. Sure, he had a reason to change
>sides, but his characterisation up to that point had not, IMO, established
>his willingness to join the angels at the end.
He changed sides when he realised the Master had been lying to him.
>(N.B. I have not seen the
>movie for months, and I may be mistaken on this point, as I saw it at 4 AM
>on a plane flight from London to Singapore).
This aired on an airplane? Cool! What airline ran it?...
>I have to say this: one of the things I didn't enjoy about the movie was
>the way Paul looked so much like what I would expect a stereotype of the
>Doctor to be. Long unkempt hair, funny-looking suit, very English accent,
>very much a stereotypical English eccentric. He looks so much to me as if
>they wanted someone *English* to be the Doctor, and it is his Englishness
>that strikes me as one of his most distinctive characteristics. Of course
>the Doctor *is* very English: what I regret is that Paul hasn't had
>enough screen time to establish his Doctor's particular character traits.
I guess what you see as a "stereotype", I see as a good grasp of the
essentials of the Doctor's character. And McGann brought in an number of
traits on top of this which were distinctly his own -- that wonderful
youthful vitality and exuberance (which contrasts with the much "older"
way in which Davison played the Doctor), his emphasis on verbal
bamboozling and sleight-of-hand, and his replacement of the Doctor's usual
arrogance with a much more straightforward sincerity.
Kate Orman
[snip]
>I can't speak for anyone else, but there were elements of the movie that I
>felt were very "American" in feel, and that reduced my satisfaction
>with the movie as a whole. The one that struck me the most was that both
>the companions came back from the dead through an unnecessary plot device,
>just to avoid an unhappy ending. Such a trite, pat solution to a
>difficult situation ("The Master's killed them both, they're gone for
>good!") reminds me very much of the Power Rangers TV series, where no-one
>ever dies in those fights where downtown Angel Grove is destoyed. That
>artificial optimism and refusal to put the characters in a position of
>having to deal with messy, realistic problems strikes me as very similar
>to the presentation of many American television and movies.
Like "The Ultimate Foe", for example. :-)
(Seriously, it is a bit "Hollywood"- having to have a happy ending. And
the Tinkerbell effect doesn't help. But it's worth remembering that not
only Hollywood - ie "America" - will avoid the sad or downbeat ending.)
[snip]
--
Kate Orman - "A broad too deep for the small screen"
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au | http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~korman
Jen
In article <582kip$i...@access5.digex.net>, jb...@access5.digex.net
(Jonathan Blum) wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.93.961203...@library.lvc.edu>,
> Jefferies Eng <j_...@lvc.edu> wrote:
>
Oh, come off it. *Paul McGann* was wonderful. :-) The movie was...
tolerable. Maybe I'll like it when I actually have a decently-taped copy.
(My VCR ensured that it was as crap a recording as possible while still
being semi-visible and audible. It also did that to my taping of Babylon
5's War Without End. Then it broke a few months later. Screw it...)
--
j...@sirius.com/ jenni...@aol.com/ rha...@marinet.lib.ca.us
"Cannot run out of time. Time is infinite. You are finite. Zathras is
finite. This... is wrong tool." -- Babylon 5, "War Without End"
...Darth Vader, Librarian: "If you only knew the power of the Dark
Side <heavy breathing>, you would return your books ON TIME."
<casually chokes patron> ;-)
Pat Wigfull
William Purry - Trent Park (will...@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk) wrote:
> Do you think there's any way to bring him back again, or is he
> thoroughly knackered?
Why not? He's returned so many times before. What I'd like to know is
how exactly he survived being burned to cinders in "Planet of Fire".
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Wigfull
Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
E-mail: pwig...@ccs.carleton.ca
WWW: http://www.carleton.ca/~pwigfull
------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl W Gillikin
>> Oh, come off it. The FOX movie was awful. It contained the worst plot.
>> It was too "American." Worst of all, the Master sucked (actor and
>> character). Delgado was good and so was Ainley. There is no way in Heck
>> will I commit my children (if I ever have any) to the fate of watching
>> this LAME movie.
>> I myself, prefer shaky props and bad special effects as long as there is a
>> plot (i.e. "Twin Dilemma," lack of sartorial taste and strangulation--not
>> pretty). That was an example of a bad story.
>> I rest my case. What's done is done and basically, I hated the FOX movie.
>> Sincerely,
>> Jefferson Eng
>this ng. These people seem to think that Americans are the root of all
>written and directed by British people.
Not to mention produced.
