how to save Dr. Who

[T987654321]

This regeneration has been very hit or mostly miss. To bring the show back they need to kill it. Or more exactly put it on hiatus for two or three years. Then bring it back with a new Doctor and new producers and most importantly new writers.

[MDS]

T987654321 wrote:
>
> This regeneration has been very hit or mostly miss. To bring the show back they need to kill it. Or more exactly put it on hiatus for two or three years. Then bring it back with a new Doctor and new producers and most importantly new writers.

Or people like you can just find something else to watch and stop
whining like a bunch of nose-picking two-year-olds.


--
MDS (Mister Doctor Sir)

[AC]

T987654321 wrote:
> This regeneration has been very hit or mostly miss. To bring the show back they need to kill it. Or more exactly put it on hiatus for two or three years. Then bring it back with a new Doctor and new producers and most importantly new writers.
>

At least the show is more interesting that the cunts who continuously
bleat on and on about it like a bunch of stabbed babies.

--
AC

[solar penguin]

T987654321 wrote:

> This regeneration has been very hit or mostly miss.

True, but you could say the same about almost any drama series from
the past 20 years. After all, gameshows are the only things that are
actually fun to watch nowadays. There's nothing special or magical
about DW that makes it an exception.

> To bring the show back they need to kill it.

Bring it back from where? And more importantly, to where?

While it's artistically as bland as any modern drama, it's doing
exactly what the BBC want it to do (which is to appeal to the sort of
mindless sheep who like bland, modern drama.) Changing it away from
that is more likely to get the BBC to take it off the air for another
15 years at least, maybe forever this time. That's a funny way of
saving it!

> Or more exactly put it on hiatus for two or three years. Then
> bring it back with a new Doctor and new producers and most
> importantly new writers.

Nice idea, but in only 3 years time, will TV really have undone all
the mistakes of the past 20 years? I don't think so.

Face facts, as crap as DW currently is, it's the best it's going to
be. And even crap DW is better than none at all.

[manish shah]

Top 5 Highest Paid Hollywood Actresses 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVDqAk-6OZ0&feature=relmfu

Subscribe for more footage.

[The Doctor]

In article <d3dc86ca-6aca-4398...@googlegroups.com>,

T987654321 <qwrt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>This regeneration has been very hit or mostly miss. To bring the show back they need to kill it. Or more exactly put it on hiatus for two or three years. Then bring it back with a new Doctor and new producers and most importantly new writers.

Nope! That is revisiting Powell's disaster of an answer
from the 1990s.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
USA petition to dissolve the Republic and vote to disoolve it in November 2012

[The Doctor]

What do you get when Johnathan Powell makes an appearance
on radw.

[The Doctor]

In article <_7cbs.188273$jS5....@fx27.am4>, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>T987654321 wrote:
>> This regeneration has been very hit or mostly miss. To bring the show back they need to kill it. Or more exactly put it on hiatus for two or three years. Then bring it back with a new Doctor and new producers and most importantly new writers.
>>
>

>At least the show is more interesting that the c!@#s who continuously

>bleat on and on about it like a bunch of stabbed babies.
>
>--
>AC

Whine on Jonathan Powellites.

[MDS]

Exactly!

[MDS]

Now if all the DW haters took your last line to heart and stopped their
incessant bitching...

[The Doctor]

10/10 SP and MDS.

[Fett]

I disagree that it's the best it's going to be. I think it'll continue to be somewhat cyclical as it always was. Some good runs and some bad runs. It definitely is doing exactly what the BBC wants it to do but I think they can still make it much better and still maintain crossover appeal. It's worked for movies like the Dark Knight and the Avengers.

[Fett]

Man, have you lost your edge in your older years! :)

[MDS]

No. Except for the McCoy years, which were properly reviled and
ridiculed, I've always felt like I do now. We all wanted the show to
come back. It did, but then many of the people who wanted it back
suddenly started attacking it from the very beginning when Rose found
its way onto the Internet before it was actually aired on TV. Unless
the revived series begins to resemble everything that was wrong with the
McCoy years, I will accept the show as it is, occasionally disappointed
in a here-and-there episode but otherwise satisfied.

[The Doctor]

In article <1fe71337-b112-4cd7...@googlegroups.com>,

Fett <fett...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, October 4, 2012 5:06:12 AM UTC-4, solar penguin wrote:
>> T987654321 wrote:

>>=20
>>=20
>>=20

>> > This regeneration has been very hit or mostly miss.

>>=20
>>=20
>>=20

>> True, but you could say the same about almost any drama series from

>>=20

>> the past 20 years. After all, gameshows are the only things that are

>>=20

>> actually fun to watch nowadays. There's nothing special or magical

>>=20

>> about DW that makes it an exception.

>>=20
>>=20
>>=20

>> > To bring the show back they need to kill it.

>>=20
>>=20
>>=20

>> Bring it back from where? And more importantly, to where?