So what is American about it?
>The actors? Yes.
Some (William Sasso at least) were Canadian.
Be seeing you,
Darryl
Luke Gutzwiller
Grant Watson wrote:
>
> Luke Gutzwiller <luc...@probe.net> wrote:
>
> >First of all, I speak on behalf of all Americans everywhere when I say
> >that "Power Rangers" is certainly not our fault! Blame the Japanese!
>
> television programmes, edited them together (ever wonder why the white
> ranger never appears in the same shot as the others?) and add a whole
> pile of trite American footage shot in the USA with very annoying
> actors.
Yes. Still wasn't our idea. The Japanese produce all that sort of smeg
because they know there is a large population of cheesebrains in the
U.S. that will buy it despite everyone else's public loathing. Yes,
it's trite. Yes, the actors are annoying. Yes, that program must go
down in history as one of the clearest signs of actual, tangible evil in
the universe...but it still wasn't our fault.
Gary Johnson
Well, I've read through the first two replies to my posting, so here are
some more thoughts.
Firstly, I'm not sure why it's an issue that there were American
characters in the movie. I'm sure I didn't say that my enjoyment of the
movie was lessened by the way some of the principal characters (and
their actors) were American. I thought it was a *strength* of the movie
that it used a setting on earth that *wasn't* in the United Kingdom:
Doctor Who didn't do that enough back when it was a TV series. It seems
to me that this is an issue that's previously been thrashed out in the
newsgroup, and it's being applied to what I posted, so let me make
it clear that I don't have any problems with the American characters.
I remain unconvinced that the companions' deaths were necessary. Why
couldn't they have been injured by the Master, or even just knocked
unconscious? They didn't *have* to die and be brought back, even though
it helped increase the fantasy in the movie, which is clearly an aspect of
the movie that some viewers liked. For me, however, their deaths and
resurrections seem to do little more than serve as a way of heightening
the tension of the climactic confrontation between the Master and the
Doctor, and I feel there were other ways this could have been done (i.e.
by injuring or knocking out the companions). The movie at other times was
very realistic (e.g. the shooting of the McCoy Doctor, the McGann
Doctor drawing out that piece of metal from his body, etc.), so IMO
there's no pressing plot need for the companions to die rather than be
knocked unconsious. Other people may well disagree.
On the issue of realism in Doctor Who, let me point out that a story with
fantastic elements can still be very realistic in the ways characters
react to these elements, the things they do, and so on. I can't recall
any story where the Doctor left his keys inside the TARDIS, but I'm sure
there were stories where the TARDIS was stolen and had to be retrieved,
which I'm sure you'll agree is a realistic plot, even if there are
fantastic elements (such as alien beings) in the plot. If you feel
realism precludes aliens and scientific hocus-pocus, what about the
Hartnell and Troughton historicals? Don't they count?
On the subject of that speech, is that a McCoy Doctor speech? It seems
similar to something I heard a long time ago, but I didn't pay much
attention to the McDoy episodes when they were on TV five or six years
ago. Does it end with, "And somewhere the tea's getting cold."? I am
serious here, I really am not sure where this speech is from.
Yes, I used to watch Power Rangers regularly. The camp elements of the
show appealed to me, as did the ridiculous giant monsters and the
interaction between the original cast. After a while, I lost interest,
just as I lost interest with the X-Men cartoon show before I started
watching the Power Rangers. Right now I'm finding myself watching Captain
Planet far too often for my own good. I guess I'm just strange. Too much
Doctor Who when I was young has warped me permanently. :)
Singapore Airlines was showing the Doctor Who movie as one of the fifteen
or so in-flight movies you could choose from (this was a plane with
individual monitors for each chair). Unfortunately, the Singapore to
Brisbane leg only had the big monitors up front, and they showed a movie
suitable for all age groups. I really wanted to sleep, and it was a bad
movie. I can't even remember what it was now, four months later. But
that's where I first saw the Doctor Who movie.
That's more than enough rambling from me for now. Thank you for your
replies and your criticisms.
Yours,
Gary Johnson
Barry Coker
>
> >On 2 Dec 1996 12:53:03 GMT, will...@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk (William Purry
> >- Trent Park) wrote:
> >
> >>Do you think there's any way to bring him back again, or is he
> >>thoroughly knackered?
> >
He could always be brought back in the body of one of the gunged security
guards. Of course he would have no memory of events within the TARDIS and
would still believe the Doctor's ruse about being half-human, but the show
would loose it's last shred of mystery if the Master really had heard the
Doctor's thoughts and felt his memories.