>>=20
>>=20
>>=20

>> While it's artistically as bland as any modern drama, it's doing

>>=20

>> exactly what the BBC want it to do (which is to appeal to the sort of

>>=20

>> mindless sheep who like bland, modern drama.) Changing it away from

>>=20

>> that is more likely to get the BBC to take it off the air for another

>>=20

>> 15 years at least, maybe forever this time. That's a funny way of

>>=20
>> saving it!
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20

>> > Or more exactly put it on hiatus for two or three years. Then

>>=20

>> > bring it back with a new Doctor and new producers and most

>>=20
>> > importantly new writers.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20

>> Nice idea, but in only 3 years time, will TV really have undone all

>>=20

>> the mistakes of the past 20 years? I don't think so.

>>=20
>>=20
>>=20

>> Face facts, as crap as DW currently is, it's the best it's going to

>>=20

>> be. And even crap DW is better than none at all.
>

>I disagree that it's the best it's going to be. I think it'll continue to b=
>e somewhat cyclical as it always was. Some good runs and some bad runs. It =
>definitely is doing exactly what the BBC wants it to do but I think they ca=
>n still make it much better and still maintain crossover appeal. It's worke=

>d for movies like the Dark Knight and the Avengers.
>

Fett, I am wiht MDS saying the naysayers are very paradoxial.

[The Doctor]

In article <71ed7b42-cba9-4fb7...@googlegroups.com>,

MDS is spot on!

[Fett]

Well, there's plenty of ways for a series to be wrong - even if it's in ways different than the McCoy years. I can at least say that McCoy is the only Doctor I haven't enjoyed. People do bitch in general a ton more than ever these days about everything before they even see it.

[FishFood]

"The best it's going to be"?

I disagree, the old series had balls. It knew why it existed and looked
to fulfill that mission... that's until it got lazy, or was allowed to
undermine its credibility as drama. The old series was a focus for our
collective psyches, monsters carried over into drama from another epoch.
All those monsters we couldn't speak of, given a dramatic form. It was
a kind of debriefing, it was cathartic, it was exercise to hold the
place of that buried truth.

The new series started out with some of that balls, 'The long game'
a particular favorite. Yes, amidst some of those programs we like to
decry, there were some genuine moments of drama, moments of real
expression, as well as entertainment, and whatever else that now means.
At its best DW was more than entertainment, it was Scifi.

Sci-fi as an artistic form to reflect a people to itself, to illuminate,
or critique, to examine basic tenants of our humanity. Scifi, as more
than entertaining yarns, at its best allows one to see what we otherwise
can't speak of. An idea of place, our place in time. An idea of
direction, taken from an understanding of our cultures and what we are.

Scifi exist as an alternative reality. An alternative view of reality.
Scifi at its best is about the human condition bound to circumstance.
Its a form of exercise especially necessary where one is limited to an
undemanding illusion. 'What if's', asked in lue of any practical
experience. The present tense to be accepted and interpreted by our
future selves as entertaining myths. Dalek, Cybermen, hum bug...

You got a stronger sense of this subtext with StarTrek, old and new,
boldly going where few dare to go. Dramas existing as backdrops for
social and philosophical questions. Crystallizing those questions
which were of their times, in stories with a safe cozy epilogues.

These days 'cgi' makes our entertainment bland because its so much
easier to appeal to the visual spectacle. Visually convincing
illusions which don't need to satisfy our intellects. What we need
is another Gene Roddenberry, or another Rod Serling, or even another
Nigel Kneale.

One wonders if men of such vision and social sensibilities would be
allowed in this age to share the same stage as our social engineers.
Maybe there's a degree of self censorship in what we dare to tell our
selves. Maybe this blandness reflects our age and the freedoms we
loose as we look to claim the biggest number, or the greatest
influence. A global franchise coming before the needs of the local
audience. And yet there's that thought, If we can't say what we use
to say, then what kind of future do we create in the absence of these
necessary and civilizing values. Do we simply take this counter force
for good, for granted?

In my opinion DW can get better, but first it needs to know why it
exists.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"FishFood" <do...@home.com> wrote in message
news:k4sihj$c0n$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

I hope I don't sound patronising but that was very good...

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[FishFood]

>> lose as we look to claim the biggest number, or the greatest

>> influence. A global franchise coming before the needs of the local
>> audience. And yet there's that thought, If we can't say what we use

>> to say, then what kind of future do we create in the absence of those

>> necessary and civilizing values. Do we simply take this counter force
>> for good, for granted?
>>
>> In my opinion DW can get better, but first it needs to know why it
>> exists.
>
> I hope I don't sound patronising but that was very good...
>

Well I'd like to think so...

it might even inspire a classic like "FishFood, we know who you
are". ;) Seriously though, sometimes the obvious needs to be said,
just because..

Reminds me of our candid discussions in this group back before the
'new Who' got off the ground. "Dr Who and the 90's"

Back then we shared memories of old who, with no idea how our idle
dreams might be made reality. Here we are now, and i still have the
same dream of Who as moral focus...

BTW if you have time, you might want to check out The Twilight Zone,
the boxset still holds up as a capsule of its times. A reminder of
that moral function TV use to also serve.