Kate Orman
In article <588e83$slr$1...@nargun.cc.uq.oz.au>,
Gary Johnson <s31...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
[snip]
>I remain unconvinced that the companions' deaths were necessary. Why
>couldn't they have been injured by the Master, or even just knocked
>unconscious? They didn't *have* to die and be brought back, even though
>it helped increase the fantasy in the movie, which is clearly an aspect of
>the movie that some viewers liked. For me, however, their deaths and
>resurrections seem to do little more than serve as a way of heightening
>the tension of the climactic confrontation between the Master and the
>Doctor, and I feel there were other ways this could have been done (i.e.
>by injuring or knocking out the companions). The movie at other times was
>very realistic (e.g. the shooting of the McCoy Doctor, the McGann
>Doctor drawing out that piece of metal from his body, etc.), so IMO
>there's no pressing plot need for the companions to die rather than be
>knocked unconsious. Other people may well disagree.
Grace's death and resurrection is an important part of her journey through
the film. The Doctor (somehow) knows that she's "Tired of life, but afraid
of dying". But she learns that it's "Nothing to be afraid of." She comes
back from the undiscovered country with all her conflicts resolved - she
knows who she is now.
(What's interesting is that the novelisation suggests that in an earlier
version of the script, Grace and Lee *didn't* die.)
As for Lee... his murder is such a wonderfully horrible moment!
Grant Watson
Luke Gutzwiller <luc...@probe.net> wrote:
>First of all, I speak on behalf of all Americans everywhere when I say
>that "Power Rangers" is certainly not our fault! Blame the Japanese!
Well, of course not. I mean the Japanese just took several different
television programmes, edited them together (ever wonder why the white
ranger never appears in the same shot as the others?) and add a whole
pile of trite American footage shot in the USA with very annoying
actors.
Grant, the Australian who ducks as everyone throws flaming tapes of
Neighbours and Home and Away at him... :-)
R.J. Smith
In article <585f1k$ng8$1...@nargun.cc.uq.oz.au>,
Gary Johnson <s31...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>I can't speak for anyone else, but there were elements of the movie that I
>felt were very "American" in feel, and that reduced my satisfaction
>with the movie as a whole. The one that struck me the most was that both
>the companions came back from the dead
Damned 'Merkins! Always coming back from the dead. I had to shoot three
of them just to get to my computer and now they're back again...
- Robert Smith?
K. M. Wilcox
R.J. Smith wrote:
> 'Merkins! Always coming back from the dead.
When did I ever come back?
K. M. Wilcox
I'm not a corpse, but I play one on the net.
Benjamin J Payne
WARNING: HAPPY ENDINGS SPOILERS
On 5 Dec 1996, Kate Orman wrote:
> In article <585f1k$ng8$1...@nargun.cc.uq.oz.au>,
> Gary Johnson <s31...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >I can't speak for anyone else, but there were elements of the movie that I
> >felt were very "American" in feel, and that reduced my satisfaction
> >with the movie as a whole. The one that struck me the most was that both
> >the companions came back from the dead through an unnecessary plot device,
> >just to avoid an unhappy ending. Such a trite, pat solution to a
> >difficult situation ("The Master's killed them both, they're gone for
> >good!") reminds me very much of the Power Rangers TV series, where no-one
> >ever dies in those fights where downtown Angel Grove is destoyed. That
> >artificial optimism and refusal to put the characters in a position of
> >having to deal with messy, realistic problems strikes me as very similar
> >to the presentation of many American television and movies.
>
> Like "The Ultimate Foe", for example. :-)
>
> (Seriously, it is a bit "Hollywood"- having to have a happy ending. And
> the Tinkerbell effect doesn't help. But it's worth remembering that not
> only Hollywood - ie "America" - will avoid the sad or downbeat ending.)
>
> [snip]
>
och, too true. Speaking of which, does anyone understand the spontaneous
regeneration of the Brigadier in Happy Endings? i presume there was some
reason for this eg. continuity but it wasn't explained as far as i
noticed and did seem rather odd in what was otherwise an excellent book.
Ben
Ka Faraq Gatri
Tank <SDem...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> People went expecting to be disappointed in it and nitpicked at
>it until they found some way to be upset with it. I think you need to
>try watching the TVM again but this time have an open mind!
I did have an open mind about the movie. Heck, I was looking
forward to it like nothing else recent I can think of. My opinion is
we got a movie with an excellent Doctor, an adequate Master, a poor
companion, and total garbage for a plot. Well, maybe not the _entire_
plot - it did have a few good points, but the ending certainly was.
Why on earth did they use the old "travelling back in time undid
everything" cop-out? If the Tardis had been going back to collect the
lost energy, I might have bought that, but no explanation was given to
why going back in time prevented the disaster, why Lee and Grace were
revived, etc. They should have cut the chase scene short and wrapped
the story up properly.
As an aside, why do people accept that anyway? Just getting out of a
time machine before you left shouldn't undo what happenned while you
were travelling. For example, in an episode of Lois & Clark, they
forgot their adventure with H.G. Wells (who apparently got some
blueprints from the Doctor after "Timelash :-) when he returned them
to their time just before they met him. (Isn't that breaking the first
law of time? :-) Can anyone explain the thinking behind this? In some
shows, I can accept it with only a little grumbling, but not in Doctor
Who. The entire premise of the show is time travel, so how could time
travel undo events experienced by the characters? If it did, Ian and
Barbara should have disappeared during their first trip back to
100,000 B.C.
Dave Connell aka Ka Faraq Gatri
kfg...@voicenet.com
"Ka Faraq Gatri - Bringer of Darkness/Destroyer of Worlds"
- Dr. Who: The New Adventures - Revelation
"The strongest tyrant cannot crush freedom of thought." Brainstorm
Luke Gutzwiller
That "tea" quote comes from the very end of "Survival". Actually, it
ends with "Come on, Ace, we've got work to do!"
Yes, there has been some fantastically-effective realism in DW. Most of
the time, the movie was good at that. There is also a large role for
fantasy/surrealism/whatever. Basically, I was just defending the
resurrection of Grace and Lee on general principals; there would have
been much more effective ways to handle the situation than a mystic
healing glow.
You actually managed to watch Power Rangers? You are truly a man of
iron constitution, sir!
________________________________________________________________________
Luke Gutzwiller
e-mail: Kaise...@aol.com
or
e-mail: theta...@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/7529
R.J. Smith
In article <58ersp$2...@news1.voicenet.com>,
>> People went expecting to be disappointed in it and nitpicked at
>>it until they found some way to be upset with it. I think you need to
>>try watching the TVM again but this time have an open mind!
> I did have an open mind about the movie. Heck, I was looking
>forward to it like nothing else recent I can think of. My opinion is
>we got a movie with an excellent Doctor, an adequate Master, a poor
>companion, and total garbage for a plot.
Which companion did you think was poor? And was it the character or the
actor?
Well, maybe not the _entire_
>plot - it did have a few good points, but the ending certainly was.
>Why on earth did they use the old "travelling back in time undid
>everything" cop-out?
Erm, they didn't. And haven't we already had this debate a few times?
- Robert Smith?
Tank
Ka Faraq Gatri wrote:
> Tank <SDem...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> > People went expecting to be disappointed in it and nitpicked at
> >it until they found some way to be upset with it. I think you need to
> >try watching the TVM again but this time have an open mind!
> I did have an open mind about the movie. Heck, I was looking
> forward to it like nothing else recent I can think of. My opinion is
> we got a movie with an excellent Doctor, an adequate Master, a poor
> plot - it did have a few good points, but the ending certainly was.
> Why on earth did they use the old "travelling back in time undid
> lost energy, I might have bought that, but no explanation was given to
> why going back in time prevented the disaster, why Lee and Grace were
> revived, etc. They should have cut the chase scene short and wrapped
> the story up properly.
I don't understand the Lois and Clark thing but I think I can explain
(at least part of) the TVM ending. They took the Tardis back in time to
a point in time before it was too late to close the eye. The TARDIS then
closed the eye so that the major dammage that happened to the universe
the first time never really happened. Of course this is a mojor cop-out
and would create a time paradox, but this is fantasy so the writers
apparently decided to ignore that. As for Grace and Lee, I don't think
the time travel really brought them back to life. I think that the
TARDIS used the Master's "life energy" (that gold stuff) to bring them
back to life. Remember, the Doctor said "What a sentimental old thing
this TARDIS is!". Of course when he was asked if they had gone back far
enough he said "Either that or I'm talking to a couple of ghosts". He
was probably just a little confused. After all the Doctor has made
incorrect leaps of logic in the past. I agree that the ending needs some
work (OK, a lot of work) but I really enjoyed the rest of the film. I
hope they decide to make at least one more.
R. Dan Henry
R.J. Smith wrote:
> Damned 'Merkins! Always coming back from the dead. I had to shoot
> three of them just to get to my computer and now they're back again...
It's what made us the Most Powerful Nation in the World (tm), you know.
Spigi Berman
In article <32AB94...@inreach.com>,
R. Dan Henry <danh...@inreach.com> wrote:
>R.J. Smith wrote:
>
>> Damned 'Merkins! Always coming back from the dead. I had to shoot
>> three of them just to get to my computer and now they're back again...
>
>It's what made us the Most Powerful Nation in the World (tm), you know.
You forgot something:
Most Powerful Nation in the World Going Downhill Fast Without a Turnip (c)
>--
>R. Dan Henry (danh...@inreach.com)
-Spigi
>
Jason A. Miller
sp...@sco.COM (Spigi Berman) writes:
>Most Powerful Nation in the World Going Downhill Fast Without a Turnip (c)
<Peter Halliday>
You! Wot're YOU doin' 'ere?
</Peter Halliday>
<Julian Glover>
I think. That, is exactly the question I. Ought to be asking. YOU.
Hertlemeyer.
</Julian Glover>
You got SOME NOIVE comin' back HERE again!
:P
*hugs*
--
% Jason A. Miller % jmil...@uoft02.utoledo.edu %
% "some doctor guy" % Native New Yorker %
% "Arrogant, pompous, obnoxious, vain, cruel, verbose, a %
% showoff. I have been called all of these. Of course, %
% I am." -- Howard Cosell %
Hazmat
Kate Orman <kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au> wrote in article
<5891hg$3...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>...
[snippage]
> As for Lee... his murder is such a wonderfully horrible moment!
<bounce bounce> One of my utterly favorite moments in the show,
in fact! <glances around> No, I didn't hate Lee or anything, but
the Master was so spine-tinglingly /evil/ in that scene.
"Lee..." he says, softly. "Lee... I would /never/ hurt you...
I would only... /protect/ you..." </snap/>
<stupid grin>
--
Lisa O'Donnell (Hazmat)
haz...@coastalnet.com
http://www2.coastalnet.com/~er46nb63/
Kate Orman
In article <01bbe639$f821a720$LocalHost@tenchi>,
Hazmat <er46...@coastalnet.com> wrote:
>
>Kate Orman <kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au> wrote in article
><5891hg$3...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>...
>[snippage]
>
>> As for Lee... his murder is such a wonderfully horrible moment!
>
><bounce bounce> One of my utterly favorite moments in the show,
>in fact! <glances around> No, I didn't hate Lee or anything, but
>the Master was so spine-tinglingly /evil/ in that scene.
>
>"Lee..." he says, softly. "Lee... I would /never/ hurt you...
>I would only... /protect/ you..." </snap/>
>
><stupid grin>
It's the little "See what you made me do?" smile and shrug that gets me.
Brrrr. Followed closely by the utterly smug, "Watch!".
Spigi Berman
In article <E26n9...@utnetw.utoledo.edu>,
Jason A. Miller <jmil...@uoft02.utoledo.edu> wrote:
>
>sp...@sco.COM (Spigi Berman) writes:
>>Most Powerful Nation in the World Going Downhill Fast Without a Turnip (c)
>
><Peter Halliday>
>You! Wot're YOU doin' 'ere?
></Peter Halliday>
You know, the usual thing, making sure the tea's hot, making less sense
than Dodo after she's just been seduced by David Yadallee. you know...
that sort of thing...
><Julian Glover>
>I think. That, is exactly the question I. Ought to be asking. YOU.
>
>Hertlemeyer.
></Julian Glover>
Ooooo. Julian!
>You got SOME NOIVE comin' back HERE again!
Why, thank you [:
>:P
>
>*hugs*
>
>--
> % Jason A. Miller % jmil...@uoft02.utoledo.edu %
> % "some toledo guy" % Native Ohio Man %
> % "Arrogant, pompous, obnoxious, vain, cruel, verbose, a %
> % showoff. I have been called all of these. Of course, %
> % I am." -- Howard Cosell %
OBWHO: Ambassadors of Death rocks my world at the moment. I love
practically everything about it. Although the first episode
cliffhanger was a bit choppy everything else about the pacing is just
swoonful. The music is swoonful. The direction is swoonful. I also
love the way the Brigadier and the Doctor interelate in this one.
It shows a side of the Brig that I never really remember from watching
the 3rd Doctor episodes and that's as a mediator and as a diplomat.
A lot of times the Doctor is about to go off on someone and the
Brig calmly stops him from acting like a complete idiot. It's great!
Liz could do with more work. Her floppy hat is so outrageous it's
superb however. And she was the one who finds out the patterns in the
code. More later once I've seen the entire story. *swoon*
-Spigi, realizing why so many people love season 7
Alden Bates
In article <>, Benjamin J Payne (q932...@helios.usq.edu.au) writes:
>WARNING: HAPPY ENDINGS SPOILERS
>och, too true. Speaking of which, does anyone understand the spontaneous
>regeneration of the Brigadier in Happy Endings? i presume there was some
>reason for this eg. continuity but it wasn't explained as far as i
>noticed and did seem rather odd in what was otherwise an excellent book.
Yeah, Cornell didn't have the gumption to off the Brigadier. :-)
It would have made him rather unpopular, probably, and it would
have made impossible what's going to happen in The Dying Days.
Ooops.
Alden Bates.
--
_ _ _ __ al...@bates.wn.planet.gen.nz|http://www.wn.planet.gen.nz/~bates
/.\| | | .\ "That's a daft idea." |Doctor Who, Mike Oldfield & more
| .<
|_|_|_|_|__. Have you hugged your cat today?
Corey Klemow
Alden Bates wrote:
>Yeah, Cornell didn't have the gumption to off the Brigadier. :-)
>It would have made him rather unpopular, probably, and it would
>have made impossible what's going to happen in The Dying Days.
Er... in what way would the Brigadier dying in the year 2010 affect
the events of a Brigadier story which (I'm fairly certain) is set
in May of 1997?
Brigadier Nathan Rogers
On 14 Dec 1996 23:33:51 GMT, Corey Klemow <76602...@CompuServe.COM>
appeared to post:
>Er... in what way would the Brigadier dying in the year 2010 affect
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ie! I don't want to die that early!
--
"There are many frightening things in the world.
Poverty, illness, hatred. Compared to these, a
good crowd is nothing to be feared at all."
_The Menagerie_ p.108
Alden Bates
Spoilers for No Future and possibly Dying Days...
Corey Klemow (76602...@CompuServe.COM) writes:
>Alden Bates wrote:
>>It would have made him rather unpopular, probably, and it would
>>have made impossible what's going to happen in The Dying Days.
>
>Er... in what way would the Brigadier dying in the year 2010 affect
>the events of a Brigadier story which (I'm fairly certain) is set
>in May of 1997?
No Future!
If you will remember, the Brigadier died in that as well.
Oh wait, we were talking about the regeneration in Happy Endings.
Ah well, Cornell didn't have the gumption, see... Oh, never mind.
Surprisingly, in Happy Endings, the Brig doesn't bring up what
happened in Dying Days. I mean, I would think he'd remember
sleeping with the Do<sudden sound of muffled struggling as the
spoiler police catch up with him>
Alden Bates.
--
_ _ _ __ al...@bates.wn.planet.gen.nz|http://www.wn.planet.gen.nz/~bates
/.\| | | .\ "That's a daft idea." |Doctor Who, Mike Oldfield & more
| .< The flashing light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming
|_|_|_|_|__. TARDIS...
JamieBond
Bring back the Master? I'm sure David A McIntee will be shitting himself
if they don't!
Corey Klemow
spoiler space for no future (and dying days (?))
Alden Bates wrote:
(oh, oops, wait, spoilers for happy endings as well)
>No Future!
>
>If you will remember, the Brigadier died in that as well.
Nope. Sorry. Don't remember. Mainly 'cause I'm senile. <g> But I
don't remember any scene in which the Brig died and then was revived.
Read it too long ago.
>Oh wait, we were talking about the regeneration in Happy Endings.
>Ah well, Cornell didn't have the gumption, see... Oh, never mind.
I think it has less to do with "gumption" and more to do with the book
being called "HAPPY Endings". :) *Everyone* got a Happy Ending in that
book. Everyone. Even Ace and her mum and Robin Yeadon. Even the "eight
twelves." Besides which, we've always been *expecting* the Brig to die
in glorious battle, or somesuch. So this was a nice subversion of our
expectations, IMHO.
>Surprisingly, in Happy Endings, the Brig doesn't bring up what
>happened in Dying Days. I mean, I would think he'd remember
>sleeping with the Do<sudden sound of muffled struggling as the
>spoiler police catch up with him>
Are you sure they aren't the troll police? :)